Windows on space-ships

[sojourner]

After all, divers have goggles don't they?

And spacesuits have view ports. In that situation, yes, a transparent viewing area is useful, but as you even said, submarines don't need windows, so why would spacecraft? Now if we were talking about space suits, your point might work.

I imagine looking at the stars warping by is quite picturesque as well, hence windows on Starships.

As has been stated before, unless you turn off every light source in the room, you in reality would not see stars warping by. Just a black square.

 

[USS KG5]

And spacesuits have view ports. In that situation, yes, a transparent viewing area is useful, but as you even said, submarines don't need windows, so why would spacecraft? Now if we were talking about space suits, your point might work.

I think it might be nice if submarines had windows, just like it would be if starships did.

Besides real spaceships have windows as well.

As has been stated before, unless you turn off every light source in the room, you in reality would not see stars warping by. Just a black square.

Not in Trek you don't, so these are clearly not windows as in glass like in your house.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Actually, visibility under water is so limited at depth, you could pass within 50 feet of those things and never know they were there.

I know that - but in shallow water, or near the sea bed, or in dozens of other circumstances, it might be nice to see the sea.

After all, divers have goggles don't they?

Seems a pretty daft concept to argue against. If I was saying that submarines NEED windows then cool they don't. I just said that it might be nice to have them.

I imagine looking at the stars warping by is quite picturesque as well, hence windows on Starships.

For one thing, the same fact remains that 99% of the time there's nothing to see under water. Divers have goggles to SEE WHERE THEY ARE GOING; as someone who has actually been scuba diving a number of times, I can tell you in no uncertain terms there is NOTHING to see under water unless you're in extremely SHALLOW water, close enough to the sea bed to stand on it. Naval submarines don't dive in water that shallow. At periscope depth in deep water there's nothing to see but sunlight and... well, water, and patrol depth is deep enough that the water becomes absolutely pitch black. Most sailors I know find a much more welcome diversion in a Playstation 3 and never quite notice the lack of windows (which, in any case, would compromise the structural integrity of the boat).

And if you go by NuTrek, the view from a window at warp speeds isn't exactly picturesque; it's actually quite horrific.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

For one thing, the same fact remains that 99% of the time there's nothing to see under water. Divers have goggles to SEE WHERE THEY ARE GOING; as someone who has actually been scuba diving a number of times, I can tell you in no uncertain terms there is NOTHING to see under water unless you're in extremely SHALLOW water, close enough to the sea bed to stand on it.

Naval submarines don't dive in water that shallow. At periscope depth in deep water there's nothing to see but sunlight and... well, water, and patrol depth is deep enough that the water becomes absolutely pitch black. Most sailors I know find a much more welcome diversion in a Playstation 3 and never quite notice the lack of windows (which, in any case, would compromise the structural integrity of the boat).

Absolutely correct. I'm a diver as well, and I've had the (rather amazing) opportunity to go on a small submersible (with a big acrylic dome viewport) as well, going deeper than an unassisted diver normally can go (unless you're dealing with some pretty advanced hardware and pretty unusual breathing mixtures). I've never been on a military sub, except when docked, but I have gotten a walkthrough of an L.A. class, and my boss is a submarine veteran (and a 6'6" tall one... poor guy! ) and we talk about this all the time (me being an Army guy, we get to share different perspectives on lots of issues!)

Here's the reality. You get down to about 100' deep and you're on the edge of where you can practically see. 200' down, and you're almost blind except for your own light sources. And those light sources don't carry very far, in any case, as you go lower... sediment and so forth gets more dense with depth as a rule, so you're a good 50-foot viewing distance is realy about as good as you can do.

Hell, don't take my word for it, check it out for yourself. Go to your local swimming pool, put on a pair of goggles, and go to one end. Look towards the other end of the pool. How well can you see down there? And that's almost certainly "cleaner" water than you have in the ocean... albeit there may be a slight yellow tint to the water if it's a public pool open to kiddies.

Reality is that vision is almost useless beyond about 50', best case, when underwater. Submarine vessels don't operate by "vision," they operate by either sonar, or by surfacing and using vision ABOVE WATER.

And if you go by NuTrek, the view from a window at warp speeds isn't exactly picturesque; it's actually quite horrific.

Technically, if you go by "Star Trek" there's nothing but regular stars, moving fast. And, given the "real light conditions" in space, you wouldn't be able to see anything unless you turn out the lights inside first.

If you go by TMP-era rules, same thing, except for the moment you go to warp or come out of warp.

If you go by TNG-era rules, you have colorful streaky-stars. I guess you might call that "picturesque," and I'm sure is why the TNG-era ships have so many windows. Perhaps that's due to the different warp-drive system used in TNG-time (going along with the recalibrated WF scale).

If you go by nuTrek rules... well, I'm not sure that there ARE any "nuTrek rules" per-se... certainly there are no indications that there's any form of logic to nuTrek Warp drive, and in any case it's totally unlike what we've seen in the past. nuTrek really uses the Star Wars "Hyperspace" propulsion system, it seems... where you can "revert to real space" into the middle of a wreckage field without having any indication up til that point that it's there (unlike all prior Trek where you were fully aware of what you were flying towards when at FTL speed at all times).

Interestingly, JJ's "warp drive" even LOOKS like Star Wars' "hyperspace," and acts exactly like Star Wars' "hyperspace." Which, ultimately, isn't much of a surprise, I suppose.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

The difference is that water is a relatively thick substance; space is not.

I wouldn't expect one to see stars deep underwater, but they'll be clear as day in space.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

The difference is that water is a relatively thick substance; space is not.

I wouldn't expect one to see stars deep underwater, but they'll be clear as day in space.

Only if you turn the lights off inside.

Why are you not getting this? Do you live someplace where you can see the stars at night (ie, not in a major urban area)? If so... at night, leave the lights on inside your house, look out the windows, and see how much of the night sky you can make out.

If you go outside, you still have to let your eyes adjust before you can see the stars. The different between the intensity of interior ("useful") lighting and exterior starlight is TREMENDOUS. And while the intensity of starlight in space is greater than that we see at the surface here on Earth, it's not THAT much greater. Not enough for the stars to be visible if you're inside, in a lighted room. Turn the lights off, let your eyes adjust, and ONLY THEN can you see out and make out stars.

No, windows on a spaceship are only useful, either for "real" purposes or for psychological ones, when in orbit of a planet or other visually-interesting object... and even then, only if there's a light source nearby (such as, in the case of a vessel in Earth orbit, our sun). If you came across a massive body in deep space... say, Yonada... you'd be lucky to make out any detail on it whatsoever with the naked eye, even from a darkened room aboard your ship.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

The difference is that water is a relatively thick substance; space is not.

I wouldn't expect one to see stars deep underwater, but they'll be clear as day in space.

Only if you turn the lights off inside.

Why are you not getting this? Do you live someplace where you can see the stars at night (ie, not in a major urban area)? If so... at night, leave the lights on inside your house, look out the windows, and see how much of the night sky you can make out.

If you go outside, you still have to let your eyes adjust before you can see the stars. The different between the intensity of interior ("useful") lighting and exterior starlight is TREMENDOUS. And while the intensity of starlight in space is greater than that we see at the surface here on Earth, it's not THAT much greater. Not enough for the stars to be visible if you're inside, in a lighted room. Turn the lights off, let your eyes adjust, and ONLY THEN can you see out and make out stars.

And again, you aren't getting it. You are describing the properties of glass, which is highly reflective. Change it to a less reflective, but still transparent material (as I'm sure windows on Star Trek ships aren't made of Glass at all), and you'd have no reflection from the light; thus, you can see the stars clear as day.

As such, the intensity of starlight isn't much of an issue; as long as it's brighter then the space that surrounds it and the photons do reach where you are, you can see them.

And you don't have to live a less densely populated area in order to view the stars at night (when it's not cloudy, that is). As long as there aren't too many skyscrapers that block you view or neon signs that pollute the night sky. Not every major city on earth looks like Las Vegas, you know.

 

[trevanian]

The difference is that water is a relatively thick substance; space is not.

I wouldn't expect one to see stars deep underwater, but they'll be clear as day in space.

Only if you turn the lights off inside.

Why are you not getting this? Do you live someplace where you can see the stars at night (ie, not in a major urban area)? If so... at night, leave the lights on inside your house, look out the windows, and see how much of the night sky you can make out.

If you go outside, you still have to let your eyes adjust before you can see the stars. The different between the intensity of interior ("useful") lighting and exterior starlight is TREMENDOUS. And while the intensity of starlight in space is greater than that we see at the surface here on Earth, it's not THAT much greater. Not enough for the stars to be visible if you're inside, in a lighted room. Turn the lights off, let your eyes adjust, and ONLY THEN can you see out and make out stars.

And again, you aren't getting it. You are describing the properties of glass, which is highly reflective. Change it to a less reflective, but still transparent material (as I'm sure windows on Star Trek ships aren't made of Glass at all), and you'd have no reflection from the light; thus, you can see the stars clear as day.

As such, the intensity of starlight isn't much of an issue; as long as it's brighter then the space that surrounds it and the photons do reach where you are, you can see them.

And you don't have to live a less densely populated area in order to view the stars at night (when it's not cloudy, that is). As long as there aren't too many skyscrapers that block you view or neon signs that pollute the night sky. Not every major city on earth looks like Las Vegas, you know.

It isn't about glass, it is about your pupil and/or the camera substitutes for same. Why do you think starfields don't show up in NASA photos of the sunlight side of Earth? Because when you expose for a lighted object, the stars aren't bright enough to register. Likewise, the shots they took from inside their craft looking out are going to expose for the ship and the earth outside. No stars.

The human eye, while a lot more amazing than people-crafted lenses, still has its own range of limitations. If you want to see the stars, then do so in a darkened room on the ship, or watch them on some fancy monitor that sees better than eyes do.

(this argument probably disintegrates if you go to the center of the galaxy, but then again, you probably would too, at least if KNOWN SPACE's notion of what is happening at the core is accurate.)

 

[Alpha_Geek]

If nothing else, a window will always be the last layer of redundancy in the "What the hell is going on outside the craft?" department.

Not sure where the OP got the idea that manned craft will be windowless in the immediate future. I suspect there's not a spacecraft pilot in existance that would do without a view outside that's not dependant on hardware or software to work.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

It isn't about glass, it is about your pupil and/or the camera substitutes for same. Why do you think starfields don't show up in NASA photos of the sunlight side of Earth? Because when you expose for a lighted object, the stars aren't bright enough to register. Likewise, the shots they took from inside their craft looking out are going to expose for the ship and the earth outside. No stars.

The human eye, while a lot more amazing than people-crafted lenses, still has its own range of limitations. If you want to see the stars, then do so in a darkened room on the ship, or watch them on some fancy monitor that sees better than eyes do.

If that is true, and I assume it is, then that's quite a more substantial argument then the other guy posted about 'windows reflect so you can't see'.

Point conceded; if all you see is blackness then the use of actual windows is greatly diminished, except perhaps for (sublight) short-distance craft that, for the most part, stay in system or close to it's mothership/base.

 

[Gepard]

If that is true, and I assume it is,

It is. If I could remember what that property is called, beyond "exposure," I could probably find a link for you.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

I know; I wasn't really talking about the whole under/overexposure thing; I just didn't know that stars were actually that feint when you're out in space; I sort of assumed they'd be a lot brighter then what we see here, seeing as our atmosphere clouds it all up a bit.

 

[B.J.]

If nothing else, a window will always be the last layer of redundancy in the "What the hell is going on outside the craft?" department.

Not sure where the OP got the idea that manned craft will be windowless in the immediate future. I suspect there's not a spacecraft pilot in existance that would do without a view outside that's not dependant on hardware or software to work.

Hence the line in the movie "The Right Stuff": "Where's the window?"

 

[Cary L. Brown]

It isn't about glass, it is about your pupil and/or the camera substitutes for same. Why do you think starfields don't show up in NASA photos of the sunlight side of Earth? Because when you expose for a lighted object, the stars aren't bright enough to register. Likewise, the shots they took from inside their craft looking out are going to expose for the ship and the earth outside. No stars.

The human eye, while a lot more amazing than people-crafted lenses, still has its own range of limitations. If you want to see the stars, then do so in a darkened room on the ship, or watch them on some fancy monitor that sees better than eyes do.

If that is true, and I assume it is, then that's quite a more substantial argument then the other guy posted about 'windows reflect so you can't see'.

Point conceded; if all you see is blackness then the use of actual windows is greatly diminished, except perhaps for (sublight) short-distance craft that, for the most part, stay in system or close to it's mothership/base.

That was my point all along. All you see is blackness... period... unless there are no light sources (and that includes colored "winky-blink" indicators) inside the space you're looking out from.

Windows are really only useful if you're orbiting a planet at a reasonable distance from a sun. But in that case, being able to look out at a planet with the naked eye, while not necessarily a SCIENTIFIC advantage, is certainly a psychological one.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If nothing else, a window will always be the last layer of redundancy in the "What the hell is going on outside the craft?" department.

Not sure where the OP got the idea that manned craft will be windowless in the immediate future. I suspect there's not a spacecraft pilot in existance that would do without a view outside that's not dependant on hardware or software to work.

Hence the line in the movie "The Right Stuff": "Where's the window?"

That's one of the things I like about the new Enterprise design. It always seemed to me the one place you would most want to have a window is on the BRIDGE.

 

[trevanian]

If nothing else, a window will always be the last layer of redundancy in the "What the hell is going on outside the craft?" department.

Not sure where the OP got the idea that manned craft will be windowless in the immediate future. I suspect there's not a spacecraft pilot in existance that would do without a view outside that's not dependant on hardware or software to work.

Hence the line in the movie "The Right Stuff": "Where's the window?"

That's one of the things I like about the new Enterprise design. It always seemed to me the one place you would most want to have a window is on the BRIDGE.

Only place I absolutely would NOT have one (outside of maybe where the torps and antimatter are kept.) If I attacked the -d, I'd come in high and shoot down through the glass dome.

 

[JuanBolio]

Hence the line in the movie "The Right Stuff": "Where's the window?"

That's one of the things I like about the new Enterprise design. It always seemed to me the one place you would most want to have a window is on the BRIDGE.

Only place I absolutely would NOT have one (outside of maybe where the torps and antimatter are kept.) If I attacked the -d, I'd come in high and shoot down through the glass dome.

Agreed - EM radiation will pass right through transparent materials. Lasers, gamma rays, you name it.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

That's assuming it's glass. Which it's probably not; it's silly to put a weak substance like that on the hull of a spaceship.

 

[JuanBolio]

That's assuming it's glass. Which it's probably not; it's silly to put a weak substance like that on the hull of a spaceship.

No, that's assuming its transparent, which it would need to be to let light through. Light is not just stuff that allows you to see - its also laser beams, gamma rays, cosmic radiation, and all kinds of other things that are really bad for life. Sure, you can lead the window to absorb some of it, but that doesn't work nearly as well as a solid metal bulkhead.

From Atomic Rocket:

Rockets Don't Got Windows

Spacecraft have no need of windows or portholes, for much the same reason as a submarine. (No, the Seaview doesn't count. Strictly science fiction. There are no panoramic picture windows on a Trident submarine). Windows represent structural weakness, and there really isn't much to see in any event. Unless the spacecraft is orbiting a planet or docking with another ship, the only thing visible is the depths of space and the eye-searing sun. And unlike submarines, windows on a spacecraft also let in deadly radiation.
Star Trek, Star Wars, and Battlestar Galactica to the contrary, space battles will NOT be fought at a range of a few feet. Directed energy weapons will force ranges such that the enemy ships will only be visible through a telescope. Watching a space battle through a port hole, you will either see nothing because the enemy ships are too far away, or you will see nothing because a reflected laser beam or nuclear explosion has permanently robbed you of your eyesight.
The navigation room might have an astrodome for emergency navigation. But for the most part windows will be omitted in favor of radar, telescopic TV cameras, and similar sensors.

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3at.html

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Hence the line in the movie "The Right Stuff": "Where's the window?"

That's one of the things I like about the new Enterprise design. It always seemed to me the one place you would most want to have a window is on the BRIDGE.

Only place I absolutely would NOT have one (outside of maybe where the torps and antimatter are kept.) If I attacked the -d, I'd come in high and shoot down through the glass dome.

If you're targeting computer is precise enough to put a laser blast into an eight foot window on the relativistically moving target of my starship--while at the same time I am blasting away with my phasers trying to kill you--I dare say, you deserve to win.

More to the point: if your weapons are THAT accurate, you shooting holes in the bridge is the least of my worries.