SDN Starship Design Commentaries

[Alyrium Denryle]

If this is true... This changes the nature of the problem. Almost by definition, a shipwide computer network is not a "single point of failure." Indeed, it actively makes it easier to ensure that every relevant piece of software and every important computerized operation can be backed up, performed redundantly in multiple locations, and that any single damaged computer can be cut out of the network.

This would fit with their overall design philosophy pretty well. We see it for every other ship system. If a console explodes, another one can take over the function. If they lose power to a given system, they can always reroute using another multiple-redundant circuit and restore functionality.

So even if they do have a central core, it would not shock me if each system could also be controlled locally.

[Borgholio]

According to the Technical Manual (I know, I know) the Galaxy Class has three computer cores. A primary and two backups. Also, IIRC, when the Borg cut a slice out of the hull in Q-Who, they were actually cutting out one of the computer cores to analyze.

[Simon_Jester]

It may well be that these computer cores aren't even the sum total of all computer systems on the ship, too, and that all three cores can be used simultaneously along with any other secondary non-core computers, when necessary.

None of this negates the point that it is good computer security practice to have truly critical systems on isolated computers not networked to the rest of the ship when possible. However, this will not always be practical.

For instance, you probably can't isolate the computer controlling the warp core from the computer controlling the warp field generators. Nor can you isolate the warp field computers from the navigational computers, or the sensors that detect objects and anomalies coming up that would require you to adjust the warp field geometry to keep moving safely and smoothly. And those sensors may in turn need to be networked with the tactical computers because the Enterprise is designed to be capable of engaging targets that are moving at warp, while moving at high warp themselves. And so on.

It may well be that because most of the time Starfleet ships don't get hacked from outside, the designers have decided that the advantages of greater networking* offset the largely hypothetical risks of the ship being hacked by an unknown agency. That may be a bad decision, but it's not necessarily a stupid decision in the sense of "let's do a pointless thing that could get us all killed, for no benefit to ourselves, because we're ignorant of basic security and safety principles!"

*(Such as being able to devote literally all available computer power to the highest priority task the ship is working on at any one time)

[Tribble]

It may well be that these computer cores aren't even the sum total of all computer systems on the ship, too, and that all three cores can be used simultaneously along with any other secondary non-core computers, when necessary.

None of this negates the point that it is good computer security practice to have truly critical systems on isolated computers not networked to the rest of the ship when possible. However, this will not always be practical.

For instance, you probably can't isolate the computer controlling the warp core from the computer controlling the warp field generators. Nor can you isolate the warp field computers from the navigational computers, or the sensors that detect objects and anomalies coming up that would require you to adjust the warp field geometry to keep moving safely and smoothly. And those sensors may in turn need to be networked with the tactical computers because the Enterprise is designed to be capable of engaging targets that are moving at warp, while moving at high warp themselves. And so on.

It may well be that because most of the time Starfleet ships don't get hacked from outside, the designers have decided that the advantages of greater networking* offset the largely hypothetical risks of the ship being hacked by an unknown agency. That may be a bad decision, but it's not necessarily a stupid decision in the sense of "let's do a pointless thing that could get us all killed, for no benefit to ourselves, because we're ignorant of basic security and safety principles!"

*(Such as being able to devote literally all available computer power to the highest priority task the ship is working on at any one time)

That fails to explain why the failsafes are connected to the main network. The whole point of a failsafe is that it activates if everything else breaks. If it is dependant on the main systems in order to function properly, it kind of defeats the point of having it. To use an example I used before, why should a manual override be dependant on computer control in order to function properly (as seen in STFC and Voy "Learning Curve")? That makes the feature rather useless, doesn't it? Why should the safety system that ejects the core and/or antimatter storage pods be tied into the rest of the ship's network when all it is doing is monitoring for a breech? Why should Data be capable of bypassing seven separate safety systems via computer and depressurizing the bridge? Shouldn't at least one of them have been mechanically based and/or entirely independent of ship functions? I can understand why networking important systems may make sense (except when facing opponents who are known to hack computers like the Borg), but hooking up the failsafes to everything else is pretty damn stupid.

[NecronLord]

Let's take the bridge example: Fire suppression.

That's why it should be possible to use the computer to decompress the bridge.

Instead of begging the question, genuinely ask yourself 'why would an intelligent person design it with that function.'

[SpottedKitty]

Let's take the bridge example: Fire suppression.

That's why it should be possible to use the computer to decompress the bridge.

Instead of begging the question, genuinely ask yourself 'why would an intelligent person design it with that function.'

Not just the bridge; I have the impression it could be commanded for any compartment or sealable space (including corridors, Jeffries tubes, etc.) in the whole ship.

[Simon_Jester]

Also, when you see an enemy do something that "shouldn't be possible," one should ask:

Was this a reasonably foreseeable mode of attack?

For example, the ship getting shot at with disruptor beams is foreseeable. A solar flare is foreseeable. Angry Klingons trying to bust out of the brig by headbutting a force field is foreseeable. An antimatter reactor suffering a containment leak is foreseeable. One of the computer cores being shut down for maintenance and requiring backups to run the ship's systems is foreseeable.

All these are problems that, under normal circumstances, the ship should have one or more failsafes in play to deal with.

Q snapping his fingers and turning the main reactor into a JELL-O mold is not foreseeable. Psychic vampire-spirits trying to get through the ship's shields are not foreseeable. An energy-draining weapon that works on unknown physical principles developed by ancient (or modern) aliens is not foreseeable. The ship just happening to have a robot crewman with complete knowledge of the most sensitive details of the ship's operations (because he's the operations officer) and the ability to perfectly mimic the captain's voice (to fake voice recognition software), who suddenly goes rogue without warning is not foreseeable, at least not by the ship's designers.

All these are problems that the available technology might or might not be able to cope with. But the people who designed the ship probably were not specifically asked to design the ship to keep functioning in the face of such unusual problems. It is unsurprising that such unforeseen problems would be able to bypass whatever safety measures are in place, and cause a serious problem.

A lot of the things that happen to the Enterprise are not, in fact, reasonably foreseeable problems. They involve totally unknown or foreign threats, or threats that no one could accurately measure or estimate until they happened. While ideally, there would be so many failsafes and so much margin of error in the design of a ship that even such bizarre and unknown problems cannot cause serious harm... that is not a realistic expectation for a real ship built by real engineers who have to make compromises in order to get a ship that is reasonably safe but still capable of high performance.

[Tribble]

Let's take the bridge example: Fire suppression.

That's why it should be possible to use the computer to decompress the bridge.

Instead of begging the question, genuinely ask yourself 'why would an intelligent person design it with that function.'

There is a difference between "should there be a fail safe that can decompress the bridge in the event of a fire?" and "let's run all 7 "separate" safety systems in the same network together, as well as everything else on the ship ". You'd think at least one of them might be seperate? There is also a difference between "should there be a warp core ejection system?" And "let's network that system to literally everything else on the ship". Why should the warp core ejection system be networked with things like the holodeck, turbolifts, food replicators etc.?

Also, when you see an enemy do something that "shouldn't be possible," one should ask:

Was this a reasonably foreseeable mode of attack?

For example, the ship getting shot at with disruptor beams is foreseeable. A solar flare is foreseeable. Angry Klingons trying to bust out of the brig by headbutting a force field is foreseeable. An antimatter reactor suffering a containment leak is foreseeable. One of the computer cores being shut down for maintenance and requiring backups to run the ship's systems is foreseeable.

All these are problems that, under normal circumstances, the ship should have one or more failsafes in play to deal with.

Q snapping his fingers and turning the main reactor into a JELL-O mold is not foreseeable. Psychic vampire-spirits trying to get through the ship's shields are not foreseeable. An energy-draining weapon that works on unknown physical principles developed by ancient (or modern) aliens is not foreseeable. The ship just happening to have a robot crewman with complete knowledge of the most sensitive details of the ship's operations (because he's the operations officer) and the ability to perfectly mimic the captain's voice (to fake voice recognition software), who suddenly goes rogue without warning is not foreseeable, at least not by the ship's designers.

All these are problems that the available technology might or might not be able to cope with. But the people who designed the ship probably were not specifically asked to design the ship to keep functioning in the face of such unusual problems. It is unsurprising that such unforeseen problems would be able to bypass whatever safety measures are in place, and cause a serious problem.

A lot of the things that happen to the Enterprise are not, in fact, reasonably foreseeable problems. They involve totally unknown or foreign threats, or threats that no one could accurately measure or estimate until they happened. While ideally, there would be so many failsafes and so much margin of error in the design of a ship that even such bizarre and unknown problems cannot cause serious harm... that is not a realistic expectation for a real ship built by real engineers who have to make compromises in order to get a ship that is reasonably safe but still capable of high performance.

Yes, when literally everything on the ship is networked together it's reasonably foreseeable that when something goes wrong with the one part of the network it could potentially bring the whole network down with it. I'm not calling for additional fail safes as much as ensuring those fail safes are seperate from the main network. If they are capable of running independently anyways, that shouldn't be a problem.

Note that I am referring to emergency fail safes, not regular ship functions. There' are certainly good reasons for the tactical systems to be networked together, for example.

[Alyrium Denryle]

There is a difference between "should there be a fail safe that can decompress the bridge in the event of a fire?" and "let's run all 7 "separate" safety systems in the same network together, as well as everything else on the ship ". You'd think at least one of them might be seperate? There is also a difference between "should there be a warp core ejection system?" And "let's network that system to literally everything else on the ship". Why should the warp core ejection system be networked with things like the holodeck, turbolifts, food replicators etc.?

So someone elsewhere in the ship can do it if there is a catastrophic coolant leak and everyone in main engineering has experienced the joys of having all their tender organic flesh dissolved.

[Elheru Aran]

A few quick observations watching 'Emergence' (the episode where the ship becomes self-aware):

Random 'nodes' start popping up all over the ship. They are speculatively connected to the ship becoming intelligent as several vital functions are being linked by these nodes-- warp drive and sensors to start with, as they independently save the ship from a buildup of 'theta particles' or whatever.

Later on, as more of the ship's computer systems are being taken over, the 'navigational relay' goes blooey on La Forge. While he's checking a computer in Engineering, but okay. Holodeck weirdness is a major feature of this episode, by the way (ye gods what a ridiculously dangerous device the holodeck apparently is).

Speaking of that skylight Prometheus_Unbound was talking about last week... there's a scene where the ship is at warp 9, Picard, Riker and La Forge are talking on the bridge and the skylight is clearly visible... with no moving stars whatsoever. #effectsfail #random

Eventually, the... whatever the fuck is going on, cobbles together replicator and transporter functions to materialize a... thingummy in Cargo Bay Five (why is it always Cargo Bay Five?), the ship flies itself to a white dwarf to pull a bunch of 'vertion' particles out of it, but there's not enough, they do some technobabble with a modified photon torpedo and a nebula, and the thingummy in Cargo Bay Five comes to life and phases through the ship to fly off into the sunset.

A few things come immediately to mind:

--Why the hell are there no provisions for independent functions of lower value systems? Replicators, for example, shouldn't NEED to be controlled by the central computer system. All they need is a menu, some independent crafting that can follow verbal cues, the 'recipes' for whatever they make, and so forth.

I can accept vital functions such as sensors, navigation, and warp engines being controlled by the main computer... but replicators, and my gods the holodeck? No.

Now there should be the potential for access to vital functions from places besides the bridge and engineering, but this should require either extraordinary measures (accessing Jeffries tubes, for example) or extraordinary permissions. Just being able to casually control the computer, and by extension the whole ship, from *anywhere* aboard? Not so much. The shows are back and forth on this to some extent; the classroom computer in Rascals required permission from the bridge to be able to access vital functions. Without those permissions, it was a perfectly acceptable, nicely isolated computer with childrens' learning programs (that seemed remarkably shittier than I remember 90s learning programs being...) and nothing else.

--Why is there no manual shutoff for the warp engines or the nacelles? This one I can rationalize somewhat; it's possible (nay, probable) that it's one of those systems where shutting it off is a fairly drastic measure, and this is borne somewhat out by dialogue ("if I do an emergency shutdown on the warp engine it'll take a week to get it back up"-- or words to that effect, from La Forge). Nevertheless, it seems like a weakness. Should someone take over the ship and start piloting it somewhere else, there's no way to simply turn off the engines. You could possibly turn it off via the computer with the proper permissions, but what if all computers apart from bridge access are turned off (another argument against extensive networking)?

Granted, this could leave the ship stranded in space with a hostile agent aboard. Nevertheless that's better than being more or less utterly helpless to take extraordinary measures to restore control of the ship, throwing the proverbial monkey-wrench (or glowing screwdriver cell phone thingy, knowing Trek) into the engines, so to speak.

--The holodeck. This is one system that, time after time, proves that it NEEDS to be better isolated from the rest of the ship, and it needs better safeties. It has far too much potential for disaster. This is probably worst on TNG, they may have improved on it in the rest of Trek but the only thing I can speak for having seen is 'Our Man Bashir' where you have crew stuck, for better or worse, on the holodeck until they play through the simulation. In too many episodes, either people are outright injured-- something which isn't supposed to happen IIRC-- or the program takes over the damn ship.

--Last thing but perhaps most important... what in the world is wrong with them, letting the ship become intelligent and/or creating a new lifeform from its own components?

On paper, it's all sweet and Trekky noblebright. "Oh, the ship's becoming alive? When is the baby shower?!" But let's be frank here: There is no place for any entity controlling a warship, even an exploration ship, without the explicit permission of command. Even less if the ship is becoming self aware. The appropriate procedure would have been to report immediately to the nearest shipyard; if not that, then shut down the warp engines, call for help, and go through the ship, ripping out the nodes one by one. Nip it in the EPS conduit, so to speak.

Now if there was some way to watch this develop without risking the crew (and all those cute kids in all the damn classrooms) or the ship's mission? Knock themselves out. But when you have a ship becoming self-aware, that's unacceptable (not to mention a major ethical quandary). I mean, there's the proverbial "what if it doesn't do what you tell it to do" question.

[NecronLord]

There is a difference between "should there be a fail safe that can decompress the bridge in the event of a fire?" and "let's run all 7 "separate" safety systems in the same network together, as well as everything else on the ship ". You'd think at least one of them might be seperate? There is also a difference between "should there be a warp core ejection system?" And "let's network that system to literally everything else on the ship". Why should the warp core ejection system be networked with things like the holodeck, turbolifts, food replicators etc.?

So someone elsewhere in the ship can do it if there is a catastrophic coolant leak and everyone in main engineering has experienced the joys of having all their tender organic flesh dissolved.

Also. Fucking mass. Are we supposed to imagine that the holodeck computers and the navigation computers being seperate won't come with a mass penalty? The computers on the Enterprise D are multi-deck mainframe leviathans.

[Elheru Aran]

There is a difference between "should there be a fail safe that can decompress the bridge in the event of a fire?" and "let's run all 7 "separate" safety systems in the same network together, as well as everything else on the ship ". You'd think at least one of them might be seperate? There is also a difference between "should there be a warp core ejection system?" And "let's network that system to literally everything else on the ship". Why should the warp core ejection system be networked with things like the holodeck, turbolifts, food replicators etc.?

So someone elsewhere in the ship can do it if there is a catastrophic coolant leak and everyone in main engineering has experienced the joys of having all their tender organic flesh dissolved.

Also. Fucking mass. Are we supposed to imagine that the holodeck computers and the navigation computers being seperate won't come with a mass penalty? The computers on the Enterprise D are multi-deck mainframe leviathans.

The main computers running the entire ship, yes. Running all the damn functions on the ship. Is there any evidence to suggest that lower, less important functions require such large computers to work? Is there a reason why they cannot have individual processors (or whatever) of their own?

[NecronLord]

Of course they can have some local computing capacity. And likely do.

However, running what's presumably a high-demand program like the holodeck and other things that you only periodically need like active sensors seems unlikely. I am getting my impression from the TM of course; it could be entirely superfluous, but quite a lot of systems such as transporters (putting all those people back together again!) need main computer (the existence of shuttle transporters undermines that, but then, they're maybe orders of magnitudes less mass than the cargo-transporters) runtime in the TM as I recall. I recall the main screen on the bridge needs main computer runtime to do its supposedly awesomesource holography stuff, too.

A lot of military systems also require the main computer - shields run from it because it's constantly predictively monitoring local environment for threats and activates the shields and defensive systems if it anticipates a serious threat, for instance. (I think this even made it into a couple of episodes).

[Elheru Aran]

Of course they can have some local computing capacity. And likely do.

However, running what's presumably a high-demand program like the holodeck and other things that you only periodically need like active sensors seems unlikely. I am getting my impression from the TM of course; it could be entirely superfluous, but quite a lot of systems such as transporters (putting all those people back together again!) need main computer (the existence of shuttle transporters undermines that, but then, they're maybe orders of magnitudes less mass than the cargo-transporters) runtime in the TM as I recall.

How does that square with, for example, replicators (which are an application of transporter technology, apparently)? One could presumably use a similar 'resolution' for cargo transporters, which would require less processing power than that used to materialize humans, unless you refer to pure mass rather than complexity.

I recall the main screen on the bridge needs main computer runtime to do its supposedly awesomesource holography stuff, too.

A lot of military systems also require the main computer - shields run from it because it's constantly predictively monitoring local environment for threats and activates the shields and defensive systems if it anticipates a serious threat, for instance. (I think this even made it into a couple of episodes).

That's fine.

Let me be perfectly clear-- I don't have a huge issue with a massive main computer. I can see there being a reason for it, several reasons as you point out, though obviously with the advancement of modern computer technology it seems somewhat dated.

My issue is primarily with how centralized everything seems to be, and how vulnerable that makes it to either external or internal penetration. There's some wiggle room for unforeseen threats-- certainly nobody seemed to expect holodeck programs to get intelligent enough to hack the main computer (though ye gods why the hell should holodeck programs be able to do that)-- but there has to be a practical line drawn somewhere.

[Tribble]

That's fine.

Let me be perfectly clear-- I don't have a huge issue with a massive main computer. I can see there being a reason for it, several reasons as you point out, though obviously with the advancement of modern computer technology it seems somewhat dated.

My issue is primarily with how centralized everything seems to be, and how vulnerable that makes it to either external or internal penetration. There's some wiggle room for unforeseen threats-- certainly nobody seemed to expect holodeck programs to get intelligent enough to hack the main computer (though ye gods why the hell should holodeck programs be able to do that)-- but there has to be a practical line drawn somewhere.

That's my main issue as well. I'm fine with their being a main computer system, and fine with critical systems being networked together to function more efficiently (provided that there are some fail safes that are separate in case something goes wrong), but does everything need to be networked together?

The holodeck is by far the worst offender here, though IMO the replicators are a close second. At the end of the day, their primary functions are to provide entertainment and dispense food, respectively. Why they are connected with things like the tactical systems or warp drive is beyond me. Now I'm not a Navy Engineer, but I highly doubt that any game consoles or microwaves on board the USS Nimitz are also hooked up to things lke the fire control systems or the nuclear reactors. I'll bet that any engineer that seriously suggested such a thing would likely be removed from the design team on the spot. Can you imagine the USS Nimitx blowing up one day because someone pushed the wrong button on his Xbox, and it corrupted a file which went through the whole ship causing having until it reached the nuclear reactors and caused them to explode? I don't think so.

Also if we are going the the TNG TM IIRC a full 35% of the E-D was unoccupied at the time of launch so there would have been plenty of space to install extra equipment / computers to ensure redundancy and keep non-critical ship systems off the main network.

[Batman]

Ah, the holodeck. Worst offender in computer security (or lack thereof) in all of TNG.
For starts, the safety protocols. Why is it possible to turn them all the way off at all? Since holodecks are allegedly used for crew training them being able to mildly hurt people makes some sense (you want at least some sense of danger in your training simulations), but you can apparently break bones in recreational programs, and it's possible for holobullets to kill.
Also, why the hell does a holocharacter (no matter how sentient) have access to vital ship controls? If a video game character managed to take over a modern day ship (doesn't even have to be a warship) I think there'd be some harsh words said about computer security.

[Sea Skimmer]

The British Type 45 destroyer is running Windows 2000, and I believe some USN engine controls are Windows NT, though they went through several versions of Windblows before going to Linux computers on DDG-1000 (largely because the computer system was by then so huge as to rival an OS in complexity anyway). But this is what you get when you demand years of test and evaluation to prove that a single software build is utterly bug free, it will take years to change too.

Don't be so proud of these technological terrors....or well, do be proud but remember to air gap the crap out of them. People screw that up constantly now, they have rather less excuse 400 years from now. Though it also seems to be a reality in Trek that external 'fields' as i shall call them can realistically affect the ships computers, which means no advanced computer system could ever be completely trusted. You would want certain things still controlled electromechanically; but that gets complex and expensive quickly and can create new accident conditions. That's why the latest nuclear plants all tried to go back to simpler designs, the shear complexity of the safety systems becomes its own vulnerability.

To a certain point real life computers can be externally messed with too I will note, but not past a range of feet. The problem with the Federation is so many bad or questionable design choices interlock in such a horrible way... you can't expect perfect safety in a warship but the ships are more like flying experiments in a fairly literal way.

[Prometheus Unbound]

o/

So:

On Stardate Tue Jul 19, 2016 9:49 pm, Elheru Aran said:

I suspect you could fill a book with all the design flaws found in Trek ships... hell, you should write one. "Spaceship Building and Design-- What Star Trek Taught Us NOT to Do"

From there, a page on and .... 100+ posts here

I'm going to do a "Fully illustrated rant on holodecks, and why they are specifically designed to murder Starfleet officers, or I'm a monkey's uncle.".


I note it's about the only topic not touched on by others, so far. I intend to make it humourous. I'll try. Anything you say below about holodecks that I incorporate I probably already thought about it, trust me. Completely trust me there.


Give me 72 hours and you'll get a reason to put a bullet through Lewis Zimmerman's eyes.

[Crazedwraith]

So here's a good one. Why do they have exposed bridges right at the top of the ship where everyone knows to shoot them?

Bloody Star Destroyers. Terrible design!

[Prometheus Unbound]

So here's a good one. Why do they have exposed bridges right at the top of the ship where everyone knows to shoot them?

Bloody Star Destroyers. Terrible design!

Out of universe for both, terrible designs. For Trek, it was so they could "see the galaxy" and have a "window" out there, so to speak. For Star Wars it was because that's what carriers had. In reality, it'd be on the inside, near the middle in both cases. Artistic licence.

If you want it done in a "st vs sw" way, which I think is against the spirit of the thread - not that im saying you are

[Borgholio]

BSG got it right, where the battlestars are armored like battleships, with the control center deep inside the part of the hull with the heaviest armor.

[Tribble]

IIRC according to the TM manual the bridges on starships are "plug in" models, and are on top of the ship so they can be easily swapped out during an upgrade. Not sure that's such a good idea given the bridge is exposed. Keep in mind in the case of the Galaxy class these are the same designers who assumed there would be enough time in a crisis for the bridge crew to transfer to the battle bridge, have all the civilians transfer to the saucer section and seperate it before fighting. While also having so much power generation in the saucer section that the drive section is apparently considerably less capable in combat.

[Elheru Aran]

Even modern carriers do have a sort of command and control room within the body of the carrier; the bridge at the top is strictly for navigational and flight control purposes only. The command and control room is where the actual direction of war efforts goes.

And Prometheus, I did mention holodecks earlier

[Crazedwraith]

So here's a good one. Why do they have exposed bridges right at the top of the ship where everyone knows to shoot them?

Bloody Star Destroyers. Terrible design!

Out of universe for both, terrible designs. For Trek, it was so they could "see the galaxy" and have a "window" out there, so to speak. For Star Wars it was because that's what carriers had. In reality, it'd be on the inside, near the middle in both cases. Artistic licence.

If you want it done in a "st vs sw" way, which I think is against the spirit of the thread - not that im saying you are

Did I mention Star Trek? Okay, I was hoping to address other series issues as well as the same old, same old, litany of Star Trek's faults.

I think in most cases, it's probably because the starships take a lot of inspiration for real ships and 'space is an ocean'. So it just feels right to stick it there on the top.

Though it seems a lot more of an issue in-universe in SW than Star Trek. We actually see people intentionally attack the bridge. Some in te EU. But in the films as well. If we count the disputed asteroid incident and the Falcon's suicide run on Needa's ship in TESB. Whereas target the bridge almost never seems to happen in ST even when attacking specific subsystems is a thing.

Shinzon in Nemesis is the only incident I recall and IIRC that was done was Shinzon had basically beaten the Enterprise and was showing off. I can't think of another reason why that shot should have punctured the hull without harming anyone in the compartment. Rather than blowing it clean off.

BSG got it right, where the battlestars are armored like battleships, with the control center deep inside the part of the hull with the heaviest armor.

Indeed. BSG seemed to be more pattern off actual modern warships. With CiC just directing the other departments (flight deck, gunnery, etx) rather than controlling things directly with the computers. The only think I wonder about that design was the purpose of making the flight decks pop in and out which they seem to have abandoned on later battlestars.

--

Another classic question: Why does the Sulaco have no crew?

[NecronLord]

Shinzon in Nemesis is the only incident I recall and IIRC that was done was Shinzon had basically beaten the Enterprise and was showing off. I can't think of another reason why that shot should have punctured the hull without harming anyone in the compartment. Rather than blowing it clean off.

It's also conceivable that Shinzon knew exactly what he was doing, and planned to beam Picard on board the Scimitar if he was vented out of the Enterprise he needs something from Picard's blood, a bit of trauma and suffocation won't really do too much damage.


Why should the Sulaco have a crew? More seriously it had no crew because the Company wanted the weakest possible expedition so they could get the organism back.