Idiot sci-fi question: Why did the starship Enterprise have such a stupid bridge?

[SUBMAN1]

Another one to entertain!

-S

PS. Here is the background info:

There, I said it, the USS Enterprise (all of them) in Star Trek (all of them) had a stupid bridge. It was illogically designed, awkwardly placed, and was a complete backstep from modern thinking and plain old common sense. Here's why:


First, some ground rules: The starship Enterprise was a military vessel. Don't give me that Roddenberry-esque utopian hokum about Starfleet being an exploratory and diplomatic body. The crew had military ranks, the ship had weapons, and people got court-martialed. So, first question, why is the main control center of the ship–where all your high-ranking, high-value officers sit and work–placed on the top of the vessel where's it's easy to hit? Seriously, if Sulu ever misjudges the top of the doorjamb in spacedock, every major character gets scraped out of continuity like extra icing off a cupcake. Why Khan didn't aim for the bridge instead of engineering when he busted his sneak attack in Star Trek II I'll never know. One decent shot and it's just Scotty, Bones and some cadets versus the Nightmare from Fantasy Island, which lasts all of 5 seconds. Instead, he aims for engineering and yucks it up long enough to get pwned by some prefix-code shenanigans and later the cunning tactic of "moving in the z-axis." They just don't make genetically modified supervillains like they used to. I guess the short answer is that Starfleet can design a dumb bridge because all the bad guys are even dumber.


Second question: Why does the Enterprise have just a bridge? All modern naval vessels have this neat room called the Combat Information Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Information_Center) (CIC), where all important command decisions are made. So, even though many warships still have a conventional bridge up top where it can get blasted–a pragmatic necessity since, when all else fails, you'll need to look out an open window to see and steer–the high-ranking officers are nestled below decks behind lots of armor and with multiple methods of egress. If you get stuck on the bridge of the Enterprise–which happened in several episodes–you're effectively trapped, sealing the commanders off from their crew. And don't tell me there wasn't room for a CIC, the darn ship had an auxillary bridge (and a bowling alley (http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Bowling_alley)), so they could have spared the space for a rational command center.


So, fearless readers and unapologetic Trekkies, let this here Trivia Geek in on the secret–or at least your crackpot theories–and explain why the starship(s) Enterprise had such a stupid bridge.

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/geekend/images/dumb_bridge.jpg

[Ducimus]

:rotfl:

[Iron Budokan]

Um, you'd better sit down for this one. Take a deep breath. Get ready to have your entire worldview shattered. Okay, here we go, it's gonna be a big one:

Star Trek isn't real.

Oh, and Elvis is dead. (I threw that last in for extra credit.) ;)

[XabbaRus]

Hey they had a Battle Bridge but it was used just once or twice. I remember the bit in ST:TNG movie where the saucer and body split Riker went to the Battle Bridge..

Agree SUBMAN they really should look at how a real warship works and then design something....

The best starship is USS Defiant.

[SUBMAN1]

Yep!

[DeepIron]

Well, considering it was a stage set, the bridge was laid out for the convenience of camera angles and lighting.... ;)

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

First, some ground rules: The starship Enterprise was a military vessel. Don't give me that Roddenberry-esque utopian hokum about Starfleet being an exploratory and diplomatic body. The crew had military ranks, the ship had weapons, and people got court-martialed.
For all that, it is a schizophrenic organization that can't decide whether it is a military or not. That no doubt does nothing to its efficiency.
So, first question, why is the main control center of the ship–where all your high-ranking, high-value officers sit and work–placed on the top of the vessel where's it's easy to hit? Seriously, if Sulu ever misjudges the top of the doorjamb in spacedock, every major character gets scraped out of continuity like extra icing off a cupcake. Why Khan didn't aim for the bridge instead of engineering when he busted his sneak attack in Star Trek II I'll never know.
SoD: Watched it once eons ago and don't remember any details. However, historically the engineering compartment is larger and easier to hit than bridges. Bridges are placed in exposed areas since they typically are the areas that allow good observation (exposure) of the outside surroundings.
Non-SoD: If Khan tries for the bridge, plot requirements will either dictate that he'll miss (Main Character Shields), or he hits it but everyone still somehow survives. He might as well go for the part he will actually be allowed to hurt.
Second question: Why does the Enterprise have just a bridge? All modern naval vessels have this neat room called the Combat Information Center (CIC), where all important command decisions are made.
Surface vessels have split bridges and CICs. Subs just have a control room. Even then, they are often very close together. See Perry-class, where one deck down and a bit aft of the bridge pilothouse is the CIC. Below that we have various crew quarters.
Captains will often prefer the bridge for various reasons (such as tradition) anyway.

[Ducimus]

In the star trek universe, all action, revolved around the bridge, therego its central location! :lol:

[Torplexed]

Frankly, I've never understood why the phaser banks and photon torpedoes were mounted in a position with such a limited field of fire. If an enemy vessel is 'above' the saucer section or directly below they're in a dead zone.

But given that the sixties were still a time when sci-fi spaceships were mostly conceived as being either flying saucers or needle-nosed rockets I have to give them credit for coming up with a rather unique design. :cool:

[Ducimus]

Since were on that note, nevermind the brdige, the entire ships design is rather...... retarded. Its full of what could be percieved as weak points in a ship to ship battle. Since the weapons are fairly accurate (:roll:) id be aiming for the struts on the engine, or the base where the saucer connects to the rest of the ship to disembowl the bloody thing.

[SUBMAN1]

Since were on that note, nevermind the brdige, the entire ships design is rather...... retarded. Its full of what could be percieved as weak points in a ship to ship battle. Since the weapons are fairly accurate (:roll:) id be aiming for the struts on the engine, or the base where the saucer connects to the rest of the ship to disembowl the bloody thing.Well, I understand why the engines are on struts - they are purposely kept away from the ship and they are ejectable given a situation of containment failure. Never seen one eject in a movie though - the ships just blow up, so maybe this is a bit of over-design?

-S

[NEON DEON]

The Enterprise is not a warship.

It is a spaceship(fictional).:D

[AVGWarhawk]

What I always wonder is space does not have a top and bottom. How is it that the Enterprise always meets the Klingons ship right side up position. Come on, who said all ships go this way up? There is no up. How come we never see an invertated ship? Ships meeting ships that might be on it's side. Is there an intergalactic counsel that has a sign that says this side up?

[Onkel Neal]

Another one to entertain!

-S

PS. Here is the background info:

There, I said it, the USS Enterprise (all of them) in Star Trek (all of them) had a stupid bridge. It was illogically designed, awkwardly placed, and was a complete backstep from modern thinking and plain old common sense. Here's why:


First, some ground rules: The starship Enterprise was a military vessel. Don't give me that Roddenberry-esque utopian hokum about Starfleet being an exploratory and diplomatic body. The crew had military ranks, the ship had weapons, and people got court-martialed. So, first question, why is the main control center of the ship–where all your high-ranking, high-value officers sit and work–placed on the top of the vessel where's it's easy to hit? Seriously, if Sulu ever misjudges the top of the doorjamb in spacedock, every major character gets scraped out of continuity like extra icing off a cupcake. ...

Ok, whew, I'll have to come back when I calm down and refute this crazy premise that the Enterprise had a dumb bridge. But first, let me say, there is NO SUCH THING as extra icing on a cupcake. Huh? Got it? Ok, rethink the whole arguement, cuz that one analogy shot it down.

;)

Neal

[Onkel Neal]

But given that the sixties were still a time when sci-fi spaceships were mostly conceived as being either flying saucers or needle-nosed rockets I have to give them credit for coming up with a rather unique design. :cool:

I so totally agree, the concept of the ship was so innovative and cool.

[kiwi_2005]

So, fearless readers and unapologetic Trekkies, let this here Trivia Geek in on the secret–or at least your crackpot theories–and explain why the starship(s) Enterprise had such a stupid bridge.

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/geekend/images/dumb_bridge.jpg
:lol: Yep and why on top where there's no protection from an attack. The Klingon are thick all they would need to do is autolock on all there missiles at that hub of a bridge and its bye bye Startrek. Thats once they take down the shields first which they never manage to get pass in there attacks.

[joea]

Hey they had a Battle Bridge but it was used just once or twice. I remember the bit in ST:TNG movie where the saucer and body split Riker went to the Battle Bridge..

Agree SUBMAN they really should look at how a real warship works and then design something....

The best starship is USS Defiant.

The Battle Bridge was also exposed cause the Enterprise-D would spilt into two sections, saucer and the ship drive section.

Yea you're right though Subman.

[STEED]

Best end of year thread for 2007. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :up: :up:

[SUBMAN1]

Now that you guys have made your opinion. Here is what the rest of the world answered this question with:

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/geekend/?p=593

It seems to have made a ton of replies to this blog! Hey! Is that guy saying the Final Countdown is lame???

-S

[mapuc]

Um, you'd better sit down for this one. Take a deep breath. Get ready to have your entire worldview shattered. Okay, here we go, it's gonna be a big one:

Star Trek isn't real.

Oh, and Elvis is dead. (I threw that last in for extra credit.) ;)

WHAT!! Is Star Trek not real?? :o And I how thought so...But Santa is real I know for sure.

Markus

[SUBMAN1]

Um, you'd better sit down for this one. Take a deep breath. Get ready to have your entire worldview shattered. Okay, here we go, it's gonna be a big one:

Star Trek isn't real.

Oh, and Elvis is dead. (I threw that last in for extra credit.) ;)
WHAT!! Is Star Trek not real?? :o And I how thought so...But Santa is real I know for sure.

Markus

He just doesn't know, so don't worry about it. He is not able to peer into the future like the rest of us can. He is stuck in like, 2007 or something.

-S

[AntEater]

Strangely enough, I was asking myself the same question one day or the other.
Actually the most realistic space opera CICs were those of the Earth Destroyers in Babylon 5, which were pretty much like a normal CIC on a warship.
Unfortunately they went back to the star treck kind of bridge for the white stars.
The Excalibur in Crusade had a mixture between the two, with a pretty circular bridge, but still with two dumb ahead looking pilots.
I suppose the Jeffries bridge design (a guy named Jeffries did the set for Star Trek, so they named the tubes after him) was more of a plot device.
It was build like a movie theater in order to have the whole command staff in one location and zoom in on everybody as needed. It saved set space and created a stage like athmosphere.
The whole "everybody staring ahead at the main screen" thing is idiotic as well, as there's mostly nothing to see except space.
I suppose the analogy Jeffries took was the quarterdeck of a sail warship "tack to starboard, Mr. Hornblower!" and so on.
Basically SciFi bridges oscillate between a plane cockpit and the Quarterdeck of HMS whatever.
Modern CICs are too unkown for the causal viewer.

Actually one of the most useful bridge designs was with the failed B5 pilot "Legends of the Rangers", where the ship had a circular CIC with a holographic display at the center and some kind of VR environment for the pilot and weapons officer.
The pilot sucked anyway....

[Steel_Tomb]

The best CiC I've seen is the CiC from the Pegasus in BSG...pretty cool if you ask me.

[Blacklight]

Hmmm... Well Star Trek ships have one thing that modern naval ships lack and that's SHIELDS. The Enterprise is surrounded by a large force field bubble (That can be weakened on various sides until it's broken through but let's not get into the logic of that). It's possible that placement of everything on the ship including the bridge could be simply due to the designers considering that the "Shields" would be enough proper armor for the ship. Considering the destructive force of the weapons we're dealing with in the Trek universe, once a ship's shields are gone, it's pretty much going to be blown to smitherines anyway so that may make physical placement of control centers and engines a moot point.
I DO know that the engines are designed to be ejectable in case of a "core breach".

As for fireing arcs, The Enterprise has several but is never really shown using them. It CAN fire at targets directly "Above" or "Below" it. You can actually see this happen in various episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation, Voyager, and Deep Space Nine (Original Trek just recycled footage of phasers and photon torpedoes fireing and sometimes they would mess up and when Kirk would say "Fire phasers", they would show the photon torpedo footage or vise versa would happen:lol: ).

My sister is a Treker. I'll have to call her up and get more accurate info from her. :D

[Dowly]

Stupid show, stupid bridge. :yep::rotfl:

[TLAM Strike]

Frankly, I've never understood why the phaser banks and photon torpedoes were mounted in a position with such a limited field of fire. If an enemy vessel is 'above' the saucer section or directly below they're in a dead zone.

But given that the sixties were still a time when sci-fi spaceships were mostly conceived as being either flying saucers or needle-nosed rockets I have to give them credit for coming up with a rather unique design. :cool:

Well in space combat engagment ranges would be in excess of thousands of miles so what has a limited field of fire is less so a thousand miles away.

[Sailor Steve]

I'm with Neal and Torplexed: it was the sixties, and it looked cool!

No logic, no planning, just make it look neat.:sunny:

[AntEater]

Dang, forgot BSG, of course.
Both Galactica's and Pegasus' CICs are of course quite ok, Pegasus' even more.
Galactica's bridge always reminds me of a WW2 fighter direction theatre.

Regarding the ranges, Star Trek ship combat usually takes place at about the same distances as the Battle of Trafalgar
:D

Anyway, it seems Scifi ship designers are always torn between the "ship" and the "aircraft" analogy.
Star Trek normally prefers to think of its spacecraft as ships, with some exceptions like the Defiant that usually attacks like a fighter aircraft.
Generally, the TNG Enterprise was the least logical scifi ship ever, a flying luxury hotel!

[STEED]

I'm with Neal and Torplexed: it was the sixties, and it looked cool!

No logic, no planning, just make it look neat.:sunny:

Am I complaining no, I with you guys. :yep: :lol:

[Oberon]

Defiant bridge FTW :D

[XabbaRus]

I'm disappointed, I thought SUBMAN had thought this one up himself, shame on you......still I prefer it when scifi designers actually do it properly. If I was to design a Starship I'd do it the complete other way.

In fact I will make a 3DS model of my starship with CAD drawings.

Give me a spec though tell me what you want.

[Onkel Neal]

The bridge design, the interior layout, was superb. Best of any sci-fi show until that time. So it was on the top of the saucer section? Awe, who cares, that ship was COOL. Beats all the Buck Roger rockets to heck. Someone put some thought into that design, man. :yep:

And yeah, the phasers firing from the underside of the saucer, I had questions about that too. (Original Trek just recycled footage of phasers and photon torpedoes fireing and sometimes they would mess up and when Kirk would say "Fire phasers", they would show the photon torpedo footage or vise versa would happen:lol: ).

I know!! I always thought that was messed up :rotfl:

The biggest Trek question I had when I was watching the show in the 70s (repeats): Ok, so the ship can go 512x faster than light... I can see the twin nacelles, that's what drives the ship... so how do they put on the brakes?? :hmm:

[STEED]

so how do they put on the brakes?? :hmm:

Now that is a bloody good question. :up:

[Blacklight]

Well.. the physics of a warp drive does not involve movement of the ship at all. The starship remains esentially motionless. It actually requires a special type of energry that we havn't seen in nature though. From what I understand, an almost infinite amount of positive energy is generated in front of the ship. This causes space and time in front of the ship to compress. At the same time, you have to direct a near infinite amount of negative energy (That exotic energy we have yet to see in nature) behind the ship. This causes space and time to streach out behind the ship. If the ship rests in a bubble of non moving space in between the compressing and streaching of space and time on both sides, it will move faster than the speed of light (But the ship itself isn't moving. It's actually space and time that moves around it due to the compressing and streaching). I may have the negative and positive energy roles mixed up as I don't fully remember which goes in the front or the back.

From what I understand (and further research on my part is required on this one), is that the "Transwarp" that the USS Excelcior pioneered in the movies and is standard in all of the Next Generation and it's spinnoffs, actually generates near infinite positive and negative energy to allow it to travel through every point in the universe simultaniously before ending up in it's location. That is a real scientific principle of particle physics. This advance allows a "Transwarp" ship to fly a LOT faster than a regular "Warp Drive" ship. But again.. consider that the ship itself isn't actually moving. Space and time is moving around it due to streaching and compression. I'll have to do a further look into the tech side of a Transwarp drive so maybe I can explain it better.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Neal Stevens
so how do they put on the brakes?? :hmm:


That answer is simple. Since the ships themselves aren't actually moving, all they have to do is turn off the injection of positive energy in front of them and negative energy behind them and "Pow" ! No more apparent motion. (And once again, I could have the positive and negative energy projection directions reversed).:know:

The area where they screwed up is when they show the ships speeding up rapidly and everyone getting thrust backward into their seats. There shouldn't be any sensation of movement for a ship traveling at warp speed. You could go from Zero to Warp 10 in 3 secconds and still not get splattered into the back of the bridge room. You would feel no motion inside the ship.

[Rhodes]

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/treknology/warp3.htm

and about the bridge: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/design.htm

"Roddenberry's Design Rules"
"Rule #4 The bridge must be located at the top center of the primary hull."

[Onkel Neal]

The area where they screwed up is when they show the ships speeding up rapidly and everyone getting thrust backward into their seats. There shouldn't be any sensation of movement for a ship traveling at warp speed. You could go from Zero to Warp 10 in 3 secconds and still not get splattered into the back of the bridge room. You would feel no motion inside the ship.

You forgot, the Enterprise's artificial gravity system automatically compensates for acceration, hard turns, and hits and near hits of enemy weapons by inducing centrifugal effects for the crew, to keep them acclimated with events happening to the ship.

Research, it pays off :yep:

[Blacklight]

You forgot, the Enterprise's artificial gravity system automatically compensates for acceration, hard turns, and hits and near hits of enemy weapons by inducing centrifugal effects for the crew, to keep them acclimated with events happening to the ship.


In a proper warp drive ship, the ship itself is not moveing and is therefore immune to any accelleration, hard turns, etc. They wouldn't need centrifugal effects for the crew as the ship remains stationary and space warps around it. I actually just did some research at how a warp drive would really work in the real world. In Star Trek, as above, they use "Subspace" to travel through. A warp drive that would actually work in the real world without a "subspace dimention" to it would squeeze space and time in front of the ship and streach it behind the ship. The ship would have no motion whatsoever, but space and time would move around it due to the compressing and streaching. You would not need any innertial compensators. Quote from Popular Science about being in the bubble of spacetime that space compresses and expands beyond:

What would it be like in the bubble? The area inside the bubble of negative energy would be isolated—a kind of pocket universe—so passengers wouldn’t experience any ill effects from the acceleration. The ship would actually be at rest in its local space.

Here is the article
From Popular Science Magazine: (with some very nice pictures demonstrating it)
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/d1e527098dcda010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

You can barely hear him, but if you listen closely and turn your volume up and look really hard, you can see and hear what he's saying...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNAEN8LmevQ

I'm just a little bit of a physics nerd and absorb books and books on the subjects of space/time/energy/cosmology, etc...
Can you tell ? *Holds up his official "Nerd King" crown.:rock:

[MothBalls]

Oh, and Elvis is dead.

No, I'm not dead.

[AVGWarhawk]

What is even funnier....I was able to go to the Smithsonian when they had all the Star Trek props on display. The bridge is made out of plywood and little plastic light covers of different colors. Kirks chair was also plywood and the seat was black plastic covering. The consols were plywood. All of it painted gray. It probably ran $200.00 to make it all. It was darn good acting touching the screens and buttons that do nothing but making it look real all the same.

Anyway, they had all the models and some tribbles in a display case. Some of the costumes were on display. Nice visit.

[SUBMAN1]

I'm with Neal and Torplexed: it was the sixties, and it looked cool!

No logic, no planning, just make it look neat.:sunny:And bridges where on top of real naval ships too - so this is probably why.

[SUBMAN1]

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/treknology/warp3.htm

and about the bridge: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/design.htm

"Roddenberry's Design Rules"
"Rule #4 The bridge must be located at the top center of the primary hull."[...dies from trek overdose...] :dead:

[Rhodes]

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/treknology/warp3.htm

and about the bridge: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/design.htm

"Roddenberry's Design Rules"
"Rule #4 The bridge must be located at the top center of the primary hull."[...dies from trek overdose...] :dead:

Ehehehe, sorry about that, I should had put a warning sign about the site...:D

[SUBMAN1]

I think I have the deck plans to the Constitution class somewhere. Someone gave me some RPG game at one point in time, and I never played it. It explains many things trek like.

Lots of deck space wasted to the ships computer. Seems back in the 60's (or the future for that matter) that no one thought of miniturization!

-S

[Blacklight]

I think I have the deck plans to the Constitution class somewhere. Someone gave me some RPG game at one point in time, and I never played it. It explains many things trek like.

Lots of deck space wasted to the ships computer. Seems back in the 60's (or the future for that matter) that no one thought of miniturization!


Well even with miniaturisation, and even using quantum computers (which is pretty much as small as nature will allow), to get a computer that's as interactive and performs all the functions that we see on Star Trek, you would still probably need a sizeable chunk of the ship just for the computer.

I mean, not only does it comunicate using voice recognition (with hundreds of crewmembers simultaniously), It runs ship functions that border on figuring out string theory equasions (modern computers can't even solve those equasions to their end yet), It handles holodecks (which in itself is super complex beyond imagination when you consider the mathematical algorythms required just to computer every particle generated in there), not to mention calculations of the positions, directions of travel, and speeds of billions of stars, planets, asteroids, and other stellar objects. Add to that, navigating with the speed of a warp drive so that you don't crash into anything and calculating the math to enable you to even get everything coordinated to even get a warp drive properly and safely going.. This list is almost infinite... and the computer handles all this stuff at the same time.

Consider the fact that the only difference between a computer processor and a biological brain is the number of switches aside from the fact that one is artificially made and the other is biological. A brain and a computer are nothing more than a vast collection of on/off switches. A biological brain has WAY more switches than a computer processor. With our current technology, you would need a computer the size of the planet or larger to be able to match the thinking power of a single thinking animal let alone a human being considering the vast number of on/off switches in a biological brain. Even with a quantum computer, to match the stuff seen on Star Trek, you would need to make that thing huge in order to process all the information it needs to process simultaniously (And quantum computers would work great for this because they don't just have on/off switches. Their switches have three possible states: On, Off, and On and Off at the same time.) This makes them fantastic for the kind of multitasking required for a Star Trek computer.
But like I said.. you would still need a SIZEABLE chunk of space on that ship for the computer even if it WAS a quantum computer or a series of quantum computers to get a computer like the ones we see on Star Trek.

*Finishes ranting about Star Trek computers, decides to go to bed and take his Klingon costume off*

[Chock]

Chalk me up as another 'who cares? it looks cool' voter. But, since we're on the subject...

You can see some of the prominent design ideas at the time of the original series in the way the ship looks: First off, the notion of a flying saucer, popular in many movies of the previous decade, is a big influence; the most obvious candidate for accusations of a direct copy of the design for the NCC-1701, is the ship from the 1956 movie, Forbidden Planet (a saucer), copying of the crew structure and 'realism' of ranks etc is apparent too, the movie also being a big influence on the matte painting techniques for many of the show's effects, as well as the music and weapon SFX.

Next, the notion of podded engines coming into play with the most modern jetliner designs at the time, such as the DC-8, B-707 and Convair 880 is also quite obviously a factor, which of course to some extent dictates the design layout of everything else. Supposedly, the engines have to be widely separated to prevent them 'interfering with one another' in the fictional explanation of their workings in Star Trek, but their separation is a sound tactical measure too. Though it puts constraints on a nice looking ship design, it also puts in an appearance on the real-world A-10 Thunderbolt II close support aircraft, which has its engines widely spaced apart in order to reduce the possibility of a critical hit taking out both engines. Oddly enough, if you believe the theory of gravitational 'warp engines' might one day be possible, it's speculated that a saucer shaped craft would be the most logical layout to get that to work, although, ironically this is at odds with the engine layout on the Enterprise.

On the subject of the bridge, you've obviously got dramatic prerequisites in that you want the most important crew members 'at the front' where the action is, and you want them in reasonably close proximity to one another, again for dramatic purposes, although this is tactically sound too, and was used in the design of many WW2 German bombers such as the Junkers Ju-88 (designed by an American team incidentally) and Dornier Do-17, where the close proximity of crewmembers was thought to boost morale and camaraderie.

Anyway, like I said, who cares? It looks cool, as does the original Klingon bird of prey craft, which, you'll note, also has the bridge right up front.

Live long and prosper!

:D Chock

[Torplexed]

Man. Gotta give Star trek credit. It's main mission was entertainment. 40 years later it's fostering engineering and structural debates.

I bet the originators of Starblazers didn't have to put much thought into where to site the bridge. Especially after hosing the marine growth out. :lol:

http://www.shipschematics.net/yamato/images/edf/battleship_yamato2.jpg

[XabbaRus]

Awww that is well cool.