Bridges

sunnyside · Post by **sunnyside** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:07 am

From Klingon battlecruisers to Romulan Warbirds, to every federation ship and on we see bridges located in, well, awfully easy to hit locations.

Any theories why they do that (instead of having the bridge deeper inside the ship)? (Either in world or "real" reasons).

For in world I can only think of a couple, kinda weak, possibilites.

1. Being on the surface allows them close access to escape pods in the case of an emergency.

2. Often transport rooms are near the surface of the ship, possibly increasing their possible performance in high interferance situations. Since the bridge officers often use the transporters maybe they were positioned near it.

3. Many of the targeting sensors seem to be located in the saucers/forward areas of the ship. Perhapse proximity allows for faster reactions due to lower lag when kiloquads of data are flying all over. Sort of why some people think your brain is in your easy to hit head instead of deep in your torso. Granted thet could still allow the bridge to be deeper in some cases but you have to fit the main computer core in the optimal spot and maybe bridge placement just works out where it does trying to get everything to fit.

4. Maybe if seonsors get knocked out, being able to actually see outside of the ship is considered usefull. This is, I believe, why WWII ships had their bridges located up where they did.

Tiberius · Post by **Tiberius** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 10:42 am

The design point of view of the producers was that they wanted the bridge to be in a location where the audience could easily say, "Oh, I know where that is!"

Andrew Probert, when designing the D for TNG, wanted to place the main bridge at the top of the dorsal, between shuttlebays 2 and 3.

Post by **Teaos** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 11:47 am

Yeah the real reason is the creatir made a list of rules and one was they had to be there to relate to the audience.

But since we need an in universe explanation.

Maybe it is because of tradition. Look at modern navies. All their ships have their bridges up top rather than in the ship. Maybe ship building designs just carried through. Your idea about transporters and sensors is plausable aswell.

Blackstar the Chakat · Mon Sep 24, 2007 12:01 pm

I think it's a tradition thing. The bridge has an ejection system(I'm not sure if that's canon) which gave me an idea about early warp ships having ejector bridges because the crew was worried about the new matter/antimatter reactors. I don't know how much good it would do other then make the crew feel safe. Then later on as ships grew to have larger crews and more reliable reactors it just became a tradition.

sunnyside · Post by **sunnyside** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:12 pm

Tradition might do it for fed ships, but a lot of races do it that I don't think would care so much.

Ejection bridges would be awsome though. I kinda wish they'd left that it. It would be an awsome plot device for enabling character shields. (and bringing back bad guys you thought got vaporized).

Post by **Teaos** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:04 pm

Can't have an ejection bridge. A captain goes down with his ship.

Thorin · Post by **Thorin** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:38 pm

Teaos wrote:Can't have an ejection bridge. A captain goes down with his ship.

That's not true! The rule is the Captain is the last one off the ship. Often, though, there will be others left on the ship and so the Captain won't leave and will go down with it, but that doesn't mean they go down with it even if no one else is on board. What possible purpose would that serve?

Blackstar the Chakat · Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:51 pm

Teaos wrote:Can't have an ejection bridge. A captain goes down with his ship.

A stupid captain maybe. I'd only abandon ship as a last resort, but I wouldn't go down with it unless I had to.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:16 pm

The whole 'captain goes down with his ship' thing is idiotic, and a waste of good commanders.

Personally, I see no reason to have the bridge where it is.
Its easier to hit, thus increasing the chances that the command crew would be killed. (which is a very bad thing)
Its unarmoured. Do I even need to explain this?
If sensors go down, you could just use one of the external cameras, far more effective than the MK1 eyeball.

sunnyside · Post by **sunnyside** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:20 pm

Actually since most of the ship is really held together but the sturctural integrity field and when needed force fields is it possible that the bridge is actually a really hard target.

Didn't the scimitar have to hit it pretty hard just to put a crack in it?

Thorin · Post by **Thorin** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:24 pm

Direct photon torpedo hit to the hull infront of the bridge caused a hole about 10 square metres in size. Considering the strength of torpedos, that hole isn't that big.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:31 pm

Didn't we go over this in another thread?
And didn't I ask how powerfull those torps were? Without this, quantification is impossible.

Thorin · Post by **Thorin** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:40 pm

It's a fair assumption to say they're around a photon torpedo in power. So the explosion would be around 60 megatons. The amount of energy absorbed by the bridge hull would be around 20 megatons.
If anything I have said here is disputable, then I'm sure you will dispute it. But on a rough estimation 20 megatons is around the ball park.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:43 pm

Hmm, good point.
For once, I can't find anything to dispute.
Damn!

Thorin · Post by **Thorin** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:51 pm

Rochey wrote:Hmm, good point.
For once, I can't find anything to dispute.
Damn!

*Gets ready to get a banana in the eye*