RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,151
Posts: 5,402,188
Members: 24,749
Currently online: 545
Newest member: Legends

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Time’s Orphan
By: Michelle on Aug 30

September-October Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Lee Passes
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Trek Merchandise Sale
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek #39 Villain Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Trek Big Bang Figures
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Fan Film Axanar Kickstarter Success
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Fandom > Fan Art

Fan Art Post your Trek fan art here, including hobby models and collectibles.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 19 2013, 05:16 PM   #241
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Kirk's Television Enterprise Deck Plans WIP

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
1. Can accuracy always comes first?
Yes, IMHO, it should be the first thing to be considered before deviating from it, and once you deviate you should have good and sound reasons to do so. Otherwise you may end up with just another conjectural deck plan version just as the one FJ came up with.

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
2. Do you need to invoke an ineffective technicality like overscanning to put the ceiling height issue in the not onscreen rule to be able to claim that it is not onscreen and thus you can change it?
Fact is that Star Trek was produced for television, not for theaters, and the directors and everybody else involved in this TV production had an understanding of what the audiences with their overscan tube TV sets would actually be able to see and therefore composed the cinematography accordingly.

A good TV set (in the 1960's) would just trim the edges until the "safe action area", a bad TV would just leave you with the "title safe area". So this is about obvious intentions what the DPs and producers expected and wanted us to see.

Example: Did Spock listen to Lokai's speech ("Let That Be...") in Recreation Room "6" or another one? On my overscan tube TV set, I wasn't able to read the "6" when Spock turned around, so this might have been an intentional decision of the DP, in contrast to those scenes where we clearly saw "Recreation Room 6" (e.g. "Mark of Gideon" which has to be another room).

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
3. Can you still be always accurate (see your 1st restriction) and yet make your results seem credible to the way you think it should work?
It's about finding a palatable balance and relationship between the two, which I'm trying to accomplish. If you look at my first attempt drafting Deck 5 (yuck!) I moved the outer cabins closer to the center.
However, I ended up with a "deck of corridors" and waste of space which hardly anyone in real life would arrange this way. A corridor has to give access to rooms on both sides of it, if not it should be small corridor at least, IMHO.
Another aspect is the purpose of cabins at the outer hull. During red alert such cabins would be vacated and in case of a hull breach serve as an extra protection against decompression. That's a practicality that should be considered, too.

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Why not just simplify all your rules down to these two:
1. I'm going to start with what I see on the screen as a base.
2. I'll change what I need to change to make it fit my vision of how MJ would have built it.
I appreciate the proposal but that sounds as if I were just trying to recreate something recognizable which is not the mission goal.

The mission goal is still to be as screen accurate as possible and wherever possible stay clear of overdrive rationalizations. At the same time (bearing in mind the budget restrictions) the final deck plans should reflect what Matt Jefferies and the other members of the TOS production intended the ship to look like once all the puzzle-pieces of information have come together. Of course there's plenty of room for different interpretations and I can only assure you that I'm trying my best to come up with an interpretation which I hope Walter Matt Jefferies would have liked and supported (and one that comes close to what he might have had delivered, would he have had the time and energy to do it).

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2013, 09:12 AM   #242
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Kirk's Television Enterprise Deck Plans WIP

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
1. Can accuracy always comes first?
Yes, IMHO, it should be the first thing to be considered before deviating from it, and once you deviate you should have good and sound reasons to do so. Otherwise you may end up with just another conjectural deck plan version just as the one FJ came up with.
I think it's how you had written that rule in absolutes that caught my attention. Accuracy can't "always" come first if you're willing to deviate from it. I think what you wrote in your restated mission statement "to stay as accurate as possible while reflecting MJ and producer intent" makes far more sense, IMHO.

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
2. Do you need to invoke an ineffective technicality like overscanning to put the ceiling height issue in the not onscreen rule to be able to claim that it is not onscreen and thus you can change it?
Fact is that Star Trek was produced for television, not for theaters, and the directors and everybody else involved in this TV production had an understanding of what the audiences with their overscan tube TV sets would actually be able to see and therefore composed the cinematography accordingly.

A good TV set (in the 1960's) would just trim the edges until the "safe action area", a bad TV would just leave you with the "title safe area". So this is about obvious intentions what the DPs and producers expected and wanted us to see.
The problem is that the camera does show the areas in question that you want to change even with the safe action and title safe areas applied. This line of justification is ineffective and unnecessary.

Since you already state that you're going to reflect what MJ and the production folks intended you should just go with that and say, "I think the ceiling starts where the top of the structural brace ends as that's probably what the production people were thinking." I'd buy into that instead of thinking, "Why is Bob invoking overscan when the problem area is still visible on the screen even with the overscan area accounted for?"

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
The mission goal is still to be as screen accurate as possible and wherever possible stay clear of overdrive rationalizations. At the same time (bearing in mind the budget restrictions) the final deck plans should reflect what Matt Jefferies and the other members of the TOS production intended the ship to look like once all the puzzle-pieces of information have come together. Of course there's plenty of room for different interpretations and I can only assure you that I'm trying my best to come up with an interpretation which I hope Walter Matt Jefferies would have liked and supported (and one that comes close to what he might have had delivered, would he have had the time and energy to do it).
Fair enough and with that clarification I get what you're now doing.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2013, 01:06 PM   #243
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Kirk's Television Enterprise Deck Plans WIP

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
The problem is that the camera does show the areas in question that you want to change even with the safe action and title safe areas applied. This line of justification is ineffective and unnecessary.
Then please tell me how the Thermians would interprete a shot like this!

So the Enterprise-D has cooling fans or searchlights sticking out from the conference lounge according to the Thermians?

This just illustrates my issue with the TNG remastering (that compelled me to return to TOS) where a lot of fans lamented that they wanted the "original" 4:3 format but couldn't make up their minds which is the "original" one.

What looks like a production flaw isn't one because the director could rely (as the TOS directors) that the overscan of a 4:3 tube TV set would trim the upper area and maintain the illusion that events took place on a starship - and not on a studio set.

Moreover, since the directors of TOS (and TNG) neither expected nor wanted us to see those expendable areas beyond the safe action area but which you feel should be considered, you are technically speaking relying on "behind-the-scenes" material which you otherwise tend to ignore.

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Fair enough and with that clarification I get what you're now doing.
I'm relieved. You are aware that the amount of time we both spent on this technicality discussion could have been better invested to proceed with our distinctive TOS Enterprise projects? Or the actual content of my Deck 6 draft!

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2013, 03:26 PM   #244
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Kirk's Television Enterprise Deck Plans WIP

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
The problem is that the camera does show the areas in question that you want to change even with the safe action and title safe areas applied. This line of justification is ineffective and unnecessary.
Then please tell me how the Thermians would interprete a shot like this!

So the Enterprise-D has cooling fans or searchlights sticking out from the conference lounge according to the Thermians?
1. From that screenshot you can make some greebles on the exterior to have the same shapes of what is visible. It's no worse than seeing airplane, tank and ship greebles stuck on a scifi ship and thinking what a coincidence that they look familiar.
2. You're biasing those shapes as production equipment because of your background knowledge.
3. I'm glad I'm NOT working on the E-D


Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
What looks like a production flaw isn't one because the director could rely (as the TOS directors) that the overscan of a 4:3 tube TV set would trim the upper area and maintain the illusion that events took place on a starship - and not on a studio set.
That is different than camera shots in TOS where the "bad areas" are clearly NOT covered up by the overscan areas. If all of these bad spots were covered up then you'd have a point about TOS but unfortunately the filmed episodes used some wide angle lenses that clearly put the bad spots in the shot. If anything, the builders likely foresaw that and built the walls 10' tall and had those cross dividers to cover up the lighting equipment and exposed ceiling.

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Moreover, since the directors of TOS (and TNG) neither expected nor wanted us to see those expendable areas beyond the safe action area but which you feel should be considered, you are technically speaking relying on "behind-the-scenes" material which you otherwise tend to ignore.
Then those cameras should've been aimed down to get them in the overscan area

Since I'm including the whole frame (this Thermian has modern eqipment ) and you're not anymore does that mean you'll go back and review your work to see if the curvature of the sets fall into your expendable zones? That could give you some more straight corridors to work with.

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Fair enough and with that clarification I get what you're now doing.
I'm relieved. You are aware that the amount of time we both spent on this technicality discussion could have been better invested to proceed with our distinctive TOS Enterprise projects? Or the actual content of my Deck 6 draft!
If only our project threads were the only ones we posted on... Still, always good to get clarity on how we interpret the Big-E.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2013, 04:00 PM   #245
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Kirk's Television Enterprise Deck Plans WIP

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Since I'm including the whole frame (this Thermian has modern eqipment ) and you're not anymore does that mean you'll go back and review your work to see if the curvature of the sets fall into your expendable zones? That could give you some more straight corridors to work with.
I don't expect the actual overscanned image to transform curved corridors into straight ones.

But yes, I'm having second thoughts whether this brawl was supposed to occur outside of Rec Room "6" because on a 4:3 consumer tube TV set the overscan did cut the "6" off!

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
If only our project threads were the only ones we posted on... Still, always good to get clarity on how we interpret the Big-E.
You got a point!

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2013, 09:59 PM   #246
Donny
Commander
 
Donny's Avatar
 
Location: Ocean Springs, Mississippi
Re: Kirk's Television Enterprise Deck Plans WIP

Great work on Deck 6. I think I prefer LIfe Support Control's location at the center of the deck. I also like how you expanded the room in Environmental Engineering and the Day of the Dove lounge.

Btw, could you give me a run down on what Deck 7 contains based on screen accuracy and dialogue? I'm assuming you have thought as far ahead to have a general idea.
__________________
Donny Versiga

http://rigel7studios.blogspot.com/

Donny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2013, 10:39 PM   #247
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Kirk's Television Enterprise Deck Plans WIP

Donny wrote: View Post
Great work on Deck 6. I think I prefer Life Support Control's location at the center of the deck. I also like how you expanded the room in Environmental Engineering and the Day of the Dove lounge.
Thanks Donny, your feedback really means a lot to me. Yes, LSC in the center makes sense in the inner area/shelter context. Too bad, I will be unable to have two options for this one (unlike McCoy's office from "The Changeling") and be forced to settle for one.

Donny wrote: View Post
Btw, could you give me a run down on what Deck 7 contains based on screen accuracy and dialogue? I'm assuming you have thought as far ahead to have a general idea.
Ironically, trying to keep up with your thread I had a tingling sensation today that told me "Do Deck 7 now!" Yes, I have the final layout but still need to put it in a presentable and graphic form.

On the port side we'll have the Season One corridor from "The Naked Time" ("of course" I'm tempted to add) leading to the Engineering Control Room. Although I didn't feel too comfortable with the idea, Medical Ward 2 from Season Two with McCoy's office ("The Deadly Years", "Journey to Babel" etc.) will be accomodated behind the Season One corridor walls (the main reason for that being the red turbo lift door vis-a-vis the exam room!). This one will have the angled-in third bed according to various episodes.

Towards the bow will be the Season One studio set from "The Naked Time". I feel I'll be unable to accomodate this Season One set on the port side where it should belong
  • Spock is passing "Personnel Records" on his way to the ECR, Lt. Riley is not (on his way to Medical Ward 4)!
  • I tried to confine all medical wards 4 at least to the starboard side, putting the "Naked Time" ward on the port side would conflict with this approach
The starboard side will accomodate the Medical Ward from "The Way to Eden" and Dr. M'Benga's / the Season Three office. This one will also have the straight wall with the third bed from "Return to Tomorrow".

As for the center of this deck I'll put the upper level of the Computer Core according to The Making of Star Trek. Since its size, shape and diameter is conjectural there should be no problem accomodating the extra "third beds" from the sickbay intensive care areas (funny, I, too considered these areas on Deck 7 to be just that. But I feel this makes good sense to have the intensive care area on a deck where there's less traffic than on Decks 5 and 6 in comparison).

The whole reasoning for this Deck 7 arrangement will hopefully become clearer once it's illustrated and commented with the analysis.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2013, 11:45 PM   #248
Donny
Commander
 
Donny's Avatar
 
Location: Ocean Springs, Mississippi
Re: Kirk's Television Enterprise Deck Plans WIP

Are there any references to transporter rooms on Deck 7? I've always had it in my head that Deck 7 is considered "The Main Deck", and had a few transporter rooms, a sickbay complex, briefing room, security, computer core, etc. This is probably due to Shane Johnson's refit guide stating so, and Franz Joseph placing these areas on Deck 7 as well (I grew up with both tech manuals always within arm's reach). Now, you know we share a mutual disregard of (most of) FJs work, but is there evidence in the show that this is true, and Deck 7 is in fact "Main Street of the Enterprise"?

I ask because I'd like to group those areas accordingly on my own project, since I am featuring only key areas of key decks. It would be nice to have as much packed into these areas as possible, and not have a bunch of empty space or doors that don't open because they lead to nothing. Deck 7 being "Main Deck" would help in this regard. It would also make sense from a gaming standpoint to have all these locations grouped close together.

Just wondering if you have any more info that would support this theory.
__________________
Donny Versiga

http://rigel7studios.blogspot.com/

Donny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2013, 11:52 PM   #249
Donny
Commander
 
Donny's Avatar
 
Location: Ocean Springs, Mississippi
Re: Kirk's Television Enterprise Deck Plans WIP

I just read through "The Making of Star Trek" and it seems to support the notion that Deck 7 is "Main Deck" as well. Perhaps that's where this idea started?
__________________
Donny Versiga

http://rigel7studios.blogspot.com/

Donny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2013, 04:50 AM   #250
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Kirk's Television Enterprise Deck Plans WIP

Deck seven is a blank slate. It only has been referred to once as having main energizers failing in "The Doomsday Machine". Deck 5 in "Elaan of Troyius" is where sickbay was located.

Since you're looking at "The Making of Star Trek", isn't Deck 7 on the lower part of the saucer if you look at Page 177 and not really the "Main Deck" which would be the widest deck?
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2013, 10:29 AM   #251
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Kirk's Television Enterprise Deck Plans WIP

@ blssdwlf & Donny

First of all thanks for your input. It helped me to re-evaluate some aspects of my approach. Blssdwlf has opened my eyes regarding the overscan issue (considering how involved I had been last year in the TNG format debate, it's somewhat odd that I did not apply my knowledge in the TOS context), although I presume that's not what he intended.

I also need to re-evaluate my approach to the location of "The Naked Time" sickbay (slept the night over it). As a matter of fact Spock's movement in "Amok Time" was not "Crazy Ivan" but "Confused Vulcan" and although I feel that door signs do not change within the episode, what we see in "The Naked Time" are - as a matter of fact - infected crewmen that perform practical jokes all over the ship, so I think it's not farfetched to assume that some of these did swap door signs all over the ship and therefore "Spock's corridor" to the ECR and Riley's corridor to sickbay could actually be one and the same. Fair enough?

Regarding the onscreen dialogue blssdwlf has mentioned the essentials in the previous post. I'd like to add more evidence:
  • already in "The Man Trap" audiences could notice (even despite the overscan of their television sets) that the security report from "Deck 5" happened in front of an "astr(o-medicine) w(ard)". This may have been the inpiration for subsequent episodes and directors to locate sickbay on Deck 5.
  • in "Amok Time" Kirk wanted the reluctant Spock to have himself checked in sickbay and accompanied him to "Deck 5". Obviously he personally wanted to make sure Spock went to sickbay and actually waited until Spock had left the turbo lift (!)
  • according to "Elaan of Troyius" sickbay is on Deck 5
  • after Lt. Johnson had been severely wounded by the Klingons in "Day of the Dove", Kirk told the ship's computer to carry them to sickbay. That this "sickbay" cannot possibly be on Deck 7 becomes evident once you check the width of Deck 8 in the cutaway draft I provided several posts ago. The A-frame corridor outside the Crew Lounge is clearly visible in the footage, but a corridor that long can't possibly be on Deck 8. You'd need at least Deck 7 to accomodate its length but then, sickbay would inevitably have to be on Deck 6 or another deck above!
  • and last not least according to Spock in "Day of the Dove" "the Klingons control deck six and starboard deck seven, while we control all sections above." While this could theoretically be rationalized (overdrive?), I for one would find it somewhat odd that McCoy performed medical surgery on injured crew members in a resistance pocket on Deck 7 surrounded by Klingons, and feel it more reasonable to assume that he did provide medical assistance on Deck 5 above instead!
Summary: While there is plenty of evidence in TOS that sickbay is on Deck 5, there's none whatsoever that it is on Deck 7.

The assumption (and that's essentially all it is after the facts) that Deck 7 is the one (and only?) sickbay location comes from the interior description of the ship in The Making of Star Trek and the subsequent FJ works because he based his work entirely on this description and not on the actual information available from the series, IMO.

If you read the interior description again, you may find that there is a high probability that we are looking at a fatal flaw that has been causing Trekkers considerable headaches for the past decades (and just proves that Gene Roddenberry and Mr. Whitfield totally underestimated the fan interest in the interior layout of the ship. The enormous success of FJ's works is a testimony to their "lack of vision").

As I said earlier, I presume this interior description to have been a working blueprint at the start of the series and before certain premises were actually changed by scriptwriters and directors.
On page 172 Whitfield added a piece of Season Two information (Dr. Daystrom and duotronic computers) which gave the interior description an air of describing the ship's interior at its Season Two condition, but also with the noticable absence of Season Two sets like the Auxiliary Control Room and the Emergency Manual Monitor!

However, "Amok Time" and its Deck 5 suggestion for sickbay had happened before amidst no evidence for any sickbay location on Deck 7, and therefore it stands to reason that Mr. Whitfield simply took the concept sheet for the pilot Enterprise from "Where No Man Has Gone Before" without making a serious effort to upgrade it to reflect all the changes and new sets introduced during Seasons One and Two (and FJ -in a manner of speaking - essentially performed "copy and paste")!

It almost appears Mr. Whitfield only reflected the latest information from the script of "The Ultimate Computer". Not only because of his Daystrom annotation but also because of his (admittedly logical) conclusion that the cabins of Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Scotty had to be on Deck 5, because this was the deck where the M-5 computer hadn't switched off life support, and because those senior officers were still present (apparently most if not all of the 20 crew members still on board must have also resided on Deck 5...).

Therefore I suggest to consume the interior description according to The Making of Star Trek (and FJ) with grains of salt. However, not for one second would it occur to me to disregard that description in my treknological research attempt. Since there is no reason not to assume that McCoy's office and the bulk (!) of the medical laboratories is on Deck 7, I shall of course reflect that information accordingly in the final draft for Deck 7 (including the morgue of the ship. To me it appears Deck 7 is the intense care facility, shielded from the curious eyes of the general crew and/or alien ambassadors and the probability that an intense care patient dies on this deck is higher than on the ones above. Coffins could be lowered onto Deck 8 with the exterior hatch for a burial "at sea", though I'm having still some doubts whether its proper to locate the ship's chapel on a deck that is otherwise used for recreation. Alternately Deck 7 would be a good candidate for the chapel, as other crew members might go there and pray for the quick recovery of a fellow crewman being taken care of in the intense care facilities).

Actually, given the many sickbay variations during TOS, I was rather glad to have the space between Decks 5 and 7 available for that. I honestly sympathize with the discomfort of esteemed Trekkers like FalTorPan and GSchnitzer to have that many medical wards (and transporter rooms) aboard the ship, but hope to be able to present a reasonable explanation once I have the opportunity to illustrate and comment on Deck 7 (soon...).

As a matter of fact I originally had wanted today to address the issue of multiple transporter rooms (since we are still "on" Deck 6), but that will now have to wait for later. Good thing is, that you guys just provided me with the opportunity to elaborate on the actual value of Whitfield's interior description, so I'm happy to be done with that part as I also will need to address Whitfield's transporter descriptions, of course. Stay tuned...

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein

Last edited by Robert Comsol; June 21 2013 at 10:52 AM.
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2013, 10:47 PM   #252
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Kirk's Television Enterprise Deck Plans WIP

Number of Transporter Rooms (appendix)

This is the part I originally wanted to have in the Deck 6 comment, too, but thought I might get to it later after giving everybody a “reading break”.

According to The Making of Star Trek this was the idea and concept laid out at the end of the chapter on the Enterprise
  • 4 personnel transporters as seen in the series
  • 2 cargo transporters
  • 5 emergency personnel transporters (each capable of transporting 22 people, only for “ship-abandoning emergency”)
Regarding personnel transporters we saw at least 2 distinctively different ones in the series: One with food synthesizer / landing party equipment elevators which did not have the star chart (“Tomorrow Is Yesterday” and “This Side of Paradise”) and the ones from the end of Season Two on with the extra monitoring console and sometimes a viewscreen (distinction only possible in shots revealing the back wall of the corresponding transporter room). Considering the variations of the transporter rooms with the monitoring console there may be more than one of those Season Two / Three types.

The Making of Star Trek doesn’t give us any idea about the cargo transporter, other that interplanet freight is stored in the engineering hull which presumably hinted its location.

Do these look different? Can these also carry living beings?

In “Dagger of the Mind” we saw actual cargo transport in action, but the transporter looked exactly like the personnel one and was quite obviously capable of transporting the stowaway Dr. van Gelder. Working his way up to the Bridge he somehow passed Engineering Deck 14 (there are 16 E-decks), which suggests the cargo transporter to be really down below in the engineering hull, same as the one that brought Mudd and his women aboard (he referred to them as “cargo” but that apparently wasn’t the reason to use such a transporter ).

So there is no reason to assume that he cargo transporter looks any different than the personnel transporter, other than it’s usually used to transport cargo and not people like in “Mudd’s Women” and “Tomorrow Is Yesterday” but those two were rather exceptional cases rescuing people in an emergency situation.

Consequently I had put these on the (close to final) draft for Engineering Deck 14 and believe that these had been the first personnel/cargo transporters on Pike’s Enterprise, respectively transporters 1 and 2, before the crew complement was boosted from 203 to 430 crew members and thus required additional transporters in the saucer hull.

A good and rather inevitable question would naturally be why the evacuation transporters (my latest proposal) for the cabins on Engineering Deck 12 would be “3C” or “3F” in the saucer and not “1P(ort)” and “2S(tarboard)” on E-Deck 14, but considering that 400 crewmen were apparently busy below E-Deck 12 in “Day of the Dove” and that there was noticable traffic on E-Deck 14 in “Dagger of the Mind” I hope that this doesn’t necessarily qualify as rationalization overdrive (although it is admittedly close to one). Oops…I just realize that I killed the two transporter rooms on E-Deck 10 (and now have to find another explanation how they got Nomad to the nearest transporter room).

In another thread we discussed the identical appearance of 6 pad personnel transporters with the only other TOS variety being one with 2 pads seen in “Court Martial” and “Trouble With Tribbles”.

It was suggested that the transporter is such a complicated, delicate and maintenance-intensive device, that for ease of maintenance (difficult enough as it is) these only come in the two aforementioned varieties and because of the amount of maintenance required you always need at least a minimum of two (one to use while the other is off for maintenance purposes), therefore and simply put the “transporter room” mentioned in any episode happens to be one that is currently not shut down for reasons of maintenance but ready for immediate use.

This leaves us with an elephant in the room which is the enigmatic 22 pad personnel emergency transporter mentioned in The Making of Star Trek (and illustrated by FJ) but definitely never seen nor mentioned in the series. “The Trouble With Tribbles” would have been a good opportunity to at least mention it by name (and leave it to our imagination what it might look like) to establish its existence, just as its TAS sequel but that didn’t happen. Thus I have the audacity to ask what is it good for?

To be of practical use, this special transporter most definitely requires an adjacent M Class planet, space station or spaceship to where you can actually beam your personnel, thus the emergency has to be a “favorable” one, despite that there are already other personnel transporters on the ship and this type would just do the same job, only somewhat faster, yet presumably require regular and time-intensive maintenance just to be prepared for such an eventuality.

But in several episodes where the Enterprise was in severe danger of burning up in the atmosphere of an M Class planet, we did not become once aware of any preparations to save a large part of the crew by beaming it down to a planet capable of sustaining human and Vulcan life.
The only life saving rescue efforts we became aware of was the separation of the saucer hull from the warp nacelles and probably the engineering hull in “The Apple” and “The Savage Curtain”.

Thus I’m inclined to consider the 22 pad emergency transporter as a fancy idea they had at the beginning of the series, but one they didn’t really pursue and which therefore became somewhat obsolete and therefore also didn’t have a comeback in either the movies or spin-off series. But I’m open to listen to suggestions to the contrary.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein

Last edited by Robert Comsol; June 21 2013 at 11:02 PM.
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 22 2013, 01:24 AM   #253
Albertese
Commodore
 
Albertese's Avatar
 
Location: Portland, OR
Re: Kirk's Television Enterprise Deck Plans WIP

With regard to the 22-man evac transporters, I'm in favor of them. I suggest that the actual use of them is very power intensive and, when you're trying to pull your ship out of a crash through an atmosphere, you want as much power as possible feeding your shields and engines. In "The Apple" Kirk was ordering Scotty to "crack out of there with the main section" to get away from the planet with Vaal, quite the opposite strategy than beaming the entire crew down. In "The Savage Curtain" the surface of the planet wasn't hospitable, except for the patch of ground the Excalbians made habitable for purpose of their trial pitching Human conceits of Good and Evil against each other. So, evacuating the crew to the surface of the planet in this case is also a bad move.

In "This Side of Paradise" the drugged up crew is mutinying and evacuating the ship. Though we see one line of persons out the door of one transporter room, who's to say that the other 6-man units and the 22-man units weren't also being used? In "The Doomsday Machine" Decker claims that he had to beam down his crew to the fourth planet. It doesn't seem like this took a very long time to do (it does seem to me that Decker is regretting a rash and hurried decision... YMMV) so, though there is no specific mention of 22-man transporters, I posit that it could stand as circumstantial evidence to support their existence.

I'm so in favor of the idea, that I'm including them on my own deck plans project. Here's my design for them... which departs a lot from the FJ approach, but i think this is more in line with the other transporter tech we see as it has the surrounding chamber like most other transporters tend to have and FJ omitted.



How I have this set up, the corridor basically open directly onto the Evac transporter area. The operator's console is elevated a bit to make sure the operator can see what's going on with everyone. The outer wall is lined with cabinets that store emergency gear. Both sides have stairs where people can come up from the deck below. The area is open so there's plenty of room to get people staged up. Anyhow, this is just my take on it. I'm not sure how it would fit into your "screen-only" vision.

--Alex
__________________
Check out my website: www.goldtoothstudio.squarespace.com
Albertese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 22 2013, 01:48 PM   #254
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Kirk's Television Enterprise Deck Plans WIP

Just based on the size of a 22 person transporter it could double for a heavy/bulk cargo transporter.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 22 2013, 09:30 PM   #255
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Kirk's Television Enterprise Deck Plans WIP

^^ Yes, I was thinking the same. This would definitely add meaning to such a transporter, IMHO. However its location would seem most suited in the engineering hull, next to the cargo containers.

What I like about Albertese's approach is that in real life, i.e. for the TOS production, they probably would have tried to incorporate parts of he studio set transporter platform, but for a convincing presentation that would have most likely required the construction of a whole new set. One that takes up studio space and could have probably only be used for a few - if any - episodes.

Considering how the walls of the 2 pad personnel transporters looked, I wouldn't be surprised had they recycled this background wall for such a transporter.

Bob

P.S.

Please disregard my question from post 251. The issue whether the chapel should be on Deck 7 or 8 has just been settled by the limited width of Deck 8 (should have noticed this earlier)
And I think I can explain what the room was Chekov and Irina were seeking some privacy in "The Way to Eden". Quite some nice symbolism happening in this scene and room, which I will outline once the Deck 7 illustration is done.
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein

Last edited by Robert Comsol; June 22 2013 at 11:00 PM.
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:30 PM.

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