www.ditl.org

I'm sorry but why am I reading through OOU answers to an IU question? Plus, since the answer is already given. Windows < Armored Hull. That simple. Anyone who can't understand that just needs to move along.

kostmayer wrote:Did the fish make it?

What???

You can read about them here Deep

And yes, they (or rather it) did - Livingstone turned up in the ready room of the E-E.

Oh, thats awsome. The fish tanks in trek are stronger then the windows on their starships...

Seafort

Hi, this is humor, have we met?

Yes the dome on the E-D's bridge did shatter. Of course that was during a crash landing in which the entire bridge was demolished. Other then that when have we seen any other windows shatter, or break out in the whole of Trek?

Why window? How you like to live in a place with no windows. Hell in my work office I don't have a widow and it sucks, I put picture of outdoor landscapes on my desktop but I would still prefer a window, even if it was just a parking lot. Windows, even staring out into space, will keep people from feeling claustrophobic.

And I still say that a holographic wall panel can do the exact same job, with technology not very far ahead of our own. And with less trouble and expense of fitting windows into a solid hull.

MM&I wrote:
Sorry, read that as: "more than a single window break."

I don't need to show more than one. Fact is, it broke. Even if we assume that no other window on the ship broke (pretty damn unlikely), we're still left with the fact that the most important part of the ship was exposed to the outside. Had that been in space, or had the environment been toxic, all senior officers on the ship would have been killed, with the exception of the chief engineer (who may very well have been killed had this situation happened elsewhere, as he's often on the bridge as well). That one incident is more than enough reason to remove the windows.

And, tho you disagree, I believe that when studying anything that is a story and produced for money (which, above everything else Star Trek is) it is important to also look at writer/producer intent.

Writer intent is utterly useless in dealing with in-universe problems. Fact is, the window broke. That it was done for dramatic intent is utterly irrelevant. It broke.

I'm sure the writers intended Starfleet to be a competant organisation. Does that mean we should just disregard all the evidence that shows it clearly isn't? No, obviously not.

Probably. Tho perhaps something like the TOS Enterprise would be a decent compromise? Mostly window-less but with a few observation areas on the outer hull?

nBSG got it right. Have the entire hull completely covered in armour, with one small observation room with a window that is covered by a blast door when in combat.

Stitch wrote:From Earth (at least what we can see with our eye) space is just black with white dots. Yet people look up into the night sky to stare at those white dots all the time. People consider those little white dots to be amazing, beautiful. Part of our nature is to want to look at such things. That is why there are windows on Federation starships. It is part of what makes us human.

Well big whoop for the stargazers, then. For the vast majority of the crew, endless void is going to get old after a short while. Factor in the fact that windows are shown to be a liability, and we are left with damn all reason for them.

M52 wrote: Yes the dome on the E-D's bridge did shatter. Of course that was during a crash landing in which the entire bridge was demolished. Other then that when have we seen any other windows shatter, or break out in the whole of Trek?

All irrelevant. Fact is, the window broke in a situation where the hull, even the parts of the hull that took the brunt of the impact, stayed intact. Ergo, a liability. Ergo, remove.

Why window? How you like to live in a place with no windows. Hell in my work office I don't have a widow and it sucks, I put picture of outdoor landscapes on my desktop but I would still prefer a window, even if it was just a parking lot. Windows, even staring out into space, will keep people from feeling claustrophobic.

Yeah, because being constantly reminded that you're in a little metal box in the middle of nowhere is going to keep you from getting claustraphobic.

Claustraphobic people wouldn't go on starships, regardless of the presence or absence of windows. Hell, the vast majority of the ship is without windows, with most of the crew confined to the internal parts of the ship away from windows. Incredibly, we don't hear of mass psychological breakdowns from members of the crew working away from windows.

People not able to stay in a windowless room without feeling claustraphobic or uncomfortable are clearly unfit for life on a starship over prolonged periods of time, and thus should not be admitted to Starfleet.

According to by Psychology textbook, having a window reduces stress. Reducing stress improves efficiency (and morale).

And there have been times that a window is useful. Mutara Nebula for example. Visibility was great except for sensors. If someone had looked out of a window, they could have easily seen where the Reliant was (ok, they'd need to look out more than one to find it). There are many times in Trek where sensors are either damaged or somehow disabled. Without a physical window, they are blind.

Rochey wrote:All irrelevant. Fact is, the window broke in a situation where the hull, even the parts of the hull that took the brunt of the impact, stayed intact. Ergo, a liability. Ergo, remove.

One window breaks during a crash landing by part of a ship that was only ment to enter a planets atmosphere as a last resort and that proves all windows are a liability even when we have never seen a window break before?

Yeah, because being constantly reminded that you're in a little metal box in the middle of nowhere is going to keep you from getting claustraphobic.

Claustraphobic people wouldn't go on starships, regardless of the presence or absence of windows. Hell, the vast majority of the ship is without windows, with most of the crew confined to the internal parts of the ship away from windows. Incredibly, we don't hear of mass psychological breakdowns from members of the crew working away from windows.

People not able to stay in a windowless room without feeling claustraphobic or uncomfortable are clearly unfit for life on a starship over prolonged periods of time, and thus should not be admitted to Starfleet.

No one would ever be admitted to Starfleet. After a long period of time almost all people will feel confinded.

How do you figure most of the crew are confinded to internal parts of the ship. I don't ever remember seeing a crew member's quarters that was not on the outer part of the ship or did not have windows.

According to by Psychology textbook, having a window reduces stress. Reducing stress improves efficiency (and morale).

Great. Except people have worked just fine in conditions without windows for long periods of time throughout history. I'm sure a window makes people feel happy if they can see outside. But does it work if the view is of endless nothingness? If anything, I expect the sense of isolation the windows would give would detract from morale. Put some videoscreens with changing scenes on them instead.

And there have been times that a window is useful. Mutara Nebula for example. Visibility was great except for sensors. If someone had looked out of a window, they could have easily seen where the Reliant was (ok, they'd need to look out more than one to find it). There are many times in Trek where sensors are either damaged or somehow disabled. Without a physical window, they are blind.

Yeah, sure. Or you could do something totaly crazy like, say, putting a camera on the hull.

One window breaks during a crash landing by part of a ship that was only ment to enter a planets atmosphere as a last resort and that proves all windows are a liability even when we have never seen a window break before?

Yes. It showed that the windows are unable to stand up to the same stresses the hull is. Ergo, liability. It's not that hard a concept to understand.

No one would ever be admitted to Starfleet. After a long period of time almost all people will feel confinded.

Sure they will. That's where holodecks come in.

How do you figure most of the crew are confinded to internal parts of the ship. I don't ever remember seeing a crew member's quarters that was not on the outer part of the ship or did not have windows.

Gee, perhaps because the vast majority of the ship does not have windows in them.

Rochey wrote:Great. Except people have worked just fine in conditions without windows for long periods of time throughout history. I'm sure a window makes people feel happy if they can see outside. But does it work if the view is of endless nothingness? If anything, I expect the sense of isolation the windows would give would detract from morale. Put some videoscreens with changing scenes on them instead.

Worked and lived is two different things. Plus we are talking about what could be extremly long periods of time here, years and years. Videoscreens no matter how good are not the same thing, if for no other reason then the person knows they are videoscreens.

Yeah, sure. Or you could do something totaly crazy like, say, putting a camera on the hull.

...and if something affected the camera you are back to the same situation.

Rochey wrote:Yes. It showed that the windows are unable to stand up to the same stresses the hull is. Ergo, liability. It's not that hard a concept to understand.

Only when you ignore that fact that we have never seen any other windows break during combat or other situations.

Sure they will. That's where holodecks come in.

....and how often do you think low level crew get to use a holodeck?

Gee, perhaps because the vast majority of the ship does not have windows in them.

....and gee when a crew member get off duty in one of those parts of the ship with no windows they go were, back to their quarters that have windows.

m52nickerson wrote:...and if something affected the camera you are back to the same situation.

just jumping in b/c I glanced at this, but we've seen the resiance of trek cameras (or what ever tech they use to transmit vusual light. They use this tech for the view screens, and I've never seen a battle in trek where the cameras were broken or dislodged enough to blind the bridge officers so to speak (yes they'd have other sensors as well, so it wouldn't be blind exaclty). Short of Nemisis, (where the entire view screen was destroyed) the bridges have always been able to view any angle off the ship they've wanted befure during and after battle, AFAIK.

stitch626 wrote:Well, apparently the designers of the ships and the users of the ships disagree with you.

Umm, yeah - that's why we're having this discussion at all.

m52nickerson wrote:One window breaks during a crash landing by part of a ship that was only ment to enter a planets atmosphere as a last resort and that proves all windows are a liability even when we have never seen a window break before?

Yes, it does show that windows are a liability. 1>0.

Using the argument that "we haven't seen other windows break" is tantamount to saying "let's wait until someone is killed who otherwise might not have died, and then we'll address the issue." If there's a big hole in your roof, would you wait until it rained before fixing it?

Lt. Staplic wrote:

m52nickerson wrote:...and if something affected the camera you are back to the same situation.

just jumping in b/c I glanced at this, but we've seen the resiance of trek cameras (or what ever tech they use to transmit vusual light. They use this tech for the view screens, and I've never seen a battle in trek where the cameras were broken or dislodged enough to blind the bridge officers so to speak (yes they'd have other sensors as well, so it wouldn't be blind exaclty). Short of Nemisis, (where the entire view screen was destroyed) the bridges have always been able to view any angle off the ship they've wanted befure during and after battle, AFAIK.

I may be wrong, but aren't those images generated by the ships sensors and not a camera?