Star Trek Federation Ships Achilles Heel

[The Grumpy Celt]

Roddenberry wanted to do a long shot transitioning from the bridge to exterior model.

Well then...

Even if that is why it was on the top, I still stick to my theory about modular bridges and the movie sets.

 

[Henry]

*Looks at Umbran's explanation*

Ummm.... yeah, what he said.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The Ghostbusters would like to have a word with you.

Let me rephrase that: "Nobody right in their mind would wear a antimatter reactor on their back".

*runs away*

 

[Wolf72]

I always got annoyed with worf's character ... in order to show how strong or powerful the BG was worf got beat up. Which just made him look like a wuss ... when he was suppossed to be tougher than a typical human.

 

[BrooklynKnight]

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

You forgot Encounter at Farpoint.

 

[Relique du Madde]

I always got annoyed with worf's character ... in order to show how strong or powerful the BG was worf got beat up. Which just made him look like a wuss ... when he was suppossed to be tougher than a typical human.

If it were a human (ie Riker, Picard or Tasha Yar when she was alive) (s)he would either die of internal bleeding or ended up spending half of an episode in the sick bay getting thier bones reset or wearing a sling for multiple episodes.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Well then...

Even if that is why it was on the top, I still stick to my theory about modular bridges and the movie sets.

At some point, there was probably a good in-universe reason for the bridge to be placed there.

Now, it's a design artifact.

Brad

 

[Ranger REG]

At some point, there was probably a good in-universe reason for the bridge to be placed there.

Now, it's a design artifact.

Brad

The same could be applied to Star Wars, Firefly/Serenity, etc.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Exactly, all the common and most popular sci-fantasy(ST,SW,Firefly,etc.) elements don't really make much sense how they do things, and people wouldn't build a craft in such a manner. It's all handwavery to make people stop asking because the answer is just "it looked cool." Because these shows aren't science fiction, they're science FANTASY with their handwaved plot-devices taking the place of magic. The last thing even resembling sci-fi on TV was Babylon 5 which was better than most but had its problems. Still it came closer than most.

Star Trek:TNG has always aggravated me the most, an ill-disciplined rabble of imcompetents who are supposedly part of a fleet. Except that it's not military, uses weapons that no one would accept into service, apparently has no training in any useful form. Oh and its ships are built like tin cans, armed with pea shooters, and kitted out like luxury liners. Even assuming the design would work, no one would build such a worthless and bloated vessel.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Exactly, all the common and most popular sci-fantasy(ST,SW,Firefly,etc.) elements don't really make much sense how they do things, and people wouldn't build a craft in such a manner. It's all handwavery to make people stop asking because the answer is just "it looked cool." Because these shows aren't science fiction, they're science FANTASY with their handwaved plot-devices taking the place of magic. The last thing even resembling sci-fi on TV was Babylon 5 which was better than most but had its problems. Still it came closer than most.

Babylon 5 remains my favorite scifi show ever, but it was steeped in fantasy. I'd say moreso than Star Trek, though that's all debatable since both have highl;y fantastic elements.

Star Trek:TNG has always aggravated me the most, an ill-disciplined rabble of imcompetents who are supposedly part of a fleet. Except that it's not military, uses weapons that no one would accept into service, apparently has no training in any useful form. Oh and its ships are built like tin cans, armed with pea shooters, and kitted out like luxury liners. Even assuming the design would work, no one would build such a worthless and bloated vessel.

I'm not sure I see how they were incompetents. Saying that Starfleet isn't military isn't correct. Built like tin cans? They seem pretty sturdy in comparison to the other ships of that universe. Armed with pea shooters - again, between phasers and photon torpedoes, I'm not seeing the criticism considering that photon torpedoes are more powerful than nukes. You have something on the bit about how they're kitted out lilke luxury liners - at least that's true about Enterprise-D. Not so true of other ships of the franchise.

Unless you want to explain your reasoning on most of your points, the second part of your post looks like little more than threadcrapping. I'd be willing to consider your points if they were better reasoned, but for the most part, Federation technology, hell, Star Trek technology in general pushes the boundaries of what could even be considered realistic, even with their pseudo-science and techno-babble. For instance, in one episode they use phasers to reverse an ice age. In another episode they modify the ship's tractor beam to change the course of a neutron star fragment. Man, those two items alone would require an almost inconceivable amount of energy.