"...the ship hit the fan!" Comparing tech & anything else across SF series.

[LucasM]

I'm starting this (actually on 3/16) thanks to an extended discussion in the 'Random Thought's thread, so things can stay random over there.

The reason this is in "General (Off-Topic) Discussions" rather than the "Movie Talk" or "Television aka TV discussion" areas is because this thread started with something that has been both on TV and in film, with further discussions flowing back and forth between the two media types.

Though it started with a discussion of starships of varying types, so that this thread is more useful, it is hereby expanded for discussions of any considerations of how different science fiction (and science fantasy) elements compare.  Anything from ship construction (hence the title), to politics ('oh, goodie: more senate debates on trade treaties!!' ), or alien races, or whatever.


The rest of this is my discussion-triggering post from Random Thoughts:
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Thinking about the old Star Trek (for some reason ), and this came back to me.

Does anyone else think that having the bridge as a bubble on top of the ship is the stupidest fucking design possible for a ship likely to run into hostile forces?

I mean: it's like painting a friggin' target on the place to hit to pretty much completely disable the ship (certainly to eliminate enough of the upper level crew so that no-one else would be able to pull it together enough to win in a fight).

Honestly, when I was a kid - and teen - and young adult - hell for many years (possibly until Star Trek Generations' saucer crash when the front was taken off of the bridge [should that have been spoilered? ]), I thought the bridge was buried deep within the ship for pure common sense reasons of protecting the personnel most essential to the ship.

Since they didn't use windows on the bridge (in the old Treks), there was no reason to be exposed like that.  [Obviously not an option with the new Trek films.]

Am I the only one who thinks this?

[d00hickey]

Thinking about the old Star Trek (for some reason ), and this came back to me.

Does anyone else think that having the bridge as a bubble on top of the ship is the stupidest fucking design possible for a ship likely to run into hostile forces?

I mean: it's like painting a friggin' target on the place to hit to pretty much completely disable the ship (certainly to eliminate enough of the upper level crew so that no-one else would be able to pull it together enough to win in a fight).

Hoestly, when I was a kid - and teen - and young adult - hell for many years (possibly until Star Trek Generations' saucer crash when the front was taken off of the bridge [should that have been spoilered? ]), I thought the bridge was buried deep within the ship for pure common sense reasons of protecting the personnel most essential the ship.

Since they didn't use windows on the bridge (in the old Treks), there was no reason to be exposed like that.  [Obviously not an option with the new Trek films.]

Am I the only one who thinks this?

I think about this, and stuff like this constantly. A good example is the huge towering bridges on the Star Destroyers in Star Wars.

[MartyS (Gromit)]

Thinking about the old Star Trek (for some reason ), and this came back to me.

Does anyone else think that having the bridge as a bubble on top of the ship is the stupidest fucking design possible for a ship likely to run into hostile forces?

The "official" blueprints that came out in the 70s showed an emergency bridge in the center of the saucer section.  I always thought that was the best place for the main bridge.

I don't think in the normal series run they ever did the "fly in" to the bridge like they did in the first pilot (except when showing the pilot in The Menagerie).   That's probably one of the reasons for putting it there, and just plain old wanting to build it somewhat after an ocean vessel...

If you look at the shape of the bridge dome in The Cage, it's even higher and more of a target, for the second pilot they trimmed it down.  That big 11 foot model went through a number of alterations as the show started up.  Gee, why would I know all that now?.........

[Tripe]

Federation ships never looked well designed, Klingon ones however always seemed to have more believable design, they looked like something that a military would end up with.

[Sideswipe]

Yes, with their long skinny necks, the Klingons are truly the superior designers!  The ship still looks awesome though.

[Tripe]

Yeah, they, or rather whoever is responsible for the designs in the production team,  really are the superior designers. That syperiority continues to the interior sets.

Mind you, I wouldn't and didn't use the term superior, I said more believable.

[RVR II]

The original Battlestar Galactica was very well designed IMO 

[Sideswipe]

Yeah, they, or rather whoever is responsible for the designs in the production team,  really are the superior designers. That syperiority continues to the interior sets.

Mind you, I wouldn't and didn't use the term superior, I said more believable.

You are you talking more believable military ships, right?  Because Starfleet ships are not primarily military vessels, except Defiant, which I think is a really good representation of a Starfleet warship.

[RVR II]

Yeah, they, or rather whoever is responsible for the designs in the production team,  really are the superior designers. That syperiority continues to the interior sets.

Mind you, I wouldn't and didn't use the term superior, I said more believable.

You are you talking more believable military ships, right?  Because Starfleet ships are not primarily military vessels, except Defiant, which I think is a really good representation of a Starfleet warship.

The Defiant is just a little Frisbee!

[Sideswipe]

With big ass phaser cannons and quantum torpedoes, bitch!

[Tripe]

Yeah, they, or rather whoever is responsible for the designs in the production team,  really are the superior designers. That syperiority continues to the interior sets.

Mind you, I wouldn't and didn't use the term superior, I said more believable.

You are you talking more believable military ships, right? 

Nope.

[Sideswipe]

So what do you find more realistic about Klingon ships?

[Tripe]

The fact they're reminiscent of subs for one thing.

Long neck not withstanding, their design just looks more serviceable, if one is going to go with a design that assumes conditions similar to atmospheric operating vessals, which they all seem to.

With the classic federation design echoes, only Voyager looks truly like it might be designed by a military organization. Defiant isn't bad though, it also doesn't look like most federation ships.

[MartyS (Gromit)]

Come on, the best military ship in Star Trek was the original Romulan one.  Basically a space tank.

[Tripe]

Oh yeah, the Klingon aren't the only ones to have more believable ships.

Truly thogh there is better design in Babylon 5 than any incarnation of Trek.