Someone who enjoyed Star Trek XI

[BillJ]

Following is an img of the Enterprise CVN 65

http://www.public.navy.mil/airfor/enterprise/Documents/USSEnterpriseBowShot.jpg

See that row of windows just below the antenna arrays atop the superstructure tower, guess what that area is...

It's the Bridge. Right out there in the open totally venerable to attack, IF you can get close enough, which no one ever has. That is why the 1701 can have a window.

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.

 

[Captain Mike]

I actually like the new bridge. Warmed to it immediately once I actually saw it in action... even the window.

The "window" IMO is a reach to the "new and even "older" fans" to just how it appears in other films and shows. It just seems effin' retarded to have an obviously "weak" spot on a command center of a battleship. And yes this "new" Enterprise is a Battleship since it was made to counter-attack the attack on the Kelvin.

Unless you sink the bridge down deep into the primary or secondary hull... it has been/always will be an obvious weak spot, window or not. See Star Trek: Nemesis.

The Abramsverse Enterprise is no more (or less) a battlecruiser than the original, which could level the surface of a world with its weapons.

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?...

 

[BillJ]

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.

 

[ST-One]

Matt Jeffries designed the bridge. It took into account the necessities of filming but he also took into account how the ship worked. They did make a change from the original design for dramatic reasons and that was moving the elevator off to the side. However, the layout of the stations was done for in universe reasons as well.

Unlike the NuBridge where people have lights shining in their faces and a bif honking window that only the captain can polarize.

I actually like the new bridge. Warmed to it immediately once I actually saw it in action... even the window.

The "window" IMO is a reach to the "new and even "older" fans" to just how it appears in other films and shows. It just seems effin' retarded to have an obviously "weak" spot on a command center of a battleship. And yes this "new" Enterprise is a Battleship since it was made to counter-attack the attack on the Kelvin.

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

 

[Captain Mike]

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.

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.

 

[BillJ]

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.

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

But getting back on topic... I have to get out because I just don't like this movie.

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.

 

[ST-One]

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.

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

And on the original Enterprise too.

 

[UFO]

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.

 

[Captain Mike]

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.

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

But getting back on topic... I have to get out because I just don't like this movie.

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.

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.

 

[BillJ]

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.

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?

 

[Captain Mike]

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.

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+...

 

[BillJ]

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.

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.

 

[Captain Mike]

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...

 

[UFO]

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.

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?

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.

 

[ST-One]

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.

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

But getting back on topic... I have to get out because I just don't like this movie.

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.

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.

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

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Matt Jeffries designed the bridge. It took into account the necessities of filming but he also took into account how the ship worked. They did make a change from the original design for dramatic reasons and that was moving the elevator off to the side. However, the layout of the stations was done for in universe reasons as well.

Unlike the NuBridge where people have lights shining in their faces and a bif honking window that only the captain can polarize.

I actually like the new bridge. Warmed to it immediately once I actually saw it in action... even the window.

The "window" IMO is a reach to the "new and even "older" fans" to just how it appears in other films and shows. It just seems effin' retarded to have an obviously "weak" spot on a command center of a battleship.

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.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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.

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?

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.

 

[F. King Daniel]

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.

 

[Devon]

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.

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

 

[nightwind1]

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.

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?

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?