Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mmu1" data-source="post: 3419246" data-attributes="member: 319">... which makes so much sense in a setting with transporters. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I usually try not to nitpick sci-fi shows, but anything with an associated "Technical Manual" has it coming.I think they designed the bridge placement (and kept it throughout the various series) like that for two reasons: Looks, and precisely because they wanted to be able to threaten the bridge crew with something blasting through from the outside.After all, ignoring the implications of the technology they have available in order to create a sense of danger is a long-standing Trek tradition.Think about the way, for example, that Trek doctors constantly lose patients with no apparent head or brain injury, when they should be able to use transporter technology to keep the various tissues oxygentated and alive at will. Or, for that matter, have a transporter pattern of everyone in the crew on file, and when they're wounded, simply de-materialize and re-materialize them with the damaged parts replaced with pristine tissue.And that's without even getting into the really obvious stuff, like seatbelts for bridge chairs, or body armor and something better than flashlights for away missions into hostile territory...</blockquote>

Verification