Starship bridges

[montypython]

After seeing many types of bridge designs in different sci-fi, I've always found many of them to have problems wrt C4I. Trek bridges lack a 3d tactical imager for captains a la Homeworld for better combat feedback, while many other sci-fi require much more manpower on the bridge than should be needed for their technology level, as automation should easily accomodate most of the required data processing work done by the personnel so that only a few be required to handle data.

How would you design a starship bridge layout?

[Uraniun235]

What do you mean by "tactical imager"? Do you mean like a holographic system?

[Darth Ruinus]

to be able to fit more people in the bridge, to be able to do more tasks, targeting, sensor reading etc (autamation might not always be a good idea, viruses could take out a heavily automated ship) i would make the bridge have no gravity, what i mean is, picture the bridge of any ISD, i would have more pit crews on the walls, and no gravity so that people can easily walk on walls and on the roof, more space for more gunnery crews and what not

also i would have the bridge placed within the ship, so you dont run the risk of a ship just shooting the bridge

[Adrian Laguna]

I like the bridges in Battlestar Galactica. They are safely in the bowels of the ship, have numerous personnel to handle all the various ship functions, contain a tactical display (though it's not fancy 3D holographics), and generally look very military and utilitarian.

[Agent Fisher]

Thats not a bridge. Its a CIC.

[Drooling Iguana]

I like the bridges in Battlestar Galactica. They are safely in the bowels of the ship, have numerous personnel to handle all the various ship functions, contain a tactical display (though it's not fancy 3D holographics), and generally look very military and utilitarian.

Plus they were smart enough to have big giant metal shields come down over the windows whenever they went into combat. Too bad Piett didn't think of that one.

[Stark]

Thats not a bridge. Its a CIC.

The whole point of a CIC is that it's not exposed, right? So the bridge is where the ship is actually piloted from, but the CIC is where the decisions are made?

Err, no sarcasm. For once.

[Adrian Laguna]

Thats not a bridge. Its a CIC.

If it's where they give the orders and control the ship during combat it's qualifies as a bridge for the OP's purposes. I don't really see why they even have a separate bridge at all, it's not like they even show it with any regularity.

Incidentally, that reminds me. I like the bridges in Mobile Suit Gundam: Char's Counter-Attack. They're very standard stuff, a flying bridge sprouting from the "top" of the space battleships. However, during combat the entire crew (including the bridge crew) dons space suits, and the seats in the bridge drop down to a CiC in the bowels of the ship. It even comes complete with nifty 3D holo-display.

[Adrian Laguna]

GHETTO EDIT - Of course, dispensing with the flying bridge completely would be better. There is a scene where a ship is crippled during a surprise attack that takes-out the flying bridge before the crew can get into battle-stations.

[Andrew_Fireborn]

A flying bridge has it's place... but that place is no where near a military star ship.

I've got a pet sci-fi universe that I've been toying with on and off since high school. Fleets are generally arrayed like now adays, a small task force centered around a carrier.

The pilot portion of the bridge, for most of the ships, is a small room similar to the 'Coffin' system featured on the Falken of Ace Combat. Basically, a room with live feeds from cameras positioned all around the ship. A secondary display shows a hud display of local space.

This means, one man (or, in the case of Heavy destroyers with spinal mounts, two) is in control of piloting a ship averaging 300 meters in length.

At least two redundancies (Four to six in case of heavy carriers.) are set up in alternate locations on the ship, and generally active duty crews rotate them regularly.

On the carriers, a CIC is set up on the other end of the ship. Standard Admiral type stuff goes on.

Under combat conditions, most communication is handled via Laser transmission, while out going transmissions to fighters (or even the cap ships in the event of traumatically heavy flak. ) are handled with a rolling cypher radio data burst.


I suppose that's a little indepth, but I'm bored, and I may as well start runnning peices of it by people who know sci-fi.

[Teleros]

Depends on the sort of technology you have in the universe too. In something like the Lensman universe, if your shields are gone you are dead meat no matter where you are within the ship, so there's not too much need for a separate one.
When you don't have shields or unobtainium armour on the other hand, burying your CIC inside the ship should definitely be done at the very least. A flying bridge... well you don't really need the windows anyway so you could just combine the two.

[tim31]

I remember Seaquest had a bridge layout that consisted of port and starboard inward facing stations for sensors, weapons control, and communications. The skipper and X/O had a hemispherical navigation dome for general course plotting and monitoring. There were three helm stations reminiscent of the old Afterburner arcade game at the fore of the bridge, and a large screen display. All these things were okay. They also had a pool at the back of the bridge so the dolphin could come and hang out with them, and the screen at the front could lift out of the way and reveal a window(useless below 50 metres). Those things were not so good.

[RedImperator]

I don't bother trying to improve on what real life experts have already done. The spaceship control rooms in Humanist Inheritance were modeled on the control rooms of nuclear submarines.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I don't bother trying to improve on what real life experts have already done. The spaceship control rooms in Humanist Inheritance were modeled on the control rooms of nuclear submarines.

How's that plugging thing going? Got many readers yet?

I find the best designs are simplicity itself. Internalised control centres that use remotes for navigation (windows in a fucking space warship?!), have a decent amount of automation and have a back-up elsewhere in the ship with standby crew help. The command modules in I-War are a good simple design too, though somewhat different given the patcoms and corvettes were more like fighter aircraft than the traditional lumbering cruisers or battleships of the naval world. The bigger ships obviously weren't based on that design, but more on the ideas above.

[RedImperator]

I don't bother trying to improve on what real life experts have already done. The spaceship control rooms in Humanist Inheritance were modeled on the control rooms of nuclear submarines.

How's that plugging thing going? Got many readers yet?

It's up several thousand views in the last few weeks, actually, despite being on the second page. Thanks for asking.

[Starglider]

I always thought the NORAD set from the film Wargames would make a great command centre for a huge flagship like the Executor, assuming the computer and display tech was upgraded to the appropriate state of the art. As with the Galactica CIC you'd bury it in the best protected part of the ship and have a tac table off to one side for planning/visualising fleet engagements, though with a RotJ stype big hologram projector instead of a glowing table full of models. Realistically brain-computer interfacing probably isn't that far off, and with it a physical bridge is probably redundant. One of the few sensible things in the Night's Dawn trilogy was the way the protagonists controlled their ships directly with neural interfaces while staying motionless in acceleration couches. The Star Wars has the cybertech to do that (e.g. Lobot), and there is cannon evidence that it results in better ship control (e.g. shadow droids, which are actually cyborgs), but for some reason it isn't commonly done (possibly because Wars cybertech is immature and has a nasty tendency to drive users insane).

[Beowulf]

A conning tower/bridge does have a use on a spaceship: when docking with another ship/space station, direct visual view of the other ship helps. It's absolutely useless in combat, and probably shouldn't be even manned. I suppose it could also double as an observation room (being able to see outside might be good for morale).

[Starglider]

How is a direct visual view useful when you have 3D displays (that can overlay useful sensor data onto the view) and redundant external cameras covering every arc? All it does it make your ship more vulnerable to sneak attacks. In a small craft windows may be a useful backup, but in a well designed capital ship any plausible attack is going to destroy engines and weapons long before every last external camera is knocked out.

[frogcurry]

The Star Trek:TNG layout, but with the front seats reversed to face the Captain so they don't need to hurt their necks just to speak to the Captain.

The Captains chair would be part of a command area, with a central 3D display, with maybe glass sheets for projecting 2D images on at the sides.

The rear section (where Worf stands) would need heavy revising too, to make a proper (only slightly-elevated) floor with proper consoles as required either facing the Captains chair/ command section or the rear wall.

The result: a TNG derived bridge that keeps sounding more and more like a brownish/cream coloured version of the neo-BSG command centre the more I think about it. Although I'd get re-arrange the seating to be a bit less like the Greek theatre arrangement that Galactica currently has.

[Beowulf]

How is a direct visual view useful when you have 3D displays (that can overlay useful sensor data onto the view) and redundant external cameras covering every arc? All it does it make your ship more vulnerable to sneak attacks. In a small craft windows may be a useful backup, but in a well designed capital ship any plausible attack is going to destroy engines and weapons long before every last external camera is knocked out.

Why do submarines still having a conning position on top of the sail? They could just use a bunch of cameras to be able to pull up along side their pier, can't they? The problem with cameras is you won't necessarily be able to get the same depth perception that you would be able to get with a window. I did mention it'd be useless in combat. It's not a position to fight the ship from.

[RedImperator]

You will need windows for navigation anyway, because if your cameras or computers break when you're coming up on a burn window, you want to have options besides "Miss the window and stay stuck in your current orbit until you all starve" or "Fire the engines blindly and hope you don't wind up on a one-way trip to Vega". The Apollo 13 astronauts faced exactly that problem and had to manually time a burn and hold course by looking out the window and pointing the spacecraft at a landmark (Earth's terminator, in this case).

[Starglider]

Why do submarines still having a conning position on top of the sail? They could just use a bunch of cameras to be able to pull up along side their pier, can't they? The problem with cameras is you won't necessarily be able to get the same depth perception that you would be able to get with a window. I did mention it'd be useless in combat. It's not a position to fight the ship from.

Submarines are a rather different case. It's a lot more effort to add cameras, as you have to shield them against ridiculous pressures, and until very recently we didn't have adequate 3D display technology to utilise the output anyway. Cameras would be useless for normal submarine combat and operations, while a starship would get more use out of them (exactly how much depends on the setting). Submarines are actually pretty tiny compared to most sci-fi capships; they don't have room for an expansive bridge with wraparound viewscreens anyway. Finally adding a conning position to a submarine is so easy it's almost a no-brainer; you have to have the sail anway for instruments and easy crew entry/egress, and the position itself is unpressurised and not a liability in combat. On a starship any similar position has to be pressurised and presumably at least minimally armoured, and serves no other useful purpose (other than possibly recreation). Note that military submarines do not have any windows in the pressurised section.

You will need windows for navigation anyway, because if your cameras or computers break when you're coming up on a burn window.

For relatively tiny ships built at our tech level yes. Star Wars ships laugh at the concept of 'burn windows' and are sufficiently advanced that the chances of all the cameras breaking without the ship losing all propulsion first are negligable.

[Stormbringer]

Thats not a bridge. Its a CIC.

Actually, what most people think of by the bridge these days is a combination of a traditional bridge (as in the area from which the ship is directed) and a CIC.

Furthermore, the distinction between bridge and CIC in a spaceship (as opposed to a surface vessel) is largely irrelevant. There's no reason that a spaceships bridge needs to be topside, or even on the surface of the ship in most cases, which means that combined the functions can potentially make a lot of sense. The trend in science fiction to blend the two makes a lot of sense from a management and direction point of view.

So in short, the "bridge" on a science fiction spaceship may in fact be a combination of traditional bridge and CIC but that's a natural outgrowth of traveling in space rather than on the water. Trying to make an arbitrary distinction is pointless.

[RedImperator]

You will need windows for navigation anyway, because if your cameras or computers break when you're coming up on a burn window.

For relatively tiny ships built at our tech level yes. Star Wars ships laugh at the concept of 'burn windows'

Uh huh. And the OP specifies "Star Wars ships"...where? At any rate, it's still foolhardy not to have a telescope and sextant with you just in case your electronic navigation systems get buggered, especially since, for ships as absurdly advanced as Star Wars ships, the mass penalty of a telescope, sextant, some star charts, and a small pressurized superstructure outside the armor belt is negligible.

and are sufficiently advanced that the chances of all the cameras breaking without the ship losing all propulsion first are negligable.

Oh that's right, advanced technology never breaks. That's why my cell phone is rock-steady reliable, while my 50s vintage Western Electric rotary phone drops calls and sometimes just mysteriously refuses to work...oh wait.

[Starglider]

Especially since, for ships as absurdly advanced as Star Wars ships, the mass penalty of a telescope, sextant, some star charts, and a small pressurized superstructure outside the armor belt is negligible.

For big ships, as an emergency backup, that does seem reasonable. Note though that the weight may not be 'negligable' for medium-sized ships unless you have amazing materials tech - the ISS cupola manages to weigh almost two metric tonnes despite being essentially a bay window that clips onto an existing module - and that's just to cope with micrometeorites and radiation in low orbit, not the rigours of interstellar travel or resisting any sort of weapons fire. Even if you had one, you wouldn't use it for routine docking operations (incidentally the original Galactica featured exactly this kind of bubble for making nav sightings, but it was disused and treated as a curiosity by the main characters).

Oh that's right, advanced technology never breaks. That's why my cell phone is rock-steady reliable, while my 50s vintage Western Electric rotary phone drops calls and sometimes just mysteriously refuses to work...oh wait.

Not necessarily a valid analogy. That's consumer grade tech that was relatively new at the time. Not milspec and certainly not space qualified. I think a more valid comparison would be fly-by-wire systems in aircraft: it's tech that potentially could fail, and certainly when it was first introduced people questioned the safety and insisted on redundant mechanical backups. But the reliability eventually got so good that the mechanical backups were dropped on high-performance aircraft to save weight, cost and maintenance complexity. Actually the Ace Combat series has a nice fictional treatment of this exact issue; the more futuristic and advanced fighter designs abandon canopies and have a redundant camera/3D display system, then eventually direct neural interfaces. The backstory details similar concerns about reliability (a lot of pilots don't trust it) that delays deployment, but eventually it just works so well that no-one bothers with canopies any more.