TOS Enterprise Question...

[Cary L. Brown]

The other thing to bear in mind when looking at these is that (for practical model-building reasons, mind you) these "skylights" correspond with the rim windows. (The practical reason is that they were all lit by a single light source... three for the saucer (with one just painted on and not really lit) plus a single forward-facing one and a top and bottom one.

So, in "in-universe" terms, these "skylights" are effectively colocated with the rim windows.

Now, in my opinion, the circular "portholes" are for sensors (they provide a pretty complete coverage for the entire ship, including upwards and downwards coverage). Inside of each of those little circular windows is some piece of sensor tech, observing through the porthole but accessible (and maintainable) from within the ship, in a shirt-sleeves environment. But the rectangular windows are "viewing ports."

So, we know that there are "personal observation windows" or viewing ports in the exact same areas as the "skylights" are found. Despite the "production shortcut" which led to that being the case (if the ship had been designed, from the beginning, to be illuminated, I wonder if it would have had the same set of windows?), it's still what we've got.

It just seems a bit odd to have a "personal relaxation and reflection" window set inside of one of the working spaces of the ship, filled with heavy-duty mechanical and electrical gear. (And yes, mechanical... most sensor devices we have today have a mechanical element to them, and I see no reason to conclude that this would change so that everything was "magic" in the future.)

But Alex has every right to prefer having those be a specialized "very large array" concept, and to build up his model that way if he so desires. In MY case, I'll be building actual setpieces made up to match "engineering redressed as an auditorium" and "engineering dressed up as a gymnasium" (and two other configurations I'll be making up largely from scratch, but which will likely also be "engineering dressed up as something" setups) underneath those windows.

If nobody else on the planet ever agrees with me... that's just fine. I know I'm right, so there!

[Albertese]

CarbonCopy wrote:

---

[*]And except when it's in warp.

I guess I assumed the warp field would create enough distortion that it wouldn't be reliable in that way anyhow. On the other hand, maybe not. We see sensors being used on the show when the ship is in warp pretty consistently. I suppose if the computers could compensate for the warp field why shouldn't they be able to compensate for the linear movement for a long range observation of what is "above" the ship? After all, even at warp speeds, the parallax affecting objects many hundreds of light-years distant wouldn't be affected that quickly.

[*]And except when the impulse drive is on (which while arguably omni-directional through the use of shields, something I'm not entirely convinced of by the way, in any case isn't ideally so).

I don't see this as a problem at all. If there's a chance of using it at warp speed there's no reason at all that it wouldn't work at sub light.

[*]And except when you need to scan things in two different directions.

Why would you need to? I'm picturing this as a specialized scientific instrument for long-range science probe type duty. These aren't the usual sensors at all. These are a special extra sensor system which is really just used for observing specific things at scheduled times. Not the regular run-of-the-mill utility sensors and scanners.

[*]And except when any number of other reasonable scenarios might apply.

Okay. I'm not sure what to do with something that general.

On the other hand, this, an arrangement of sensors spread out like the VLA, to increase the effective resolution of the sensor array, is a reasonable proposal. It would effectively create a dish the size of the saucer, which is the surface of the ship with the greatest area.

Thank you! This was exactly what I had in mind! I just brain-farted on what the thing is called. This is a special system for high resolution, long-range scans of extremely distant objects. It probably isn't even normal cruiser equipment but it included on Enterprise and perhaps the dozen or so ships like her as extra neato scientific gear.

Thus, this array would be for high resolution scans; but other arrays should point in other, variable directions, so the ship wouldn't be all the time blind in those directions.

I 100% agree. I hope I didn't make it seem as though I expect that these four squares are the only sensor packages on this ship. They are just a specialized system for a specific use. I see the domes on the top and bottom of the saucer to be the normally used sensor emplacements that bring almost total sky coverage, except for what areas are blocked by the engineering hull. I also have assumed the three round lights on the saucer's bow rim are scanners and also assume that the big copper dish on the front end of the engineering hull is both a deflector and a scanner. (In fact, I assume this is the usually used long range scanner, that the warp field is configured to allow, and possibly enhance, a scanner beam to see through the forward lobe of the warp field.)

CLB, we all have our own ideas about what this ship really is. I have my ideas and I respect yours too. In fact, I hope to see more of your Enterprise model here soon. In fact, I like your ideas so much that on my own "Enterprise-guts-project" I've been inspired by more than a few ideas from what I read in that thread in days of yore. You oughta wheel that baby out again!

--Alex

[CorporalCaptain]

My point was simply that at warp, when the ship is heading in a particular direction, the only degree of freedom in the orientation of the ship is in the roll angle.

Similar remarks apply at impulse, with caveats involving hypothesized interactions with the shields that fans have proposed over the years, that are more esoteric than I feel like discussing right now. In any case, it's still a non-trivially problematic issue when the impulse drive must be activated.

The point of all this is that there are significant other situations, besides combat, in which the array cannot be used with anything approaching absolute flexibility (if it really is such an array). Maneuvering is one of those other situations.

Scanning two remote targets simultaneously is another. As to why this is significant, it might be an important consideration when deciding how many ships to deploy along the neutral zone to carry out certain kinds of missions.

This is only for clarification in what I meant; none of this challenges the idea that these areas might be used as a specialized sensor array.

[blssdwlf]

CarbonCopy wrote:

---

My point was simply that at warp, when the ship is heading in a particular direction, the only degree of freedom in the orientation of the ship is in the roll angle.

Similar remarks apply at impulse...

In regards to TOS and TOS movies, where the ship is pointing and where the ship is going do not need to be the same. There are times where the Enterprise at warp and impulse keeps her nose at a target while traveling in a different direction. ("Elaan of Troyius", "Balance of Terror", "The Corbomite Maneuver", "The Motion Picture", "The Wrath of Khan", "The Search for Spock" come to mind.)

Now with that said, the Enterprise appears to prefer accelerating going forward or backward but once moving, has no problem pointing away from where she's going.

[CorporalCaptain]

Only when TOS Enterprise is actively maneuvering or turning, or getting knocked around in a storm, do I recall seeing her point in a different direction.

Unless I'm forgetting something, once she's settled on course, she's always going forwards or backwards. And she goes backwards only in an emergency. I've never seen the Enterprise warping through space facing sideways.

(But let's not try to get into relative to which frame of reference the direction of velocity is specified with respect to. Star Trek physics at impulse power is well-known to violate Newtonian physics as is. As far as I'm concerned, the direction she's facing and the direction she's moving is what they both appear to be on screen.)

[blssdwlf]

CarbonCopy wrote:

---

Only when TOS Enterprise is actively maneuvering or turning do I recall seeing her point in a different direction; I've never seen the Enterprise warping through space facing sideways.

Once she's settled on course, she's always going forwards or backwards. And she goes backwards only in an emergency.

I agree for most "normal circumstances", when she's traveling somewhere she's going to go forward. My guess is that's probably the most efficient for her design. But she's quite capable of pointing in a different direction other than her flight vector at warp or at impulse if there was a reason to. Usually that means pointing her forward phasers or some sensor gear towards an object.

Some examples:

Normal circumstances:

Alot of the shots of the TOS Enterprise (original FX) shows her flying "not quite" straight forward but at a slight tilt up. Her opening intro sequence where she flies towards the viewer shows a curve in her flight path although the ship never turns or pitches in direction to change her flight path.

When Enterprise is traveling to intercept V'ger in the TMP: Director's Cut version where Kirk, McCoy and Spock are discussing something you can see in the back viewport that the ship is traveling slightly "sideways" as the vanishing point for the passing "stars" is not directly behind the ship relative to the warp nacelle.


Not Normal circumstances:

In "The Paradise Syndrome" she's flying sideways to the asteroid when she attempts to deflect it. Then she moves directly in front of the asteroid flying backwards intending to split it.

In "The Corbomite Maneuver" she's spiraling, then moving forward and then reverse and then reverse at warp trying to distance herself from the cube. Later on, Enterprise breaks free from the tractor beam by shearing away at a right angle course.

In "The Doomsday Machine" one of the combatants is either flying forward or backwards relative to the flight path of the Doomsday Machine.

When Enterprise intercepts V'ger in "The Motion Picture" she approaches flies over at 500m paralleling V'ger all while V'ger is traveling at warp speed and then settles in front (or behind) V'ger and reverses direction to face V'ger. You can take it either Enterprise flew in reverse to fly over V'ger or flew forward and reversed direction once she got in front of V'ger.

Initially Normal circumstance:

When Reliant intercepts Enterprise in the first battle in TWOK, Enterprise is traveling forward and Reliant is approaching in reverse. Forward motion is maintained and Reliant is essentially flying sideways relative to Enterprise.

There are more examples, but those are the ones I can think of right now

[CorporalCaptain]

blssdwlf wrote:

---

(...)

There are more examples, but those are the ones I can think of right now

I don't believe it's worth it to quibble about these things.

Some of your examples involve what I would consider over-interpreting things, like the TMP DE scenes, which were in my opinion simply badly constructed. I recall reading commentary somewhere that the lounge scene needed to be done that way for some technical reason to save money; I don't have a link.

With respect to the the spiral pattern example from The Corbomite Maneuver, the spiral course started at impulse speed. I don't see any reason to assume they were still spiraling when the radiation started getting dangerous. Indeed, according to a transcript they were going straight astern by then:

BAILEY: Course plotted and laid in, sir.
KIRK: Engage, Mister Sulu. Quarter speed.
SULU: Point two five, sir. Still blocking us, sir.
KIRK: Let's see if it'll give way. Ahead half speed.
SULU: Point five oh, sir.
SPOCK: Radiation from the short end of the spectrum increasing.
KIRK: All stop. Hold position.
BAILEY: It's still coming toward us. Range, one hundred ninety metres.
SPOCK: Radiation increasing.
KIRK: Power astern, half speed.
SULU: Half speed.
SPOCK: Radiation nearing the tolerance level.
BAILEY: Still coming, gaining on us.
KIRK: Engines astern, full speed.
SULU: Full speed.
BAILEY: Range one hundred twenty five metres now.
KIRK: Helm, give us warp speed.
SULU: Warp one, sir.

Furthermore, at least in the original footage (honestly I haven't seen the new effects, and don't really care to), we never see which way the ship is facing. Just because the cube is always centered on the screen doesn't mean the ship is always facing the cube.

The stock footage approach you mention would be a good example, were it not that one could explain away the slight tilt as a limitation of the special effects. And so forth.

This isn't worth quibbling over; it's speculation on top of speculation to address a tangential issue about speculation. Your points are worth considering, but let's move on from this, OK? Thanks for the feedback though. I'll keep it in mind as I rewatch Trek in the future, and watch for what you mention.

[blssdwlf]

CarbonCopy wrote:

---

I don't believe it's worth it to quibble about these things.

Some of your examples involve what I would consider over-interpreting things, like the TMP DE scenes, which were in my opinion simply badly constructed. I recall reading commentary somewhere that the lounge scene needed to be done that way for some technical reason to save money; I don't have a link.

Well, yes, but since we are quibbling (a little), I'll add:

On the other hand, if you're going to say "TOS Enterprise is limited to only rolling once at warp" as a reason why those 4 top panels should not be sensors then it should be supportable "in universe". It's mostly just paying attention to the details but that means there is evidence that does indicate the ship is not limited to flying straight ahead at warp (or impulse) and backwards in an emergency..

In any case, using "out of universe" reasons to exclude "in universe" evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen "in universe", IMHO.

CarbonCopy wrote:

---

With respect to the the spiral pattern example from The Corbomite Maneuver, the spiral course started at impulse speed. I don't see any reason to assume they were still spiraling when the radiation started getting dangerous. Indeed, according to a transcript they were going straight astern by then:

That's pretty much what I wrote. She starts of spiraling, then moving forward and then reverse and then finally reversing at warp.

blssdwlf wrote:

---

In "The Corbomite Maneuver" she's spiraling, then moving forward and then reverse and then reverse at warp trying to distance herself from the cube. Later on, Enterprise breaks free from the tractor beam by shearing away at a right angle course.

I bolded the parts where they move forward after the spiraling and when she reverses.

CarbonCopy wrote:

---

Furthermore, at least in the original footage (honestly I haven't seen the new effects, and don't really care to), we never see which way the ship is facing. Just because the cube is always centered on the screen doesn't mean the ship is always facing the cube.

For "The Corbomite Maneuver" I was more interesting in the course she was attempting to take away from the cube. Later on when she breaks away from Balok's small ship she snaps/banks away to the side indicating she was shearing to the side.

CarbonCopy wrote:

---

The stock footage approach you mention would be a good example, were it not that one could explain away the slight tilt as a limitation of the special effects. And so forth.

That doesn't explain it "in universe" does it?

CarbonCopy wrote:

---

This isn't worth quibbling over; it's speculation on top of speculation to address a tangential issue about speculation. Your points are worth considering, but let's move on from this, OK? Thanks for the feedback though. I'll keep it in mind as I rewatch Trek in the future, and watch for what you mention.

Sure.

[CorporalCaptain]

if you're going to say "TOS Enterprise is limited to only rolling once at warp" as a reason why those 4 top panels should not be sensors then it should be supportable "in universe"

See, this is what I mean as to why this isn't worth quibbling over. I never said that. In fact, up above, I took the trouble to specifically mention that I was not saying that.

I was only challenging the assertion as to when one would have limitations on how the array could be used; that's all. And that doesn't have any bearing on whether it's really an array; I think there's just as much evidence that's it's an array as there is that it's four skylights.

It was just hard to get across exactly what I was trying to say, I guess.

That doesn't explain it "in universe" does it?

No. Not everything is explainable in universe, nor should it be. For example, the universe should not have to explain why so many people look like Diana Muldaur.

[blssdwlf]

CarbonCopy wrote:

---

No. Not everything is explainable in universe, nor should it be.

Unless it is relevant to the discussion. If a person claims for example (not you CarbonCopy), "Warps only allows straight ahead flight, no left and no right" they should be able to explain why that statement doesn't fit the in-universe evidence that shows many a ship turning at warp without having to resort to "it was an error or shortcoming in effects" or it was "unintended by the writer", etc.

CarbonCopy wrote:

---

For example, the universe should not have to explain why so many people look like Diana Muldaur.

Of course it is explainable in-universe why two people in TOS look like Diana Muldaur - they just do. Do you think it is that uncommon for look-alikes to exist?

Something more challenging would be in TOS what the odds of two or more planets developing exactly like Earth, with one even having the same Declaration of Independence If anything, the odds are "out of whack" in TOS

[DrBashir]

An excellent point. The saucer might be the only place large enough to mount those sensors. The underside wouldn't work due to the undercut. Nothing says that the ship has to point it's nose at what it's studying.

[Cary L. Brown]

blssdwlf wrote:

---

Of course it is explainable in-universe why two people in TOS look like Diana Muldaur - they just do. Do you think it is that uncommon for look-alikes to exist?

At that level, where there are no physical differences whatsoever? Yes, I do. Even identical twins are generally distinguishable on some level, and they are genetically identical (and usually share common nurture as well as common nature).

Furthermore, the odds drop to the infinitesimal once you start saying "two identical people on one ship, within just a couple of years' time" and then another identical person on a ship with the same name, a number of decades later.

To claim that such a thing is plausible is just... wrong. No, we have to accept that what we're looking at would never happen in a "real-universe" version of Star Trek. The people might be "somewhat similar" but not identical.

You can also argue that it's odd that Zephram Cochran changes appearance utterly, and ends up looking like a number of alien characters who showed up on the 1701-D at various times. Or how Spock's dad was such a dead ringer for a Romulan naval commander, or so on and so forth.

We either abandon all pretense of "willful suspension of disbelief" and never watch it again without viewing it ONLY as an exercise in TV-show production (without regard to the story being told), or we excuse the "wrong" bits in some fashion in our minds' eyes and "rewrite" the objectionable bits... but only rewrite as much as is necessary in order to have it make sense to us.

Some of us... those who, like me, tend to get very deep into the technical side of things... tend to overwrite the technical bits a bit more extensively than others do. And I think MOST Of us in this forum are like me in that regard.

I wholeheartedly agree.. "the universe" (the TREK in-story universe) does not require Diana Muldaur to play each part, or Mark Lenard to play each part. The "real" people would likely bear less overall resemblence than the "recreated, acted" versions do.

See, that's how I watch the show. ALL of the shows. I view them as "historical recreations" for entertainment purposes. "Holodeck programs" so to speak.. based upon what information is available, but occasionally abandoning "real universe" bits in the name of "storytelling." And some storytellers... like whoever was tasked with telling the story of the alien race who used Spock's brain to drive their planet-wide computer network... got retold in, shall we say, less successful ways than other stories got retold.

Something more challenging would be in TOS what the odds of two or more planets developing exactly like Earth, with one even having the same Declaration of Independence If anything, the odds are "out of whack" in TOS

Well, this is either "bad storytelling" (something similar, but not identical, "really" happened?) or it's "incomplete storytelling" (meaning that there should be some science-fiction explanation for how somehow, a space-time event occurred which caused multiple near-identical copies of Earth to be created, which our crew occasionally come across?).

But in the end, I prefer the first option. I can accept that whole episode, if the EXACT WORDING of the US historical documents is removed, and if the people are no longer southern-Californians, and if the "parable" nature of the story is a bit less bluntly in-our-face.

These stories aren't always bad. "A Private Little War," for example ,was a much better parable, and that's in large part because it was less blatantly preachy.

Its only when we say that there is no "personal interpretation" possible, or when there is "official reinterpretation" which CONTRADICTS elements seen on-screen, that we have problems.

SO... back on topic...

We don't know what the panels really are "in universe," and if you want them to be sensor system windows, more power to you... unless you get onto a production team and try to "formally redefine" this to say that EVERYONE must accept your personal interpretation. Then, and only then, will people have the right to argue with your position.

And that brings me back to my very earliest point - all we REALLY know is that they are made in the exact same manner, and have the exact same appearance, as the "windows" on the 11-foot model, and thus I am convinced that they are intended to represent windows on the real ship. And because they face upwards, and because human psychology would be best served by having a few open spaces with "sky" overhead, I am convinced that they are for that purpose. But nobody else has to agree with me. Even if I know I"m right and you're all wrong!

[CorporalCaptain]

On the way of interpreting visual shots, I have some points.

Let's take some of the stock footage of the TOS Enterprise orbiting a planet. You all are aware, aren't you, were such a scene photographed in real life, that the ship would not appear to travel in a curved path, right? What I mean by this is that the ship often looks like it's a model a few feet long that's circling a beach ball a few feet in diameter that's sitting only a few feet away from it. I regard this as a trope intended to help the viewer realize that the ship is circling the planet.

But in real life, the planets would be many, many thousands of times larger than the ship and hundreds or thousands of miles away. As the ship is cruising through its orbit, over the period of several seconds it would appear to be going in a straight line, and not in a curved path.

This is one example when what we see in the visual FX is all wrong.

TNG was guilty of another sin many times. Ships are said to be hundreds or thousands of kilometers apart; then we switch to exterior visuals and they couldn't be separated by more than a few hundred meters.

Come on, you all know what I'm talking about right?

The visuals, as a general rule, can only be sketchy at best in Star Trek. In most cases, attempting to interpret the visuals literally and concoct in-universe explanations based on precisely what is seen is looking at it all wrong IMO. The intent was never to dissect things that accurately, but rather only in general terms. For example: the two ships are in proximity and facing each other, close enough to do damage if they start shooting, nothing more specific. Or, the ship is orbiting the planet, nothing more specific.

Of course, some particular cases do seem more realistically composed than others. But the fact that some of these exist doesn't mean that every FX shot was constructed with the same attention to scale and realism.

[blssdwlf]

Cary L. Brown wrote:

---

At that level, where there are no physical differences whatsoever? Yes, I do. Even identical twins are generally distinguishable on some level, and they are genetically identical (and usually share common nurture as well as common nature).

Then can you show that the characters have no physical differences whatsoever? Are we shown both naked and from all angles?

We both can't, so how can you even "scientifically" make a counter-claim without evidence to show the two characters are both identical in-universe?

Cary L. Brown wrote:

---

You can also argue that it's odd that Zephram Cochran changes appearance utterly, and ends up looking like a number of alien characters who showed up on the 1701-D at various times. Or how Spock's dad was such a dead ringer for a Romulan naval commander, or so on and so forth.

Actually, I don't for Zephram. The differences between the TOS Zephram and the TNG-Movie/Enterprise Zephram are enough to waive into alternate universe/timeline territory and as *early* as "The Alternative Factor" Star Trek introduces the existence of alternate universes. You don't have to buy into it, but that "in-universe" explanation works pretty well, IMHO. Spock's dad and the Romulan commander can look facially a "dead ringer". The idea that everyone must look "unique" doesn't even hold true in the "Real World" when there is a whole industry of celebrity "look-alikes".

Cary L. Brown wrote:

---

We either abandon all pretense of "willful suspension of disbelief" and never watch it again without viewing it ONLY as an exercise in TV-show production (without regard to the story being told), or we excuse the "wrong" bits in some fashion in our minds' eyes and "rewrite" the objectionable bits... but only rewrite as much as is necessary in order to have it make sense to us.

It's not that black and white. Not everyone will have the same level of "rewrite" to have it make sense. Heck, some folks might not even care and no re-writing is necessary.

Cary L. Brown wrote:

---

Well, this is either "bad storytelling" (something similar, but not identical, "really" happened?) or it's "incomplete storytelling" (meaning that there should be some science-fiction explanation for how somehow, a space-time event occurred which caused multiple near-identical copies of Earth to be created, which our crew occasionally come across?).

But in the end, I prefer the first option. I can accept that whole episode, if the EXACT WORDING of the US historical documents is removed, and if the people are no longer southern-Californians, and if the "parable" nature of the story is a bit less bluntly in-our-face.

These stories aren't always bad. "A Private Little War," for example ,was a much better parable, and that's in large part because it was less blatantly preachy.

Its only when we say that there is no "personal interpretation" possible, or when there is "official reinterpretation" which CONTRADICTS elements seen on-screen, that we have problems.

Or when different people have different interpretations. You, me, Carboncopy, etc all are approaching the same things we all watch and filtering it with our own set of experiences and beliefs. The main thing to me is laying the facts out so we all know how it's being filtered and not just saying, "Warp can only go forward or backward" or "It's impossible that so many people should look alike" (even though it's only 2 in TOS and an older version in TNG) when we only can study their faces.

Cary L. Brown wrote:

---

SO... back on topic...

We don't know what the panels really are "in universe," and if you want them to be sensor system windows, more power to you... unless you get onto a production team and try to "formally redefine" this to say that EVERYONE must accept your personal interpretation. Then, and only then, will people have the right to argue with your position.

Actually, I think all items should be on the table since we don't know either way. I've stated I think it's a sensor thing as my own opinion. My specific objection was CarbonCopy's statement of how he thought the TOS Enterprise warp/impulse worked that would limit the sensor direction.

[Cary L. Brown]

CarbonCopy wrote:

---

On the way of interpreting visual shots, I have some points.

Let's take some of the stock footage of the TOS Enterprise orbiting a planet. You all are aware, aren't you, were such a scene photographed in real life, that the ship would not appear to travel in a curved path, right? What I mean by this is that the ship often looks like it's a model a few feet long that's circling a beach ball a few feet in diameter that's sitting only a few feet away from it. I regard this as a trope intended to help the viewer realize that the ship is circling the planet.

But in real life, the planets would be many, many thousands of times larger than the ship and hundreds or thousands of miles away. As the ship is cruising through its orbit, over the period of several seconds it would appear to be going in a straight line, and not in a curved path.

This is one example when what we see in the visual FX is all wrong.

Recently, I gave in and started watching Voyager on Netflix... it was the only series I never fully watched (having seen just a few episodes on rare occasions, and never really liking any of the characters except Tuvok and, on occasion, the Dr.)

One thing that hits me, every single episode, is the title sequence, as the Voyager flies over a planetary ring, and you can see the reflection of the ship in the ring.

This means that this entire planet, including its rings, is just tiny. Seriously... you would be able to HIKE the entire circumference of that ring in just a day or two!

I can't even watch that sequence without wincing...