Star Trek Federation Ships Achilles Heel

[Rackhir]

Can someone please explain to me why the Federation always felt it necessary to locate the bridge in a little bubble at the top of the ship?....

Probably for the same reason that the engines are on these skinny little pylons and the Saucer is connected to the main hull by another skinny little pylon.

They did have a "battle bridge" in the STNG Enterprise, that was presumably in some sort of a "safer" location (don't know if it was ever specified). But that was quickly forgotten as the idea of having to eject the saucer section any time there was danger, was silly, consumed too much money for SFX and time in the episode.

In other words it's just one of those things you have forget about and move on because "that's just how things are and there's no good reason for it." There's so many far sillier and stupid things in ST that make even less sense that this doesn't even rate on the scale.

Besides given how the warp cores seem to explode if looked at funny in the NG era shows, the location of the bridge is generally the least of their concerns.

 

[Rykion]

Obviously the bridge needs to be at the top so they can look out the windows when sensors are down.

The super technology that is transporters/replicators should be an effective end to death. The right amount of energy plus a stored pattern should equal instant clone.

 

[Hand of Evil]

They did have a "battle bridge" in the STNG Enterprise, that was presumably in some sort of a "safer" location (don't know if it was ever specified). But that was quickly forgotten as the idea of having to eject the saucer section any time there was danger, was silly, consumed too much money for SFX and time in the episode.

I think the 'battle bridge' ended on top of the strut after the saucer section was off.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

I think it was an accident. Back in the day...

Show Runner No. 1: What's this lumpy bit at the top of the model?

Show Runner No. 2: Ah.... The bridge.

Show Runner No. 1: 'K.

In the story, bridges are described as modules that can be removed and replaced. That it self came from the movies, where in every flick the bridge set was very different from the bridge set in the previous movie. The years of lag between the flicks meant the bridge sets were demolished and new ones built for new flicks. The modular bridge idea was just to explain that.

 

[Umbran]

Trek technology is completely internally inconsistent for dramatic purposes, and that's all there really is to it.

Perhaps you are not aware of the tradition of the "No-Prize"?

So making sure all those individual organs, blood vessels, capillaries, cells, molecules and atoms within a person stay aligned the way they're supposed to doesn't require precision? According to the ST background material, transporters are accurate all the way down to the quantum state of the matter they manipulate, so the idea that they'd have trouble with something as trivial as precise 3D positioning of machinery doesn't make much sense.

Matching things up when they start together is a bit different than taking two objects, separated by some large distance, and matching them up on the fly.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Unfortunately, the Star Trek universe, despite all its efforts in techno-babble, isn't really consistent, so you will never find a perfect answer.

In my personal, ideal world of Star Trek, I would explain it this way:
It doesn't really matter where you put the bridge. Once your shields are down, no space on the ship is not easily targeted and destroyed. Photon Torpedoes explode multiple grams or kilograms of antimatter - nothing in ship of that size could withstand that blast. (Obviously, several episodes and probably most prominently Star Trek VI and VII contradict this)

A similar reason applies for not wearing body armour - there aren't any materials that can withstand a full phaser or disruptor blast, at least none that wouldn't restrict movement beyond reasonable limits. So, better let stun phasers work against you, before the enemy switches his disruptor to full (deadly) power.
(An alternative answer might be: They are wearing body armour - what do you think there pyjamas are for, and why is it never showing burn marks after stun hits?)

One question remaining is - why is nobody wearing personal shields?
Possible Answer: Shields are only possible with the same energy source as warp engines, and nobody wants to wear a antimatter reactor on his back...
(Counterquestion: Why are borgs wearing personal shields? My answer: Psssht.)


If it helps you, Whisperfoot:
At least the Battle Star Galactica has no "Achilles Heel Bridge". (But they don't have shields and photon torpedoes, either. And the Cylon Basestars have their weak junction point... )

 

[Brown Jenkin]

The bridge is in top because the Greys were visiting earth in the 40s and 50s in flying saucers they had a bridge on top of a saucer. By the 60s that image had become so ingrained that when you designed a spaceship it had to be either a rocket or a saucer. So when Star Trek designed a spaceship it had a saucer section with the bridge on to just like regular UFOs. From there nobody thought it was that good of an idea to radically overhaul the federation ship design over the next 40 years so the bridge just stayed where it was at. Or at least this is my opinion.

 

[mmu1]

Matching things up when they start together is a bit different than taking two objects, separated by some large distance, and matching them up on the fly.

Not really. If you have the ability to disassemble matter all the way down to sub-atomic particles, and then put it back together exactly as it was, you must have already resolved all other issues relating to measurement and positioning, and they're at that point trivial.

And while I have no problem with someone coming up with an interesting and creative explanation for the inconsistency, I haven't see one yet.

 

[WhatGravitas]

I think the 'battle bridge' ended on top of the strut after the saucer section was off.

Yep. And I can say that the "battle bridge" was seen at least two times, and the saucer-engine-section seperation at least three times (In "Arsenal of Freedom", "Best of Both Worlds", and "ST 7: Generations"), so they actually used 'em sometimes in TNG

 

[F5]

The explanation that I always gave for the reason they can't just Beam a new bridge module into place (and I don't remember if I read this somewhere, or just made it up), is that there is an upper limit to the size/mass of an object that can be transported. As an object gets bigger the amount of energy needed to teleport it approaches infinity, and there's just not enough power to be able to transport an entire Bridge from place to place, unless you are Scotty or LaForge, in which case narrative rules take precedence over physical laws. It's the reason they have Warp Drives in the first place...if the transporters worked like that, they could just Beam the whole ship wherever they needed to go.

The thing that's always bothered me about Trek Tech...where are the Fighter ships!?!? You've got these huge, powerful, behemoth starships, which carry dozens of small, maneuverable shuttlecraft and support vehicles. They all have shields and phasers...why not armor them up a little, power up the phasers, mount 2 photon torpedoes on the roof, and use them as fighters?