Someone who enjoyed Star Trek XI

Yeah... though I'm sure there's an actual need (air traffic control) for it to be there. Not sure if Starfleet ships have that same need.

 

Or even mention "Generations" when Betor says "Target the Bridge". "FULL disruptrors!!"

When you find out that your enemies learn how to destroy your commans section that a "simpe" window viewer will protect you?...

 

No one is making the argument that it makes the bridge any 'safer'. I'm questioning the argument that the window somehow makes the bridge 'unsafe'. If safety was the primary concern, we wouldn't be debating a window on the bridge because it would be buried deep within the vessel.

 

Yeah. Who ever would put windows on the bridge? What's next? Big fucking round sky-lights?

 

But the bridge is NOT in another place. Hell, I haven't watched the movie all the way through but it seems it is only a couple of decks down where it is in the PRIME universe.
The bridge position?
That was one of Andy Proberts concerns back when TNG was first being developed. Hence in an old ST: The Magazine interview he stated that is how he came up with the battle bridge.
But getting back on topic... I have to get out because I just don't like this movie.

 

Yet there is a giant transparent sunroof on the Enterprise-D.

I guess this is where we differ... I have issues with the film, but I don't automatically hate everything about it because of those issues.

 

And on the original Enterprise too.

 

Personally I think JJ was trying to correct an apparent fault in previous designs. The window's sole reason for existence is to "explain" why the bridge must be in such an exposed position.

Of course the window has to be able to magnify stuff since most space battles are going to happen way outside (unassisted) visible range. Then of course you are going to want to use it to observe things in any direction and display graphics and incoming messages etc. So it will have to be able to act as a viewscreen too.

I know, lets just make things simple and use a viewscreen in the first place. Then you could put a few extra layers of hull between the people controlling the ship and that nasty vacuum stuff.

Heck, better still, as suggested, move the bridge to the middle of the ship so …

Sorry, got carried away. Won't happen again.

 

No, I don't like it because of cosmetics..I don't like it because it was a poorly wriiitten and executed "reboot" of a classic.

 

Why? No one has yet made a case for the crew being in anymore danger whether the viewscreen is backed by a wall or truly transparent.

How do we even know if the material used to make the viewscreen is in anyway weaker than the rest of the hull?

 

How about sticking to the fact that the enemy didn't know the bridge location...
and also staying on topic on which you enjoyed the "pop-flick+...

 

Since everyone (Federation, Klingon, Romulan) have the same exact command center layout and have been enemies across centuries... I'm sure that there is little that isn't already known about each others' spacecraft.

 

We know of the designs have been overly published throughout our nostalgia.... appearantly the designers of 2009 wanted their own concepts to be better...

 

If its double or triple glazed as the hull presumably is, you may have a point but it still seems needlessly complicated. Hey, if the want a bay window on the bridge, fine. I'd think twice about ranch sliders though.

 

So you are simply ignoring the fact that this Enterprise wasn't the first one with a huge window on it?

 

If you're up against an enemy whose weapons are accurate enough to hit a six-foot weak spot on the front of your bridge, you probably should have surrendered by now.

 

In point of fact, for a variety of reasons the current bridge placement is probably considerably safer than one buried deep inside the hull. This seems counter intuitive since you immediately think about the bridge being exposed to weapons fire... until you think back and remember that the kinds of weapons these starships are throwing at each other are powerful enough to glass whole continents in less time than it takes you to eat a cheeseburger, in which case it doesn't really matter how much material there is between you and the hull since anything that penetrates your shields is going to slice through your hull like a banana cream pie.

So the enemy hits you, say, just below one of your phaser banks with a disruptor blast, the blast penetrates your shields and carves a path of destruction thirty meters deep through the middle of your saucer. Lots of things explode, fires, plywood furniture painted gunmetal brown falls on people, etc. If your bridge is in the middle of the saucer section, then everyone there is probably dead or injured. If the bridge is on the TOP of the saucer section, then somebody's console exploded but they're still in the fight.

All that means is you don't get to roll a critical strike by accident: positioned on the top of the saucer the only way to destroy the bridge is to actually hit it, and in nearly fifty years of Trek canon, no one has ever done that on purpose.

Of course, Probert wanted to put the bridge on the front of the saucer rim and that is, in almost ANY case, the best possible place for it. But that ship has sailed, and two different starships have put a bar there instead... cest la vive.

 

Obviously the smart place to put the bridge would be the centre of the saucer. Blame Matt Jeffries.

But for the 4000th time, since the 2009 Enterprise bridge window cracked at the same rate as the walls and ceiling, so it's pretty clear that it's no more a fatal weakness than the dome over the TOS and TNG ships.

Nemesis (and "Year of Hell") proved that the position of Star Trek bridges is dumb. But trying to prove that this one is somehow dumber than the rest is somewhat pathetic.

 

Makes me think about the bridge dome in "Generations" that had busted open after the saucer crash.

 

That's what I meant by my post... it's probably Transparent Aluminum, a material we already know that exists in the Trek-verse, a transparent METAL.

Why do a lot of these people keep thinking it was GLASS?