StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The Romulan Republic wrote:

- No more viewscreen; bridges now have a window with a HUD

God damn it. So they go out of their way to confirm that the bridge is on the outside of the ship with a big window. That's some great design work their, Starfleet.

Well, a window will let you see outside if there's a power loss, while a big monitor won't. What a starship really needs is a Combat Information Center buried in the hull.

I recall reading the reason Starfleet vessels have such an exposed bridge was because Gene Roddenberry was a USAAF serviceman during WWII, and he thought of the starship as a really big B-17 Flying Fortress. So Navy guys: who mans a real warship's bridge in combat? Do you evacuate the entire bridge and steer the ship from a control room in a less vulnerable location?

The old Dreadnought blueprints had the bridge at the centre of the hull, so someone's had the same idea. I'm not sure about the B-17 explanation; it's plausible, but so is the Age of Sail reference. In-universe, people do realise that the bridge isn't the most secure place on the bridge - Kirk explicitly says Sickbay, at the heart of the saucer, is the safest place on the ship - so it's a bit of a mystery why Starfleet sticks with the design. My guess is that on a shielded ship the bridge is as safe as the interior, and on an unshielded ship it doesn't matter as you're screwed anyway, so they just stick with tradition.

if the bridge is gone, there's always the secondary bridge deep inside the ship.

And then there's the old fanon chestnut that the bridge sits just below the densest part of the shields, but that seems fishy.

I think the TNG TM gives the excuse that the bridge is where it is for the ease of entirely removing it and replacing it with an upgraded module.
I find that a flimsy reason at best.

Darth Onasi wrote:I think the TNG TM gives the excuse that the bridge is where it is for the ease of entirely removing it and replacing it with an upgraded module.
I find that a flimsy reason at best.

Yeah, it is, especially since most designs from TNG onward have very integrated bridges without a uniform layout. You can easily see how Miranda or Excelsior bridges can be swapped, but removing a Galaxy-class bridge would require either an complete rebuild of Deck 1, or replacing the deck in its entirety.

I like it so far but unless I'm mistaken, I thought full impulse was .75c and not .25c.

Enigma wrote:I like it so far but unless I'm mistaken, I thought full impulse was .75c and not .25c.

It's never been explicitly stated as being anything other than "fast but not light speed". And considering that this is an older design in a new continuity...

Though I've been following these picture threads for some time, I've been largely silent on the news coming out regarding the upcoming movie, mostly to due mixed feelings about it.

However, forgetting everything else for a moment, I want to say that I really like the way the Kelvin looks in those renders. I even like the design - the Kelvin looks like a fast motherfucker, a ship that can come blazing into a system, shoot the living shit out of whatever's there, and then zip out again before anyone can return fire.

For all the new Enterprise's stately looks (I admit have mixed feelings about that design) the Kelvin just looks more badass - as if someone took the she-bear of the Constitution-class and trimmed all the fat off of it, leaving in its place a lean, hungry wolf.

One quibble/question that I do have is, why the registry number of NCC-0514? Wouldn't it be simpler, and more appropriate to depicting an early-days Starfleet, to have it as NCC-514 instead? Or is that not the way registries work in the Federation? This is something I've never really followed.

(By the way, does anyone know where the name Kelvin comes from? Is it named after Lord Kelvin himself?)

EDIT: It occurs to me that I like the Kelvin design for much the same reason that I like the old Miranda-class: a simple, straightforward, business-like ship design with all the bells and whistles torn away to leave function and efficiency, but certainly a design with fangs.

One quibble/question that I do have is, why the registry number of NCC-0514? Wouldn't it be simpler, and more appropriate to depicting an early-days Starfleet, to have it as NCC-514 instead? Or is that not the way registries work in the Federation? This is something I've never really followed.

No, the old movies didn't use the a leading zero. The NX class from Enterprise did, but that's a special case - NX-01 wasn't a registry as much as a serial number.

I don't think there's any particular reasoning behind the zero save for having four-digit registries for all on-screen ships.

(By the way, does anyone know where the name Kelvin comes from? Is it named after Lord Kelvin himself?)

In all likelihood, yes.

Bounty wrote:I don't think there's any particular reasoning behind the zero save for having four-digit registries for all on-screen ships.

Hmm. That occured to me as well, but seems kind of silly. Ah well. It's a small thing.

Darth Onasi wrote:I think the TNG TM gives the excuse that the bridge is where it is for the ease of entirely removing it and replacing it with an upgraded module.
I find that a flimsy reason at best.

Andrew Probert's initial design for the Ent-D did actually have the bridge buried within the saucer, but Roddenberry explcitly demanded that it be put back on the top of the saucer. The guys who wrote the TNG TM were not Roddenberry, so they were simply coming up with an after-the-fact rationalization for why the ship was built that way.

One quibble/question that I do have is, why the registry number of NCC-0514? Wouldn't it be simpler, and more appropriate to depicting an early-days Starfleet, to have it as NCC-514 instead? Or is that not the way registries work in the Federation? This is something I've never really followed.

I think it's a reference to the old Franz Joseph blueprints, which had some registries like that. ST III, on the other hand, introduced the USS Grissom, NCC 638.

Quick question, any idea that the Enterprise will also incorporate the phaser turrets?

If the impulse engines have a maximum speed of .25 C, that's 75,000 kilometers per second. Even if they employed half impulse speed in a combat situation, we're talking about ridiculous amounts of speed.

I wonder if this will be demostrated or just another 'stated capability but never seen or used' idea.

Personally I kind of wonder what "full impulse .25 c" is supposed to mean in a spacecraft. Does it refer to delta V? Delta V divided two ways (accel/decell)? Delta V divided four ways (accel/decell/round trip)? Some kind of "maximum speed" imposed by something other than fuel considerations?

I suspect the last one is probably closest to what the authors intended, but I don't know if there's any way to tell.

With respect to there definitely being a viewport on the bridge as a potentially poor design choice, well, remember, this is a universe that (in earlier incarnations, at least) relied on force fields for their brigs' holding cells.

Knowing now that this is indeed a viewport, I am even more concerned about these bright bridges with numerous reflections bouncing off the transparency. If a situation gets to be Pretty Bad, I hope they will switch over to more subduded lighting so they can actually see out of this viewport into the darkness of space because I wouldn't enjoy picking out details outside this glorified picture window with all the extraneous light and reflections from the bridge potentially hindering my view.

Now that I can see the whole design, hell fucking yes. The Kelvin looks like a hardcore little ship,. the sort of thing that tears shit up. It's side profile reminds me of Stargazer (the ship Picard invented the Picard Maneuver in) but from the front it's minimalist profile makes it clear that it doesn't screw around. The design does everything right with the tools the universe provides... hell, it makes having a saucer section look rational.

As for the window, it's space opera. Rule of drama > common sense.

Junghalli wrote:Personally I kind of wonder what "full impulse .25 c" is supposed to mean in a spacecraft. Does it refer to delta V? Delta V divided two ways (accel/decell)? Delta V divided four ways (accel/decell/round trip)? Some kind of "maximum speed" imposed by something other than fuel considerations?

I suspect the last one is probably closest to what the authors intended, but I don't know if there's any way to tell.

One possibility is that it's a term for maximum velocity (deltaD/deltaT), as they can't maintain either a structural integrity field or the anti-relativity "bubble" over that sublight speed (with different rules applying at warp, of course).

Bubble Boy wrote:If the impulse engines have a maximum speed of .25 C, that's 75,000 kilometers per second. Even if they employed half impulse speed in a combat situation, we're talking about ridiculous amounts of speed.

I wonder if this will be demostrated or just another 'stated capability but never seen or used' idea.

They'll probably slow down during combat, if only so the viewer can see the pretty explosions.

Sidewinder wrote:Well, a window will let you see outside if there's a power loss, while a big monitor won't. What a starship really needs is a Combat Information Center buried in the hull.

The CIC is a good idea, but the window is still kind of a crappy one. You don't need alot of power to run even a very large viewscreen, relatively speaking, and you can stud the hull with cameras. It would be somewhat trivial to run any or all of that on batteries.

I'm glad they are going with HUDs. It's about time. Chances are they won't be as cool as something that allows consensus viewing of 3D "objects" or something out of Ghost in the Shell:SAC, but it's a step in the right direction.

open_sketchbook wrote:As for the window, it's space opera. Rule of drama > common sense.

If you're talking about a Star Destroyer, maybe. It projects an aura of majesty and arrogance (mind you the Empire got kicked in the teeth for that one in RotJ).
But on this type of ship to me it just serves to expose how already vunerable these bridge domes are, and I don't think any dramatic effect is achieved by this that couldn't be with a CIC safely tucked away inside with a viewscreen.

Why don't they use retractable armored hull plates that can snap shut quickly over the view port? Or, they can install a small observer's position somewhere on the ship that gives a clear field of view to the outiside but that also doesn't compromise an entire bridge section if the view port is compromised.

They obviously want a physical opening in the ship looking outwards, but there is no reason that such a view port can't be protected and covered when it isn't needed.

I doubt the window is just glass, but eitherway, if an enemy targets the bridge it's not like having a window in it is going to matter anyway, it certainly didn't matter to the Enterprise E.

Jon wrote:I doubt the window is just glass

That's a point. For all we know they have a transparent material that's just as strong as the stuff the rest of the ship is made out of.

Transparent aluminium? It kept the whales in...

Bounty wrote:Transparent aluminium? It kept the whales in...

But if this is a different timeline and this is a different Kirk then maybe he never makes the same specific decisions that send him back in time for Scotty to give the formula for transparent aluminum to the guy who "invented" it.
TIME PARADOX.