Can Federation destroy Death Stars

[Panzersharkcat]

Seems to me such a vital system would be more intelligently located deep within the ship.

They should probably also bury the bridge inside the ship to avoid something embarrassing like that from happening at all.

[StarSword]

Seems to me such a vital system would be more intelligently located deep within the ship.

They should probably also bury the bridge inside the ship to avoid something embarrassing like that from happening at all.

In Zahn's Outbound Flight, then-Commander Thrawn gives a very good reason for not burying the bridge: what happens when battle damage and/or enemy ECM knocks out the sensors and cameras you're using to pass visual data to the bridge? If the bridge has windows, you can use the Mark I Eyeball® to see what's happening, since the overwhelming majority of combat in SW takes place inside visual range. If the bridge is buried, you're blind.

[Panzersharkcat]

Seems to me such a vital system would be more intelligently located deep within the ship.

They should probably also bury the bridge inside the ship to avoid something embarrassing like that from happening at all.

In Zahn's Outbound Flight, then-Commander Thrawn gives a very good reason for not burying the bridge: what happens when battle damage and/or enemy ECM knocks out the sensors and cameras you're using to pass visual data to the bridge? If the bridge has windows, you can use the Mark I Eyeball® to see what's happening, since the overwhelming majority of combat in SW takes place inside visual range. If the bridge is buried, you're blind.

Alright. I suppose if the shields around the bridge get blown away, the ship's probably going to be dead soon, anyway.

[StarSword]

The best explanation I've seen for starfighter weapons breaking through capital ship deflector shields comes directly from the X-Wing novels. Forcing the shields to block multiple near-simultaneous impacts causes temporary local failure, possibly due to computer overload. First appearance of this tactic that I can think of comes from the Rogues' attack on the Interdictor-class cruiser Black Asp in Rogue Squadron. This is also why the Falcon's concussion missiles are launched in staggered pairs (the first missile disrupts shielding or penetrates armor, and the second does the real damage), and why the Falcon's turrets are fitted with beam splitters (forces the shields of a target to deal with two impacts simultaneously).

(WTF am I still doing up at nearly five in the morning?)

[Batman]

The difference is, the Star Trek dialogue contradicts the visuals within the exact same episode, frequently within a less than five-minute period.

No, they usually don't. Even if they did, that's no reason to throw out the evidence. Reinterpret it maybe, but not throw it out.

Who is throwing evidence out? All we're saying is the dialogue frequently contradicts what happens onscreen. 'Throwing out' evidence would mean ignoring the dialogue ever happened to begin with. Not done here. We just assume the dialogue is wrong when it apparently is. All the dialogue is evidence of is that the characters said what they said. That doesn't make what they said correct.

Star Trek's well-established track record of butchering science, math, and engineering doesn't help.

Well-exaggerated maybe.

Exaggerated my ass. Trek, especially TNG and up, is lousy with incidents of them doing so.

They have a bad habit of babbling [tech], but calling that unreliable that's different than simply ignoring evidence.

Since you apparently agree they're talking out of their ass a lot of the time I have to ask where, exactly, is anybody ignoring evidence?

[Azron_Stoma]

Seems to me such a vital system would be more intelligently located deep within the ship.

They should probably also bury the bridge inside the ship to avoid something embarrassing like that from happening at all.

In Zahn's Outbound Flight, then-Commander Thrawn gives a very good reason for not burying the bridge: what happens when battle damage and/or enemy ECM knocks out the sensors and cameras you're using to pass visual data to the bridge? If the bridge has windows, you can use the Mark I Eyeball® to see what's happening, since the overwhelming majority of combat in SW takes place inside visual range. If the bridge is buried, you're blind.

That was always what I felt was the reason for the bridges to have the windows like that. They use holographic imaging for long range stuff but the windows are still useful. In Abrams trek they use the view-screen as an overlay, which was an Idea I had back in '06/'07.

It's nice when that kind of stuff becomes at least SOME form of Canon.

[Danny]

May JJ Abrams burn in hell.

[StarSword]

In Zahn's Outbound Flight, then-Commander Thrawn gives a very good reason for not burying the bridge: what happens when battle damage and/or enemy ECM knocks out the sensors and cameras you're using to pass visual data to the bridge? If the bridge has windows, you can use the Mark I Eyeball® to see what's happening, since the overwhelming majority of combat in SW takes place inside visual range. If the bridge is buried, you're blind.

That was always what I felt was the reason for the bridges to have the windows like that. They use holographic imaging for long range stuff but the windows are still useful. In Abrams trek they use the view-screen as an overlay, which was an Idea I had back in '06/'07.

It's nice when that kind of stuff becomes at least SOME form of Canon.

J.J. Abrams was hardly the first to come up with that. They overlay comm signals on the viewscreen all the time in the main timeline.