www.ditl.org

When the camera pans across the ship, all we see are black dots where the windows would be.
We'd see that exact same thing regardless of wether they are broken or not, so that's hardly good evidence that they were all intact.

Fact is, the window broke. Ergo, it's weaker than the hull. Deal with.

Fact is, the window broke. Ergo, it's weaker than the hull. Deal with.

That may not be true. It is no question that diamonds are stronger that glass. However, there are certain frequencies that can shatter diamonds and the glass would be fine.
Just because the window broke and the hull didn't doesn't mean it was weaker. It just means that it has some weakness. And there may be any number of things that the window could withstand and the hull couldn't.
Think of it this way. A goose hitting the windshield of an airplane doesn't break it. If it hits the fuselage, it can crack it (even worse if it hits the engine).

It was a physical impact that caused it to shatter. Things like torpedoes cause, that's right, physical impacts. If the windows are vulnerable to that, then they should be removed.

Actualy, you know what? I just realised that I'm arguing this the wrong way. I really don't see why I should have to justify the removal of these windows. Rather, I'd like to see some justification of why these windows should be included. Along with proof they're able to stand up to the same punishment the hull will take.

That you were. Wow.

Things like torpedoes cause, that's right, physical impacts. If the windows are vulnerable to that, then they should be removed.

So we should remove the hull of a ship because it also is vulnerable to torpedo impacts?

No, we should remove any part of the external hull of the ship that shatters after suffering impacts. The hull itself doesn't do that, the windows do. The job of the hull is to protect the ship and those inside it. If the hull is dotted with parts that can shatter, causing decompression to occur, then that's a problem.

stitch626 wrote:Think of it this way. A goose hitting the windshield of an airplane doesn't break it. If it hits the fuselage, it can crack it (even worse if it hits the engine).

That goose can crack the glass as easily (or more so) as the fuselage, depending on the angle of impact and other factors. However, with our current technology, the windshield and the fuselage are necessary components of the design of an airplane. More about this in the response to the last quote below.

stitch626 wrote:However, there are certain frequencies that can shatter diamonds and the glass would be fine.

True, but irrelevant in this case. We are talking about battle damage and impact damage, not about the resonant frequencies of the hull or the skylight. If the use of sonic weapons (useless in space, I know, but go with me for the example) which operated by matching a resonant frequency with an opposing starship's components became widespread - and it were somehow easier or more destructive to match the resonant frequency of the hull material rather than the window - then I'd say make the entire hull out of windows.

stitch626 wrote:So we should remove the hull of a ship because it also is vulnerable to torpedo impacts?

No, because either you leave the hull or you have nothing at all. The hull is a necessary part of 24th century, 'Trek-universe starship design - windows aren't, thanks to contemporary sensors and viewscreens. Ergo; if windows aren't necessary, and (at least) seem to be a liability in the strength of the hull, leave 'em out.

Rochey wrote:Along with proof they're able to stand up to the same punishment the hull will take.

The hundreds of hours of footage in which the windows definitively did not break? Or should I say, did not break before the hull.

Also, i'm not arguing that the bridge dome window broke (which we all should recognize was probably done to be "dramatic" and make it look like a really ruff landing), I'm just saying in hundreds of hours of footage, we have not seen a single window break.

As to why windows? We like windows. Sure we can (and do) have devices that can project images of the outside world, but they're still artificially presented. The view outside my house doesn't change often, I'm always looking at the same thing but I like the windows. If you're constantly moving, wouldn't the view be constantly changing?

The hundreds of hours of footage in which the windows definitively did not break? Or should I say, did not break before the hull.

If the shot's powerful enough to rupture the hull, then it's also going to be powerful enough to break the windows if they're weaker. Pointing out that windows broke along with the hull does not refute that they are weaker.

Also, i'm not arguing that the bridge dome window broke (which we all should recognize was probably done to be "dramatic" and make it look like a really ruff landing), I'm just saying in hundreds of hours of footage, we have not seen a single window break.

Yes, we have. The bridge dome. Whether or not it was done for dramatic effect is irrelevant, as that's an OOU explaination.

As to why windows? We like windows. Sure we can (and do) have devices that can project images of the outside world, but they're still artificially presented. The view outside my house doesn't change often, I'm always looking at the same thing but I like the windows. If you're constantly moving, wouldn't the view be constantly changing?

Yes, but in deep space the view is still going to be of endless blackness with white spots for 99% of the time. Not very interesting. Hell, you could mask the display screens as windows and no one would be able to tell the difference unless they knew what was outside was different.

Rochey wrote:

The hundreds of hours of footage in which the windows definitively did not break? Or should I say, did not break before the hull.

If the shot's powerful enough to rupture the hull, then it's also going to be powerful enough to break the windows if they're weaker. Pointing out that windows broke along with the hull does not refute that they are weaker.

Also, i'm not arguing that the bridge dome window broke (which we all should recognize was probably done to be "dramatic" and make it look like a really ruff landing), I'm just saying in hundreds of hours of footage, we have not seen a single window break.

Yes, we have. The bridge dome. Whether or not it was done for dramatic effect is irrelevant, as that's an OOU explaination.

Sorry, read that as: "more than a single window break." 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.

As to why windows? We like windows. Sure we can (and do) have devices that can project images of the outside world, but they're still artificially presented. The view outside my house doesn't change often, I'm always looking at the same thing but I like the windows. If you're constantly moving, wouldn't the view be constantly changing?

Yes, but in deep space the view is still going to be of endless blackness with white spots for 99% of the time. Not very interesting. Hell, you could mask the display screens as windows and no one would be able to tell the difference unless they knew what was outside was different.

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?

me,myself and I wrote:The hundreds of hours of footage in which the windows definitively did not break? Or should I say, did not break before the hull.

Also, i'm not arguing that the bridge dome window broke (which we all should recognize was probably done to be "dramatic" and make it look like a really ruff landing), I'm just saying in hundreds of hours of footage, we have not seen a single window break.

So, we should wait until a potential problem becomes a real problem until we fix it? I don't buy that.

me,myself and I wrote:As to why windows? We like windows. Sure we can (and do) have devices that can project images of the outside world, but they're still artificially presented. The view outside my house doesn't change often, I'm always looking at the same thing but I like the windows. If you're constantly moving, wouldn't the view be constantly changing?

Space is really, really big, and really, really empty.

Mikey wrote:

me,myself and I wrote:The hundreds of hours of footage in which the windows definitively did not break? Or should I say, did not break before the hull.

Also, i'm not arguing that the bridge dome window broke (which we all should recognize was probably done to be "dramatic" and make it look like a really ruff landing), I'm just saying in hundreds of hours of footage, we have not seen a single window break.

So, we should wait until a potential problem becomes a real problem until we fix it? I don't buy that.

This is Starfleet we're talking about... That's what they do. I was actually arguing it was not a potential problem, tho I may reconsider.

me,myself and I wrote:As to why windows? We like windows. Sure we can (and do) have devices that can project images of the outside world, but they're still artificially presented. The view outside my house doesn't change often, I'm always looking at the same thing but I like the windows. If you're constantly moving, wouldn't the view be constantly changing?

Space is really, really big, and really, really empty.[/quote]
It's true. Up until something happens.

Yes, but in deep space the view is still going to be of endless blackness with white spots for 99% of the time. Not very interesting. Hell, you could mask the display screens as windows and no one would be able to tell the difference unless they knew what was outside was different.

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.

That's very poetic. I consider myself to be a human, however, and I'd sure as hell like a bulkhead between me and an oncoming torpedo over a window. I'd live with the exact same scenery on a viewscreen.

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

me,myself and I wrote:

Deepcrush wrote:Weren't the windows from Picard's quarters broken?

No? The desk, the furniture, etc. was, but the external bulkheads/windows seemed fine.

Did the fish make it?

Mikey wrote:That's very poetic. I consider myself to be a human, however, and I'd sure as hell like a bulkhead between me and an oncoming torpedo over a window. I'd live with the exact same scenery on a viewscreen.

If the view in question was of an oncoming torpedo, I could live without it completely.