Windows on starships.

DBS · Post by **DBS** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 4:02 am

You know, the one time I can think of when a Trek ship looked believable was in Generations, when the Enterprise was at the Amargosa star. The light overwhelmed everthing, (and they probably had dimming filters in place, etc). But I'd doubt they'd see many other stars in that situation. Simply too much "light pollution".

One thing I like is that in TNG (and to a lesser extent in other series), the rooms with "views" are fairly dark or dimly lit (Ten Forward, for example.), so the difference isn't AS overpowering to the eye.

Tiberius · Post by **Tiberius** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 4:12 am

But there are still rooms like the observtion lounge, and Janeway's ready room that have the problem.

Anyway, it's just because people expect it to be there. I won't be demanding that they remove it. :p

DBS · Post by **DBS** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 4:23 am

True.

I'd like to see more attention paid to that principle in Trek, but it just isn't really "hard" sci-fi, and seeing bright stars everywhere is kind of part of the universe.

I would hope that future sci-fi series pay better attention to this!

I Am Spartacus · Post by **I Am Spartacus** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:34 am

I would find it quite depressing to be sealed in a box and not be able to see what's outside. Especially with spectacular items like nebula just outside.

People can be trained to go great lengths of time sealed up in a confined space. Submariners today do it. Certainly not everyone can, but in a federation with potentially hundreds of billions or even a trillion or two, it shouldn't be difficult to find a few million to man starships.

With regards to Trek, shields seem to provide most of the protection for most ships; once the shields give way, your average Trek vessel is toast, windows or no windows.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:33 pm

Hmm... I suppose you could rationalise it by just saying that the multi-coloured death gets you wether you have windows or not. This dosen't explan them in sci-fi where vessels are heavily armoured (eg, Star Wars) or don't have shields.

DBS · Post by **DBS** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:16 pm

Even in Star Wars (with their brilliant use of redundant systems, you know for like bridges!

), ships that supposedly are "more heavily armoured" do have fewer windows, at least in places one would expect their armour to be.

In general, even now we armour different areas of a ship differently, because weight/mass is still important to maximize acceleration and maneuverability. I assume that starships would operate the same way.

So I imagine that vital systems are pretty heavily armoured (and thus fewer windows), while non-vital areas can get away with standard hull plating. Look at where the Defiant's windows are!

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 6:00 pm

with their brilliant use of redundant systems, you know for like bridges!

Well, I suppose to be fair they had about ten seconds to take over before crashing.

ships that supposedly are "more heavily armoured" do have fewer windows, at least in places one would expect their armour to be.

Upon futher inspection it apears you are right, point conceeded.

As for the rest, you have some good points. I guess I just don't like windows.

DBS · Post by **DBS** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 7:27 pm

Rochey wrote: Well, I suppose to be fair they had about ten seconds to take over before crashing.

As for the rest, you have some good points. I guess I just don't like windows.

Point conceded there about the Executor. Still, it makes you wonder

.

Anyway, I agree in principle with you that windows would realistically be confined to places that could have a good view, and be limited to areas where the hull is not just covering equipment or armour. I think it would be more realistic to show less of them. (maybe just observation lounges, living quarters, and a few public rooms)

Then again, (real world reason?) windows offer a great sense of scale, because viewers assume that most humanoids are roughly the same size. So we go gaga when we see astounding numbers of windows

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 7:34 pm

I think the best idea would be to have any windows in some sort of recreational area, that way it really dosen't matter if that areas strength is less than others.

Post by **Teaos** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 7:02 am

I think that the Structual integrity feild has a huge part in hull strength.

Over all I'd say that the SIF has a bigger roll than the material its self.

I think in terms of resisting weapons fire it is the melt point that is the most important which I think would be high in all cases. The only down side to windows is they are more brittle which means when they fail it is total failure.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 10:07 am

Yes, but the SIF could fail if the ship loses power. (not that hard to imagine in the middle of a battle) Thats why ships should be armoured.

Captain Peabody · Post by **Captain Peabody** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 6:55 pm

Ian's correct; most sci-fi universes have rationalized this problem with some sort of super-tough clear material. For Star Trek, it's transparent aluminum, for Star Wars, transparisteel (transparent steel). Anyway, ships with windows just look so much cooler than those without, even if there is the slight risk of fighter collisions...

Post by **Teaos** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 3:35 am

I don't think I have ever heard of the SIF going down. If it did I imagin the ship would be so damaged it wouldn't matter about armor since the ship is screwed.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 2:20 pm

I would still prefer a ship that has a chance of survivng a direct hit if it lost power than one which will fall apart.

Dean Martlou · Post by **Dean Martlou** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:53 am

Teaos wrote:I don't think I have ever heard of the SIF going down. If it did I imagine the ship would fall apart in a horrible-yet-awesome display of pyrotechnic fury, as Trek ships all would upon moving at any resonable acceleration without the SIF.

fix'd and fix'd.