• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Contemplating Alternative Bridge Layouts

Redshirt214

Lieutenant Commander
Red Shirt
A random surf through the Internet today led me to looking at modern day ship bridge layouts, which are definitely heading a Star Trek direction: https://www.nyk.com/english/news/2018/20180927_01.html, https://www.beyondships.com/Explorer-Tour-4.html

These for me thinking: what kind of improvements or changes would you make to the traditional Star Trek Bridge, especially to bring it more in line with what bridges in the real world are like now? What changes might you make to the traditional console roles on the bridge?

I for one would want to make the helm the traditional elevated standing station it still is on real world ships, basically placing the helm in the spot where the tactical controls are on many Star Trek bridges. I think it’s a nice nod to Trek’s clearly naval inspirations, and with the late 24th century tech I think it makes a lot of sense. Having that on the same plane or slightly above the Captains chair is I think a good idea under the logic that if having the captain being able to look over peoples shoulders is good then having the guy who’s manning the conn have a view of the whole bridge is even better.

Some might object that standing at the helm for hours would be uncomfortable, and I think that is true, but it doesn’t seem to matter much on real ships so I don’t think it would have an impact in Trek, either. Except I suppose the whole “crewmen falling over” issue, but then people fall out of their chairs all the time on Star Trek!

The Next Gen era had some interesting ideas about combining stations functions, and it was really neat that different stations could sort of take over different tasks as needed. However, I’ve lately felt that from a practical, narrative perspective it would have been nice if the stations had more clear and dedicated roles: Ops and Conn particularly seemed to “blur the lines”, and whilst Tactical is a good addition I wish there had been a dedicated science station to sort of balance it out thematically.

I really like some of the recent designs by Rekkert and other fans that give the XO & Captain something to do at their chairs rather than just sit around contemplating space. The little chair arm displays of Next Gen were neat, and the emergency joysticks were ironically prescient if I understand the one website I linked above. I actually feel that the communications role is something that the Captain or XO ought to be handling, in line with naval tradition. Come to think of it, this is actually done quite well with the holocommunicator on DS9.

So what do you all think? What bridge stations functions would you add, subtract, split or merge? Which do you think ought to be standing stations and which ought to be sitting?
 
Visibility is relative. Most Trek starships have only one viewscreen, and it can often be very small. For optimum visibilty, if it's legitimately important, the helm position should be secreted away in its own room or cubby somewhere off the bridge, where they can have a holo projected or even fully viewscreened view of everything going on around them. See the bridge of the Phloston Paradise in "The Fifth Element" for an example.

For the most part in Trek we assume that the positions of stuff around them is feed to them textually or graphically on their consoles. In practice, helm shouldn't have to HAVE a view outside if you go by this logic. But assuming the old eyeball is king, you arguably would have very little use for a viewscreen that shows, what - at best a 120-degree arc to the front, with relatively limited view above or below the horizon of travel?

Same would go for tactical. There was a well-conceived, poorly-executed version of the above for the gunner in one of the Babylon 5 spinoff attempts. But if if everything is viewable 2-D on a console, they wouldn't need the window either.

As for everyone else, it comes down to accessibility of information and communication. In many ways, the TOS Enterprise bridge intent has this down pat, as everyone is within shouting range of the Captain, and the Captain themselves has a great view over each station to something potentially important. I love a new bridge design but it's tough to get over the ergonomic simplicity of the very first one.

Mark
 
Stations with their own viewscreen.
latest

Especially Ops and Tactical.
sci-fi-computer-with-glassy-hologram-screen-3d-model-max-obj-fbx-mtl-mat.jpg

With screens above
becfb331-ac44-415e-b675-9e8d72b89001
 
A random surf through the Internet today led me to looking at modern day ship bridge layouts, which are definitely heading a Star Trek direction: https://www.nyk.com/english/news/2018/20180927_01.html, https://www.beyondships.com/Explorer-Tour-4.html
So what do you all think? What bridge stations functions would you add, subtract, split or merge? Which do you think ought to be standing stations and which ought to be sitting?


That first one in particular looks like it could be a ship-of-the-week bridge.

As I see it, the stations themselves would be almost entirely custom-configurable - especially by the TNG era. I could imagine a Captain changing the bridge crew and stations depending on the mission:
If you're on a diplomatic mission then maybe you need two full-time communications officers on the bridge; if you're on a deep space mapping-mission then any comms could be handled by the OPS officer, but you would want a navigator/cartographer on deck.
If you're going into battle then you probably want a dedicated weapons officer, damage control, shield control officers.
If it's performance review season you might one the yeoman sat on the bridge.

In terms of permanent stations you probably want a Deck Officer , a helmsman, and an OPS officer. Everyone else can hot-desk.

dJE
 
For enemy ships, have an asterisk shape bridge. Everyone’s back to the captain’s cylinder. Buttons rise and fall out of the goo and bite at fingers that make mistakes. The circle is a view screen of fog 360 degrees around, with silhouettes of figures behind the wafting screen-curtain of vapors waiting to drag you away. Is that a star, or an eye you see?

It’s how the Shan train their larva to bear up under stress. And would make for an awesome set. Hope that the captain doesn’t put a pincer on your shoulder and spin you to face his maw.
 
What about separate Bridge on deck one with a CIC down in the guts of the ship?
In TNG it would have been so easy...they already had a Battle Bridge set.
 
Two bridges, but opposite the way that TNG did it. The primary bridge would be located deep in the hull, as a holodeck. The entire circumference shows a 360 degree view of the ships exterior, along with the top, with only the floor being present as semi-transparent for the comfort of those operating the ship. All stations can rotate 360 degrees to keep eyes where they need to be (useful especially when multiple areas of interest or multiple targets are necessary). All stations fully configurable and customizable by the operator, and auto adjusts to their preferences when they sit at any console unless overridden in the event of an emergency.

In case of power failure, a single turbolift on an isolated power battery can whisk the bridge crew to deck 1, where the secondary bridge is. This bridge uses windows to view and old school mechanical controls at dedicated stations to retain control of the ship in the event of power failure or other emergency situation.
 
You could also go the direction of having a navigational bridge, perhaps just a small room with a navigator and helmsman, and then have a separate command center. The captain could keep an eye on the navigation guys via view screen, and issue orders from the command center, which would be focused on the sensor and weapons data analogous to a CINC.

The navigational bridge could even take advantage of holotechnology and the traditional dome structure of Trek, and project a globe shaped view of space in all directions around the ship. I think the anime Vandred did something like that?

In some ways, TOS was much closer to like WW2 & WW1 practice, where there were separate command areas for navigation equipment vs fire control (or bridge vs phaser control, in this case). However, I think that was more the writers understanding of things than Jeffries et al, clearly the bridge was meant as the do-all main stage of the show.

It'd be amusing to go fully Pakled-brain on a bridge, and just make everything needlessly manual and low tech. Every station has a physical buttons. The bridge has windows, but not just any windows, windows of several feet thick armored glass. There's a futuristic compass and wheel, both standing stations. Overhead, there's a rangefinder worthy of a dreadnaught. Actual speaking tubes for intercoms. Sounds like something the Klingons might build...
 
The original TOS bridge is probably the best layout. But only engineering, helm, and navigation should be fixed. And helm and navigation should be dual positions. TOS had it right to link helm and tactical. The other stations should be mission specific. TOS probably had too many stations, but I don't think TNG had enough. I think Defiant, Voyager and NX-01 had better bridges than the TNG Enterprise.

In the middle should be the person in charge of the ship at that moment. The captain or other duty officer. They are in a central position to monitor things, but I think they need additional controls and screens. So I think the area most in need of alteration is the Conn. The swivel chair is great, but I think it would be more advantageous to have a couple of real control panels on either side and/or in front. Or maybe, like helm/navigation, two stations for when the captain comes to the bridge. Then the Conn is constantly manned and in emergency situations with both stations manned they can do more. But the Conn should have outside communications. Internal communications should be part of engineering or damage control.

I think standing stations are fine, but seated stations are more secure (even if Star Trek rarely has any sort of seat restraints). So I think standing stations would be for temporary duty stations or stations that are not continuously occupied. Standing desks are fairly popular in offices these days so I think having adjustable height positions with seating that can move out of the way would also be a way to go. Stand for regular duty, sit for battle. Or even have a deployable method of securing someone standing.
 
The original TOS bridge is probably the best layout. But only engineering, helm, and navigation should be fixed. And helm and navigation should be dual positions. TOS had it right to link helm and tactical. The other stations should be mission specific. TOS probably had too many stations, but I don't think TNG had enough. I think Defiant, Voyager and NX-01 had better bridges than the TNG Enterprise.

The only change I'd make to the helm-navigation-weapons combo station is to make it clear that the navigator rather than the helmsman is typically in charge of firing the weapons as they don't have much to do in a battle situation whereas the helmsman is fairly busy actually flying the ship.
 
The only change I'd make to the helm-navigation-weapons combo station is to make it clear that the navigator rather than the helmsman is typically in charge of firing the weapons as they don't have much to do in a battle situation whereas the helmsman is fairly busy actually flying the ship.
Except flying the ship and firing the weapons are linked. They work together. If you move the ship at the wrong moment, you could ruin the shot.
 
Except flying the ship and firing the weapons are linked. They work together. If you move the ship at the wrong moment, you could ruin the shot.

Only applies if you do manual targeting (and even then, missing is not too common - but more likely to occur)... UFP ships have auto targeting at all times, so turning the ship makes little difference.
In the 24th century especially, there are no turrets or canons of sort... there are strips laced with emitters which further simplify matters and as long as the sensors are working, you should be able to shoot at the target.
 
Except flying the ship and firing the weapons are linked. They work together. If you move the ship at the wrong moment, you could ruin the shot.

Yes, but the person at the helm isn't generally the one deciding those manoeuvres except in outright emergencies, that's the officer in command, and even then the navigator can see the same information that the helmsman can, so should be able to anticipate any emergency manoeuvres that they might make, thus sharing the load increases general effectiveness rather compromises it (as IMO having the navigator sitting there doing little or nothing in a battle situation while the helmsman potentially struggles with both functions.)
 
Yes, but the person at the helm isn't generally the one deciding those manoeuvres except in outright emergencies, that's the officer in command, and even then the navigator can see the same information that the helmsman can, so should be able to anticipate any emergency manoeuvres that they might make, thus sharing the load increases general effectiveness rather compromises it (as IMO having the navigator sitting there doing little or nothing in a battle situation while the helmsman potentially struggles with both functions.)
Helm shouldn't be doing nothing. They should be coordinating defense and escape options. Configuring shields to the side of the ship facing the enemy, tracking the enemy ships out of range, and keeping a watch out for new or previously unseen targets.
 
Helm shouldn't be doing nothing.

That's not I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that the navigator shouldn't doing nothing and leaving it to helm to do everything you just said (most of which navigation can do just as well) and the actual flying.

I'm suggesting that helm should be allowed to concentrate on the actual flying and navigation do the rest.

Not sure why that's a worse option?
 
Only applies if you do manual targeting (and even then, missing is not too common - but more likely to occur)... UFP ships have auto targeting at all times, so turning the ship makes little difference.
In the 24th century especially, there are no turrets or canons of sort... there are strips laced with emitters which further simplify matters and as long as the sensors are working, you should be able to shoot at the target.

You would think that but apparently a sudden course change requires a few second delay to re-lock phasers before they can fire in TNG's "Lower Decks".

I always thought in TOS that navigator and helm could control weapons as needed since in "The Corbomite Maneuver", Bailey was in charge of locking phasers while Sulu was piloting.
 
That's not I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that the navigator shouldn't doing nothing and leaving it to helm to do everything you just said (most of which navigation can do just as well) and the actual flying.

I'm suggesting that helm should be allowed to concentrate on the actual flying and navigation do the rest.

Not sure why that's a worse option?
Indeed, especially when humans are not nearly as good at multi-tasking as they think they are.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top