Trek Ship Design, Why did the underside bridge go out of style?

[F. King Daniel]

But the top structure is identical to the top structure of the Constitution class refit...which is irrefutably the ship’s bridge. Why build the exact same structure on the top of the Miranda class and have it not be the bridge?

Because surely they can fill the space with whatever they wish? We have seen bridges of vastly different shapes presumably in the same housing before.

 

[Tuskin38]

Fascinating. Although isn't the Clarke quite a bit smaller than the Shenzhou, making this ventral facility quantitatively different at the very least? In any case, the Malachowski has one of the most identifiable and classic dorsal bridge superstructures of the DSC lot.

She's also a nicely clear-cut design without those, umm, clear cuts that Eaves usually thinks give character to his ships. A very plausible predecessor to the TOS movie style there.



Good to know - I'll keep looking for STO clues in the future...



I think a better argument here than the one about the identical top and bottom TOS domes (which sit atop bridges anyway, not actually being the bridges) would be the presence of entire identical top and bottom bridge superstructures on the Constellation class. If a bridge-looking thing is always a bridge, then the Stargazer has two.

Which may well be true. Or then many ships have uses for secondary bridgelike structures that aren't actually bridges but exist for completely different purposes, such as the "emergency manual monitor" of Kirk's TOS ship that clearly wasn't just for emergencies in "Lights of Zetar". Instead of designing an all-new structure for those, Starfleet might opt to simply bolt on more of these "bridge modules" or whatnot.

Timo Saloniemi

STO is also reusing the Shenzhou bridge set for the Malachowski’s bridge if that means anything other then saving resources

 

[Dukhat]

I think a better argument here than the one about the identical top and bottom TOS domes (which sit atop bridges anyway, not actually being the bridges) would be the presence of entire identical top and bottom bridge superstructures on the Constellation class. If a bridge-looking thing is always a bridge, then the Stargazer has two.

But they're not identical. The bottom bridge superstructure is the same, but the top has a bridge dome while the bottom has a TMP Constitution sensor dome:

http://www.stargazertwo.com/Database/Stargazer_Studio_Models/Stargazer Studio Models.htm

Because surely they can fill the space with whatever they wish? We have seen bridges of vastly different shapes presumably in the same housing before.

But the structure is outwardly the same exact design as the bridge of all the other Miranda and Constitution classes. If it wasn't the bridge, then it would totally be unnecessary. They could install some other sensor or equipment there instead, and not have it be crammed into a space that wasn't meant for it.

 

[johnnybear]

The thing is DSC is not the TOS we all know and love! Writers nowadays make up a name for as many ships as they want where as we know that there were no more than twelve or thirteen Starships in the fleet! After TOS is another matter but before..forget it!!!
JB

 

[F. King Daniel]

But they're not identical. The bottom bridge superstructure is the same, but the top has a bridge dome while the bottom has a TMP Constitution sensor dome:

http://www.stargazertwo.com/Database/Stargazer_Studio_Models/Stargazer Studio Models.htm

Those are what we think of them as after decades of technical manuals, but to writers, artists and FX people who never read those books, a "sensor dome" could have anything in it.

But the structure is outwardly the same exact design as the bridge of all the other Miranda and Constitution classes. If it wasn't the bridge, then it would totally be unnecessary. They could install some other sensor or equipment there instead, and not have it be crammed into a space that wasn't meant for it.

Just look at the Kelvin universe, where the module is hugely upscaled, the forward sensor is now a bridge window and the sensor dome is now a huge observation dome above a multi-deck plaza reaching to the bottom of the saucer. Look at the Klingon ships and how they are rescaled and repurposed with every appearance.

I have zero doubt it could have been a bridge underneath the Saratoga if they wanted it to be. I am just unsure as to whether that was the intent or if the VFX people messed up.

 

[Dukhat]

Those are what we think of them as after decades of technical manuals, but to writers, artists and FX people who never read those books, a "sensor dome" could have anything in it.

You’re right, which only bolsters the idea that it’s not the bridge. We see the Saratoga shoot a phaser beam from what looks like the sensor dome. There are two structures on either side of the ship that look like guns, but we are told in official materials that they’re actually the sensors. So visual evidence also shows that the dome has now been changed from a sensor a la the Constitution class, into a phaser bank.

Just look at the Kelvin universe, where the module is hugely upscaled, the forward sensor is now a bridge window and the sensor dome is now a huge observation dome above a multi-deck plaza reaching to the bottom of the saucer. Look at the Klingon ships and how they are rescaled and repurposed with every appearance.

I have zero doubt it could have been a bridge underneath the Saratoga if they wanted it to be. I am just unsure as to whether that was the intent or if the VFX people messed up.

But we’re not talking about the Kelvin universe. We’re talking about DS9, which was far more consistent with what came before it in Trek history than the convoluted mess we have now (DSC, cough, cough...)

 

[Timo]

STO is also reusing the Shenzhou bridge set for the Malachowski’s bridge if that means anything other then saving resources

There ought to be some scaling problems there, going by direct Binaries comparisons or window row counts. This regardless of whether the Shenzhou bridge is inside the top structure or above the bottom windows...

I could imagine plenty of uses for bottom windows, though. Including perhaps an auxiliary control facility for planetary landings if need be - but I'd think the need would go away with better sensors, and the Clarke probably isn't as ancient as the Shenzhou.

As for "Emissary" and the Saratoga, I gather the dialogue was shot before anybody even knew what shape the Saratoga would be, let alone where the Borg would hit her. But one thing is for sure: the shots we see don't account for 100% of the action, not even near. Which is par for the course in epic Trek battles. Between the Borg beam hitting and the damage report being read, there might have been not one but five further Borg beams, at the rate the action was being compressed there.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Tuskin38]

There ought to be some scaling problems there,

There are, but what else is new in Star Trek?

 

[Captain Killy]

You know, I hope moving the time line forward that we see a post VOY evolution of the Shenzhou/Walker Class with that style bridge, cuz I just love it.

 

[Dukhat]

As for "Emissary" and the Saratoga, I gather the dialogue was shot before anybody even knew what shape the Saratoga would be, let alone where the Borg would hit her. But one thing is for sure: the shots we see don't account for 100% of the action, not even near. Which is par for the course in epic Trek battles. Between the Borg beam hitting and the damage report being read, there might have been not one but five further Borg beams, at the rate the action was being compressed there.

I watched the scene again. I saw no LCARS display of the Saratoga nor even a dedication plaque that would have given away what model they knew they were going to use for that scene.

Disconnects like this have happened before. In "The Pegasus" we see LCARS displays of four Galaxy-style nacelles, but the actual model was the Oberth class.

 

[mswood]

I would assume the reason we don't see more Bridges on the underside of the hull would be that after a few ships made emergency crash landings on planets, the loss of the senior staff would encourage ship designers to change the placement.