I've always wondered why the bridge is located in such a vulnerable location. If I was going to design a ship, I think I would place it near the center or something. Has anyone else ever thought about this, or should I just shut up? lol
Bridge Location????
- Thread starter spockrocks
- Start date
It seems to be a design flaw thought about (possibly corrected) in the Abrams-universe.
Well, apart from making the place where the bridge used to be, all lit up like a beacon. That and a whopping great window at the front, at least a couple decks down, showing where it has been moved to!
But realistically that's been done purely for the same reason the dome was chosen in the original 1964/5 Pilot. So they could do a cool camera movement zooming into the model, tying it in with the interior and the actors on a studio set.
Well, apart from making the place where the bridge used to be, all lit up like a beacon. That and a whopping great window at the front, at least a couple decks down, showing where it has been moved to!
But realistically that's been done purely for the same reason the dome was chosen in the original 1964/5 Pilot. So they could do a cool camera movement zooming into the model, tying it in with the interior and the actors on a studio set.
it was a Roddenberry Design Law. All ships must have the bridge on the top. All ships must have even numbers of warp nacelles. All ships must have at least 50% line-of-sight on the warp nacelles.
The Defiant class breaks that last one and the Freedom and Niagra classes violate the second, having 1 and 3 nacelles respectively.
The Defiant class breaks that last one and the Freedom and Niagra classes violate the second, having 1 and 3 nacelles respectively.
Yevetha
Commodore
It makes sense from a dramatic standpoint.
Also I remember reading that it helped quickly show the scale of the ship. By seeing the bridge on the outside, and knowing how large it was on the inside, you could (roughly) quickly show that, yes, these are large ships.
^ Exactly. One might think that it would make sense to stick the bridge deep within the ship and that it would be protected there, but it's not the job of the hull to do that. That's what shields are for.
Any attack powerful enough to punch through a ship's shields will be able to take out the bridge no matter WHERE it is.
Besides, putting the bridge up top makes it easier to replace without damaging the rest of the ship (they're designed to do that).
Any attack powerful enough to punch through a ship's shields will be able to take out the bridge no matter WHERE it is.
Besides, putting the bridge up top makes it easier to replace without damaging the rest of the ship (they're designed to do that).
But that's not true if we're looking at on screen evidence. Pretty much every time weapons penetrated the shields the first and often only thing they did was smash the hull. Some crap always overloaded and various consoles exploded, the transporters etc. went offline, but we never saw or heard of people dying because a weapon blew up lab 136 at the center of the ship, it's always hull breach here and hull breach there. Putting the bridge deep into the ship would protect it much better than sticking it on top.
People are more likely to die from a warp core breach during battle than a direct strike to the bridge, IMO.
During the TV show battles, enemy weapons generally did not peneterate shields and cause hull damage, because that would have been too expensive to show in VFX. Either our heroes hoisted the white flag when their shields fell, or then a ship whose shields collapsed was immediately destroyed by the enemy in a generic ball of fire.
In DS9, when computer graphics took over from models in the VFX business, we saw more spectacular penetrating hits. Yet every time the enemy weapons hit the hull and carved bits out of it, the ship was immediately a total loss and typically exploded within seconds. We never saw a hit that would have been survivable for a deeply buried bridge.
To be sure, ships didn't even have bridges until they began to have steam engine smokestacks. That's when it became wholly impractical to place the helmsman close to the rudder at the stern of the vessel, because he couldn't see a thing from there. So a literal bridge was built from side to side of the ship, for purposes of surface visual awareness - and generally placed at the top front of the ship, with complex mechanical steering aids, because those were not only necessary but also possible thanks to the new technology.
Bridges today continue to exist for surface vision. For purposes of battlespace management, the officers tend to operate in a dark room deep inside the ship. Not because it would be particularly well protected (a single bomb hit from the side easily destroyed the CIC of HMS Coventry in the Falklands War because modern ships carry no armor to stop such penetration) - but because it's easier to work with computer screens in a dark room deep inside the ship than in a room full of windows!
Protecting the bridge seems a fairly low priority anyway, considering that the ship necessarily carries her vulnerable warp engines on the outside for anybody to fire at. The ship can survive the loss of all her top officers, but not a breach in her warp nacelle!
Timo Saloniemi
In DS9, when computer graphics took over from models in the VFX business, we saw more spectacular penetrating hits. Yet every time the enemy weapons hit the hull and carved bits out of it, the ship was immediately a total loss and typically exploded within seconds. We never saw a hit that would have been survivable for a deeply buried bridge.
To be sure, ships didn't even have bridges until they began to have steam engine smokestacks. That's when it became wholly impractical to place the helmsman close to the rudder at the stern of the vessel, because he couldn't see a thing from there. So a literal bridge was built from side to side of the ship, for purposes of surface visual awareness - and generally placed at the top front of the ship, with complex mechanical steering aids, because those were not only necessary but also possible thanks to the new technology.
Bridges today continue to exist for surface vision. For purposes of battlespace management, the officers tend to operate in a dark room deep inside the ship. Not because it would be particularly well protected (a single bomb hit from the side easily destroyed the CIC of HMS Coventry in the Falklands War because modern ships carry no armor to stop such penetration) - but because it's easier to work with computer screens in a dark room deep inside the ship than in a room full of windows!
Protecting the bridge seems a fairly low priority anyway, considering that the ship necessarily carries her vulnerable warp engines on the outside for anybody to fire at. The ship can survive the loss of all her top officers, but not a breach in her warp nacelle!
Timo Saloniemi
In TUC a single photon torpedo plought right through the saucer section breaching every deck. The explosive decompression would likely kill a lot of people before the emergency forcefields/bulkheads sealed. So no matter where the Bridge is its vulnerable.
I always like the Bridge on top of the saucer. It's a design statement that declares, "yes, this is out command centre, but we have confidence in our crews to defuse situations and that our defences will withstand whatever you can through at us". But that's just me.
Having the Bridge tucked away in the centre of the ship seems kinda cowardly to me. What about all those quarters, lounges, labs, etc that are on the outer hull? Are they not important as well?
I always like the Bridge on top of the saucer. It's a design statement that declares, "yes, this is out command centre, but we have confidence in our crews to defuse situations and that our defences will withstand whatever you can through at us". But that's just me.
Having the Bridge tucked away in the centre of the ship seems kinda cowardly to me. What about all those quarters, lounges, labs, etc that are on the outer hull? Are they not important as well?
It might seem cowardly to tuck the bridge deep inside the ship, but 'cowardly' ideas such as minimising the danger one puts oneself in whilst in combat often serves well in war.
it's a lot harder to target a bridge deep inside the hull than a bridge so obviously placed on the top. Yes we've seen torpedo hits slice through several decks or multiple hits tear ships apart but that doesn't render a hidden bridge useless. the Ent-D does have a battle bridge.
it's a lot harder to target a bridge deep inside the hull than a bridge so obviously placed on the top. Yes we've seen torpedo hits slice through several decks or multiple hits tear ships apart but that doesn't render a hidden bridge useless. the Ent-D does have a battle bridge.
We know all too well how shields can be compromised. True, a direct hit to the hull can penetrate it... but how far? According to damage reports, most of it happens to sections along the hull's inner walls.
Huh?
The bridge is not shown as a separate module. It is an integral part of the ship. It's just a room where much of the ships sensor feeds and control conduits converge. You wouldn't "damage" the rest of the ship fixing a bridge that is contained further inside the hull.In fact, what would make an interesting bridge design is a reinforced chamber in the center with walls about as strong as the outer hull. This way if the ship's outer hull is heavily breached, the bridge would have a good chance of staying intact.
But I suspect that having the bridge along the outer hull would mean faster access to life pods. And of course, the captain can bail out using his yacht (perhaps a direct access chute to it from the bridge).
bridge modules being swappable was a background fluff handwave for how come the Enterprise bridges look so different between TMP and TWOK and between TVH, TFF and TUC as well as the variants between various Miranda or Nebula bridges seen on-screen.
Which when cpmbined with the saucer would be the most central place.
Of course on those designs you do have decks higher than the top of the saucer. If the Bridge is deck 1, what are they?
I believe that was his point. But more correctly its at the very top of the Battle Section. Which is the only circumstance under which we see it used.
Are any of those habitable, though? I'd always thought they were only accessed for maintenance, like the nacelles.
I agree that they're rare enough that the Bridge would still be Deck 1, even if ther ewere decks above it. Maybe they'd be A Deck, B Deck, etc.. Or perhaps they'd count from the bottom-most deck (so that the Bridge would be 1, through to 32 at the bottom of the main hulls sequence with the top deck of the upper portion then being 33 and the one below it 34)
dJE
And even there, apparently without causing casualties. So a bridge on top of the ship could easily shrug off a hit like that!
OTOH, when we actually see a hit rather than hear about it, it becomes obvious that it's hopeless to hide within the hull:
http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/6x26/tearsofthephrophets_511.jpg
Timo Saloniemi
If you take on the job of Starfleet bridge officer, you've got guts, too much guts to worry about whether you'll be the first or last thing crunched by a torpedo. You've also got pride, and you're damned if you'll let yourself be hidden away in the middle of the vessel.
The outer hull may not be the most logical spot for the bridge, but not everything we do is logical.
The outer hull may not be the most logical spot for the bridge, but not everything we do is logical.
