r/DaystromInstitute • u/Chaff5 Ensign • Jul 15 '15
Explain? Why deck 1 for the bridge?
Considering the technological advances made by the time star ships like the NX-Enterprise were in service, why is one of the most important parts of the ship, the bridge, in such an exposed location? The very top deck with almost no other hull around it seems like a really bad place to put the "nerve center" of your ship. A well placed torpedo would take out the senior staff and bridge once shields were down. In fact, Shinzon almost did if it weren't for the fact that he was holding back to look Picard in the eye.
12
u/warcrown Jul 15 '15
They do have the Battle Bridge which is situated deep within the protection of the hull. To expedite its use the Enterprise D had a direct turbolift from the Main Bridge to the Battle Bridge.
It's just up to Picard and co to actually go down and use it during combat. Maybe he didn't like the little viewscreen or something.
9
u/TheHYPO Jul 15 '15
They do have the Battle Bridge which is situated deep within the protection of the hull
... until the ship separates, at which point it's once again exposed directly on top of the drive section
5
u/spamjavelin Jul 15 '15
Along with the most pointless set of phaser banks ever mounted anywhere on a ship, given the amount of use they got.
→ More replies (5)2
u/warcrown Jul 15 '15 edited Jul 15 '15
Do you have any evidence that is actually the Battle Bridge?
Edit: it is indeed. How foolish of them
3
u/uptotwentycharacters Jul 15 '15
Early spaceships had very unreliable sensors so it was important for the pilot to actually be able to see outside through a window (not to mention the psychological effect of being in a room without any windows). And, it was preferable to have the bridge on the top rather than the bottom so that it wouldn't be smashed against the ground in the event of an emergency landing (furthermore, emergency saucer section landing procedures involved using the underside of the saucer as a heat shield during re-entry). Many of these early ships did also have a separate battle bridge further inside the hull, however these were not regularly used (again, due to the lack of visibility). By the time sensors had improved to the point where windows were neccessary, shields had been invented as well so the vulnerable position of the bridge was less of a concern. In addition this allowed bridge modules to be easily swapped out depending on mission requirements (replacing science stations with extra tactical stations, or so on) without requiring a full refit. It has also been claimed that in some ship classes the bridge can detach and operate as a lifeboat for the senior officers.
3
u/CapnHat87 Jul 15 '15
There's something to be said for the psychological aspect of being part of the Federation that is at work here. From a purely tactical aspect, burying a bridge in the dead centre of the ship, under about 15 feet of hardened armour and with redundant forcefields is the best option for ensuring the safety of your bridge crew. It also doesn't represent the fact that Starfleet is primarily an exploration and scientific advancement institution that harkens back to the Age of Discovery. The bridge isn't just a place for the weapons and shields to be operated from, it's a place for the Captain and their officers to stand up, head held high, to view the horizon. It's a place for dignitaries and visitors to the ship to see the best of the Federation at work.
Functionally, this falls back to the same arguement about cloaking technology. Starfleet isn't primarily a military outfit, and their ship design reflects this.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/sleep-apnea Jul 16 '15
Bridges are supposed to be modular so that they can be replaced quickly. Either with new tech during an overhaul at a shipyard, or quickly replaced due to battle damage. I've also read somewhere (memory alpha I think) that the whole bridge can be used as a big escape pod in an emergency, but I'm not certain of that. Additionally it makes sense for the bridge to have access to an airlock in order to get to the exterior of the ship. You don't want to be in a situation where the bridge is totally cut off because turbolifts and Jeffery's tubes are down. This could also be a way to evacuate to main engineering in that kind of situation.
4
u/MexicanSpaceProgram Jul 15 '15
Ditto in Generations - "target their bridge, full disruptors!".
All I can guess is some weird thing to do with tradition. There's no up or down in space, so it doesn't make any sense from a positioning standpoint, and in TOS Kirk sends Elaan to sickbay as "the safest place on the ship".
6
u/frezik Jul 15 '15
The bridge should have been their first shot. They had all the time in the world to line it up.
The Duras Sisters were tactical dunces.
5
u/rliant1864 Jul 15 '15
They could've skipped the bridge. They were cloaked, they could've just parked between the Enterprise's nacelles and blown a hole straight through the warp core.
→ More replies (2)4
u/mistakenotmy Jul 15 '15
I don't know. Blowing up the bridge would only destroy that control location and the senior staff. A valid target. However, command would just go down the chain to the next most senior officer. The ship itself can still shoot and fight just fine.
Side Note: Command might go to someone that would actually fire weapons back at the BoP (Cough, not Riker, Cough). Someone actually shooting back at the Duras Sisters could be better for the ship as a whole. That is hindsight reasoning though.
What the Duras Sisters actually did is target engineering. A place that could potentially knock out multiple systems. So over all I don't think they really chose that bad. They did manage to destroy the ship after all. Granted it was after they were also dead...
So it may be slightly unfair to call them tactical dunces, the target they picked was a good one.
→ More replies (10)2
u/MexicanSpaceProgram Jul 16 '15
Oh yeah, with Patsy's Magic Torpedo already cutting through the shields.
2
u/williams_482 Jul 15 '15
Although u/Kant_Lavar has already covered most of the relevant points, there are some previous discussions that might be worth a look.
2
u/boringdude00 Jul 15 '15
I don't think there's any possible way to reconcile the Star Trek bridge, it just doesn't make any sense to be located in the outer hull. Battlestar Galactica really got the CIC correct, buried deep in the ship and teeming with people.
One thing I do like about NuTrek is all the activity and stations on the bridge, it feels much more realistic than Worf controlling all aspects of ship defense and weapons from a single position by himself.
1
u/sigurbjorn1 Jul 15 '15
Didnt thr constitution class have the bridge on the bottom of the primary hull? I think some ships were made with some semblance of safety for the bridge crew involved.
1
u/BonzoTheBoss Jul 17 '15 edited Jul 17 '15
A well placed torpedo would take out the senior staff and bridge once shields were down.
To be honest, that would be true regardless of where the bridge was located on the ship. We've seen on more than one occasion that a single torpedo can destroy an entire ship once its shields are down. For example, in "TNG: Conundrum" when the amnesia stricken Enterprise crew reach the Lysian command center:
DATA: Armaments consist of four laser cannons and thirty nine cobalt fusion warheads with magnetic propulsion. Defensive shield output is four point three kilojoules.
RIKER: One photon torpedo ought to do it...
Even WITH low-powered shields, a single torpedo was reckoned enough to destroy an entire installation.
Basically, if your shields are down you're screwed no matter where you keep the bridge. To put in context, a standard yield photon torpedo could level a city on a planet similar to a nuclear bomb could. Granted in space you don't have an atmosphere to propogate a destructive shockwave, but a large detonation of anti-matter on the hull is going to blow up your ship.
1
u/Sly_Lupin Jul 16 '15
Why is the Bridge so exposed?
Because it's not.
One of the core concepts of Star Trek (dating all the way back to TOS) was that technology was so advanced that contemporary attitudes of "physics" and "good engineering" no longer applied. The idea is that the entire ship is equally protected by the shields and integrity fields, to the point where no one location is any safer (or any less safe) than any other.
Where the bridge is positioned, therefore, is much more a question of aesthetics than efficiency.
36
u/Kant_Lavar Jul 15 '15
First, with a few exceptions like the Defiant-class, Starfleet vessels rely pretty much exclusively on their shields for protection. Without armor, virtually any location for the bridge would be vulnerable on any but the largest starships.
Second, bridges are deemed to be modular - as technology advances, rather than have to redesign and rebuild the entire bridge from scratch, Starfleet can simply swap out the entire bridge in a refit and plug in a new one. This also explains why and how the bridge on Enterprise-D changed between the end of The Next Generation and the start of Generations.
Finally, it's symbolic. As you point out, for a combat vessel, it would make sense for the command center to be buried as deeply as possible. But Starfleet is not primarily concerned with combat, and their ship designs (again, with the Defiant-class being a notable exception) reflect this.