exterior surface markings of Kirk's Enterprise

[SonicRanger]

Blown light bulbs should be even more archaic than rocket burns.

[Timo]

Besides, won't they all be called "spherical heating elements" in the future?

With that pattern they showed rockets firing into each other

And what's wrong with that? Sounds like a sensible way to arrange propulsion around a mushroom-shaped pod, with all the flames safely pointing away from the stem.

(How does one get that NASA link to work? It's just giving me some sort of a permission denied notice no matter how I truncate it.)

Timo Saloniemi

[blssdwlf]

Because you want to have the thrusters fire into the ship so it can accelerate away from it, not try and alter the ship's attitude like a rcs.

again, when have we ever seen rocket burn marks in tos?

[Timo]

Because you want to have the thrusters fire into the ship so it can accelerate away from it, not try and alter the ship's attitude like a rcs.

I don't understand. The pattern shows rocket flames similar to what a cluster of four rockets at the stem of the putative mushroom would create, if the nozzles were aimed a bit outward - so the result would definitely be one of accelerating away from the ship.

again, when have we ever seen rocket burn marks in TOS?

Probably every time we saw a rocket. Which was, IIRC, never.

It's not as if future rockets would be "mark-less", though. We just never got a look at the marks Soran's rocket or Spock's boots would have left.

Timo Saloniemi

[SonicRanger]

It was in the episode with the bathrooms.

[blssdwlf]

Timo wrote:

---

I don't understand. The pattern shows rocket flames similar to what a cluster of four rockets at the stem of the putative mushroom would create, if the nozzles were aimed a bit outward - so the result would definitely be one of accelerating away from the ship.

Not really. If they were a cluster of 4 rockets there would be some symmetry but the left-right "burns" are a little higher than the midpoint and the bottom "burn" originates off-center to the left. Come to think of it, the top one looks off-center as well.

In anycase, if you wanted to jettison something away in a hurry, you want the thrusters aimed at the ship, not off to the sides like an RCS.

Still looks like an exploded bulb. Or possibly an exploded RCS. Ion Pod on the Starboard side? Not without dialogue or a flashback showing the pod ejecting from that very spot

http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x...rtialhd003.jpg

Timo wrote:

---

Probably every time we saw a rocket. Which was, IIRC, never.

It's not as if future rockets would be "mark-less", though. We just never got a look at the marks Soran's rocket or Spock's boots would have left.

Given the TOS Enterprise has flown thru some pretty crappy stuff and got close enough to the sun a couple of times to get a good burn, the hull never exhibited any scarring. Only when something crazy powerful like a Doomsday Machine was able to scar (the Constellation). An explosion could cause such scarring. A rocket burn, unlikely, IMO.

[John Mason]

Exemplary work Lieutenant

[mickemoose]

There have been many interpretations as to what these markings represent, and the topic has brought forth many lively discussions. Someone even suggested the color, shape and arrangement of the markings on the underside of the engineering hull could represent some kind of Starfleet code. Don't ask me to explain, it's just one of the ideas that was tossed around.

A possible clue as to what these markings are, may be found in their location. Most of them are on the bottom of each hull.

With this thought in mind, what is usually located at or near the bottom of passenger planes, Greyhound busses, train coaches, cruise ships and motorhomes? Cargo storage areas, of course. Now, is there any reason why the location of cargo holds would be different on a starship? Off hand, I can't think of any.

Regardless of who's deck layout you agree with, you can't deny the fact that a starship is going to be carrying cargo, and the most likely place for that cargo to be stored would be in the lower levels of the ship or hull. That means there must be some way of getting the cargo in and out of that area.

So, since cargo holds are at the bottom of the hull, and the markings are also at or near the bottom of the hulls, it would seem likely that one or two of them would be cargo hatches.

That seems like a logical argument, right? Wait a minute, now! This is the 23rd century we're talking about! I'm sure those cargo holds have transporters for beaming that cargo to and from the ship. Sure would save a lot of grunt work. Just use anti-gravs to move the cargo on and off the transporter. So, why would you need cargo hatches?

[throwback]

There may be cargo that doesn't respond kindly to transporters. I think there were one or two episodes in Star Trek where a substance played havoc with the transporter system.

[Timo]

Indeed, it has virtually never been difficult to transport people, but many substances or sometimes devices have been problematic.

Having holds down below makes sense for seagoing things because of stability concerns: you can't go wrong with a low center of gravity. Well, okay, if you go too low, you might get nauseatingly fast roll, but that's not unsafe, just uncomfortable.

Having holds down below also makes sense for things loaded on the surface of a planet, because there's no point in moving the cargo any higher from the ground than absolutely necessary.

Neither of these would apply to starships, though. The two main concerns might well be ease of loading and (considering a starship supposedly typically doesn't haul cargo from A to B unopened) ease of access while underway. For the first concern, dorsal hatches should be as good as ventral ones. For the second, stowage at the same level with personnel ought to be preferred, chiefly because moving things horizontally is easier than moving things vertically when artificial gravity affects each deck...

In anycase, if you wanted to jettison something away in a hurry, you want the thrusters aimed at the ship, not off to the sides like an RCS.

Except that's not how the thrusters of an emergency escape system are aimed in real spacecraft... It's always off to the sides, to avoid flame effects on the thing you are trying to whisk to safety.

There's no real doubt the TOS-R artists wanted a rocket/explosive bolt scorching effect here, with four rockets/bolts indicated, rather than a random explosion of the thingamabob itself. Whether they did a good job or not can be debated, but mainly on artistic grounds.

On the general issue of this thread, the markings on the TOS ship, one aspect we might consider is the presence of the virtually same markings on the E-A. The two ships are of a rather different design; OTOH, the refitted E-nil and the E-A are basically identical save for the markings, but the former had no discernible features in the spots where the latter had the markings.

This might give weight to the interpretation that the various shapes and colors are abstract symbology unrelated to any hatches, seams or moving or immobile parts of the starship. Perhaps most of the painted areas are just aiming points for a Ptolemy tender for an accurate belly-to-belly docking, so that a single key hatch will be properly aligned with its tender counterpart for transfer of fuel and consumables?

Timo Saloniemi

[BK613]

SonicRanger wrote:

---

Blown light bulbs should be even more archaic than rocket burns.

(pedantic) Rocket technology is older than light bulb technology (/pedantic)

And how 'bout this on the subject of ion storms and blown light bulbs

[blssdwlf]

Timo wrote:

---

Neither of these would apply to starships, though. The two main concerns might well be ease of loading and (considering a starship supposedly typically doesn't haul cargo from A to B unopened) ease of access while underway. For the first concern, dorsal hatches should be as good as ventral ones. For the second, stowage at the same level with personnel ought to be preferred, chiefly because moving things horizontally is easier than moving things vertically when artificial gravity affects each deck...

And then TOS-R goes and makes one of those hatches for ejecting hundreds of satellites in "Operation: Annihilate"

Timo wrote:

---

Except that's not how the thrusters of an emergency escape system are aimed in real spacecraft... It's always off to the sides, to avoid flame effects on the thing you are trying to whisk to safety.

They're aimed off to the sides in in real craft because the rocket motors are in front of the escape capsule and they don't want to fry the capsule.

There is no reason for this on the "ion pod/light bulb" since we see the replacement part which has no escape rocket assembly sticking out. If it was going to be rocketed out of the ship, the thrusters would've been aimed down because it would be "behind" the bulb assembly, not to the sides since they didn't have to worry about damaging light bulb.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...plosions-1965/

Timo wrote:

---

There's no real doubt the TOS-R artists wanted a rocket/explosive bolt scorching effect here, with four rockets/bolts indicated, rather than a random explosion of the thingamabob itself. Whether they did a good job or not can be debated, but mainly on artistic grounds.

The end product is still that it doesn't come close to being an "ion pod". It looks like random damage from the storm and if it were not outside channels telling us the fans what it was "suppose to be" we'd never know. The episode doesn't tell us and the FX isn't clear either. As an end product, it's still a light bulb that exploded.

Timo wrote:

---

On the general issue of this thread, the markings on the TOS ship, one aspect we might consider is the presence of the virtually same markings on the E-A.

This might give weight to the interpretation that the various shapes and colors are abstract symbology unrelated to any hatches, seams or moving or immobile parts of the starship.

Did any other ships from the movie period have those markings underneath? Was the E and E-A the only ones to have those belly markings?

Could the movie-E, have the hatches but they just were not painted? Was the airlock hull plating on the underside of the saucer marked off?

[Timo]

There is no reason for this on the "ion pod/light bulb"

Sure there is, if the pod is of a mushroom shape: the stem would have to be protected.

Naturally, flames aimed directly and exactly aft would also produce that pattern, while the explosion of the entire thing never would (unless it exploded in four spots near the rim and not in any other spots). But a slight vectoring out would be an obvious engineering solution that would cause a minimal reduction of net forward thrust in a one-off system that didn't need "optimal" thrust in the first place.

The episode doesn't tell us and the FX isn't clear either.

Bullshit. Author intent is obvious, and contrary insistence is just some sort of a... Disturbance, I guess would be the polite word.

Did any other ships from the movie period have those markings underneath?

There weren't many ships with an "underside" to begin with, so probably not.

Could the movie-E, have the hatches but they just were not painted?

Only in the sense that the TOS ship had torpedo tubes - they'd be completely invisible, seamless, holographically hidden, whatever.

Was the airlock hull plating on the underside of the saucer marked off?

Apparently not in paint. Certainly not in the DE computer reproduction, but probably not in the original, either. At any rate, all traces of such marking were gone by the TWoK repainting. AFAIK, the only paint markings worth noting (apart from the pennants) were the greenish highlights on the sides of the connecting neck, the phaser turret and RCS attention colors, plus the flight deck patterns.

Timo Saloniemi

[blssdwlf]

Timo wrote:

---

Sure there is, if the pod is of a mushroom shape: the stem would have to be protected.

We can see the cavity - it isn't a mushroom shape.

Timo wrote:

---

Naturally, flames aimed directly and exactly aft would also produce that pattern, while the explosion of the entire thing never would (unless it exploded in four spots near the rim and not in any other spots). But a slight vectoring out would be an obvious engineering solution that would cause a minimal reduction of net forward thrust in a one-off system that didn't need "optimal" thrust in the first place.

"Optimal" thrust is required since the pod put the ship in danger. The thruster could have been easily centerline and at the base of this "pod". Finney would just crawl in from the sides if it were an internal configuration.

Timo wrote:

---

Bullshit. Author intent is obvious, and contrary insistence is just some sort of a... Disturbance, I guess would be the polite word.

I call bullshit on your bullshit Where does any dialogue point to that "damage" as anything other than "damage"? The FX at best looks like an RCS thruster pattern, at worse, just part of the "considerable damage". The rest of it you're just applying completely outside-universe knowledge that it was suppose to be the ion pod.

Timo wrote:

---

There weren't many ships with an "underside" to begin with, so probably not.

Only in the sense that the TOS ship had torpedo tubes - they'd be completely invisible, seamless, holographically hidden, whatever.

Apparently not in paint. Certainly not in the DE computer reproduction, but probably not in the original, either. At any rate, all traces of such marking were gone by the TWoK repainting. AFAIK, the only paint markings worth noting (apart from the pennants) were the greenish highlights on the sides of the connecting neck, the phaser turret and RCS attention colors, plus the flight deck patterns.

So you might be on to something and those markings have no bearing on actual hatches.

[Timo]

We can see the cavity - it isn't a mushroom shape.

We can see the cavity of indefinite depth, which perfectly allows for a mushroom shape.

Anyway, why would there be a cavity in the first place if the dome didn't have a stem? Any hatch should be flush with the outer hull, surely, if what was ejected was just a dome terminating at said hull.

"Optimal" thrust is required since the pod put the ship in danger.

Naah. The pod is to be ejected using a single burst of thrust. There's no reason to optimize performance, when there are more important things to consider, such as reliability and safety. Generous overkill plus angling of thrust is the way to go.

The thruster could have been easily centerline and at the base of this "pod". Finney would just crawl in from the sides if it were an internal configuration.

I have some trouble figuring out how this would work. What could be internal about the pod if it doesn't have a (fairly long) stem?

I call bullshit on your bullshit

Hmm, it seems I didn't actually quote what I wanted to comment on. The visuals may be "unclear" and all, but there is no room for interpreting that the intent was to show an explosion.

Of course, intent doesn't count for much in in-universe terms. But intent cannot have been to show an explosion as opposed to an ejection. Hell, the dialogue establishes an ejection, so any screen time sacrificed to showing things like this has pretty high odds of describing an ejection...

Timo Saloniemi