Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Starfleet Bridge 101
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 сер 2024
- The Starships bridge has seen frequent and major reshapes with the generations of Starfleet vessels, but the consoles and functions remain fairly consistent. Let's look at that shall we?
Music from bensound.com, purple-planet.com and freesfx.co.uk
Star Trek Online developed by Cryptic Studios and Perfect World.
Star Trek, Star Trek Enterprise/Voyager/Deep Space Nine/Discovery/Lower Decks/Picard and The Next Generation are all owned and distributed by CBS.
Star Trek Films are owned and distributed by Paramount Pictures
This Video is for critical purposes with commentary.
There is a practical reason for the bridge to be at the top of the ship but it is for the filmmakers, not any in-universe purpose. You can see the size of the bridge in exterior shots because it's basically its own deck, and from interior shots of the bridge, you have a sense of how big that deck actually is. It provides a sense of scale for the Enterprise. Supposedly this was Roddenberry's idea.
I thought the idea was that the bridge was on top of the computer core, leading to faster response times. Being early in the development of computers, distance was a factor. As technology has progressed, we find this reasoning quaint, but I think it played a factor in the design also.
This was also the era of WWII war movies, when great ships were still controlled by a helmsman who needed a clear view of the ocean around them, which is why the bridge was on top, not the bottom. Now days, it would make more sense to reverse the locations of the main and battle bridges of the Galaxy-class, with Riker and Troy taking the turbolift to the saucer's bridge to evacuate the families, civilian support staff, and science cadres. Instead we see Picard, Yar, Data, O'Brian, and la Forge, all cramming themselves into a single lift
@@leonielson7138while quaint the idea has more merit as gamers especially in esports will favor wired out of wireless or Bluetooth setups for faster communication between computer parts. As in really short distances wires or fiber optic will travel faster than radio waves.
"thank you for scanning this video and interpretting the data with your own skull bridge" is a great line.
I feel like it could be a Data line
For a cool 90’s interpretation of a “skull bridge,” check out “Cranium Command” from Disney’s Epcot. Terrifyingly delightful. Definitely what I thought of when I heard that line.
Skull bridge. Now I’m imagining a pirate themed bridge with skulls.
Multi-use seems to be a theme in Starfleet. Multi-use star ships, consoles, tools, even weaponry.
Makes sense if you think about it. A sword is used exclusively to fight or kill. But an axe or hammer can be used for lots of things. Even Starfeets guns are used in multiple ways throughout the shows.
Even their torpedoes can be adjusted in explosive yield to a point where they aren't just weapons anymore. A phaser, no matter if ship based or handheld can and will often be used more as a tool. Starfleet really seems to hate "just weapons"
It occurs to me that putting the helm at the front creates the psychological impression that "if you hit something, you'll be the first to die".
Are you confusing the Federation with Klingons?
"Thank you for scanning this video and interpreting the data with your own skull bridge."
The microscopic officers piloting my body from my head: Damn, he's on to us
*The Doctor has entered the chat*
He forgot the critical point that apparently, Starfleet bridges are made of rocks...
For the Horta crew?
ROCKSSSS
I miss Junkball
And Pipes. And Explodium. Lots of Explodium, especially in Consoles.
@@magical_catgirl it's a running joke that whenever a bridge in Star Trek takes serious damage, what look like foam rocks rain down on the crews heads. 😆😆
You know, there's an out-of-universe explanation for the brain going on top. Producers (much like yourself, and everyone who ever watched any Trek ever) rightly pointed out its vulnerability on top - but Gene wanted the audience to be able to visualise where it was.
I remember a few videos analyzing Starfleet tactics, then a channel roleplaying as Grand Admiral Thrawn commented on the design of Starfleet ships, from the rounded hulls to the comfortable interiors, to the exposed bridge, etc. -Conclusion: Federation culture is clearly pacifistic & scientifically-based, but they’re confident enough in their defensive capabilities that they don’t care to have their bridges in more protected areas, to the point where it borders on arrogance. Sound about right? 🤔
The main reason was so that the audience could get a sense of the ship's size. He knew that it would be the most commonly shown internal set, so putting it on the exterior of the ship allowed the viewers to see how the ship's size compares to it.
It also allowed easier kitbashing of bigger and smaller ships. No need to use a bigger or smaller saucer section, just glue a smaller bridge onto an existing kit for a ship that looks bigger or a bigger bridge to make it look smaller.
“Sir, Certifiably Ingame is hailing us”
“Onscreen”
Would love to see you play Star Trek Bridge Crew on VR with a group of star trek fans
That would be awesome
edit: there is a bridge crew discord to make it easier to find other people to play with. just dropping it here if someone is interested: discord.gg/FHgcVgwG
Yes plz. So sick of other youtubers playing it for lolz instead of seriously
Oooooooh me too
Oh I think he'd still play it for the lolz, but he would do it with style and respect for the setting. I mean, he's always adding his own 4th wall breaking humor to his episodes and that never ruins the fun for us, after all.
Sometimes I wish I had friends who liked VR and Trek, I’ve never had a good game of Bridge Crew because 90% of the time people just mute or no one is playing
On a side note, addressing both the vulnerability of the bridge location and the flexibility of LCARS stations....I'm reminded of the climax of the Voyager 'Year of Hell' arc, that has Janeway piloting (what's left of) the ship all by herself...and staring right out into space through the place the viewscreen was supposed to be...
Maybe for an addition or a new video: what about battle bridges like the one on 1701-D?
I agree a central location would be safest for the bridge, but putting it on top isn't the dumbest idea ever, since Starfleet ships seem to be designed with the idea that you'd keep your ventral side toward the enemy. I haven't seen any confirmation for this, but the main sensors, phasers, torpedo launchers and deflector are all usually on the ventral side (among other places).
There's something special about the Enterprise-D bridge that tugs at the heart (especially if you grew up in the 80s/90s watching the original run). The beige colors, the graceful sweep of the wood arch, the swish of the pivoting conn panels... and that caramel smooth thrum of the engines mmmmm
It’s worth noting that some TNG-Voyager era ships - specifically the Intrepid class, although I imagine the feature was retained through many ship designs - could transfer bridge controls to other areas of the ship. We see Voyager transfer the bridge controls to Engineering a few times, when the bridge became inaccessible for any reason. This allowed the bridge crew to continue running the vessel even when unable to access the bridge.
The older Constitution Class had a dedicated auxiliary control in the engineering section. For the Galaxy Class the battle bridge could serve that purpose for the joined ship. For TNG era it was also demonstrated that controls could be routed to a holodeck.
All computer consoles can be reconfigured for different tasks.
And also allowed alien invaders to easily take over the ship from anywhere in the ship in all eras, yes.
Yeah Its good For idk If another ship hijacked you cut your life support and is Killing your crew
@@Swiftbow Hey now
My Ship consoles are only able to be transferred by Captain or second in command
One reason I loved Both Battlestar Galactica series ships as they buried the Bridge deep into the superstructure!
I think that the bridge being on top was because ST vessels were imagined at first, kind of like "space submarines"...
Also, since the Feds tout themselves as non-militartistic explorers, burying the bridge under layers of armored hull might give the wrong impression. But, an exposed bridge is only one of the many tactical design sins the Feds have committed on most of those designs. Long, thin "necks", long thin nacelle support struts, exposed bridges, and hulls covered in gaps in the armor called "windows"... They were designed to look cool, not make sense! 😁👍
@@orkloven Starfleet ships is paper weak when thier shields are down. Bottom line. But starfleet shields are heckkin powerful.
In the old 1950 movie The Flying Saucer, they had rotating ufo with the Alins in the middle. imo Roddenberry came and said: We are gonna add warp nacelles.
No, the Galactica bridge was pretty much exposed there on the top of the nose section. But it also has good rectractable armoring to protect it, especially over those bay windows. 'Positive shield!'
I thought an in-universe explanation for why the bridge was put at the top, it was easier to shield it. We see that the bridge seems to be set up to that you can't transport it and the Wrath of Khan shows the bridge has its own shield generator when they went to yellow alert. So it could be safer to have it outside with only a few access points within the ship itself.
Not to mention, for whatever reason, it also seems to be the hardest point to take. Engineering seems to be easier than the bridge due to there being only one way to the bridge, not multiple in various directions.
Intrepid and Galaxy classes are both designed to run multiple science operations at once.
Thus, a "chief science officer" is rather dependant on exactly what is being researched at the time, because there are so many departments running concurrently.
At least, thats how i understood it
pretty sure you could still have a chief science officer be like a leader of the science section of the ship and then have whatever leading scientist be lead when doing Research on whatever it is they are doing research on at any one time.
@@deathwatch1980 that would defeat the purpose of having dedicated labs and science sections on these ships.
IE, look at Voyager; they had people trained in almost every science area who took command during that research, and a captain well versed in the sciences herself.
Same with Ent D/E with all the labs available.
So, it became more mechanical sciences and warp theory etc reported to engineering, biochemical etc reported to medical and so on.
Stick a "Chief Science Officer" above their main "Chief" (be it medical or engineering or astrometrics) that they have to report to who may know nothing about the field and you lose efficiency in that research project, or so the shows project. That's the point of having all the dedicated teams on board.
"Chief Science Officer" became supplementary to Chief Engineer and CMO and Chief of Operations.
@@sirhenry9313 i think its more of a directly relevant info goes too those officers that need it but if you want to do R&D or have something you want to do that the ship would have to go out of it way for you push it up the chain or something.
chain of command in starfleet is not always well divined.
@@deathwatch1980 the scientists all report to / complain to riker on the enterprise d. he did a lot of staff admin stuff we didnt see. also there was department heads that hierarchically went up to a senior officer. eg geordi had teams under him and so did dr crusher.
@@pepe6666 Keep in mind that Riker was First Officer, which meant he was in *administrative* charge, though not in scientific charge. Spock was kind of an odd man out, being *both* FO and CSO.
I love these videos, it's so nice to just listen to your chill delivery about cool Trek stuff. Subbed.
What I found interesting was that in really early episodes, the weapons were actually reached and fired from deeper within the ship. When fighting the Romulans or Balok , the weapons officer had to call the "phaser crew" to prime them to fire. This was augmented and called back in ST6 when a modified torpedo was used to fight General Chang.
Subs in space.
Trek bridge design is great for a TV show, because it is entirely structured to create opportunities for exposition. Everything must be explained to the Captain by someone they don't have to get up to go see, which serves as exposition for the audience, but it has a number of obvious logical flaws.
In real life the bridge is separate from the CIC (Central Information Center) because processing the massive amounts of information coming from a myriad of sensors is key and even with relatively weak modern sensor systems reaching out a dozen miles or so, only reporting a very limited spectrum of data, requires a lot of manpower to process. In Trek sensors reach out dozens of light years at least, relaying information about the entire electromagnetic spectrum within that range, and would generate trillions of bytes of data every second. In TOS Spock, with his super brain, managed all of the information flowing from the sensor systems of the Enterprise. This became tradition in the show because no one ever gave it any thought - one person can manage all the information from all of the sensors on the ship? Sure why not!
To try to rationalize this we can assume sensor data is filtered and summarized for the bridge officers by some sort of computer system. Information comes into the sensors, is processed by the computers, filtered for most relevant information based on preselected criteria and presented to the lone individual manning that console. From that information the operator announces to the captain what they think the captain needs to know. The captain then usually asks additional questions for clarification before issuing an order. This order then has to be carried out by the person manning the relevant console. With exciting music it seems fast paced but in reality Starfleet vessels are unbearably sluggish to respond to anything - gotta get that exposition in. Lazily every other species uses the exact same system (in reality each nation does CIC/bridge operations a different way) so it never becomes an issue, except in the TOS episode The Ultimate Computer, but it's horribly unrealistic.
I'll point out that the existence of such a computer system incidentally makes all of the jobs on the bridge utterly redundant and an actual impediment to performance. Realistically you need one person on watch to monitor what the computer is doing at least from TNG forward. Hello M5!
I also want to point out that nine times out of ten the captain on the bridge is mostly doing work that would be better performed in an office so as not to distract the bridge crew. Every time someone delivers a generic report to the Captain on the bridge I cringe a little. Also someone manning navigation or whatever taking their hands off their console and turning to talk to the captain happens way too often - face to face communications are opportunities for dramatic facial expressions!
IMO for realism (without eliminating exposition opportunities) they should have a navigation bridge and a CIC. In CIC a single person should monitor no more than a single sensor or weapon system with some only manned as needed. A junior officer should be walking around looking over everyone's shoulder to make sure they don't need anything, and getting that mile high view so that one junior officer can answer any questions the Captain might have at a moment's notice. It's good command training for junior officers and the Captain never has to call out the specific station or person they want information from which is an awful waste of time in a crisis.
The horrible inefficiency of having the ship's Captain micromanaging every order is an entirely separate rant.
Also, yes, I did serve on a warship, in a CIC job, in the USN. How did you ever guess?
so i know this is undone by the separation of the two halves but i always liked the idea of the Battle bridge on the galaxy class, i mean when you have viewscreen tech you can literally put the bridge anyone on the ship, my personal preference is behind several meters of armor plating, force fields and teleport jammers buried deep in the middle of the ship as you don't want any old so and so just beaming onto your bridge out of nowhere and started to attack you.
That line at the end about the skull bridge makes me think of the movie Meet Dave. Such fond memories lol.
Stay well out there everybody, and God bless you friends.😊
Starship bridges being on the top of a vessel seems to be a tradition from the days of seafaring ships, where the bridge would be elevated for increased visibility as the command hub for the ship. The fact it was the most exposed section of any naval vessel was the unfortunate consequence of the bridge officers requiring as unobstructed a view as possible during combat situations. But as things like viewscreens and complex sensor arrays are so prevalent on starships, it just begs the question of why this tradition of ship design survived well past the need to make the bridge such a massive target.
But then again, the Federation is far from the only spacefaring power within Star Trek to have their starship bridges easy to spot.
They did it because your brain is at the top.
@@minecat1839 Worst offender I've seen for vulnerable bridges would still be Separatist battleships during the Clone Wars, where the bridge was literally the furthest point on the ship's bow, on top of being on a stalk.
@@NotMyRealName6 That is an observation deck. The bridge is in the front tip of the ship.
As a helmsman on a cargo barge, yes, having the pilot seat facing forwards matters a lot even when I'm navigating only by radar and navigation software on 0 visibility situations. Due to the nature of "spatial awareness" being in the same orientation of the actual ship helps me a lot. The ship very much feels like an extension of my body. This all happens on a mostly unconscious/phantom limb level.
As a little fun experiment. Load into a racing game. And drive backwards... You can but it's more awkward. Roughly same thing.
My friend, who knew nothing about Star Trek was amazed when I told him the bridge as at the top. He thought it was at the front tip of the saucer section, where the captains quarters or ten forward would be in a galaxy glass vessel.
you forgot to mention a feature of some of the larger ships like the galexy class, the 'combat' or secondary bridge which is located in the middle of the ship just below the point where the saucer section and reactor section seperate
If the Battle Bridge is on Deck 8 (TNG Disater), how is 10-Forward in the saucer section?
@@minecat1839 because its in the forward section of deck ten...hence the name
BattleStars did a good job burring their bridge in the ship.
Also perry rhodan, but it isnt a show, only a book series😓
😂
CIC forever!
Not really...the Battlestar bridge is right there on top of the nose, but on the flip side, they *do* give it some decent armoring, even with the bay windows. 'Positive shield!'
The Expanse series really puts into perspective of NOT having a bridge or CIC on top of the ship. I
@@kerviuskuroshiba5120 its the only realistic/logical choice when designing such a ship
the only reason why our rockets have their crew riding ontop is because the rest of the rocket just blows off.
And i love the Expanse BTW, they just have the realistic designs of all scifi (with our current technic and physics. In Perry Rhodan they are also pretty accurate, but just redefine Physics every 100 years XD)
Rick: Ow, my skull bridge! I told you it should have been buried.
Projekt Melody: Ow, my brain case! I use that sometimes.
To mix a metaphor, 'the sense of humor is strong with this one'.
The Starfleet Bridge is such an evocative design. It helped to lay the foundations of what starship bridges look like not just in _Star Trek_ but across Sci-Fi in general.
Also 6:00 ; always wondered what that room was on the Odyssey bridge. I did not realize that until just now. It makes sense now when I'm thinking about it, but the lack of chairs through me off.
While burying the bridge inside the structure makes sense from a practical point of view, putting the bridge on top of a ship always still always make some weird psychological sense. We're probably so used to ever other vehicle having the controls on top, it feels logical that a starship should be orientated the same way
I was just thinking the other day that the "battle bridge" might not only be the bridge for the other half of a ship that could separate, but that any starship could have a "battle bridge" as well for when they would go into battle and it would be deep inside for safety.
But then I remembered that the "battle bridge" is actually at the very top of the stardrive section when separation occurs, so there goes that idea.
Not one of them insula- *dies in a spark shower*
That's arc flash/blast, a real phenomena that claims multiple lives every year and is a risk that can only be mitigated and not eliminated.
It's actually a fairly mild one because real ones can literally vaporize a person.
Having been on to many joy rides and Uber calls for a ride on NSW submarines I can attest ST bridge universe mirror the layout of the current fleet and our near peer fleets. Fun fact for a cool video.
If the Defiant had a smaller battle bridge, it'd be a closet with a side by side sized seating of tac/helm. Standing room behind them for the capt.
That's it. Nothing else.
The bridge being at the top is one of several things I think another well-known Gene Roddenberry property, Andromeda, improved over the Sci-Fi of the era. I always wondered how much of that was down to trying to fix things from Star Trek.
The bridge is buried in the middle of the ship, communication and visuals have delay, distances are measured in light-seconds (because when communication and images have delay it helps you know how behind you are), ships are protected by point-defence lasers instead of energy shield bubbles, sensors are split into active and passive like sonar...
These days there are quite a few “realistic” sci-fi shows (e.g. The Expanse), but I think Andromeda was one of the first mainstream attempts.
Jem Hadar, klingon, Romulan, cardasian bridges next please. Great videos
Whilst there are some problems with Discovery, I can appreciate they made the decision to finally commit to the viewscreen being an actual window. Because while not states as such, the viewscreen was effectively already a window, since all stations are aimed into this direction and the helm station being at the front. It helps you orient in the bridge in relation to the rest of the ship. And it being a window gives a better justification for the bridge being on the top or bottom of the ship's hull instead of buried within.
I thought there had always been a window behind the view screen. They just kept it blast shielded in combat unless the screen got ruined. The ship models all show a window at the front of the bridge, iirc.
And thank you Rick for another Trek video.👍
I know this is off topic but could you do a feature on real world vessels like the old NASA spacecrafts/stations and maybe Navy ship/subs, or how about the cockpit of a 747.
It’s worth mentioning that there’s one TOS episode where Uhura redirects the comms control to what is normally the navigation station. I think it’s “Balance of Terror”?
According to a technical read out the modern LCARs can with a command simply change to what ever is needed. It didnt take some one manually configuring it.
I'd love to see a whole video on the situation room. Best scenes always took place there. Also Captain's ready room.
I have always said the federation starship brides had signs saying Shoot Here to kill the brain of the ship pointing at the exposed bridge it should have been buried deeper you dont really need it sitting on top you could bury it under ablative armour and shield to keep the bridge safe
Except it's not.
Not only is it just as protected as anything else inside the hull but *shooting the bridge doesn't kill a ship*
Anyone that's studied real world naval history and designs knows that the only way to kill a ship it to take out main power or to just pummel everything until it breaks.
@@redshirt0479 Thus, if you're smart about ship combat, you shoot for Engineering to take out a ships power. I believe ENT did this moderately often, but in the later "time" of Trek it was seen as a overtly hostile move - thus you target weapons or the actual nacelles.
@@redshirt0479 A couple of things I want to point out here. Firstly, there are multiple occasions when we've seen weapons fire that's only managed to penetrate the outer hull and expose a the immediate internal space to vacuum; both bridges and random corridor sections, and without causing further damage to the interior structure. Sure, there are times when a weapon manages to penetrate multiple decks or even go clear through both sides of the hull, but there are cases when the bridge would be better protected by being deeper in the interior of a ship.
Second, sure a ship doesn't physically die if the bridge is taken out, but one could conceivably kill the captain, first officer, *and* the primary tactical officer with a single blow. That's a pretty dramatic loss.
Then again, I have heard that the same logic led to the development of heavily armoured conning towers on post-dreadnought battleships IRL, after cases of bridge hits killing so many of the senior crew, but many captains simply refused to use them and stayed on the bridge during combat regardless. So maybe Starfleet could've tried at some point and decided not to bother.
@@andymac4883
Cases where the bridge is breached but there's limited other damage is fairly rare in the franchise, especially when you remove cases where an already crippled ship is being fired upon. Normally if the bridge is breached then the rest of the ship has already taken extreme damage (likely because critical areas of the ship have already been hit).
As for corridors being hit and there being limited damage, with one exception I can think of normally the camera cuts away from that section to get back on the action so the true damage isn't really known. The one case I can recall appears to be an armored/heavily shielded bulkhead acting to deflect the blast outward which blew out a large chunk of the saucer instead of the area behind that bulkhead. But given that in Star Trek II we see that the bridge has its own independent defense screen, I didn't think it worth mentioning because that exact same shielding could be at work there.
The fact that regular weapons fire can overpenetrate the hull to go in one part of the saucer and out the other is also a good reason why it doesn't matter where you put the bridge and, if anything, that means the best place to put it is as far from other critical systems as possible such as the nacelles and main engineering. but also make sure that it's fairly hard to line up a shot that intersects multiple critical sections.
Losing the command crew sounds bad, but it's not that bad. Ships in real life have been commanded successfully by the lower ranking crew members after the bridge was completely destroyed with the entire command staff being a total loss. Usually commanding from one of a few auxiliary control stations or engineering. These are highly trained professionals, they know the risk and can do the task should it come to that.
The armored conning tower aspect has more to do with how commanding inside the tower absolutely sucked as it massively restricted the amount of information the Captain could get for fairly minimum gain as any direct hit would still kill everyone inside it. It was honestly a waste of tonnage and was a major reason why the Royal Navy deleted it on every ship with the excellent Queen Anne's Mansion superstructure and part of the reason why it likely would have been dropped on the _Montana_ class of the USN had they been built.
@@redshirt0479 Without having solid numbers on how many times weapons fire over-penetrated vs ended up being contained to the hull itself, I suppose there's not much more we can argue there. But I will say this; if some shots can be largely superficial, and some can over-penetrate, the bridge is still somewhat safer at a deeper location than sticking out on the surface. Not invulnerable by any means, but still more protected, even if only slightly.
The question comes down to the same issue as the conning tower, ultimately; do the advantages conferred by the amount of additional protection outweigh the advantages of a more accessible location? Considering how bridges were fully enclosed up until the '09 movie gave the Enterprise (and Kelvin) a literal window, I don't think information gathering is going to be a key factor here compared to the conning tower argument but there have been arguments about the easier modularity of a deck 1 bridge, being able to basically unplug and replace the entire module. And decentralisation of vital targets is valid, but are there more protected spots that don't greatly increase the risk of a single shot taking out the bridge and engineering?
With the EMH making it onto Prometheus we see the old bridge design really getting outmoded since it could fly itself and win. They went from highly customizable controls to one person being able to fly the whole ship and turns out it doesn't even really need to be a flesh and blood person. I wonder if they knew what can of worms they were opening up showing essentially a drone attack conducted in large part by a hologram?
Did I hear your eyes roll when you made the 'Or Window' Comment?
Y'know, Discovery ships have windows just like JJTrek ships. Does that mean that Discovery takes place in a divergence of the Kelvin timeline where the Narada was captured by either Starfleet or the Romulans before Nero could implement his plan to destroy Vulcan?
The funny thing is that if you play a game like Artemis Spaceship Bridge Simulator, the game designers seam to be reaching far to find something, anything, for some of those stations to do. Perhaps it made sense in the 60s to have all of those disparate positions, but today's 4x space strategy games are more involved than all of those bridge positions combined and they have one player handling it all. (And don't even get me started on Battlecruiser OMG)
nicely done, I'm a sucker for a good bridge.
I see a lot of comments about the bridge, mostly supporting your concern over the exposed position. The reasoning behind it, at least according to the earliest technical manual I had, was that the vessel did have emergency windows. They were contained behind armor, but with the high failure rate of the early UFP starship systems, having the alternative of looking yourself was helpful. It is why the bridge alignment was off by 15°, to permit the option of looking out from the walkway around the bridge. Later ships didn't have the same design, however by this point it had become traditional to maintain the bridge there.
These tech videos are amazing.
Would love to see one discussing the starship computers.
Well I guess you could argue for helm to be farthest from any door way in case of boarding. But bad guys appear to be able to beam in just about anywhere.
Have always thought the captain’s char on the Galaxy Class looked sort of like a throne. The captain’s stations on other federation ships looks more utilitarian and useful.
Just like the one on the ISS Enterprise.
So witch bridge is the most optimized, and how could it be enhanced so its more optimized for a wider range of detailed ship control?
I would start with a Enterprise-E bridge, try to enhance it by adding a few more consoles replacing some of the railings reduceing the amount of unused deck space. perhaps replace that conference room with a Dedicated ship Opperations room and have it connect directly into the Bridge. so that the Bridge is Dedicated to situations outside the ship, with the Opperations room is Dedicated to situations inside the ship and makeing sure the Bridge gets whatever is needed.
You forgot to bring up the secondary/battle bridge. It has fewer stations and much less space, but still can be used to perform all the functions of the ship...and unlike the main bridge, is in a much better-protected location in the ship. The out of universe reasons for not using it are obvious, (it's nowhere as pretty to film on), but in-universe the only reason I can think of it for Captains not to use it is the time needed to transfer personell and control between the two in a crisis situation.
I have 3 things to say here, 1 is that even though the bridge is at the top of the ship like any other on the Defiant class one thing that makes it a little safer is that it is not atop the ship but just in the center of the first deck making it a little less if a target than on other ships, 2 you could have mentioned the alternate "battle bridge" on the Star Drive section of a Galaxy Class cruiser for when the ships saucer section is separated from the star drive section for combat maneuvers, 3 you should do a video about the alternate locations for the bridge/command center of a ship usually on vessels used by other species which are if I remember correctly in Romulan vessels are in the center of the ship to keep it safer and with that you should also talk about the advantages and disadvantages of the bridge/command center being in these various locations and it might be an interesting idea to do a similar video on other important areas of the ship including engineering and infirmary/sick bay
Ah Rick - today is a good day to Ingame ... thanks again for a spot on vid. Any chance of a follow up which looks at how ships could be run from alternate locations? I liked how in ENT they could all hang out in the Catwalk in an emergency and run things there (hopefully they installed some hammocks or better seating now).
Auxiliary Control Center
Engineer here.
No, burying the bridge won't help. If weapon fire gets through the shields, structural integrity, extra defense fields, and hull then it's not going to be stopped by some deck plates. The bridge, however, is positioned in such a way that it can be easily upgraded and replaced among other attributes.
And with ship design in general, the bridge is actually expendable. Destroying the bridge almost never takes a ship out of combat in real life, what matters most is the main reactor. Ships that lose the bridge can still fight, ships without power are truly dead and it's the only way to actually kill a ship in real life baring just pummeling everything until it breaks.
I have always kind of wondered if these kind of ships really existed, especially in a quasi-militaristic fashion. Would they really have a Big View Screen like that? I would think it would be distracting, especially when the High Ranks are Communicating with some hostile species.
in a lot of the schematics I have seen with a fair number of Federation Starships the bridge or Deck 1 was always put at the top for refit or upgradability or at least that's what I am to believe the reason is for seeing as throughout the series and movies these sets change regularly and they needed a reason to explain it.
The view scope! That’s right... ever since Futurama called it a Spock-o-scope I haven’t been able to call it anything else.
I would have liked if you addressed a Captains room next to bridge as well.
After I saw one photon torpedo go clean through the saucer section the placement of the bridge really stopped mattering to me.
Same as Expanse. If weapon can pierce through ship it needs something else for incoming projectile.
Eh, I can point to at least three occasions depicted on screen where weapons fire penetrated the outer hull and exposed the bridge to vacuum without appearing to damage sections behind interior bulkheads nearby. Once in Enterprise (in what I believe was an alternate future that was subsequently averted), once in Discovery (USS Shenzhou at the Battle of the Binary Stars), and finally in Nemesis (the Scimitar blowing out the front of the Enterprise-E's bridge and ending up with at least one bridge officer expelled into space. Again, in each of these occasions, it was only the outer hull that failed, and the weapons impacts didn't do further damage to the interior, thus if the bridge had been deeper inside the hull it wouldn't have been hit by the weapons fire in question.
@@andymac4883 And I have seen the Defiant no more than five decks thick tank shots that tore apart a Galaxy class warp nacelle. Hell we've seen Danube class ships that withstood those same shots. All the instances we have described occurred. I will never be one of those people who think it's justified to bury the bridge in the center of a ship and make it Borg sphere in all but name because it's the most rational defensive position.
@@3Rayfire My point is, if both kinds of damage can occur, then the bridge is still objectively safer when buried deeper within the hull. Not impervious, but it will be able to withstand more forms of damage than it could in its current location.
I'm not going to say that's the best solution; there are all sorts of justifications for keeping them where they are. Just giving more food for thought.
I know in Halo humans put their bridges in a similarly exposed position. The Covenant, whose bridges are buried deep inside, view humans as incredibly brave for that alone
Last time I was this early, Lore Reloaded made a positive StarFleet video. lol
When it was??? during the sundering?
@@CaptainSovereign at least a year.
Wait lore made a positive SF video?
We are in the end times!!!
@@valor1omega back when he made a positive Minbari lore video and a negative STD video.
@@AncestorEmpire1
He made a negative std video?
I always thought he loved std.
We can thank Star Trek, then, for addressing and answering problems with ship design and functionality that we have yet not encountered. Thus, when we do finally leave this blue-white marble we call home and venture out into Galactic Civilization we will be better prepared for what we may encounter.
Awesome!
With the exception of specific vessels, I do not think you would actually gain much from placing the bridge further down once shields are breached. In 1 movie we see a photon torpedo punch strait through the saucer section of a Constitution class.
You forgot to mention the bridge stations have tactile interface for blind crew like Tuvok in Voyager episode Year of Hell.
Always wanted to see this subject tackled but it could probably go on for hours. The idea that Tactical was originally part of Navigation somewhat made sense as there wasn't much for the Navigation station to do in battle. OTOH, TNG set up that Communications was part of Tactical when not in battle. What would they do otherwise? I always thought it was odd though that Defiant had a Science station with Ops and Conn folded into one though. And just what station was Troi at on the battle bridge during Encounter at Farpoint? Some schematics have suggested it was a Communications station.
At least Federation bridges aren't as exposed as Klingon bridges.
Aim all photon torpedoes at the thin neck thing!
@@minecat1839 : Design all spacecraft like a giant ball.
@@brodriguez11000Sphere
Pls do STO bridges, some of the designs are very cool.
Can you make a video about the Andromeda Ascendant? Like the location of their bridge, sick bay and stuff like that
0:35 making sure you know the view was unobstructed
Trip's presence on the bridge was supposed to be explained by a fireman pole that lead directly from the bridge to engineering. The set was built but never used.
I thought when the helm and the navigation consoles were combined in ships during the events of tng? Thus creating the Conn station as in Control and Navigation.
You always need manual viewing. Scanners can be jammed, but eyes work.
And for everyone going for the “massive distance and speeds” argument, Star Trek is repeatedly shown to take place in blisteringly close ranges, and binoculars are known to exist.
not at the distances involved in space flight or the speeds.
... except in space... At ranges in the tens of thousands of kilometers and at relativistic speeds... far away from any starlight...
Those "blisteringly close ranges" weren't a thing until after Star Wars came out, over a decade after the original series. Good try, though.
The distances in the show are for one reason only: to fit both ships on the screen for a sense of danger and make a dramatic shot. The snails pace of the battles is for only one other reason: so the battle isn't over to quick to be "dramatic"!
A 300-500 meter ship traveling at full impulse (70,000+ kilometers PER SECOND) would cross the screen in a flash. Two ships making attack runs against each other at the same speeds would wizz by each other faster than the eye could track. Combat would be 1). target selection at long range via sensors, and 2). instant reaction automated tracking and fire control. Defense would be pe-programed evasive maneuvers executed faster than the helmsmans fingers could keep up with while the crew held their collective breath for the 10 seconds the battle lasted and hoped they lived through it.
Nothing Star Trek shows on screen about space travel is accurate even to the technical details of their own world let alone real world physics.
It's still fun to watch though.
Also, something needs to Cover something, or reflect Light ecactly in your direction.... If not, you dont See less, you See nothing.
Fa t is, space is a vacuum, so nothing disperse Light, you only have illuminated or not... And if not, you See nothing. In fact, if you could make a substance what has a extremly low reflecting value.... Just paint your ship in it, desativate all exterior lights and engine exhausts and just adjust your Position by coldgas, even if it takes like forever.... You are cloacked in optical spectrum, maybe you can add components to Cover Radar and infrared to.... And you have a cloaked ship even Sensors have a Hard time to detect and all this by actual technology and without breaching the algeron tresty as it's no device first Hand and second, it's Know-how earth had long before the foundation Was founded.
Algeron tresty only prohibits development or purchase of cloaking Devices, not the use of already known Material science and physics.... Btw this ship could even Fire while "cloaked"
But this example only to Show how useless the optical spectrum in reality is.
In Trek, all ships are always illuminated evenly from all sides... This is all nur realistic and only for the viewer of the show. (possible inworld explanation:the computers usually took the data what is where and Do a Real time simulation of what it would Look like if it's illuminated from All sides. Even Trip and Archer did understand this and crscked a joke once that as long as nö one looks out of the window, they look like a klingon ship after altering the shemes of emissons from their warp drive.... Well no one did, guess why... )
I suspect the bridge location is partly tradition. The bridge of current Navy ships is on a tower to provide a wider view. They just kept it that way for tradition.
...
Yeah. I don't like it either. But it's all I got.
I shall now forever refer to my head as a 'skull bridge' 🙃
That last bit reminds me of a passage from one of the halo novels where an elite commander admits to himself that its really ballsy of the humans to have their command decks so exposed 🤣
U.S.S. Shinzou had the bridge on the bottom of the saucer section, which was a welcome change.
The original (TOS) bridge was skewed ( i.e. NOT facing forward). This is evident by internal shots which show the turbo lift to the "side" or "off center" and the external shots show the turbo lift shaft "on center" so in relation the bridge (internal) doesn't "face forward".
I love the Shepherd class with my walker bridge
As Star Fleet ships appear to rely on shields rather than armour perhaps putting the bridge in what appears to be an exposed position makes a degree of sense. As others have said, get the shields down and one torpedo will punch right though the saucer section. The bridge, being almost like a nacelle on the top would make it actually easier to isolate and protect with shields rather than if it was buried in the middle. Basically you could blow the rest of the ship up but the bridge should remain intact.
Id love to see a phone or computer operating system similar to the ones we've seen in Trek shows. Or at least a themed interface like how some phones and apps have
Skull bridge feels attacked by the ending of this video.
what was the bridge around :50 with the transporter in rear view?
I often think about why in Star Trek enemy ships don't just target to exposed bridge for an easy kill. In real life, the bridge on a military vessel is mostly there for navigation. The actually brains of the ship is in the CIC which is buried in the hull of the ship. That's why in Ronald D Moore's Battlestar Galactica Adama and co are in a CIC buried in the superstructure of the Galactica. It's a lot harder to take out the bridge when it's in the centre of the ship.
Air Craft Carriers do the same thing with their bridges on the nest towers...
Even the Defiant has a "Double Helm", Navigation is just positioned otherwise.
The Two Stations are one for Piloting and the other for Navigation - which is very different.
The Pilot is a specialist in Tacticval Maneuver and generally "Piloting" as well as Weapon Systems - a "Tactical Officer".
The Navigation Officer is trained in Astrogation and Astronomy, so basically a "Science Officer".
Then, you have "Tactical OPS" for Waepons and Security, the Communoication, which is "Ears, Eyes and Mouth".
In Defiant, as it is a Warship, just the "Pilot" keeps in the Front - Navigation and Security went back for better communication.
In the Galaxy Class, a Science Ship, the Navigation and the Pilot are seated next to each other for better communication.
In the Back, Science station and Communication are next to each other for better Communication and the Tactical is placed behind the Captain but elevated for a good overview as well.
The Pilot also has control over the Weapon Systems, the Navigation has acess to the Sensors and Shields. This gives the Galaxy Class a well balanced Power in Combat, but needs a Crew that is well trained and used to each other.
In the Defiant, Navigation and Tactical have more of a "Supporting role", the activation of the "common Weapons" like the Phasers - if not Aiming at a specific part - is done by the Pilot. If ordered a "Aimed Shot" or similar Actions, Tactical takes over and overrides the Guns for them while Navigation provides "special preprogrammed Actions" like "Attack Pattern Maneuver Alpha-X-779".
Communication is also in Charge of the Sensors, but specializes more in "encryption and dercyption" and such - the Science Station (if existent) scans for more "Physical Effects", but both have full Acess to the Sensors as well.
This way you can turn the Bridge Crew down to 2 People and still maintain a good Efficiency in all Actions, even in a Shuttle. And yes, if with 3 People, it is better, as now every Station is helmed.
The Luna 2 class ships like the Titan commanded by William Riker were deep space explorers. However they have more firepower than Sovereign class ships and have unique torpedo models and shield arrays that made them more efficient combat vessels than Prometheus or Defiant class.
Though being as they are nearly always along way from backup, I'd imagine the firepower is necessary.
The Starfleet bridges that span time! 😆 You see what I did there? 😏
To be fair, the bridge location of Klingon an Romulan ships are positioned even worse.
THANK YOU.
Much as I don’t like Kevin Sorbo, I would love it if you did a video on the bridge layout for the Andromeda.
Out of canon: Set design and cinematography. So let's go back to the original: TOS actually put some thought to this, so much that the USN actually looked into adapting it into real world applications. Now for some historical context... a ships bridge was the central deck. Captain was there when needed. In that regard, TOS got it right. Everything a captain needed was right where it was needed. So what went wrong? Tactically, placement. Top deck, easy target. Something dealt with, and ignored when needed. Sort of addressed in canon, and ignored when needed. So what really went wrong? I'm guessing production costs and visuals. Okay, so in canon.... design for ship mission. On screen, keep the story going and make it look good.
How about doing the LCARS computer interface? How does it work, what the different colors represent, etc.
I like your thought process with the bridge. however, it should be pointed out that some vessels had secondary bridges hidden within the core of vessels for use in combat The galaxy class is a notable example.
I agree with burying the bridge deeper in the ship. Likely in a vault made of several feet of tritanium tetraburnium and diburnium composite armor. They really should do something about the explosion prone plasma conduits as well. I understand critical systems needing a direct pipeline to the EPS grid, but consoles don't. They need a type of breaker system or automated rerouting as well so when containment on a conduit gets below a certain level it shunts to another without input. And someone get rid of those damned rocks that fly around whenever something explodes, a bridge is no place for a geology sample vault.
Woah, cool.
The bridge should maybe be in the middle of the ship like the CIC in Battlestar Galactica!
No, that'd make it harder to upgrade for no benefit.
Shooting the bridge doesn't kill a ship, taking out main power does.
The battle bridge on a Galaxy-class would be at a great location... if they used it when the whole ship was in combat instead of only after separation.
@
No it wouldn't, it offers zero tactical benefit and makes upgrades more difficult. See some of the other posts I've made in this comment section since I don't like repeating myself.
I really hope Rick does a follow-up based on the comments because I am so sick of this complaint born out of comments made by people that don't know a lot about engineering, naval design, tactics, etc but act like they do.
@@redshirt0479 On that specific ship class it wouldn't make bridge upgrades any more difficult. The battle bridge can be swapped out just as easily as the main bridge (it's on the top of the stardrive section so accessing it only takes a saucer separation which is a routine maneuver at sublight speeds, especially at a spacedock). While it wouldn't protect against a direct torpedo hit (a several dozen MT explosion going off in your pressure vessel is going to kill you regardless of where you are), it would be protected from energy weapon hits.
When an enemy targets the bridge, their goal isn't really to destroy the bridge consoles, the ship can be controlled from engineering. But killing almost the entire command structure would still remove the ship from the fight. So moving the bridge crew to a more protected part of the ship would still make sense in a combat situation, especially because there is a direct dedicated turbolift between the main bridge and the battle bridge so it only takes seconds.
@
Except killing the command crew doesn't remove a ship from the fight. We've seen time and again in real life where the command crew was wiped out or nearly wiped out and the ship kept fighting. The bridge crew is *expendable* in a fight. You'd still have to pummel the ship to death or take out main power. And I don't know about you, but going after the giant energy signature sounds like a much better idea especially since if you breach that the entire ship explodes.
Your priority targets to kill a ship are the Warp Drive (removes ability to run), Warp Core (Knock out main power), Shield Generators (remove primary defense), and weapons (remove ability to fight). The only people that target the bridge are those that are trying to 'savor a kill' rather than fight optimally.
And moving it further in *isn't* going to protect it further. The bridge where it is is protected by the shields, structural integrity fields, defense fields (as seen in Star Trek II), and the hull. Moving it further in is just going to put some deck plates that are only going to be good against small arms. We've seen particle beams go all the way through the ship on multiple occasions. Plus as stated before (though not in as many words), combat ranges are *massive* and the bridge is just a tiny bump on the hull with a fairly low power signature. It's both easier and more effective to target the high power systems at range. There is *zero* benefit to moving the bridge further in that can't also be done by boosting shield/structural integrity field power around the bridge or maybe thickening the hull plates around that area slightly.
Intelligent place to put the bridge.
Center of the saucer section. Offers the most layers of decks as armor.
It is also far from the engineering section.
Splitting up imprtant areas is good, as it avoids every important thing being hit in a single blow.
See Battlestat Galactica.
Where the CIC is deep inside the ship. Where it is the least vulnerable.
But the Federation wouldn't use humans to shield the bridge. Would they?
Forgot the Nav console which was beside the helm in TOS
You should cover the weapons of the dominion