Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

I rather like the idea of that being the ion pod, still. I mean, the rest of that dome is accepted as being sensor-oriented, right?

Now, I noticed in the TOS-R version of "Court Martial" that they showed a missing element that they assumed was the ion pod. It was one of the protruding lamps on the side of the secondary hull, adjacent to the hangar deck. The only thing that bothers me about that was that there are TWO of those "bumps" (one on each side... shown when they "flipped" the ship shots on a few occasions... even if it wasn't on the physical model!). Apart from the "duplication" minor snafu, though, it does work pretty well... if you assume that this is what I've recently started thinking of this as.

Why would you need to eject the ion pod? Other than for script reasons, there's no logical justification if it's mounted into the hull like that. Is there?

But suppose that the pod is actually deployed... and is operating outside of the deflector shield boundary. Maybe it's on a telescoping "stalk" or maybe it's on a tether, being dragged behind the ship... but in both cases it's operating outside of the protective shield boundary and requires a "window" in the shields for that reason. My point... they can't completely protect the ship with it deployed. So it comes down to "dump the deployed pod" or "allow the radiation to flood through the window in the shields and damage the ship (presumably the radiation from an ion storm is relatively harmless to tissue, or else you wouldn't put a person out there in it!)

From that standpoint, the "dome nipple" doesn't make sense as the ion pod. Ideally, the pod would trail from the aft end of the secondary hull. But I can live with it deploying from the side... provided that there's a "crane" element that deploys along with it that trails a line to which the pod is attached.

Thoughts? Comments?

 

I labeled it a targeting sensor for the entire weapons array.

 

That bit on the aft end of the secondary hull might be the ion pod (it was certainly the mindset of the ST-R team)....OR, that might be just some of the damage the ship suffered during the ion storm.

They did get beat up in that storm, why not a blown out light?

 

I labeled that bit on the side of the hangar -- assuming it would be present P/S on the "real" ship -- an aft phaser. I think the ion pod would be a smallish, one-man pod anchored via tractor beam from that hatch on the underside fantail cutout. After all, Finney was hiding in engineering which, as many of you have educated me, is at least sometimes in the secondary hull.

 

I also had it as an aft phaser, until it was pointed out that it clearly flashes in flyby shots.

 

The idea of it being a "small one man pod" is something I think we can all agree on. And I also think it should be "trailing" the ship.

I do NOT agree with the "tractor beam" argument, however. For three reasons.

(1) If the thing is "anchored by tractor beam," and (as we've been shown) tractor beams can operate through shields, what possible justification could there be for needing to EJECT the ion pod to "save the ship?" I can't see any. If it's physically attached (through a tow cable or a "crane arm" or whatever), and since we know that objects cannot pass through shields (you need a "window" in the shield), there's a valid reason to consider it to be a danger.

In other words... if it's physically attached, the "danger to the ship" makes sense. If it's not... if it's being tractors... where the danger to the ship? I can't see it.

(2) The fact is that they decided to EJECT the ion pod... not to "disable the tractor beam" or whatever. "Eject" implies that there was a physical connection between the pod and the ship.

(3) It's well-established that in Trekdom, "ion storms" cause problems with all variety of energy-based systems. I think it's very likely that a tractor beam might be interfered if operated in an ion storm. Meaning you might just accidentally lose the beam and (since we know CONCLUSIVELY that ion storms block sensors... see "The Galileo Seven") you'd never find the pod again. A tow cable, on the other hand, would need to be sheared off in order to suffer that sort of failure.

I'd be fine with the pod being deployed from the red-outlined "fantail hatch" on the 1701... in fact, I'd say it might even be, essentially, a modified workbee (going along with one of the images from a prior "ships of the line" calendar by ... never could spell the guy's name... Petri Blovmqvist?... as I recall).

I just really, really think it needs to be a MECHANICALLY TOWED object rather than a "tractor beam towed" object.

 

If the tractor beam is directed artificial gravity, and if the deflectors are a form of antigravity, then there is a likely interplay issue between them that might, under conditions where one or the other is under stress, cause a breakdown.

In other words, if it requires some additional power to use tractor beams and deflector shields simultaneously, and even more power is required because of an "ion storm", then a particularly threatening "ion storm" might require the cessation of this interplay and devotion of all power to the thing protecting the ship (the shields). If you are in the ion pod and don't get back aboard, you're cut adrift.

This of course raises the question of why they didn't simply "reel him back in". This is a question that lingers whether we are talking about tractor beams or physical cables. The only answer I can think of is that under these circumstances the pod operator had to take some action to make him capable of being "reeled back in". And in my mind, the mumbojumbo of tractor beams leaves more room for that to be possible than a physical attachment.

 

Overanalyzing and overcomplicated.

From where I sat, it looked like not only was the pod physically attached to the ship, but Finney had some method of physical egress from the pod back into the ship. It might also be inferred that the ship was running with her shields down.

That's why I put the iod pods in the B/C deck, trailing behind the ship from a large tube, through which the occupant could slide back into the ship when things got too nasty (which dialogue indicates is completely expected, if not a part of the actual procedure list). When the pod starts swinging around too much, threatening to smack into the ship, and after the guy inside has boogied back inside, just detach the tube and get out of the way.

 

Simplistic and underthought.

The shields need power. The tractor beam needs power. The two needs conflict.

Simple enough?

 

I have an even simpler explanation: PLOT DEVICE. They just needed something that sounded techy and dangerous and left us fans to do the mental gymnastics to try justifying it.

We know this much:

-The 'ion pod' was something manned by one person, which makes it small.
-It is possible to enter/exit from the ship to the pod, even while it is being used.
-For some reason, the pod can be ejected from the ship.
-The pod had to be ejected, and it takes at least a few seconds for the guy in it to get out.
-The Captain personally ejects the pod (for some reason).

the use of the word 'eject' implies that the pod is inside the ship, at least partly. Not on the end of some cable or beam. Also, the fact that the guy in it can leave it fairly easily means there is a direct attachment point somewhere. given that, I like the nipple-on-dome theory, and can live with the RM theory too.

 

The word was jettison, not eject, but your point is valid. "Jettison" certainly does entail an original state of physical contact, so the pod must have been connected by an appendage or some extendable mechanism to have been jettisoned.

Given this fact, which I hadn't recalled, I like the idea of the "nipple" that Geoff Mandel identified as being the pod, (and that I called a "targeting sensor") to instead contain the pod. It could extend, if we take the model with and without the thing as being active and retracted operating conditions. If the ship has a field that enhances structural integrity, or a surface-generated force field of some kind, then extending the pod could conceivably compromise that field's operation.

My only proviso would be that the pod be a part of the targeting sensor, because it seems that extendable part was originally intended to be a weapon -- perhaps there are ion trails that figure into targeting.

Why a person would need to get into the thing during a storm to take readings is a bit tougher, however. If Finney wasn't in the "nipple" but instead was in the dome, retrieving instant readings and samples that would be lost if the pod was ejected, and then the pod was ejected... he would be in the dome with an open entry to space. he'd be sucked into space.

There's some sense to a scenario like that. Though he'd still need to make his way to an engine room.

 

No problem. There are 3 engine rooms on every deck. With heartbeat monitors. Or something like that.

 

I always thought that the placement and structure of FJ's tractor beam emitter on the bottom of the secondary hull was the best choice for an Ion Pod configuration. That would seem like the only place on the ship where something could extend out further than either the warp field or shields during the storm and it is part of the lower decks where he ends up hiding.

As for why someone would need to be in or around such a device, maybe because data transfer past the shields or warp envelope isn't possible, so it would have to be physically recorded and then entered into the ships information systems (something that the records officer or someone with similar training might need to do... and why he would be on the list of personnel in line to do such a task).

But that is just my take on this stuff.

 

So, you're saying that it's located around the circular bomb bay doors from which they can drop thousands of ultraviolet satellites?

 

Well, for me the two clinchers are: 1) has to be connected to the ship (and can hurt the ship) and 2) someone can get out of it and back into the ship. Undetected even.

I do have to wonder what the writers thought this thing was. Was there a modern analogy? It had to have been clear enough to say "ion pod, guy in it, bad juju if not jetisoned" and the audience had to get it quick enough to say "ahhhhh yes. Ion pod. Like a ______." Find that out and the rest will fall quickly into place.

I don't think "dangerous interaction with the shields" ever entered their minds.

 

Hmmmmm....

 

Crow's Nest?

 

Frankly, they never had any actual part of the Enterprise in mind... as already pointed out, it was a plot device.

Exactly what the writers were most likely thinking of, but the need for such a set up on a starship (specially the established Enterprise) is where the problem lies.

When faced with this type of thing (that was never intended to be scrutinized by techno-geeks of the 21st century), if you really want it, the best you can do is make it fit with what you have to work with. And in this case, the writers are the absolute last people you would turn to because they just wanted something to move the story along. For most of the first season Trek was over budget and way behind schedule, and if this didn't require a costly effect sequence, then no one was going to put all that much time into figuring out how it worked.

I think the best way to think about this issue was put forth in another fictional Science Fiction universe...

THE MOMMOTH CRUSHERS- NSEA Protector
Gwen and Jason watch as they SMASH and GRIND back and fourth...

• GWEN: What IS that thing? It serves no useful purpose to have a bunch
  of CHOPPY CRUSHY things in the middle of a CATWALK!?
  JASON: Gwen...
  GWEN: We shouldn't have to DO this! It makes NO LOGICAL SENSE! Why is
  it HERE?
  JASON: Because it was on the show!
  GWEN: Well forget it! I'm not going. This episode was badly written!

 

After they got throuhg the Crushers:
Gwen: Whoever wrote this episode should DIE!

 

I just now figured out what you were talking about.

That's not necessarily showing actual turbolift cabs, just where the stops are.

At least that's what's being shown now.