Mikey wrote:The answer to both these questions is "yes," if we assume that the problems were predictable through Starfleet's R&D SOP. That's a considerable "if," judging by the fact that we don't know anything about that process. You are correct in saying that there is a pretty glaring flaw somewhere; but we just don't have enough info to indicate whether that flaw is in the specific design of the GCS, or in the design SOP of Starfleet in general at the time of the GCS' build.
First point before we go further is you idea on SOP. SOP doesn't change a flawed system. Saying that someone just has a bad SOP doesn't mean they can't predict issues that will come along, just that they chose not to. Sure, SOP could be that I don't need anything that fires bullets, but if its a modern day soldier going to war... you can't say that "Well thats not predictable because their SOP might be flawed". Just doesn't work. As to if its every SF ship, I would like to see any other SF ship class that explodes from the same problems. As far as I have seen, its always been the GCS and never any of the other classes. The leaves it firmly in the "class" range and not the whole of SF.
With that settled, predictable problems in the GCS. Is it predictable that a M/AM reactor may need a manual override? Is it predictable that a starship may need a firewall for its computer? Is it predictable that a ship should have more then passive environmental sensors? Is it predictable that said starship's environmental safety shouldn't rely on force fields only?
Now, these are questions without bringing up the "E-D explodes yet again because someone bumped it" or "random galactic event episode 6848". They are questions that should be considered with every ship.