# Star Trek Federation Ships Achilles Heel



## Darrin Drader (Mar 26, 2007)

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? I seriously would like to know how this makes any logical sense. If the ship gets into a scrap and loses its shields, the command crew is vulnerable, sitting at the center of a bull's eye. It's easily decapitated. Besides, it isn't like that massive screen at the front of the bridge is an actual window. You could locate that thing in a warp nacelle if you wanted to and the picture wouldn't be any less clear. In an age when it's an easy matter to lock onto specific locations of an enemy vessel, how can this make any form of logical sense? Wouldn't it be a lot smarter to locate them at the heart of the vessel somewhere?


----------



## Hand of Evil (Mar 26, 2007)

It is just because!     Silly I know, but the best answer, and when you get to design a star ship you can put it, the bridge, where you want to.     Same could be said for every star ship I have seen, they put the bridge where it is a target.


----------



## Silver Moon (Mar 26, 2007)

Real Reason: It looks cool

Official Star Trek Stated Reason: The bridge is the part of the ship that will need to be updated with new technology most frequently so by placing it there the entire bridge module can be removed and a new one inserted without having to tear apart the entire ship.


----------



## jhallum (Mar 26, 2007)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> 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? I seriously would like to know how this makes any logical sense. If the ship gets into a scrap and loses its shields, the command crew is vulnerable, sitting at the center of a bull's eye. It's easily decapitated. Besides, it isn't like that massive screen at the front of the bridge is an actual window. You could locate that thing in a warp nacelle if you wanted to and the picture wouldn't be any less clear. In an age when it's an easy matter to lock onto specific locations of an enemy vessel, how can this make any form of logical sense? Wouldn't it be a lot smarter to locate them at the heart of the vessel somewhere?




To add to other people's stated reasons, it's also appears that there are a second layer of shields that protect the bridge area when the ship goes to Yellow Alert (as seen in the second movie, as Reliant approaches).


----------



## Alaric_Prympax (Mar 26, 2007)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> Wouldn't it be a lot smarter to locate them at the heart of the vessel somewhere?





Because that is where the main computer core is located.  It's surrounded by Sick Bay, it's supposed to be the 'safest' part of the ship.  It's in the Blue Prints (yeah somewhere I've got 'D' prints) and the old TOS Star Trek Technical Manual.


Hmm... apparently I've got some Skill Points in Knowledge (Star Trek).  :\


----------



## mmu1 (Mar 26, 2007)

Silver Moon said:
			
		

> Real Reason: It looks cool
> 
> Official Star Trek Stated Reason: The bridge is the part of the ship that will need to be updated with new technology most frequently so by placing it there the entire bridge module can be removed and a new one inserted without having to tear apart the entire ship.




... which makes so _much_ sense in a setting with transporters.  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...


----------



## Hand of Evil (Mar 26, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> ... which makes so _much_
> 
> 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...



Don't get me started on transporters and personal shields!  You would think that someone would have created a communicator/shield combo!  Hell, it should be built into the red shirts!


----------



## WhatGravitas (Mar 26, 2007)

Alaric_Prympax said:
			
		

> Because that is where the main computer core is located.  It's surrounded by Sick Bay, it's supposed to be the 'safest' part of the ship.  It's in the Blue Prints (yeah somewhere I've got 'D' prints) and the old TOS Star Trek Technical Manual.
> 
> 
> Hmm... apparently I've got some Skill Points in Knowledge (Star Trek).  :\



Additionally, according to the ST:TNG manual, and some notes about the Voyager, the bridge is a self-contained module, that can be ejected as a kind of "super-lifeboat", so it has to be located on the outside of the hull.

Furthermore, the federation ships are not war vessels, but science and luxury vessel, can you explain these large rooms, replicators and holodecks in any other way?

And, of course, the main reason is: It's cool.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 26, 2007)

Imagine, if you will, transporting an entire room of your home - so that every single wire and pipe connection fits perfectly upon arrival.  Now make many of them tiny electronic things, and make the others  carry lots of high-energy plasma that blows up if it gets loose.  

Note how generally, they don't use transporters when precision is called for?  Making sure a person winds up basically on the pad is one thing.  Making sure a multi-ton object winds up perfectly fitting within a confined space is quite another.  

That, aside from the energy cost, which also probably tells you why personal shields aren't common equipment in the Federation.  It seems to me that Trek tech is far better at working on small things than it is at big ones.

Also, to be blunt, once a ship's shields are down, the fight is basically over anyway.  Hiding deep within the ship isn't a big help.  Without shields the enemy would be able to get to it if they wanted to with just a fraction more time.  Burying the bridge deep within is helpful against unintended danger, on occasion.  But given how often a ship thoroughly explodes after one hit with the shields down, it doesn't seem like it matters much.


----------



## mmu1 (Mar 26, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Imagine, if you will, transporting an entire room of your home - so that every single wire and pipe connection fits perfectly upon arrival.  Now make many of them tiny electronic things, and make the others  carry lots of high-energy plasma that blows up if it gets loose.
> 
> Note how generally, they don't use transporters when precision is called for?  Making sure a person winds up basically on the pad is one thing.  Making sure a multi-ton object winds up perfectly fitting within a confined space is quite another.




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.

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


----------



## Rackhir (Mar 26, 2007)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 26, 2007)

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 (Mar 26, 2007)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 26, 2007)

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 (Mar 26, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 26, 2007)

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 (Mar 26, 2007)

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 (Mar 26, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 26, 2007)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 26, 2007)

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?


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 26, 2007)

I believe that the Achilles Heel of Star Trek Federation Ships named Enterprise in the TNG era was Data.  The number of times he was easily taken over by an alien entity are astounding.


----------



## Someone (Mar 26, 2007)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> I believe that the Achilles Heel of Star Trek Federation Ships named Enterprise in the TNG era was Data.  The number of times he was easily taken over by an alien entity are astounding.




And the Holodeck. I don't think the use it got as romantic scenario and instant holiday spot compensates the continous flow of deadly threats it generated.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Mar 26, 2007)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> ...was Data.




Yeah, they really should have made certain his firewalls and antivirus software stayed current.


----------



## babomb (Mar 27, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> 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...




My pet peeve is the consoles on the bridge explosively shorting out when the ship is attacked. Any 20th-century electrician could wire it so that it doesn't do that.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 27, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> At least the Battle Star Galactica has no "Achilles Heel Bridge". (But they don't have shields.... )



Now I know why I like the *original* Battlestar _Galactica._


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Mar 27, 2007)

F5 said:
			
		

> 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?




Haven't played Starfleet Battles, have you?  Drones and PFs, the SFB equivalent, kick capital ships' asses in big fights.  Swarm the big'uns with the little ships ...


----------



## WhatGravitas (Mar 27, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Haven't played Starfleet Battles, have you?  Drones and PFs, the SFB equivalent, kick capital ships' asses in big fights.  Swarm the big'uns with the little ships ...



And fighters are also a bit more popular in STS9, especially during the Dominion War.

Hmmm... the funny thing about Star Trek is, that the fans are actually more able to justify dramatics with technobabble then the show itself...


----------



## Relique du Madde (Mar 27, 2007)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> Yeah, they really should have made certain his firewalls and antivirus software stayed current.




Unfortunately, Doc.  Soong conned the Federation into believing that Data came fully equipt with either Apple's OS or Linux when he actually was preinstalled with Windows 95 and a anti-virus program he dled from a Warez site.


----------



## WayneLigon (Mar 27, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> ... which makes so _much_ sense in a setting with transporters.  I usually try not to nitpick sci-fi shows, but anything with an associated "Technical Manual" has it coming.




In the original series, transporter tech wasn't nearly as precise as it was in later shows. It was horrifically dangerous to transport things from inside the ship to inside the ship, so dangerous that they only did it once. 



			
				mmu1 said:
			
		

> 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.




They do have a transporter pattern for everyone. That's how the transporter works. It effectively kills you, then reconstructs you at the other end. That's why McCoy hated the thing. And they do use it like that in at least two OS shows I can think of. I always got the idea that they didn't really _know _ all the ins and outs of the transporter. The 'show' reason why it existed was to keep them from having to do shots of the ship landing and taking off (some of the original designs would have allowed that); it was too expensive.



			
				mmu1 said:
			
		

> 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...




One of the most amusing things in the first movie was where the captains chair arms fold in to keep him in his seat, just because people kept harping on that point 

I think the main point was that if the shields went down, you were screwed no matter where you put the bridge. So you might as well put it on the part of the ship that can _detach _ (as far as I know, they do this once and once only in any of the series) and up top so in case you have to crash land, it'll be the last thing to be destroyed.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Mar 27, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I think the main point was that if the shields went down, you were screwed no matter where you put the bridge. So you might as well put it on the part of the ship that can _detach _ (as far as I know, they do this once and once only in any of the series) and up top so in case you have to crash land, it'll be the last thing to be destroyed.





Tats assuming that the ship's stablizers were functioning properly and were able to keep the sauser section from flipping over or enterijg into a death spiral on reentry.


BTW.  Seeing Enterprise's Saucer Section crash land in Gneration made up for Kirks prolonged death (he should have said "Spock...." then died) and the cheesiness of the nexus plot device.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Mar 27, 2007)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> BTW.  Seeing Enterprise's Saucer Section crash land in Gneration made up for Kirks prolonged death (he should have said "Spock...." then died) and the cheesiness of the nexus plot device.




I wish we could write about half of that movie off as not cannon. The death of Kirk was just wrong. They should have left his fate ambiguous, or wrote him off as having settled down after meeting a nice female alien and raising wonderful kids in the Idaho countryside. He died like a punk, in a plot device that made no sense. I mean if time has no meaning, why couldn't he pick himself out of the nexus shortly before death after he had helped Picard kill Malcolm McDowell?


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Mar 27, 2007)

Or changed his last words to 'Bastich dropped a bridge on me! *Gurgle.*'

The Auld Grump, for that matter why did MacDowell's character need to steal a starship? We _know_ that they have warp shuttles.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Mar 27, 2007)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Or changed his last words to 'Bastich dropped a bridge on me! *Gurgle.*'
> 
> The Auld Grump, for that matter why did MacDowell's character need to steal a starship? We _know_ that they have warp shuttles.




You know, the only thing I like about that movie was that Data implanted his emotion chip, which led to some humorous behavior. Also, while crashing the Enterprise was rough, it did lead to them getting the Enterprise E, which is a far cooler ship than Enterprise D.

Berman! Bah!


----------



## Hand of Evil (Mar 27, 2007)

Mmmm, I think a quick clip of data being replaced by a mac needs to be made.   

Data: Who are you?
Mac: I'm Mac, your replacement?
Data: What?
Mac: You are subject to viruses, cause emotional out burst, are always being rebooted to fix your problems.
Data:


----------



## Silver Moon (Mar 27, 2007)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> 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?
> 
> ...



Close.   Roddenberry wanted to do a long shot transitioning from the bridge to exterior model.  They did this in at least one of the earlier episodes.


----------



## Thanee (Mar 27, 2007)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> ... how can this make any form of logical sense?




It's Star Trek... nothing there makes any logical sense. Not even Vulcans. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## DonTadow (Mar 27, 2007)

I read a really good book by Oscar Card Scott a decade a go and this advice was echoed in another book by author Nancy Kress. 

Star Trek is not science fiction. There is very little real science in it.  It's a great space fantasy series and should be taken as such.  It probably crossed over so well because it wasn't science fiction.


----------



## Tiberius (Mar 27, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> 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.)




We do see Worf modify his communicator to produce a very temporary personal shield in A Fistful of Datas, so apparently a communicator/shield generator isn't out of the question.


----------



## Dagger75 (Mar 27, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> )
> 
> 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.)




 The Ghostbusters would like to have a word with you.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 27, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Not really.




Yes, 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.




You seem to be conflating the problem of reassembling the object with putting it in the right position.  

Trek transporters work with a collimated beam of energy and information.  All the information about the relative positions of the objects is carried _within the beam_.  Within the bounds of signal degradation, it doesn't matter where you point the thing - wherever you target it, the object will be reassembled properly.  

That, however, does not address the question of targeting the beam.  When you're beaming a person onto a planet surface, you can aim just a little high, and be off by a millimeter or two, and nobody'd be the wiser.  When you are beaming something so that solid surfaces should be touching, and plasma conduits are precisely aligned, being a little high is not an option.  And the farther you are beaming the thing, the more difficult this becomes - angular errors become bigger deals over larger distances.

Basically, a transporter beam is like a plastic airplane model.  You put it in a box, and ship it with the instructions - no matter where it goes, the thing can be reassembled at the other end.  However, if you don't write the correct street address on the outside of the box, you're in trouble.

This, of course, is all supposing they have "pattern buffers" large enough to hold an entire bridge in one piece in the first place.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Mar 27, 2007)

Silver Moon said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 27, 2007)

_*Looks at Umbran's explanation*_

Ummm.... yeah, what he said.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 27, 2007)

Dagger75 said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 27, 2007)

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 (Mar 27, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 27, 2007)

Wolf72 said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 28, 2007)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 28, 2007)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 28, 2007)

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 (Mar 28, 2007)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Mar 28, 2007)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> 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.
> I'm not sure I see how they were incompetents. Saying that Starfleet isn't military isn't correct.



Actually, Rodenberry insisted that Starfleet _wasn't_ military. Not that anyone who wasn't a total fan bought that for a minute.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Mar 28, 2007)

Ed_Laprade said:
			
		

> Actually, Rodenberry insisted that Starfleet _wasn't_ military. Not that anyone who wasn't a total fan bought that for a minute.




Given the fact that Starfleet fights wars, I'd say they're a military organization. The difference is simply their mission, which is exploration rather than military dominance. It's a question of semantics more than anything else. They still have shields, they still have weapons, and they can still blow the hell out of things.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Mar 28, 2007)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> 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.




Like I mentioned neither are truly sci-fi, both are really fantasy dressed up as sci-fi I never contested that point.  But while a great deal of B5 was steeped in fantasy tropes they were truer to a sci-fi approach than many.  The human ships especially remained far more in line with newtonian physics than is usual aside from the jump space end-run.  Their design and the manner in which they fought seemed far more plausible from a technical and tactical point of view given the limitation of mainstream TV they were working under.  

Many of the plot points were directly pulled from fantasy, the looped time effect of the last war and Sinclair(or was it Sheridan it's been a long time since they were on air?) going back in time to fight the previous shadow war with the Membari and its repercussions.  The telepaths and the telepath wars could have easily been magic in any different setting.  The Shadows and Vorlons taking the place of inexplicable fey by way of inexplicable aliens.  Many more, but in large part these were fantasy within the plot rather than the technology.  Whereas in Star Trek the actual "technology" they are using is a direct stand-in for magic.  Both had fantasy elements but they were applied with exceptions in a different manner. 



			
				Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I see how they were incompetents.




Just TNG here:

And how many times did they fail to do even the most simple things resulting in a crisis?  How often has the Enterprise moved into a hostile situation with shields down?  How many times has the Enterprise been _boarded_ of all things.  Even after being repeatedly boarded they station no guards at the bridge, they have no comprehensive offensive internal security system when it is one of the first things a competent captain would see put in place given how many times they've been boarded.  (We see in DS9 that there are ways other than shields a vessel can be made either highly resistant or impervious to transporters through its construction yet none of these supposedly military ships have implemented this?)

They send the most senior members of the ship planetside into hostile situations on missions that some junior lieutenant or ensign should be commanding.  Here's a great example, they find an ailing ship full of apparently semi-retarded aliens who don't understand their own tech.  Who do they send over, their chief engineer of all people, nearly alone on a potentially hostile unknown vessel.  That sort of incompetence would end in a court-martial in any first-world Navy.  

Forget the name of the episode but a shuttlecraft crashes and the stereotypical malign alien entity kills all but one crewman who it keep hostage.  As a command officer beyond the fast access of the diplomatic corps it's his responsibility to deal with this himself even though today the State Department would normally be called in.  However he comes down to meet with the entity alone placing himself in danger of capture and placing the command authority of his vessel in danger.  This sort of thing would ensure he never saw another command in the U.S. Navy.  In other episodes I've actually seen him take the watch standers, the entire senior officer group who would normally ensure continuity of the chain of command and perform a commando raid of all things.  That is the worst example of incompetence I've ever seen.



			
				Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> Saying that Starfleet isn't military isn't correct.




You need more than rank badges, uniforms, and firearms to be military.  The Forest Service has all those things, does that make them a military organization?  Based on what I've seen in TNG there are no signs of military protocol among the crew. They do appear to be comparable to a quasi-paramilitary organization though much as the police or forest service based on their protocols.  I'd say they are most like a paramilitary version of the Oceanographic and Survey Service.  They have civilian non-combatants including their own spouses and CHILDREN onboard the ship.  They appear to have no dedicated ground combat force akin to the army or marine corps, not even the Naval Infantry that have been reformed recently.  Other than shipboard weapons they appear limited to the equivalent of pistols and rifles.  No signs of support weapons of any kind even light squad level support weapons.  Their uniforms are not merely ill-suited for combat, they're impractical at a daily level.  Thin tight-fitting bodygloves with no pockets?  Their footwear isn't even up to par with Navy shipboard footwear.  



			
				Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> 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.




The key is examining the design in comparison to potential capabilities.  First sturdiness.  given that this is supposed to be a military vessel and as a Galaxy class should be their equivalent to a battleship.  

Enterprise-D relies upon its shields in combat mostly, yet it's shields are apparently a single system.  There is no redundancy.  Either the main shield works or it doesn't.  Given the hull volume of the enterprise it could fit at least a single fully redudant backup to take load if the primary fails, yet it doesn't.  It has a single vulnerable central computer controlling everything on the ship, a military vessel would have this distributed as a network of many redundant individually smaller control systems each managing only a portions of the ship's systems to reduce point-source failure.  Next armor, battleships usually had between 28 and 35 percent of their displacement(I'll go with mass for the sake of the enterprise) as armor.  Now armor might be useless if weapons are relatively of a high-enough power, but given that DS9 took quite a few unshielded hits from phasers or torpedos over the sake of the series without breeching and that the unpowered Promethian warship took more than five torpedos to destroy I'll go with the assumption that it is effective.  Yet according to the TNG:Tech Manual the skin of the Enterprise is under 13cm thick and most of that a non-armor grade foamed composite.  This is not the way you build a capital ship.  Nor is its frame strong enough since it deforms under the load of a single gravity without its structural integrity field.

Second armament.  How much of the internal volume of the ship is taken up by its offensive systems?  It possesses only three photon torpedo launchers.  And it's magazines take up only a fraction of the available volume.  The phaser banks are based on the pictures and diagrams in the TM comparitively very small in comparison to the available volume in the saucer.  Let's use the bizmark for example since she was a paragon of battleships.  Just under forty percent of her displacement was devoted to weapons and munitions storage.  I can tell you right now the Enterprise is barely a fraction of this certainly not over ten percent.  At the very least the saucer should be stuffed with subsidary reactors to feed multiple phaser banks.  Also, where are their point defense weapons?  Even destroyers have dedicated CIWS to automatically intercept incoming munitions, yet these are entirely lacking from the Enterprise.  

Photon torpedoes.  Based on the warhead description in the TM and even in the series occasionally they react 1.5kg of antimatter with the same amount of matter.  Even assuming unatainable 100 percent efficiency that 64.3 megatons.  During the Cold War fusion bombs of a size equal to and slightly greater than this were tested.  And nuclear weapons aren't nearly as deadly in space due to the necessary design of ships and characteristics of space.

Phasers.  Honestly I can't get a single lock on how powerful these things are.  One minute their effects appear quite limited and in the next episode they do something with enormous evergy requirements.  they're effectively a plot device and operate solely at the power necessary for the plot.



			
				Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> 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.




True about the Enterprise-D, True about the Defiant, though I've seen less of the original series it appears to apply equally to that Enterprise.  Have you ever seen a picture of the berthing spaces of a modern naval vessel?  Most crew get a bunk barely as wide as their shoulders with just enough headroom to prop a book up on your chest.  On many ships they hot-rack with three crew to a bunk in shifts.  Compare that to the conditions on even the Defiant, it's like a Hilton by comparison.  Have we ever even seen the conditions of the enlisted crew?  Aside from one chief, who had quarters as good as an officer, it seems the entire crew is made up of officers based on who appears on the show and their rank conventions.  Even the red-shirts are ensigns.  On the Enterprise-D in particular this "warship" has the vast majority of its saucer taken up by ridiculous apartments in spaces better served by redundant back-up systems, extra weapons or munition space.  Or even electronic warfare equipment.




> 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.




This isn't pushing the boundaries of what might be realistic, the technology itself is purely plot-device.  Enormously capable one episode and useless the next.  With no linking justification except for meaningless names jumbled together.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 28, 2007)

Ed_Laprade said:
			
		

> Actually, Rodenberry insisted that Starfleet _wasn't_ military. Not that anyone who wasn't a total fan bought that for a minute.



He meant it wasn't _strictly_ military. If it is any kind of military, _Trek_ is supposed to resemble a 23rd-century version of Lord Nelson's Navy that explored the uncharted world, whether it is the historical Captain Cook, or the fictitious Captain Aubrey & Dr. Maturin.

Plus, having a military organizational structure give these explorers the discipline to face the unknown. Civilians have no such structure or discipline.


----------



## Felon (Mar 28, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> ... which makes so _much_ sense in a setting with transporters.



This isn't particularly well-thought-out. If you lose shields, you'll probably lose transporters too.

And as Umbran said, without shields you're dead anyway. What's the point of burying the bridge?


----------



## mmu1 (Mar 28, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> This isn't particularly well-thought-out. If you lose shields, you'll probably lose transporters too.
> 
> And as Umbran said, without shields you're dead anyway. What's the point of burying the bridge?




...except that, on the show, they don't. They sometimes lose shields, and the ship is fine, aside from light damage. Other times, they're badly torn up, but only rarely do they lose all power to other vital systems. The shields are not generated on the fly, they appear to rely on their own energy storage banks, so losing shields doesn't mean you lost all power.

As for the second point - the ST shields aren't impervious. Many times, you see ships take damage - sometimes light, sometimes quite serious - despite the fact the shields haven't collapsed. Other times, the ships get hit with their shields down, and survive. (for the Enterprise D, this was practically the way of life) So it'd make perfect sense to protect the vulnerable sections better.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 29, 2007)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> On the Enterprise-D in particular this "warship" has the vast majority of its saucer taken up by ridiculous apartments in spaces better served by redundant back-up systems, extra weapons or munition space.  Or even electronic warfare equipment.



Either the "warship" is built by an incompetent military, or an exploration ship experimenting with "family onboard."


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Mar 29, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Either the "warship" is built by an incompetent military, or an exploration ship experimenting with "family onboard."




the latter part of that is what I was getting at earlier in that post when I was talking about whether Star Fleet was a military organization.  And I pretty well concluded it was thus



			
				HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> They do appear to be comparable to a quasi-paramilitary organization though much as the police or forest service based on their protocols. I'd say they are most like a paramilitary version of the Oceanographic and Survey Service.




And the evaluation of the Enterprise as a warship came from Whisperfoot's assertion that the Enterprise-D made an effective and capable warship.  This after I evaluated whether or not StarFleet crews and officers appeared to be competent, and then pointed out their not really military nature.

Basically you could boil that entire long post down to 2 options.

1.)  StarFleet is a military organization.  In which case it is the most undisciplined, poorly trained and led military force seen in history.  Commanded by the truly incompetent and supplied and armed by aesthetes more accustomed to designing luxury liners and trendy civilian novelty gadgets than military equipment.  So deluded it entirely lacks not only many capabilities present in the 20th century but ANY dedicated ground forces.

2.)  StarFleet is a paramilitary version of the Oceanographic and Survey Service.  In which case all the things that would make it an improbable laughingstock as a military force actually become somewhat reasonable features.  Even the poor training, leadership, and discipline makes a great deal more sense if they are really an only vaguely military organization with military responsibilities tacked on by those who didn't realize the inherent problems that causes.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Mar 29, 2007)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> 1.)  StarFleet is a military organization.  In which case it is the most undisciplined, poorly trained and led military force seen in history.  Commanded by the truly incompetent and supplied and armed by aesthetes more accustomed to designing luxury liners and trendy civilian novelty gadgets than military equipment.  So deluded it entirely lacks not only many capabilities present in the 20th century but ANY dedicated ground forces.
> 
> 2.)  StarFleet is a paramilitary version of the Oceanographic and Survey Service.  In which case all the things that would make it an improbable laughingstock as a military force actually become somewhat reasonable features.  Even the poor training, leadership, and discipline makes a great deal more sense if they are really an only vaguely military organization with military responsibilities tacked on by those who didn't realize the inherent problems that causes.





I think starfleet is a combination of these two choices which basically boils down to a military organization created by civilians, politicians and government contractors with little or no military experience.   This could lead to both choice 1 and 2 with Star Fleet being created as a provision to an existing exploratory force's budget (since it would be less expensive to create a token army from an preexisting exploratory force then it could be create a military force while maintaining an exploratory force).


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Mar 29, 2007)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> I think starfleet is a combination of these two choices which basically boils down to a military organization created by civilians, politicians and government contractors with little or no military experience.   This could lead to both choice 1 and 2 with Star Fleet being created as a provision to an existing exploratory force's budget (since it would be less expensive to create a token army from an preexisting exploratory force then it could be create a military force while maintaining an exploratory force).




I agree with your premise of the force as originally a civilian organization, but calling it military is stretching the term beyond it's breaking point.   

On the other hand Star Fleet becomes extremely plausable as a *PARA*military organization.  When you see force being used the doctrine is very much of a police or border patrol mindset rather than a military mindset.  A paramilitary organization with policing and border patrol as well as exploration duties that had an extra military role for which it was not suited tacked onto it by a civilian authority that didn't know how bad an idea that was.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Mar 29, 2007)

Rodenberry once compared Star Fleet to the Coast Guard, rather than the Navy.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Mar 29, 2007)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> Rodenberry once compared Star Fleet to the Coast Guard, rather than the Navy.




It's a fitting comparison.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Mar 29, 2007)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> On the other hand Star Fleet becomes extremely plausable as a *PARA*military organization.  When you see force being used the doctrine is very much of a police or border patrol mindset rather than a military mindset.  A paramilitary organization with policing and border patrol as well as exploration duties that had an extra military role for which it was not suited tacked onto it by a civilian authority that didn't know how bad an idea that was.




I would buy this if not for their role in the Dominion war, and various other wars through the ages. They even say several times in the Titan book series that during the Dominion war, starfleet built a lot of ships during that time that were little more than mobile gun platforms. It also happens to say repeatedly that the organization exists for exploration and peace. 

Another thing to consider is that Starfleet definitely doesn't follow conventional military wisdom. The reason is simply because it was conventional military wisdom that nearly destroyed the world just prior to Zephram Cochrane discovery of the warp drive. 

They clearly serve a higher purpose, but like I said before, they're pretty good at blowing the hell out of things when they need to.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 29, 2007)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> 2.)  StarFleet is a paramilitary version of the Oceanographic and Survey Service.  In which case all the things that would make it an improbable laughingstock as a military force actually become somewhat reasonable features.  Even the poor training, leadership, and discipline makes a great deal more sense if they are really an only vaguely military organization with military responsibilities tacked on by those who didn't realize the inherent problems that causes.



I didn't realize that anyone with a paramilitary structure is laughable to you. I mean we're not dealing with rent-a-cop service hired by your local downtown corporation (no offense to security contractors).


----------



## mmu1 (Mar 29, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I didn't realize that anyone with a paramilitary structure is laughable to you. I mean we're not dealing with rent-a-cop service hired by your local downtown corporation (no offense to security contractors).




I think it was sort of clear his point was that it was a "laughingstock as a military force", not that all paramilitary forces are inherently laughable, even in the roles they're actually designed for.

Regardless... The problems with the logic behind Starfleet stem from the same source as many other issues with Star Trek - the society presented in the series is a fantastic utopia, based largely on wishful thinking and hopes that humans will one day be able to "transcend" their violent ways.

Unfortunately, that can sometimes be pretty hard to reconcile with the need for dramatic starship battles, dangerous away missions, and menacing galaxy-destroying foes.

The huge success of DS9, with its massive Dominion War storyline, and de-emphasis of many standard "touchy-feely" ST tropes, really underlines the issue.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Mar 29, 2007)

F5 said:
			
		

> 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?



That's one of the things I think Star Trek got RIGHT, actually.  Fighters are a staple in Sci Fi, but (IMO) they're belong more in the 'They look cool' category then the realistic category. Space fighters come about because people tend to equate space navies with wet navies.  Space doesnt work the same way though.  There's not a different medium that a space fighter could take advantage of over a 'regular' ship.  You'd end up with something closer to a PT boat then a 'fighter'.



			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> 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... )



Well, Old school BSG DID had shields. They just didnt go out of the way to portray them, like ST did. They also had missiles that magically turned into beam weapons after leaving the launching ports.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Mar 29, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> That's one of the things I think Star Trek got RIGHT, actually.  Fighters are a staple in Sci Fi, but (IMO) they're belong more in the 'They look cool' category then the realistic category. Space fighters come about because people tend to equate space navies with wet navies.  Space doesnt work the same way though.  There's not a different medium that a space fighter could take advantage of over a 'regular' ship.  You'd end up with something closer to a PT boat then a 'fighter'.




As much as I like space fighters, I have to agree with you. What is a fighter, if not a manned missile? What's the point in manning it when computer guidance systems can get the missile to the intended target more accurately? The only other use I can see for them is to destroy other fighters, and those can be swatted like bugs by the starship. Every time you see a Federation vessel in combat against small, fighter-like ships, there's a moment or two of phaser activity and those ships become smoking shells.



> They also had missiles that magically turned into beam weapons after leaving the launching ports.




I'm sure this is one of the things they're fixing with the Star Trek TOS remasters.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Mar 29, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I didn't realize that anyone with a paramilitary structure is laughable to you. I mean we're not dealing with rent-a-cop service hired by your local downtown corporation (no offense to security contractors).




see below



			
				mmu1 said:
			
		

> I think it was sort of clear his point was that it was a "laughingstock as a military force", not that all paramilitary forces are inherently laughable, even in the roles they're actually designed for.




Basically what he said.  A paramilitary force is capable and useful at the purpose it was originally intended to perform.  Which in StarFleet's case would be survey/exploration and policing/border patrol duties based on what I've seen of their doctrines and behaviors.  But there's a reason for the difference between military and paramilitary, a paramilitary force facing a true military force is going to be chewed up and spat out.  They just don't have the necessary skills.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Mar 29, 2007)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> I would buy this if not for their role in the Dominion war, and various other wars through the ages. They even say several times in the Titan book series that during the Dominion war, starfleet built a lot of ships during that time that were little more than mobile gun platforms. It also happens to say repeatedly that the organization exists for exploration and peace.




I watched the DS9 series frequently, it was my favorite of all the ST series.  Many people go directly to the Dominion War and miss the progression leading up to it.  At the beginning of the series StarFleet retained a feel and attitude very much in line with TNG.  During the lead-up to the Dominion War storyline you see how the deteriorating situation and hostility leads to them gradually adopting many characteristics of a true military force.  Which would be very fitting for an organization not really intended as a truly military force or with a great deal of experience at full-scale warfare that suddenly finds itself required to do so by an impending large-scale war.



			
				whisperfoot said:
			
		

> Another thing to consider is that Starfleet definitely doesn't follow conventional military wisdom. The reason is simply because it was conventional military wisdom that nearly destroyed the world just prior to Zephram Cochrane discovery of the warp drive.




The reason every military force in the world has a very similar core set of behaviors and regulations is that they simply don't work properly without them.  Gene Roddenberry was a utopian and his hopes for the future colored his writing.  Nothing new about that, but it should still be recognized for what it is. 



			
				whisperfoot said:
			
		

> They clearly serve a higher purpose, but like I said before, they're pretty good at blowing the hell out of things when they need to.




Their skill at "blowing the hell out of things" is highly variable.  As the Dominion War progresses it burns the organization down to a more properly military core.  But even so their competence and training are somewhat limited.  Luckily they never face a really competent enemy.  The Klingons were disorganized raiders akin to the Barbary Corsairs in ordinary circumstances and even collectively rely on substandard techniques for cultural reasons.  The Dominion is a much greater threat but relies upon simple numerical advantage and "human-wave" tactics.  Of all the threats they face the Romulans or Cardassians were really the most competent.  Luckily for the Federation the Romulans appear more interested in detente through mutual threat and segregation and the Cardassians simply weren't large enough scale-wise to last against them.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Mar 29, 2007)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> I'm sure this is one of the things they're fixing with the Star Trek TOS remasters.



...I was actually still talking about BSG here. There's a scene in the 'finale' where they launch their missiles at some basestars.  Intercut repeatedly looped stock footage of a Titan <?> rocket seperation. And then we cut to a large beam streaking toward the base stars.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Mar 29, 2007)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Of all the threats they face the Romulans or Cardassians were really the most competent.  Luckily for the Federation the Romulans appear more interested in detente through mutual threat and segregation and the Cardassians simply weren't large enough scale-wise to last against them.




Technically, I think the Borg could have been an extremely competant threat, if they were written correctly.  BUT, Star Trek the next gen needed a lobotimized giant to threaten the series for a few episodes so they never became the threat they were ment to be (Maybe too many assimulated Star Fleet officers ended up dumbing down their hive mind).


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Mar 29, 2007)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> Technically, I think the Borg could have been an extremely competant threat, if they were written correctly.  BUT, Star Trek the next gen needed a lobotimized giant to threaten the series for a few episodes so they never became the threat they were ment to be (Maybe too many assimulated Star Fleet officers ended up dumbing down their hive mind).




Basically correct the borg had great potential as an enemy.  But I think the writers got worried when they realized just how good a threat they could be and watered them down for fear of inadvertently causing metaplot change in the overall behavior of the Federation and other Alpha quadrant powers.


----------



## Rykion (Mar 29, 2007)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> You need more than rank badges, uniforms, and firearms to be military.



Correct.  You need to be the authorized Armed Forces of a government as well.  Starfleet serves as the Armed Forces of the United Federation of Planets.  They act as police and explorers/scientists as well, but many militaries past and present have found themselves doing the same.  

Their incompetence stems from being created to fit into a fictional Utopian society, and the fact it's a TV show.  The bridge crew is the focus, therefore they end up doing everything and needlessly endangering themselves.  Every system on the ship, as well as their inherent weaknesses, exists to further the plot.  Most TV shows involving military organizations end up making them look incompetent since they are created to look cool and by writers with little or no military experience.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 30, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> I think it was sort of clear his point was that it was a "laughingstock as a military force", not that all paramilitary forces are inherently laughable, even in the roles they're actually designed for.
> 
> Regardless... The problems with the logic behind Starfleet stem from the same source as many other issues with Star Trek - the society presented in the series is a fantastic utopia, based largely on wishful thinking and hopes that humans will one day be able to "transcend" their violent ways.
> 
> Unfortunately, that can sometimes be pretty hard to reconcile with the need for dramatic starship battles, dangerous away missions, and menacing galaxy-destroying foes.



That's because utopia is boring.   

Stories need conflict. We need drama, even to the point of injecting drama into our real life.

BTW, is it possible for humanity to allow a military man to be a studious explorer for the sake of science and discovery of new knowledge? Or we cannot meld the two?


----------



## TanisFrey (Mar 30, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> 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... )



yup. they had a nice thick heavy metal plate that slid in front their view port on the OBG.

At one point I read something about how the bridge on the the Federation ships being 180' turned about.  "in order to reduce the damage of a metor strike"  This is BS to me.  A section of a ship that become damage in a metor strike will lose O2.  This means this section will be lost quickly if you can't find and fix the brech.  ooop their goes your comand staff.

After reading several of the novels of star trek unverise it appears that the Federation has 3 Groups of Goverment ships.  1)  Star Fleet - the explorer/Diplmaot shuttle group.  This Group is the best well known.  And the one we see in the TV series.  2)  Federation Border Gard/Police patrol ship.  They ships have be descriped as being very cramped.  Much more like a millitary should be.  3) the local systems may have their own "Coast Gard" equivalent.

How I see it is, that these 2 other groups allow Starfleet to be idealist.


----------



## freebfrost (Mar 30, 2007)

And here I thought this thread would be about how easy it is to disable a Starship with a 5-digit prefix command code...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 30, 2007)

As others have pointed out - The federation is a utopian society. Their "military" isn't realistic. And it doesn't help that it's a show that needs to create compelling, dramatic stories with a small regular cast to make it more realistic. 

Interestingly, other critics of Startrek like to point out that the federation is a militaristic / dictatorial society, because Starfleet appears to be responsible for the Executive and Judicative parts of the society (and we rarely, if ever see the Legislative part of it). 

Unless you want to remove the Utopian premise of Startrek, both types of critics don't really lead anywhere.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 31, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> As others have pointed out - The federation is a utopian society. Their "military" isn't realistic. And it doesn't help that it's a show that needs to create compelling, dramatic stories with a small regular cast to make it more realistic.
> 
> Interestingly, other critics of Startrek like to point out that the federation is a militaristic / dictatorial society, because Starfleet appears to be responsible for the Executive and Judicative parts of the society (and we rarely, if ever see the Legislative part of it).



Because the legislative part is boring, too. Not like we need to have scenes from Capitol Hill in the next episode of _JAG_ or _NCIS._  

I believe _Star Trek IV_ have the scene with the Klingon Ambassador speaking in front of the Federation Council Assembly, and later a scene in which the Federation President (who leads the UN-like council) presided over Kirk's hearing that resulted in his demotion.


----------



## Wolf72 (Mar 31, 2007)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> 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.




but they never (rarely?) showed a human get hit around the same time ... at least so we could see that worf was tougher.  Mostly he growled a lot and had great one liners ... "If you were any other man, I would kill you where you stand!"


----------



## Relique du Madde (Mar 31, 2007)

Wolf, there is alot to respond to in your message...

Let's ignore Worf for now and remember that the star fleet from NG was portrayed differently from the other vesions of starfleet.  Where as OS portrayed star fleet as being adventurers and explorers not affraid of taking risks, star fleet in NG was utopian and civilized.  For this reason, I don't expect many members of star fleet to have had combat training beyond learning how to point a tv remote at a screen since physical combat tends to be viewed as being in many utopian societies.  This is probably why hand to hand combat was appeared more often in the other series since they were either at the edge of civilization (DS9) or in the wilderness (Voyager and OS). 

Now, because most star fleet members are not trained in melee combat, its only natural that they would refuse to fight.  However, Riker, Tasha Yar (when she was living), Data and Worf do seem to be the only star fleet members on enterprises bridge crew that were experienced in hand to hand combat, so they would be expected to fight, right?

Unfortunately, because of his nature, Worf often charges into a fist fight with an alien (maybe to rebuild his family's lost honor by defending the enterprise or to avoid ribs by his fellow crewmates).  If Worf easily takes one alien out, all is good.  However, if Worf gets one-punched, I don't expect many non-combat trained crewmen to join the melee battle considering that the toughest non cybornetic/android crew member was floored.  Instead, I would expect them to wet themselves, hide behind Data or get cover and pull out their phasers (which happens 9/10 times after Worf goes down).  To me, this would explain why more humans were never involved in hand to hand combat in ST:NG...fought because they were all extremely smart COWARDS!


Note: I'm not really sure how often hand to hand combat occured in Enterprise, but I would expect it to break out as often as it did in voyager (thought not as much as in the original series).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 31, 2007)

Maybe the fact that Worf was overthrown so often might also indicate another reason why no one is starfleet is focusing on hand to hand combat - to many aliens are super strong. Humans can't stand against it. And unfortunately, often you see that they are super strong only when you're already in a fist fight you are going to lose. 

That's why phasers are the standard weapon - They can deal with most enemies well.
That's also why the Borg where such a big threat - phasers failed against them. They may also be one of the few phaser-immune aliens that weren't immune to melee damage, either.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 31, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> That's also why the Borg where such a big threat - phasers failed against them.



But a primitive "slugthrower" can defeat them.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 31, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> But a primitive "slugthrower" can defeat them.



We don't know if this would have worked - phasers worked several times, too, before the Borg adapted...


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Mar 31, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> That's also why the Borg where such a big threat - phasers failed against them...




But the real question is who would win in a fight, Borg or Dalak? 

Hrph.

In any event, the ships, phasers, villains and so forth were only as deadly as the writers chose to make them and only ever effective as the writer were competent enough the make them. It is an exercise in wasting time to try to find legit through lines and reasonings.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 31, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> We don't know if this would have worked - phasers worked several times, too, before the Borg adapted...



The borgs are not too concerned with physical kinetic weapons, otherwise they would have shielded themselves from any physical attacks, be it a round from a "tommy gun" (from Picard's "Dixon Hill" holo-novel ... safety off) or Worf's mek'leth.


----------



## Lewis526 (Apr 2, 2007)

Why do you people get caught up in all these boring details?  Star Trek is a delightfully campy fantasy starring the likes of William Shatner!  The fact that it's set in the extraterrestrial future is a great reason not to overanalyze it - how on earth are we supposed to know??  Don't let the science get in the way of the fun.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 2, 2007)

Lewis526 said:
			
		

> Why do you people get caught up in all these boring details?  Star Trek is a delightfully campy fantasy starring the likes of William Shatner!  The fact that it's set in the extraterrestrial future is a great reason not to overanalyze it - how on earth are we supposed to know??  Don't let the science get in the way of the fun.



_Star Trek_ is not campy.

_Star Wars_ is campy.


----------

