Starship size does matter...

[Crazy Eddie]

As much as you or anyone else can say that, I've already argued as to how it would be a pretty useful piece of equipment. But you can keep arguing against that and in favor of a windshield just because it's what Abrams had Ryan Church do for this movie.

It's just a variation on a theme (eye-candy for the audience).

Instead of a forward view on a display it's now an actual forward view.

Indeed. And it's a more functional forward view than we'd usually get, as evidenced here and here.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

I really like the HUD style displays in the movie, as opposed to something like you'd get in TOS, where the tactical or sector map would come on screen, blocking the actual view.

NASA has had windows on spacecraft since they started. Why wouldn't that technology be available in the 23rd century still?

 

[Disillusioned]

It's just a variation on a theme (eye-candy for the audience).

(I can do that too). Of course I tend to be of the mindset that you shouldn't just do something for eye-candy alone.

Instead of a forward view on a display it's now an actual forward view.

Which is pointless and stupid.

I really like the HUD style displays in the movie, as opposed to something like you'd get in TOS, where the tactical or sector map would come on screen, blocking the actual view.

NASA has had windows on spacecraft since they started. Why wouldn't that technology be available in the 23rd century still?

It's apparent you've actually read through at least some of the arguments, so I'm just going to suggest that you go back and read through them again because this has already been discussed in way more detail then was probably needed.

 

[Cyke101]

Considering how glass in starships always seems to stay intact whenever our heroes go through gravitational distortions, paradoxical wormholes, tachyon warp cascades, densely populated asteroid belts, and battlefields with shields down, I'm not too worried about the viewscreen being a window.

 

[Disillusioned]

You say that now, but the first space mosquito you come across, I'm sure you'll be singing a different tune.

 

[Johnnymuffintop]

Am I the only one that remembers that the windows in Trek are made out of transparent aluminum?

 

[Disillusioned]

Ah, but that was a different universe.

 

[JarodRussell]

Am I the only one that remembers that the windows in Trek are made out of transparent aluminum?

As we've seen on many occasions, windows break in the Trek universe.

 

[M'Sharak]

To retrace the discussion (since you have obviously gotten lost):

I'd say it's the other way around, actually.

One minor slap received and one returned. Neither was necessary, but moving on...

[Quite a bit of back-and-forth snipped here]

Hence my second point: in Trek, starships COULD do this, but very seldom DO. It makes more sense to redesign the viewscreen to turn this into a secondary function instead of a primary, with the viewscreen's basic functionality now remaining its primary (i.e. "what we use it for most") function.

No, that doesn't make more sense. What makes more sense would be to use it the way I described. But you're way too caught up on defending every little thing Abrams did to see that.

This last bit was also uncalled-for, but it gets better.

[More back-and-forth snipped here]

Keyword: LOOK OUT. They're not piloting the ship with closed circuit video cameras, are they?

Which still has nothing to do with the argument we're having.

Why do you think that is?

Because you touch yourself at night. I know why, and I've even said why, but I'm tired of repeating myself.

There's more still, but the emphasized part is what gets you a warning for trolling. Comments to PM.

 

[ST-One]

Of course I tend to be of the mindset that you shouldn't just do something for eye-candy alone.

Then you should probably stop watching sci-fi-movies.

Instead of a forward view on a display it's now an actual forward view.

Which is pointless and stupid.

You've said that before.
But why is it 'pointless and stupid'?

 

[ST-One]

As much as you or anyone else can say that, I've already argued as to how it would be a pretty useful piece of equipment. But you can keep arguing against that and in favor of a windshield just because it's what Abrams had Ryan Church do for this movie.

It's just a variation on a theme (eye-candy for the audience).

Instead of a forward view on a display it's now an actual forward view.

Indeed. And it's a more functional forward view than we'd usually get, as evidenced here and here.

 

[Disillusioned]

Then you should probably stop watching sci-fi-movies.

No, not really.

You've said that before.
But why is it 'pointless and stupid'?

I've said that before, too. A physical window adds nothing and if anything tends to be annoying thanks to the glare off of the glass, and unless you can eliminate all opacity it kind of sucks as a viewscreen.

 

[JarodRussell]

Yeah. The first scene has Robau entering the bridge, ordering to polarise the view screen, because nobody could see anything (and apparently nobody is allowed to polarise the viewscreen unless Robau wills it to happen). So how important is the data on that viewscreen anyway if you don't even need to look at it when approaching an unknown phenomenon?

Then it's the greatest strategic disadvantage ever. Not only is the bridge located on top of the saucer, it now also has just a thin plane of glass or transparent aluminum protecting the crew from the void.

 

[Alientraveller]

Forcefields or massive metal windshield coming down anyone?

 

[SilentP]

it now also has just a thin plane of glass or transparent aluminum protecting the crew from the void.

Where do you get this idea that it's thin? It looked fairly substantial in terms of thickness. And it took longer for that 'thin pane' to crack than the ceiling did when the ship was being torn at by gravitational stress, and even then, there was no loss of atmospheric containment, so there must be a lot of resilience there. Also, what's to stop them putting transparent force fields running through the same section?

 

[ST-One]

I've said that before, too. A physical window adds nothing and if anything tends to be annoying thanks to the glare off of the glass,

Yeah, I guess that's why there are no windows on the bridges of today's seafaring vessels, or on cars, trucks, airplanes, trains...

and unless you can eliminate all opacity it kind of sucks as a viewscreen.

There is no need for it to be an actual viewscreen, since all the information the bridge crew needs are on the displays and monitors on their duty stations.

Yeah. The first scene has Robau entering the bridge, ordering to polarise the view screen, because nobody could see anything (and apparently nobody is allowed to polarise the viewscreen unless Robau wills it to happen). So how important is the data on that viewscreen anyway if you don't even need to look at it when approaching an unknown phenomenon?

Not very important, I'd guess, since there are quite a lot of displays and monitors the crew can read information and data from without having to turn towards the viewer.

Then it's the greatest strategic disadvantage ever. Not only is the bridge located on top of the saucer, it now also has just a thin plane of glass or transparent aluminum protecting the crew from the void.

Yeah, Jefferies and Probert would never have added a giant transparent design element to their bridges.
Oh, wait...

 

[Disillusioned]

Yeah, I guess that's why there are no windows on the bridges of today's seafaring vessels, or on cars, trucks, airplanes, trains...

Again with the straw man. I've already been over this, repeatedly. Like it or not there's a difference. If anything a starship would have most in common with a submarine.

There is no need for it to be an actual viewscreen, since all the information the bridge crew needs are on the displays and monitors on their duty stations.

Strickly speaking there isn't a need for a large main monitor that could display a nice big picture of whatever you wanted it to, but it sure would be nice to have one.

Not very important, I'd guess, since there are quite a lot of displays and monitors the crew can read information and data from without having to turn towards the viewer.

Yeah, the sun shining through and giving everyone flash burn isn't important at all...

Yeah, Jefferies and Probert would never have added a giant transparent design element to their bridges.
Oh, wait...

Yeah, it's not like the argument has ever been made that the bridge shouldn't be as exposed as it is to begin with. Oh, wait...

 

[Trekker4747]

I personally don't see the need for it to be a real window either, not only does it go against what has been established but it make no sense for it to be a real window. Someone pointed out the scene when Robau "polarizes the viewscreen." The room is flooded with light. Ever look into the sun? It's amazing everyone on the bridge wasn't blinded. Why make it a window? Is a giant monitor that can display whatever you want that much "worse" than a piece of glass/TA? Oh, and when information/communications are shown on screen it's tranlucent so that we can still see stuff outside the window. Just a bit annoying.

Seems to me the consoles would dispaly all of the information you need and there's no need for the window/HUD system, except when the captain needs to talk to someone, know what's going on right now, or needs information presented in a bold manner.

Making the viewscreen a window was dumb, IMHO.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Then it's the greatest strategic disadvantage ever. Not only is the bridge located on top of the saucer, it now also has just a thin plane of glass or transparent aluminum protecting the crew from the void.

It obviously isn't glass, since a sheet that size would have to be about three feet thick in order to stand up to full atmo vs vacuum.

Probably a three-inch sheet of transparent aluminum. That would more than suffice, especially if holes can be sealed with forcefields.

 

[The Castellan]

I personally don't see the need for it to be a real window either, not only does it go against what has been established but it make no sense for it to be a real window. Someone pointed out the scene when Robau "polarizes the viewscreen." The room is flooded with light. Ever look into the sun? It's amazing everyone on the bridge wasn't blinded. Why make it a window? Is a giant monitor that can display whatever you want that much "worse" than a piece of glass/TA? Oh, and when information/communications are shown on screen it's tranlucent so that we can still see stuff outside the window. Just a bit annoying.

Seems to me the consoles would dispaly all of the information you need and there's no need for the window/HUD system, except when the captain needs to talk to someone, know what's going on right now, or needs information presented in a bold manner.

Making the viewscreen a window was dumb, IMHO.

I'm surprise they did not put a windshield wiper, or some thing like that....being more'realistic' and all.

Gimme a good old prime-verse view screen anyday.