Just curious as to why you think the underslung bridge module as seen on the Walker Class (Shenzhou) when out of fashion where Federation ship design is concerned?
Trek Ship Design, Why did the underside bridge go out of style?
- Thread starter Captain Killy
- Start date
Maybe it was never in style, it could just be a design element that pops up once every 100 years like a sphere instead of a saucer because someone feels the need to change things up just to see if there's an advantage. If there isn't they go back to the established designs.
my suspected reason: Gene was a navy man. the bridge was on a ship's superstructure where it belonged. Jefferies was in B-17's, B-24's and B-25's during the war as a flight engineer. The belly was for the ball turret gunner and where the bombs came out.
It never REALLY made sense to have the command center in the most exposed part of a ship when there were no windows (unless that really was a sunroof in the Cage)
anyway the underslung bridge would have gotten in the way of things like the shuttle bay and grappler on the NX01.
non-reality reason: Walker Class ships were light cruises designed with atmospheric entry in mind. It was possible to use the bridge for plantary observation. I guess. They haven't shown a lot of other ships specifically built with that in mind, beyond the Abrams-prize and the Intrepid
It never REALLY made sense to have the command center in the most exposed part of a ship when there were no windows (unless that really was a sunroof in the Cage)
anyway the underslung bridge would have gotten in the way of things like the shuttle bay and grappler on the NX01.
non-reality reason: Walker Class ships were light cruises designed with atmospheric entry in mind. It was possible to use the bridge for plantary observation. I guess. They haven't shown a lot of other ships specifically built with that in mind, beyond the Abrams-prize and the Intrepid
that makes sense. plus bridge consoles like to explode.
Watch "Emissary", it's on the Saratoga in the 24th century.
Roddenberry? He was a B-17 pilot, 13th Air Force.
Ok, the atmospheric entry idea makes sense. But for planetary observation, not so much. Most of that would be done via sensors and not looking out the window. And in any case the ship could just orbit with the bridge aimed toward the planet surface if it was that necessary to do so.
Good observation. In my head canon it wasn’t until the creation of the Constitution class that Starfleet finally developed what would be considered a definite style or look for he federation fleet moving forward, that’s why there are so many, shall we say, odd designs in Disco.
Edit: Seriously the USS Shran is the butt ugliest Federation vessel I’ve ever seen.
In space, attitude and direction of travel are only relevant to each other while under thrust.
Think about midcoirse corrections on the Apollo missions: you point the SPS engine bell in whatever direction it needs to point, and burn for tje apecified nimber of secomds.
And submarines have rheir control rooms around the middle, usually below the sail.
Think about midcoirse corrections on the Apollo missions: you point the SPS engine bell in whatever direction it needs to point, and burn for tje apecified nimber of secomds.
And submarines have rheir control rooms around the middle, usually below the sail.
the Malachowski class also appears to be have an underside bridge, or at least has a set of windows similar to the Walker's bridge down there.
Huh?
My mistake. I dont know why I thought that.
Gene Roddenberry was a B-17 Bomber pilot, not a Navy man... Flew quite a few missions over Germany and dodged FLAK in return.
As far as I am concerned - nothing in STD is relevant and the whole thing is in an alternate timeline (at best) no matter what the idiots in charge say... (Did I call them idiots? I'm sorry, morons is more apt...)
You don’t get to decide what is or is not canon. They (CBS) own the franchise. They (CBS) is the final and ultimate arbiter of what is or is not Trek canon. Now, you don’t have to like that’s is canon Prime Timeline. But you don’t get to decide that if isn’t.
Thirteenth Air Force, South Pacific. No missions over Germany.
Visual sensors can zoom in close enough to show great detail from standard orbit ("Civilisation", ENT). Ships are also equipped with probes suitable for atmospheric surveys/scans should they need to get in for a closer look ("Starship Down", DS9). Whilst standard operations in regard to planetary observation is to dispatch a team in a duck-blind to monitor them from the ground instead of waste the resources of a starship ("Who Watches The Watchers", TNG; "Homeward", TNG; Insurrection).
All specifications, deck plans and detailing on studio/CGI models has the bridge located on the top of the saucer. Due to the intricacies of starship power conduits then feedback looks to be a design flaw yet to be tackled, so a hit in one area of the ship can cause massive damage throughout.
This is a far more likely answer though.
I don't think we can consider Discovery's designs in any other context than Discovery. So as far as the rest of Federation ship design, meaning ST, TNG, DSN, and VOY; Discovery is irrelevant.
You know, someone, I think it was the guys on Trekyards, pointed out that the Shepard Class is basically the Walker Class turned upside down.
The dialogue says "Direct hit... decks one through four" immediately after the lower dome is hit and the bridge explodes.
Similar threads
