The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   Trek Tech (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   TOS Enterprise Question... (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=148570)

MadMan1701A October 2 2011 05:33 AM

TOS Enterprise Question...
 
Got a question, and I can't seem to find a good answer for it. :)

On the top of the TOS Enterprise saucer, there are those 4 white glowy rectangles. Does anyone know what they are supposed to be?

It's driving me nuts, all of a sudden. :)

-Ricky

Herkimer Jitty October 2 2011 05:58 AM

Re: TOS Enterprise Question...
 
Some people think they're sensors, some think they're skylights, some think they're cargo bay doors.

Those are the most common explanations I've seen, at any rate.

Albertese October 2 2011 08:49 AM

Re: TOS Enterprise Question...
 
Exactly. For my money, I like to suppose they are sensors that act together to form a long range array like a radio telescope array on Earth today.

But there's no official answer.

--Alex

Cary L. Brown October 2 2011 01:33 PM

Re: TOS Enterprise Question...
 
All they "really" are are three lighted pieces of plexiglass and one painted rectangular spot, evidently intended to resemble the backlit pieces.

Since this is the same technique used for windows, I treat them as windows. Here's how that looks...

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/9958/image3tn.th.jpg

Patrickivan October 2 2011 01:58 PM

Re: TOS Enterprise Question...
 
Quote:

Herkimer Jitty wrote: (Post 5262100)
Some people think they're sensors, some think they're skylights, some think they're cargo bay doors.

Those are the most common explanations I've seen, at any rate.

Agreed... I've had the same thoughts.

Then there are the 3 little windows on the lower aft quarters on the sauce... Probably windows.

Quote:

Cary L. Brown wrote: (Post 5262380)
All they "really" are are three lighted pieces of plexiglass and one painted rectangular spot, evidently intended to resemble the backlit pieces.

Since this is the same technique used for windows, I treat them as windows. Here's how that looks...

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/9958/image3tn.th.jpg

:rolleyes: Really? You didn't know he was talking about in universe when you posted that they were plexi-glass?

MadMan1701A October 2 2011 02:56 PM

Re: TOS Enterprise Question...
 
Interesting ideas, everybody. :)

So I guess the official answer is that there isn't an official answer. :)

I don't know what to think of them being actual windows... they'd be awfully big for that, wouldn't they?

-Ricky

blssdwlf October 2 2011 03:45 PM

Re: TOS Enterprise Question...
 
The windows see from the interior shots seem big as well ("The Conscience of the King" and "Mark of Gideon"). But, the 4 squares could be anything so you can assign whatever you want to them. I'm leaning to sensors instead of windows for the time being :)

Mr Silver October 2 2011 06:26 PM

Re: TOS Enterprise Question...
 
If you remember TMP, when Kirk, Spock, Decker and Ilia-Probe left the ship, they exited through a hatch relative to one of these rectangles. Perhaps they are service hatches that provide direct access to specific areas that are harder to reach internally (or places that don't normally contain an atomosphere).

Cary L. Brown October 2 2011 06:50 PM

Re: TOS Enterprise Question...
 
Quote:

Patrickivan wrote: (Post 5262398)
Quote:

Cary L. Brown wrote: (Post 5262380)
All they "really" are are three lighted pieces of plexiglass and one painted rectangular spot, evidently intended to resemble the backlit pieces.

Since this is the same technique used for windows, I treat them as windows.

:rolleyes: Really? You didn't know he was talking about in universe when you posted that they were plexi-glass?

I knew that perfectly well, thank you very much. :rofl:

What I was doing was exercising a process known as deductive reasoning. There are two principle forms of reasoning - inductive and deductive.

In inductive reasoning, you start with a known idea, and work "backwards" to the explanation.. in this case, for example, we'd be starting with "those are windows" (or whatever you think that they are) and work backwards to support it.

In deductive reasoning, you go in the other direction... you start with known facts, and derive a conclusion from that.

In this case, the only "known facts" are "what are these panels on the model made from" and "what else is made from the same technique as these panels on this model."

We know that windows are made in the model using this technique, and we don't know specifically about anything else in this model made from this technique. Therefore, is is logical to conclude that these are most likely windows.

The other statements here are inductive reasoning, though... claims that they are sensor elements or whatever else. In these cases, the persons making those claims are starting from "what makes sense to me" and then trying to develop support for those positions.

Both inductive and deductive reasoning are valid tools. But if you use deductive reasoning, the most likely explanation for these is that they are intended to be large, in-ceiling windows.

Now... whether they are windows over big lounges, or over rooms filled with scientific hardware which get a view of space through these windows... that's ENTIRELY undefined and undefinable, using either methodology.

Patrickivan October 2 2011 07:14 PM

Re: TOS Enterprise Question...
 
No Cary. You did not employ deductive reasoning. You've made an assumption. In fact, you've made an assumption based on your speculation. You have a conclusion without any evidence.

What inductive reasoning are you talking about? What fact gave you the ability to reach a general conclusion? That a model maker uses the same product on one part of the ship, and therefore it must be the same on the other part? That makes no sense in how it applies to what that part may be in-universe...

Do you actually KNOW for a fact that those little lit squares on the top were indeed made from the same material on the rims? What if they used glass? Then your whole theory has to be re-worked to fit your CONCLUSION...

I'm actually quite disappointed in you. For an intellegent person, you have so many reasoning failings and interpersonal skills issues, that seems almost like your putting us all on at times.

All you really had to say was that in your opion, they look like windows, so MAYBE they are... But you have to take it to a whole new level of condescension.

Cary L. Brown October 2 2011 07:42 PM

Re: TOS Enterprise Question...
 
Okay, Patrick... I'm a bit surprised by your tone here.

I DID use deductive reasoning, and I even went so far as to state, EXPLICITLY, the facts that I used in doing so. If you wish to "disprove" my claim that this is deductive reasoning, you'll need to disprove those facts.

You're just being argumentative and hostile. I'm surprised by that.

We do know what the material used was. There's no real mystery there. (We also know that the little white circle on the top leading edge of the saucer is made from the same material.) Basically, when they refurbished the ship miniature for the series, adding lighting, they bought big sheets of plexiglass and cut "plugs" to go into various spots. In the saucer, they did this so that the lit regions are clustered together (ie, saucer rim windows share light sources with the topside rectangles, etc), likely more for practical reasons than for aesthetic ones.

I did not CRITICIZE the inductive reasoning used by others here, Patrick. I did not say that "deductive reasoning is better than inductive reasoning," either. I merely said that my position is arrived at through deductive means, while most of the other arguments are arrived at through inductive ones.

And I ONLY said that after your first hostile, mocking response to my very simple, straightforward post a few posts back, explaining (a) what I think they are, (b) why I think that's what they are, and (c) what it looks like if you treat them that way.
Quote:

I'm actually quite disappointed in you. For an intellegent person, you have so many reasoning failings and interpersonal skills issues, that seems almost like your putting us all on at times.
Well, that was inappropriate, and again, pretty hostile. I'm at a loss to explain where this is coming from. There was a time, years ago, when you and I had a brief "dust-up" when you seemed to have inexplicably taken offense at something I said (I never did even know what I'd done to "offend" you at that time) but for several years we've been on good terms. I feel like I might if a woman in my life suddenly brought up something I did twenty years earlier to justify an argument. I get the impression that there's something else at work here, but I'm at a loss as to what.
Quote:

All you really had to say was that they look like windows. So MAYBE they are... But you have to take it to a whole new level of condescension.
No condescension here at all, Patrick. And if you go back and re-read my post, above, you'll find this quote:
Quote:

All they "really" are are three lighted pieces of plexiglass and one painted rectangular spot, evidently intended to resemble the backlit pieces.

Since this is the same technique used for windows, I treat them as windows.
and then this quote
Quote:

Both inductive and deductive reasoning are valid tools. But if you use deductive reasoning, the most likely explanation for these is that they are intended to be large, in-ceiling windows.

sojourner October 2 2011 07:52 PM

Re: TOS Enterprise Question...
 
If I recall, the major building material for the original model was wood, so we can deduce that either

A) since the nacelles were wood, then the primary and secondary hulls are just differently shaped nacelles
B) since the primary hull is wood, then the nacelles and secondary hull are just differently shaped primary hulls.

Basing the function of the item just on it's material without taking in context and form clearly does not produce clear results.

Cary L. Brown October 2 2011 07:59 PM

Re: TOS Enterprise Question...
 
Quote:

sojourner wrote: (Post 5262938)
If I recall, the major building material for the original model was wood, so we can deduce that either

A) since the nacelles were wood, then the primary and secondary hulls are just differently shaped nacelles
B) since the primary hull is wood, then the nacelles and secondary hull are just differently shaped primary hulls.

Basing the function of the item just on it's material without taking in context and form clearly does not produce clear results.

Well, while that was cute... it's not accurate.

The main outer surface of the primary hull is made from plastic, not wood, though there's a wooden frame. The nacelle has a wooden front end but the aft portion is rolled sheetmetal. The secondary hull is mainly wood, though.

And, of course, the deflector dish is a fruit bowl. So the real question, I guess, is where the giant apples and bananas are on the ship?

TIN_MAN October 2 2011 11:24 PM

Re: TOS Enterprise Question...
 
Just my two quatloos worth, but it's generally agreed that the lighted domes at the top and bottom of the saucer are sensor domes, right?

But in reality, they're just lighted pieces of plastic, just like the lighted rectangles (and windows). And some "windows" are round portholes, not unlike the sensor domes though smaller.

So from this we could just as easily conclude that the rectangles are sensors as windows, since they're all nothing but lighted pieces of plastic on the model, no?

Anywho, I like to think that the four rectangles are small craft access doors with a small bay beneath and an “observation gallery” around, similar to the main shuttle bay/hangar, but that’s crazy, I know.

Captain Robert April October 3 2011 04:54 AM

Re: TOS Enterprise Question...
 
Some sort of maneuvering thruster system, perhaps?

Personally, I prefer big skylight windows over large common areas, like a mess hall, ship's theatre, rec room, gymnasium...hmm, that covers all four. :techman:


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:04 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.