Windows/Viewports in Bridge/Control Cabin

[SpaceBadger]

Lots of ship designs put the bridge or control cabin in the nose or at the front of the ship, with either implied or explicit windows or viewports. Presumably these are made of some sort of armored glass or substitute that are not easily broken.

Pros: If your sensors are all out of order, you can still see where you are going. Also, a window lets you use the Mark I Eyeball as a backup to what your sensors tell you.

Cons: Most things that you need to see are going to be at such extreme range that the Mark I Eyeball is useless, so a viewscreen displaying sensor data would be more useful. Also, even if the glass or whatever is very strong, it is probably less strong than hull metal, and is therefore a weak point.

For military ships, not only would a window be a weak point in the armoring, but it probably makes more sense to put your bridge in some internal space of the ship, not right out there in the front where it is easier to hit.

Thoughts?

 

[Timerover51]

On streamlined ships that operate in the atmosphere, I figure that they are for atmospheric operations, and may be covered while in space. Against that, it is nice to look out once in a while.

 

[samuelvss]

There was an article, The Color of Jumpspace about the idea that it was also for navigation in jumpspace. I forget where I saw it; Freelance Traveller, pre-zine?

 

[RockyMountainNavy]

Color of Jumpspace

http://www.freelancetraveller.com/features/rules/jumptune.html

 

[McPerth]

Just a question here: if those windows and wiewports are transparent (and they must be if they are to any use), how will a laser hit on them affect, as lasers, being light, may go through transparent surfaces?

Of course they might be built as one way mirror to avoid this. I don't know the pros and contras...

 

[Ran Targas]

You could always glaze over the glass with a reflective material like mirrored sunglasses. I would expect you'd what to do that anyway to prevent the pilot from getting cooked by cosmic rays. There could also be some sort of magnetic field generator over the view port to provide added protection.

Current naval warships have bridges for piloting the ship and a Combat Information Center for fighting the ship. The CIC has no windows but is where all the ship's sensors are monitored. Even before electronic sensors, the steam driven battle wagons had gun control centers deep behind the armor belt to coordinate gun fire. So it would make sense for dedicated warships in the OTU to have a CIC although races like the Vargr or the Aslan might not due to racial preferences.

 

[HG_B]

GURPS Trav covers this. Basically, there are no windows or screen doors on space ships. The good reasons could easily fill a couple pages.

 

[BytePro]

Lots of ship designs put the bridge or control cabin in the nose or at the front of the ship, with either implied or explicit windows or viewports. ...

Like realworld U.S. manned spacecraft.

Cameras and video have existed since before the space age - and viewports are a non-insignificant risk/expense due to structural, material strength and radiation exposure issues - yet, man still insists on having them.

As mentioned, even most naval surface combatants - in addition to many deep sea submersibles - also go to the risk/expense of providing transparent view ports...

Sure, one could argue its a backup to technology failure... but in most of these cases if your major technology fails, you're screwed. Well, actually you resort to the backups in most cases - but in the case of viewports the above negatives really don't make it the best choice of backups.

Logically its just not the best design. Basically its a human thing. Man learns to trust his senses before anything else. Its natural, and prudent given non-impaired dependence on sight, for most people to be 'afraid' of the dark. Even racing headlong into disaster, most folks, notably those in 'command', would still prefer to have their eyes open till just before the last moment. The concept of ultimately being totally dependent on technology for sight makes many people uncomfortable.

In a space faring culture, I'd tend to people being 'over' such hangups perhaps, but historically could still be clinging to the design, especially when the negatives have been pretty much overcome negatives (ala 'transparent' steel). Star Trek (TOS) used a viewscreen on the bridge, but did locate the bridge right up top (in the middle of the round target?).

 

[Carlobrand]

The Mark-I Eyeball's about as useful in space as it is for studying subatomic particles. On the other hand, when Apollo-13 ran into trouble, they did get very useful information by looking out the viewport.

I can see a viewport being of some use in atmospheric flight, of much more use on a landing approach, when things are actually within visual range and you're travelling at speeds that make visual flight more practical, but this would still be more as a supplement or backup to instruments. Other than that, their best use is in the passenger section of civilian craft, for the benefit of the tourists.

 

[Enoki]

I could easily see something like glass being used. It could be made in multiple layers and bonded together to make it more resistant to something striking it. Adding some lead (leaded glass like Pyrex is common) would give it a degree of radiation resistance. A thin plating of gold for solar reflectance and more radiation protection could be added.
Then you put in two or more panes seperated by a small air space filled with a gas that inerts it, is highly radiation asorpbtive like boron, and acts to keep the windows from fogging up.
Make the inner one easily replaced in an emergancy sort of like vision devices in armored vehicles are.

While these are not highly useful in space, they are useful if you have to visually land on a planet with no air space control system, if you are flying in atmosphere at low level looking visually for navigation, or in other similar circumstances. So, while a ship that never leaves orbit or space might not need them ones that also act like aircraft or perform a range of functions might need them for those reasons.

 

[atpollard]

I suspect that (IRL) a window comes in handy for docking with the ISS or manipulating something with the Canadarm, so I propose that one might come in handy when docking with a highport or transferring cargo while in a parking orbit.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Basically its a human thing. Man learns to trust his senses before anything else. ... The concept of ultimately being totally dependent on technology for sight makes many people uncomfortable.

In a space faring culture, I'd tend to people being 'over' such hangups perhaps, but historically could still be clinging to the design

Yes. Different cultures should react differently. "Spacers" should not really need or even want a "window", since they don't really want to look out into the void that is their one natural enemy. Ship jockeys, however, might still want one for close work (belters, maybe) - or they might trust their sensors more than their senses. Throw them all together in a mix and you get 1) different designs and 2) people with differing reactions when embarked on one of those designs. RP fun ensues.

 

[BytePro]

Yep - hire-ons appear on the bridge sealed in vacc suits, as the 'bridge hull has too many holes already in it!'.

 

[PFVA63]

Hi,

I seem to recall seeing an image once of the US Navy's new DDG1000 that showed windows on the bridge with some sort of sliding blast shields that can slide down to protect those windows when needed. I could see something similar for a Traveller type ship. For regular maneuvering, docking and such I could see the blast shields as being open but in combat situations they would be closed.

I know that there may not be a really strong reason for having windows on a ship's bridge but or normal operations, especially docking, mooring or operating alongside other vessels I could see that a ship's captain may like to have the ability to look outward and during "show the flag" type exercises and/or entertaining dignitaries etc it might be a nice to have feature more so than just showing someone a computer display that says "you are here"

 

[aramis]

patrol craft have another reason... visual inspection prior to boarding. Can tell can interesting bit about spoofing if the visuals through the viewport don't match those from the sensors. Plus, the field of view is probably better.

 

[HG_B]

patrol craft have another reason... visual inspection prior to boarding.

Naked eye versus telescopic with low light enhancement, etc.? No contest. And thus another reason for having windows bites the dust.

 

[aramis]

Naked eye versus telescopic with low light enhancement, etc.? No contest. And thus another reason for having windows bites the dust.

Telescopic won't give you the overview that a 30m distance naked eye will. The USCG found the same thing... Naked eye has a 120 degree field of view; most cameras have 30 degrees. Both have their uses.

Your technophillia is admirable but erroneous.

 

[DaveChase]

Yes. Different cultures should react differently. "Spacers" should not really need or even want a "window", since they don't really want to look out into the void that is their one natural enemy. Ship jockeys, however, might still want one for close work (belters, maybe) - or they might trust their sensors more than their senses. Throw them all together in a mix and you get 1) different designs and 2) people with differing reactions when embarked on one of those designs. RP fun ensues.

You beat me to my view point.

Besides in the future material should be better anyway.

Dave Chase

 

[HG_B]

Telescopic won't give you the overview that a 30m distance naked eye will. The USCG found the same thing... Naked eye has a 120 degree field of view; most cameras have 30 degrees. Both have their uses.

Your technophillia is admirable but erroneous.

You don't know lenses very well. You can get them in as wide a field that displays on a viewer (not looking through the end of the 'scope that would do just as well. Especially since were talking about a few thousand years from now.

Your technophobia is admirable but, wrong.

.

 

[CosmicGamer]

Telescopic won't give you the overview that a 30m distance naked eye will. The USCG found the same thing... Naked eye has a 120 degree field of view; most cameras have 30 degrees. Both have their uses.

Your technophillia is admirable but erroneous.

Sorry, don't mean to gang up on you, but why must we assume one fixed camera? What's wrong with multiple cameras? For those stuck in viewing things "realistically" throw in a real time display the same size as the bridge view-port and you could be behind a barrier and still see everything as if you were looking out yourself. No?