Technology level on the Kelvin timeline

[Tenacity]

Um ... in what way is a camera not a sensor?
In the same way that a deadbolt is not an alarm.

If you're talking about a old style film using camera okay, however modern cameras employ a sensor to capture an image.

If the window is there to serve as a means of observation, then why aren't there crew persons station nearby whose only duty is to observe through it, and report what they see?

 

[Tyr]

Space is vast and dark. What should one see faster through a window than on a sensor fed viewscreen? Even when manouvering in a dock you would not rely solely on one window facing forward and more than hundred meters away from the parts of the ship you don't want to crash into the structure. Todays Spaceships may have windows, but not for manouvering or navigation. They use cameras and viewscreens when they are docking. They use cameras and viewscreens if the want to check the hull for damage.
And how do you think you could navigate in deep space without energy and working sensors? Theres no magnetic field to use a compass, you can't navigate by constellations.
There is no real advantage of a window and superimposed information. When energy is down, its a useless but pretty way to look into the darkness.

 

[Gonzo]

The window makes sense accepting the placement of the bridge. Because you might as well have a window at what is essentially a lookout point.

But, the bridge on top is ultra-vulnerable and stupid, outside of visual coolness. But down that path, the shape of the Enterprise is stupid and nonsensical outside of its uniqueness among sci-fi vessels.

Yeah especially if you look at other series more realistic approach like Galactica where it's all sensors and theres no windows as it would ultimately be a structural weakness. The Galactica is essentially a great big flying brick with hangars on either side, wouldn't surprise me if they could be forcefully detached if the new arises.

Star trek has never really gone for the reality of space as it is fundamentally a load of darkness and silence, I mean think about it, what on earth made them think up the shape of the ToS Enterprise in the first place, I doubt it was their first attempt at designing it, bet they tried all sorts of different shape combinations before they settled on what we saw on screen.

The struts that hold the nacelles and the top mounted bridge are just asking to be targeted, the viewscreen is also not the best idea, why not have the bridge located further inside the dish and use multiple remote cameras instead to give a complete 360 degree view.

Direct sight in space is of very limited value, just one of the things that mean you just have to go with the flow.

 

[fireproof78]

Maybe, although it seems like simpler tends to last longer?

It depends. Society is currently in a trend of advocating more advanced looking tech.

I think that replicative fading will start to kick in if they try that.

Has that been an issue with TOS-R?

We have seen eyeballing done with viewscreens.

True, but I think it can work either way. I'll address this further down.

I can see the point, although, as I recall, auxiliary control on the original Enterprise was located in a room with no windows or viewscreen, so I'm not sure if a window is "needed" in this case?

Auxiliary control is meant to be used in emergencies, so I would not apply the same design philosophies to something that is rather spartan to be used in emergencies, and the primary working area on a ship.

As to that, I can't say, although there are windows elsewhere on the ship, so I'd counter than the bridge should be outfitted with the best tech for looking in front.

Why is a window automatically mean "no tech?" I don't understand this philosophy of it has to be one or the other. There is nothing about having a window at the front of the Bridge that automatically prohibits it functioning as a viewscreen, and having the same information that a viewscreen would have put up on it.

A window just offers a measure of flexibility, either from a psychological point of view or a low tech solution point of view.

Fair enough. (I will admit that the window is something that rubs me the wrong way in a subjective manner, since the viewscreen was always a staple, so there are legitimate reasons to favor the alternative.)

I am trying to understand this, and it might be my own bias as I always thought the TOS screen was also a window. It just seems to me that a window isn't that big of a deal, so I don't get the objections.

Space is vast and dark. What should one see faster through a window than on a sensor fed viewscreen? Even when manouvering in a dock you would not rely solely on one window facing forward and more than hundred meters away from the parts of the ship you don't want to crash into the structure. Todays Spaceships may have windows, but not for manouvering or navigation. They use cameras and viewscreens when they are docking. They use cameras and viewscreens if the want to check the hull for damage.
And how do you think you could navigate in deep space without energy and working sensors? Theres no magnetic field to use a compass, you can't navigate by constellations.
There is no real advantage of a window and superimposed information. When energy is down, its a useless but pretty way to look into the darkness.

If I were writing it, yeah, it would be that way. But, that's not how Star Trek has presented it.

 

[WebLurker]

It depends. Society is currently in a trend of advocating more advanced looking tech.

Could be.

Has that been an issue with TOS-R?

I'd say "no," since TAS was a continuation, not a remake.

True, but I think it can work either way. I'll address this further down.

Okay.

Auxiliary control is meant to be used in emergencies, so I would not apply the same design philosophies to something that is rather spartan to be used in emergencies, and the primary working area on a ship.

I see.

Why is a window automatically mean "no tech?" I don't understand this philosophy of it has to be one or the other. There is nothing about having a window at the front of the Bridge that automatically prohibits it functioning as a viewscreen, and having the same information that a viewscreen would have put up on it.

True, although would the window be weaker structurally than a solid bulkhead with a holodeck plate on the interior?

A window just offers a measure of flexibility, either from a psychological point of view or a low tech solution point of view.

Okay.

I am trying to understand this, and it might be my own bias as I always thought the TOS screen was also a window. It just seems to me that a window isn't that big of a deal, so I don't get the objections.

It just bugs me is all.

 

[Richard Baker]

'The Wrath of Khan' shows what happens when you are entirely reliant on electronic view screens. The nebula battle would not have lasted long if either side had a window to look out of.

 

[wayoung]

'The Wrath of Khan' shows what happens when you are entirely reliant on electronic view screens. The nebula battle would not have lasted long if either side had a window to look out of.

Don't forget that the visual placement of the ships that we see on screen is not accurate to their actual locations. This particular battle is a closet one, but the ships are still kilometres away from each other. To aim a ships weapons effectively at that range you'd need some electronic or, at the very least, optical assistance, hence Sulu's continued reliance on the viewscreen, static filled as it may be.

 

[fireproof78]

Could be.

It see the evidence in the way devices and UIs are designed now. They are quite busy, have statistics in almost every corner, and you have actively deactivate them to reduce the amount of information presented.

I'd say "no," since TAS was a continuation, not a remake.

I think you are confusing what I mean. TOS-R is The Original Series but with Revised graphics. TAS was the animated series which has no bearing on my point.

Okay.

I see.

True, although would the window be weaker structurally than a solid bulkhead with a holodeck plate on the interior?

Since there are windows in other parts of the ship, including near the Bridge, I would be inclined to say "No." If that is a concern, I would argue for an armored door that could go over the window in combat.

It still doesn't answer my question as to why this is an either/or proposition rather than a both proposition.

Okay.

It just bugs me is all.

Fair enough, but there is some facets of this that seemed to be ignored purely for personal aesthetics and not what has been presented in the show. There are a couple of instances that I can recall, at least off the top of my head, where "old school" style navigation is utilized, such as the Bajoran Solar Sail ship, complete with sextants, Chakotay referring to navigating by site, among others.

It may annoy some, but I see it as fitting the rest of the universe.

 

[WebLurker]

I think you are confusing what I mean. TOS-R is The Original Series but with Revised graphics. TAS was the animated series which has no bearing on my point.

Oh. I'd still say no, since TOS-R is just a polishing of the source material. The point I was making with my "replicative fading" joke was that I'm not in favor of another Trek reboot anytime soon.

Since there are windows in other parts of the ship, including near the Bridge, I would be inclined to say "No." If that is a concern, I would argue for an armored door that could go over the window in combat.

That could be an interesting effect to see onscreen.

It still doesn't answer my question as to why this is an either/or proposition rather than a both proposition.

To me, I simply don't like the effect that projecting the stuff on the window has, so I'm not in favor of it being in regular use.

Fair enough, but there is some facets of this that seemed to be ignored purely for personal aesthetics and not what has been presented in the show. There are a couple of instances that I can recall, at least off the top of my head, where "old school" style navigation is utilized, such as the Bajoran Solar Sail ship, complete with sextants, Chakotay referring to navigating by site, among others.

It may annoy some, but I see it as fitting the rest of the universe.

My position has always been more "I don't like the design" than "I think the tech is inconsistent."

 

[fireproof78]

Oh. I'd still say no, since TOS-R is just a polishing of the source material. The point I was making with my "replicative fading" joke was that I'm not in favor of another Trek reboot anytime soon.

Generally speaking, I am not either, though the way some talk about Discovery and post-Nem shows go, I might change my mind.

I think, if you are talking about effects and graphics, you could polish the onscreen effects just as well in the newer films just like you update TOS. Knowing what I know about graphic artists and visual effects artists, I would say its completely doable with contemporary tech.

That could be an interesting effect to see onscreen.

I think it could work well, especially in a post-NEM series with the ablative armor tech from future Janeway, or an extension of the hull plating tech from Enterprise if used in Discovery.

To me, I simply don't like the effect that projecting the stuff on the window has, so I'm not in favor of it being in regular use.
My position has always been more "I don't like the design" than "I think the tech is inconsistent."

Ok, then I have a question. If you are going to use just a viewscreen, what would you prefer? What information do you like being presented? Is it the see through nature of the projections that bother you?

Sorry for the questions, but I'm curious as to what could be done to change the look of the viewscreen, but still keep it acceptable.

 

[WebLurker]

Generally speaking, I am not either, though the way some talk about Discovery and post-Nem shows go, I might change my mind.

Not sounding good, huh?

I think, if you are talking about effects and graphics, you could polish the onscreen effects just as well in the newer films just like you update TOS. Knowing what I know about graphic artists and visual effects artists, I would say its completely doable with contemporary tech.

Sure, that could be done.

Ok, then I have a question. If you are going to use just a viewscreen, what would you prefer? What information do you like being presented? Is it the see through nature of the projections that bother you?

Well, I like it being mostly used to see upfront, not as a sensor display. Some projection is okay, but I'd rather have that info on consoles inside. I was also bothered in the '09 movie, when the used the window for teleconferencing that the image looked stretched and transparent.

Sorry for the questions, but I'm curious as to what could be done to change the look of the viewscreen, but still keep it acceptable.

Sure no prob. Basically, this's one thing I wish they had left alone, when so many other things were changed or redesigned. At least for storytelling purposes it acts like the viewscreen. I guess the holographic projection on the bare wall used for First Contact is as far as I'd get away from the original setup.

 

[fireproof78]

Not sounding good, huh?

I'm cautiously optimistic about Discovery. But, all the post-NEM stuff insists on getting darker.

Sure, that could be done.

Exactly.

Well, I like it being mostly used to see upfront, not as a sensor display. Some projection is okay, but I'd rather have that info on consoles inside. I was also bothered in the '09 movie, when the used the window for teleconferencing that the image looked stretched and transparent.

I guess I see it as a more of a multipurpose display and not just front viewer.

Sure no prob. Basically, this's one thing I wish they had left alone, when so many other things were changed or redesigned. At least for storytelling purposes it acts like the viewscreen. I guess the holographic projection on the bare wall used for First Contact is as far as I'd get away from the original setup.

I guess it felt more like some military style displays I've seen, and had a very distinctive feel that set it apart. Obviously, personal taste will vary, but I think that it reflects the evolution of technology from just projection screen to more interactive display.

 

[WebLurker]

I'm cautiously optimistic about Discovery. But, all the post-NEM stuff insists on getting darker.

You mean the novels or something else?

I guess I see it as a more of a multipurpose display and not just front viewer.

To be fair, the viewscreens have been used to display other stuff besides the front.

I guess it felt more like some military style displays I've seen, and had a very distinctive feel that set it apart. Obviously, personal taste will vary, but I think that it reflects the evolution of technology from just projection screen to more interactive display.

Fair enough.

I did think of one reason that the window for a viewscreen would be a problem; The bridge is located in the center of the huge saucer section. If it was just a window, the hull would take up most of the view. With the viewscreen, that problem doesn't exist.

 

[fireproof78]

You mean the novels or something else?

Almost every fan based material I have read, RPG, fan fiction, fan film, etc, showcases the Federation either collapsing or falling on hard times to the point of dystopia. Even STO shows the Klingons and the Federation at war (again!!!! )
Apparently, Agent Smith was right.

To be fair, the viewscreens have been used to display other stuff besides the front.

Sure, but rarely at the same time.

Fair enough.

I did think of one reason that the window for a viewscreen would be a problem; The bridge is located in the center of the huge saucer section. If it was just a window, the hull would take up most of the view. With the viewscreen, that problem doesn't exist.

Which is why I'm not arguing for just a window. I'm arguing for a combination that can integrate sensor information, and provide a potential backup navigation if power should fail. Really, it's not that revolutionary.[/QUOTE]

 

[F. King Daniel]

Of note, the viewscreen apparently was originally intended as a window, something which changed between the two pilot episodes and the series proper:

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If you're using higher warp factors, you need to keep in mind the change in warp scale between the two shows...

Not helpful. On the TNG scale, one thousand light years in eleven hours corresponds to a velocity 700 times faster than Voyager's maximum cruising velocity. This while apparently traveling at Warp 8.

Also, we were rarely given relative locations in TOS

Again "That Which Survives."

RAHDA: Yes, Mister Spock. Look. Now here's a replay of the star pattern just before the explosion.
SPOCK: A positional change.
RAHDA: It doesn't make any sense. But somehow I'd say that in a flash we've been knocked one thousand light years away from where we were.
SPOCK: Nine hundred and ninety point seven light years to be exact, Lieutenant.
SCOTT: But that's not possible. Nothing can do that.

[Later]

RAHDA: We're holding warp eight point four, sir. If we can maintain it, our estimated time of arrival is eleven and one half solar hours.
SPOCK: Eleven point three three seven hours, Lieutenant. I wish you would be more precise.

And of course there's the dreaded "Final Frontier" where they specifically refer to "the Center of the Galaxy" as their destination. And they give galactic coordinates "Zero zero zero mark two", which even the Klingons seem to know takes them directly into the great barrier.

I don't recall Voyager seriously messing up with its own tech specs.

Always a classic:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

What's the problem? The distances are different, so of course the farther out Voyager would take longer than than the closer Enterprise to get home.

The problem is, Voyager is quoted in "Caretaker" as having a "maximum sustainable cruising velocity" of warp 9.975. At that velocity, it would take Voyager just a little over five years to cover that distance.

But suppose their engines were damaged somehow and they were only able to maintain Warp 9.8. At that velocity, it's a 15 year trip back to Earth. Still nowhere near the "seventy years" quoted in Voyager.

So how fast would Voyager have to be moving to pad out that trip? Well, when you actually calculate it on the TNG scale, a 70 year trip implies Voyager's maximum cruising velocity is actually a hair slower than Warp 8. "Maximum sustainable cruise velocity" indeed!

The filmmakers have admitted that they did this on purpose because they wanted to include the character

Well no, they did it because they couldn't get Leonard Nimoy to play Spock so they got James Doohan instead.

I do wish that they had put both versions on the same screen together, but a racial variation/offshoot seems reasonable enough...

... as a post-hoc justification for something they decided to change for no reason other than the new version looked better. It remains, in any case, an inconsistency.

We are seeing tech across the years from a species that is constantly searching for upgrades.

... is another post-hoc explanation.

Do you know the difference between "world building" and "fan theory?"

Look, the franchise is been around for decades. It's been worked on by numerous staffs.

Yes. Which is why it has been so wildly inconsistent over the years. It's not really reasonable to EXPECT it to be all that consistent, to be sure.

So you really shouldn't be trying to claim that "Part of the reason that the prime timeline works is that the world building is generally consistent." Because it isn't generally consistent, nor is that a "reason" why the prime timeline works. The timeline works because it's a work of fiction and therefore it "works" exactly as well as the writers say it does.

Yep, I do; the first movie established that it is part of the original source material

You can't "establish" source material on-screen without breaking the fourth wall. That's just not how any of that works.

I care personally

 

[Crazy Eddie]

In what way was this image not produced by a sensing device?

In the way that it was produced by a RECORDING device. The output of sensors, in fact, is raw data that can be processed into other output and displayed in various ways. Although sensors are components of many things -- cameras, computers, phones, alarm systems, engines, video game consoles -- none of those things are themselves sensor devices.

As from the earlier analogy: a deadbolt may contain sensors that will detect when it has been breached, but a deadbolt is not a sensor.

I am completely unable to tell what point you believe you are making, or what argument you are trying to advance.

I thought it was obvious? Cameras are no better than windows in searching for distant objects because cameras only produce one kind of output: visual images captured from reflected light. So using the viewscreen to search for a distant object is no better than simply looking out of a window with a pair of binoculars.

Although there are many reasons to think a window might actually be preferable. For example:

PICARD: Did you get a direct look at it?
LAFORGE: (Having just come back to the bridge from the observation lounge) It's like a giant snow flake crystal, but much more complex. The entire electromagnetic spectrum seems to play about inside it, but I haven't the slightest idea what it is, sir.
PICARD: Thank you, Lieutenant.

WORF: With my knowledge of the Enterprise's security override, we may be able to convince the sensors that an enemy ship is approaching. Their instruments would lie to them.
RIKER: If you can pull that off, Mister Worf, it might just give us the edge we're looking for.
NAGEL: (a lady officer) But what about the viewscreen?
WORF: If I am successful, the computer will project a false image of the enemy ship on the main viewscreen.
RIKER: So unless someone runs to a window and looks out
NAGEL: They're going to fall for it.

 

[Richard Baker]

Having a protective shutter over the window is not that big a deal- Irwin Allen used them in his shows all the time.
Anything that can be on the traditional viewscreen can be also present in an identical fashion on a window- we can do that now. Having a window would just give you another option if you ever need it.

"Requiem for Methuselah" did have a weird scene where Kirk appears to look through the viewscreen as a window into the bridge when the Enterprise is captured in miniature.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If the window is there to serve as a means of observation, then why aren't there crew persons station nearby whose only duty is to observe through it, and report what they see?

I actually kind of assumed that that's what some of the windows on the hull are for. Monitoring stations intended for a watch stander to look at the input from a particular sensor device and then take a visual sighting of anything he sees; if he sees something interesting, report it to the bridge.

Navy ships basically do this with lookouts already, mainly because it's standard procedure to visually identify anything that shows up on search radar. On a starship this should be even easier to do, assuming the Federation is aware of the existence of telescopes or at least binoculars.

 

[fireproof78]

I actually kind of assumed that that's what some of the windows on the hull are for. Monitoring stations intended for a watch stander to look at the input from a particular sensor device and then take a visual sighting of anything he sees; if he sees something interesting, report it to the bridge.

Navy ships basically do this with lookouts already, mainly because it's standard procedure to visually identify anything that shows up on search radar. On a starship this should be even easier to do, assuming the Federation is aware of the existence of telescopes or at least binoculars.

That technology was lost during the Eugenics Wars. That's why Khan recognized Chekov is because he saw him from the Botany Bay with a pair of binoculars.