[Thascales]

Originally Posted by DannydeK

I don't like the window at all. It's stupid to use glass (which is always more vunarable). Also, it must be heavly filtered/advanced glass since it needs to be resitant to radiation/to bright light and stuff like that. It will take some advanced nano-technology to make this sort of glass.

It looks much nicer with the video-overlay, yes, but it's not logical to use it on a starship like Enterprise.

Yes, it would be much safer to use a viewscreen rather than a window, so that the bridge could be fully encased in some armour.

It would also be much safer to embed the bridge and other critical areas deep within the hull, rather than peeking out proudly atop the primary hull.

For better or for worse, we can only assume that the designers of these ships put sentiment ahead of safety.

[horatio]

The window was great, because for the first time in Trek, everyone knew at once where the bridge is located. Looking out of the window onto the saucer, zooming out of the bridge, these shoots amnong some others helped to make it feel more real.

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by Akula2ssn

Yeah, it's basically a giant head up display. While I understand the reason Matt Jefferies designed the bridge so that the captain could just turn to see each station, but honestly, you'd need to be fairly farsighted to read those those screens from the captain's chair. By turning the main view screen into a giant heads up display, you can put all major information right there for the captain to see.

I don't see the window making more sense that the need for armor plating and a simple view screen.

If you wanted to view ship another direction other than dead on...what do you do?

[Akula2ssn]

Originally Posted by Saquist

I don't see the window making more sense that the need for armor plating and a simple view screen.

If you wanted to view ship another direction other than dead on...what do you do?

Personally I'd rather have the window in the event that I have to pilot without sensors. If you want armor plate then put a blast door that can be opened or closed. Anyway, you can make windows that can withstand some pretty nasty hits such as the ones on a M-1 tank and supplement that with the blast door.

[matty]

transparent aluminum, innit...

[Akula2ssn]

Plus if you want visual on something from another direction, there's no need for it to absolutely be displayed on a big screen TV front and center in the bridge.

[Samuel]

Originally Posted by matty

transparent aluminum, innit...

I was going to say that.

[Akula2ssn]

Not to mention transparent ceramics being developed by the Army Research Lab. Unfortunately they're prohibitively expensive with present technology.

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by matty

transparent aluminum, innit...

..will still melt at 1220°F.

Originally Posted by Akula2ssn

Personally I'd rather have the window in the event that I have to pilot without sensors. If you want armor plate then put a blast door that can be opened or closed. Anyway, you can make windows that can withstand some pretty nasty hits such as the ones on a M-1 tank and supplement that with the blast door.

A camera could do the same thing independent from the sensor package and you get multiple views outside the ship. Theres a reason why the Seawolf has a view screen instead of a window you know.

[Akula2ssn]

Originally Posted by Saquist

..will still melt at 1220°F.

Hence the use of transparent ceramics.

Originally Posted by Saquist

A camera could do the same thing independent from the sensor package and you get multiple views outside the ship. Theres a reason why the Seawolf has a view screen instead of a window you know.

And yet when it comes to piloting on the surface, they still do it from the bridge in the conning tower using the MK-1 eyeball, not the camera and view screen. And once again you have no fail safe with strictly cameras and view screens.