13

Why is the bridge located in a vulnerable spot on capital ships?

In various sci-fi worlds, capital-class space ships seem to have their bridge located in a manner where it is easily accessible to enemy fire (even small ship fire).
It makes it seem like it would be extremely easy for a squad of enemy fighters to shoot at or kamikaze into and take out the bridge, thus disabling most navigation systems and other various ship controls.

Examples:

  • Star Wars Star Destroyers.
  • Not sure what "class" the Star Trek Enterprise ship belongs to but I would say that counts in this discussion as well.
  • And others...

Why not just completely enclose the bridge in heavy armor (or within the interior of the ship) and use cameras & displays?

Zero
  • 273
  • 1
  • 8
  • I took the liberty of improving the style of your post. Note we use a flavor of markdown, so in most cases writing HTML tags such as <br> is not needed. – Andres F. Nov 26 '15 at 22:48
  • 3
    I'm VTCing this as 'too broad' on the grounds that you're asking a very general question about starship design across a large number of franchises. As such, I don't think there will actually be a single 'correct' answer about this, especially if you're seeking an in-universe design for each. I will retract this VTC if you were to specify it to one particular franchise – Often Right Nov 27 '15 at 03:03
  • @N_Soong fair enough. but I would argue that there would be mutually common logical desires/goals in designing spaceships and locating the "bridge" (if there is a bridge) as long as the things in the spaceships are organic living things that "breathe" some sort of synthesized atmosphere and have other environmental requirements in order to stay living, as well as concerns about safety due to things like war, accidents, etc. Just because you are in another franchise doesn't always mean vastly different requirements. We are talking about factors to stay alive in a spaceship, nothing extra. – Zero Jan 16 '16 at 04:07
  • @Zero true, but I still think the different franchises are important; the mission of the Enterprise is vastly different from that of a Star Destroyer – Often Right Jan 16 '16 at 04:13
  • @N_Soong yet they both have life support systems (pressurized hull) AND some forms of shields and armors. =)
    AND weapons (different mission or not!)... power generator of some sort, engines, hanger, lifts, etc. etc.
    The differences are minor in comparison.     – Zero Jan 16 '16 at 04:16
  • @N_Soong Would a covered car be safer in a rollover vs a convertible in a rollover in this universe vs another universe?
    Similar requirements for cars in different universes. Why not similar requirements for Ships, or SpaceShips in different universes? Especially if they are being used by humans or humanoids or any kind of being that is relatively similar to us in terms of physical needs (like not being blown up or frozen). I see Apples to Apples, no oranges.     – Zero Jan 16 '16 at 04:23
  • @Zero but in my earlier comparison, one is a warship, the other a ship of science and exploration. These are crucial differences. I still think it's rather broad as different people both in and out of universe designed these ships from different franchises, so they had different influences and perspectives. So, if you divided this into different questions for different franchises you'd get a single right answer for each rather than multiple answers, each of which is right for one or two franchises – Often Right Jan 16 '16 at 04:53
  • @N_Soong I would only agree if the species required significantly different physical/environmental needs to survive.. Once again, we are not talking about luxury needs or needs of a warship or even any particular kind of ship except a "capital-class" ship (which gives us a constraint for the size, which is part of the original problem of locating a bridge in such a big space), we are talking about survival needs. Most life forms' requirements for survival are very similar throughout many different universes & spacialtemporal dimensions. Generally: temperature, atmosphere, radioactivity, etc. – Zero Jan 27 '16 at 02:06
  • Comment instead of an answer (not agree on reasons for closing, BTW).
    1. because almost all shows were developed and produced by civilians. They base their preconceptions on the ideas they have about military which they think are valid but in fact this knowledge is abysmal.
    2. Thinking of space like it's vast ocean, so they ported surface navy traditions into space.
    3. Lack of experience in designing, building and using military ships. Current naval designs stem from nearly 100 years of experience...
    4. Space navy should be like submarine service, but that one requires strong psyche.
     – AcePL Nov 14 '16 at 12:18
  • Humans fare poorly in totally enclosed vehicles without access to natural light and/or direct "analog" (that is Mark I eyeball) visual input of the surroundings. Everything has windows not only to see how's the outside, but also most humans would go mad in no time trapped in what's essentially huge coffin. That's why submarine servicemen are considered mentally insane - simply because they're extremely sane (i know it sounds crazy, but that's a fact. Try to parse it slowly and it makes sense). – AcePL Nov 14 '16 at 12:26

3 Answers3

18

Out-of-universe: for the drama.

In-universe: it's not always true.

One example is the colonial Battlestar Galactica from Battlestar Galactica (2004 re-imagined series). The CIC - Combat Information Center, essentially "the bridge" is:

located deep in the interior "alligator head" of the battlestar, where the main hull meets the midship section.

Source

Ghanima
  • 2,064
  • 1
  • 19
  • 31
  • point taken. "always" was mis-used as a form of exaggeration. – Zero Nov 26 '15 at 20:44
  • So I'll go with "windows" - have a nice view at the great void they call space. – Ghanima Nov 26 '15 at 20:46
  • include that in your answer lol – Zero Nov 26 '15 at 20:50
  • 1
    +1 Good example with Battlestar Galactica! – Andres F. Nov 26 '15 at 22:49
  • 1
    I would add that in cases where it is true its generally because the bridge location has a great field of view. IE bridges on navy ships are high up and relatively isolated (particularly on something like an aircraft carrier) because they offer the best views on the ship. However, anything that doesn't need a view (ie the CIC) is generally located deep in the bowels of the ship. – David says Reinstate Monica Nov 27 '15 at 00:28
  • Another example: Honor Harrington series. Not only is CIC well protected, it has a backup CIC crewed during any battle. – DVK-on-Ahch-To Nov 27 '15 at 03:32
  • @DVK Also worth noting about Honorverse warships is that they often have an observation blister which can resemble a 'bridge' but is not actually used for controlling the ship. – smithkm Jan 13 '16 at 21:52
7

Many of these space ship designs were inspired by real-world battleships. The designers often want the layout to be recognizable - so a prominent bridge with forward-looking windows is often part of the design.

Do an image search for the bridge of modern ships, and compare the designs :)

I guess this is the same reason that SF robots are often humanoid, lasers are gun-shaped, and aliens often are humanoid. It's visual shorthand so the audience recognizes what they're looking at.

Tony
  • 71
  • 1
0

Mostly humans in other universes are just as arrogant as they are in this one. Take the Borg, the trade federation (Pre human clones), or the yuuzhan vong.

The windows are nice to see outside without a camera, and being daring enough to stand in front of glass (really just some weaker material then the hull of the ship) takes guts and MAY possibly intimidate

Jegsar
  • 1