RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,585
Posts: 5,403,655
Members: 24,866
Currently online: 633
Newest member: Enterprise Capt

TrekToday headlines

October-November 2014 Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

Cho Selfie TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

TPTB To Shatner: Shhh!
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

Mystery Mini Vinyl Figure Display Box
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

The Red Shirt Diaries Episode Five
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

Shatner In Trek 3? Well Maybe
By: T'Bonz on Sep 28

Retro Review: Shadows and Symbols
By: Michelle on Sep 27

Meyer: Revitalizing Star Trek
By: T'Bonz on Sep 26

Trek Costumes To Be Auctioned
By: T'Bonz on Sep 25

Hulu Snaps up Abrams-Produced Drama
By: T'Bonz on Sep 25


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 > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 15 2008, 02:57 AM   #106
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Wingsley wrote: View Post
And since nobody in TOS ever said anything about escape pods, we must assume that the ship's hangar deck (decks?) would house more than a puny four shuttlecraft. I'm not saying this just to be a smartass, but to point out that there has to be more to the ship than any of us (or anyone involved in making TOS) may have thought about. Taken in that light, 1,080 feet might be too conservative. (And no, I'm not advocating that the ship be inflated to 2,000 feet long.)
Well, there is a very serious problem with the idea of escape pods or life boats when we are talking about space. This is one of those maritime metaphors that doesn't work.

In space, ships don't sink. You'd have to have a pretty good reason to basically put yourself into your own coffin... because that is exactly what escape pods or life boats would be.

In my design every compartment is a lifeboat. Once a compartment is sealed up, it can maintain a minimal habitable environment nearly indefinitely.

In the case of the Constellation, the reason for leaving the ship was because it was under attack and there was a class M planet to flee to. But had it been out in deep space with that much damage, there would have been no good reason to leave the ship.

Abandoning ship is really not an option in deep space.

If the ship is going to explode, odds are it is the secondary hull with the engines... and the best way to escape that would be by taking the primary hull. Additionally the primary hull is the only aerodynamically design part of the ship.

These aren't ships at sea, so your best bet is to stay with the ship no matter what.



But if there is anyone wanting to leave the ship, maybe we could shoot them out in torpedoes.
Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 15 2008, 03:37 AM   #107
Wingsley
Commodore
 
Wingsley's Avatar
 
Location: Wingsley
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Well, escape pods could be equipped with hibernacula, which would allow them to be used as micro-sleeper ships in the event that the mothership is too seriously damaged to sustain life.

And the notion of saucer jettison is perfectly fine with me, but the saucer, as I understand it, has no shuttlecraft facilities or warp capability. That cuts off vital avenues of escape and EVA. Unless, of course, a Connie-family saucer has limited warp capability (say, a limited contingency escape engine) and/or a saucer-based shuttlecraft mini-hangar.

An idea just occurred to me: let's say that a TOS-era Federation starship saucer, as standard equipment, has only impulse engines that we see. Now, let's assume there is indeed an "auxiliary hangar" with a shuttle or two and maybe some spare parts. Could the spare parts be used to attach an "instant warpsled" to the saucer's impulse engine room (that ribbing at the aft of the saucer's topside) in an emergency to give the saucer minimal warp capability? All of this, of course, would depend on at least a small hangar being housed somewhere in the saucer. I wonder if there could be room for that. It sounds like a clever trick, wherein the saucer has no warp drive, but an escape engine can be temporarily improvised.

What do you think? How big would Kirk's Enterprise have to be to allow for a saucer mini-hangar?
__________________
"The way that you wander is the way that you choose. / The day that you tarry is the day that you lose. / Sunshine or thunder, a man will always wonder / Where the fair wind blows ..."
-- Lyrics, Jeremiah Johnson's theme.
Wingsley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 15 2008, 03:59 AM   #108
ancient
Vice Admiral
 
ancient's Avatar
 
Location: United States
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

I imagine escape pods would have some sort of cryogenic suspension option incase you're in deep-space when things turn ugly. Though I think 99% of battles and accidents would probably occur within a star system rather than the middle of nowhere. If you do end up in deep space your best option is to sit there and send out a really 'loud' distress call.
__________________
----------------------------
Time Travel was and will be confusing
ancient is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 15 2008, 04:12 AM   #109
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Wingsley wrote: View Post
... What do you think? How big would Kirk's Enterprise have to be to allow for a saucer mini-hangar?
Deck 7 has airlocks... and at least two hatchways.

But why would warp be a needed requirement for the primary hull if escape pods/lifeboats don't have them?

And how much damage would be needed to make the ship unable to support life... that type of damage would have already killed the crew.

The primary hull of the Enterprise in TOS was divided up into a number of compartments. Damage like what was done to Constellation would have only effected a handful of those, and many compartments (specially along the center core) are protected by outer compartments (as seen in this sketch).

And the Enterprise has lost warp ability for several months before... she was unable to travel at FTL speeds for 60 days while attempting to get back to the planet in The Paradise Syndrome... most likely longer as the repairs couldn't have been made out in space and they were probably having to wait for a tow back to a repair base. Recall this exchange...
Spock: Estimated repair time?
Scott: Hanging here in space? Forever. The only thing that'll fix these poor darlings is the nearest repair base.
It would be nice to have something for every contingency... I'm sure that our guys on subs today would like a way to quickly leave a sub damaged deep in the ocean... but at some point you have to draw a line. The lack of ability to travel at warp speeds appears as more of an inconvenience rather than an emergency as seen in TOS.
Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 15 2008, 01:39 PM   #110
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

I just checked out the teaser to "Journey to Babel" on the CBS web-site.
They mention a total of 114 supercargo aboard. So that's 430 + 114 = 544 ???
It could be that the existing personnel were simply packed in tighter than usual. Thus, Kirk's quarters might temporarily be moved to Deck 5 for the duration of the mission, freeing the luxurious originals for some dignitary or another. Or at least in ST2:TWoK the Captain's quarters appear to be on Deck 3, and the doorsign to McCoy's cabin also seems to suggest that TOS senior officers resided on Deck 3...

This would jibe with the idea that Uhura had to donate her quarters to the Dohlman of Elaan in "Elaan of Troyius". And certainly the personnel could be packed in tighter than usually shown: say, each officer cabin could accommodate two to four officers or a dozen ratings with relative ease, already significantly alleviating the problems of accommodating the VIP guests of "Journey to Babel". The limiting factor would not be size or number of cabins, or even the comfort of accommodations, but more probably the performance of the life support systems.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 15 2008, 06:15 PM   #111
Patrickivan
Fleet Captain
 
Patrickivan's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

I think that the ship volume would accomodate this number of people, plus equipment, cargo, et c. It's a large ship.

I've added 212 crew to this cross section (the other 200 are in the rest of the ship sleeping . If we did this from the top view, deck by deck, we could easily spread out these crewmembers and I think the ship would be a lot more roomy. I really want to go deck by deck from a top elevation just to empasize my point.

__________________
http://patrickivan.wordpress.com/page/2/

40 Years and ticking. Damn, that's too old fashioned.
40 years and still processing!

Last edited by Patrickivan; December 15 2008 at 06:23 PM. Reason: Opps- I'll fix this image in a second- a lot of wasted space here. Arg. It didn't work. If it's too big, I'll take it down
Patrickivan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 15 2008, 06:36 PM   #112
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Patrickivan wrote: View Post
I think that the ship volume would accomodate this number of people, plus equipment, cargo, et c. It's a large ship.

I've added 212 crew to this cross section (the other 200 are in the rest of the ship sleeping . If we did this from the top view, deck by deck, we could easily spread out these crewmembers and I think the ship would be a lot more roomy. I really want to go deck by deck from a top elevation just to empasize my point.

Nice job... lots of people don't get the 3-dimensional "space requirements" we're looking at here.

It's not so much "fitting all the people in" but rather "how do you bunk them?" If everyone has their own full-sized apartment on-board, it might be a bit snug... but that's not really reasonable to assume. Shared quarters (far more roomy than aboard modern naval vessels but still smaller than the typical townhouse apartment!) allow for LOTS of folks on-board without any significant space limitations.

For anyone who still isn't thinking 3-D... that's half of the standard crew of the ship... just standing along the centerline of the ship... and even in that configuration there's plenty of space. Now, expand it from that slice and consider how densely the crew is populated throughout the ship.

PLENTY of room... far roomier than any modern vessel, including any modern cruise liner.
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 15 2008, 06:50 PM   #113
Patrickivan
Fleet Captain
 
Patrickivan's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

And I've already started to place the crew using the top elevation plans from the same source.

If the ship was on a 3 shift rotation, we'd have a third on dute, a third in recreation and extra-caricular, and a third in bed... So that's about 140 people to bunk. I'm going to start with 2 people per room (not including the few single upper officer quarters), though that would mean 70 rooms... Some off the lower ranking crew may have 4 per room, though I'm only going to do that if space become tight.

I'm also assuming they're hot-bunking, therefore, I only need those 70 rooms for the remain crew.

opps- time for lunch.
__________________
http://patrickivan.wordpress.com/page/2/

40 Years and ticking. Damn, that's too old fashioned.
40 years and still processing!
Patrickivan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 15 2008, 07:48 PM   #114
Wingsley
Commodore
 
Wingsley's Avatar
 
Location: Wingsley
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

So, I gather from this that we have a general consensus that the TOS Enterprise, estimated to be between 900 and 1,100 feet in length, has enough room for normal crew and officers totaling 430, plus 114 "supercargo" passengers on their "Journey to Babel". Would that be a reasonable assumption?

My next question would be if there's enough room left in the saucer for a mini-shuttlecraft hangar (maybe a hatch on the saucer's underside, like the one shown in drydock scenes in TMP1) to store one or two shuttlecraft, plus room to store fuel (for torpedos, as well as in the event the saucer had to separate). Any clues? Is there room for cargo bays, for instance?
__________________
"The way that you wander is the way that you choose. / The day that you tarry is the day that you lose. / Sunshine or thunder, a man will always wonder / Where the fair wind blows ..."
-- Lyrics, Jeremiah Johnson's theme.
Wingsley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 15 2008, 08:14 PM   #115
Patrickivan
Fleet Captain
 
Patrickivan's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

I would be surprise if it didn't have the room for a small shuttle- worker bee perhaps. Here's a picture of just one deck that shows 212 crew in their quarters, and in the canteen (mess- lounge- whatever they want to call it) eating... There's still room for more people on this deck as I didn't feel like adding more people (I am at work people!).

The decks below and above would have the science and medical departments/ labs, etc. Plus cargo storage, weapons, and other recreation facilities.



The questions that may need to be answered in order to answer yours are: what kind of emergency would warrant a mini-shuttle craft in the saucer, and what would be the purpose of that shuttle?
__________________
http://patrickivan.wordpress.com/page/2/

40 Years and ticking. Damn, that's too old fashioned.
40 years and still processing!
Patrickivan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 15 2008, 09:36 PM   #116
Wingsley
Commodore
 
Wingsley's Avatar
 
Location: Wingsley
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Well, just to clarify: when I said mini-hangar, I was talking about something that would be large enough to hold one or two class "F" shuttlecraft, but not anywhere nearly as cavernous as the main hangar deck in the secondary hull; think of a saucer mini-hangar as a smaller version of the NX-class hangars. As for the emergency needed to necessitate this: I was thinking that if the saucer were jettisoned for any reason (emergency or mission-contingency-related) and the saucer had to operate on its own for any length of time independent of the stardrive section, the saucer would need some kind of minimal shuttlecraft access facility in order to interface with these smaller vehicles.

Let's look at it this way. Let's say the U.S.S. Lollipop (a good ship, to be sure) is a Class I Federation starship sent on a mission to deep space outside of known territory. She may or may not be Constitution-class vehicle, but she's definitely a Class I stardrive vessel on an important long-term mission. The captain has been instructed as part of the mission that he may need to jettison the saucer in planetary orbit and have it act as a "base camp", while the stardrive section of his ship conducts other mission activities requiring warp drive outside the system. Leaving the saucer in orbit allows the bulk of the crew time to concentrate on their mission on the planet; Starfleet Command doesn't know from a distance if the saucer will be able to land or should stay in orbit. But the saucer will act as a kind of temporary outpost during the mission (it could be archaeological, or exploratory, or a prelude to colonization, or a military mission) and may need shuttlecraft to serve as either an FTL means to travel in close proximity to the planet or as a means to get from planet to space (assuming the saucer has landed) or as a liaison between the saucer and the stardrive section in deep space.

This kind of mission profile seems very possible in the STAR TREK Universe, and would necessitate some kind of minimal hangar facility somewhere in the saucer housing.

That's why I posted to this "size" discussion: I wanted to know if a typical TOS-style saucer had enough room (assuming a starship roughly 300 meters in overall length) to house a full crew and a mini-hangar.
__________________
"The way that you wander is the way that you choose. / The day that you tarry is the day that you lose. / Sunshine or thunder, a man will always wonder / Where the fair wind blows ..."
-- Lyrics, Jeremiah Johnson's theme.
Wingsley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 15 2008, 10:14 PM   #117
Patrickivan
Fleet Captain
 
Patrickivan's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Humbugsley wrote: View Post
Well, just to clarify: when I said mini-hangar, I was talking about something that would be large enough to hold one or two class "F" shuttlecraft, but not anywhere nearly as cavernous as the main hangar deck in the secondary hull; think of a saucer mini-hangar as a smaller version of the NX-class hangars. As for the emergency needed to necessitate this: I was thinking that if the saucer were jettisoned for any reason (emergency or mission-contingency-related) and the saucer had to operate on its own for any length of time independent of the stardrive section, the saucer would need some kind of minimal shuttlecraft access facility in order to interface with these smaller vehicles.

Let's look at it this way. Let's say the U.S.S. Lollipop (a good ship, to be sure) is a Class I Federation starship sent on a mission to deep space outside of known territory. She may or may not be Constitution-class vehicle, but she's definitely a Class I stardrive vessel on an important long-term mission. The captain has been instructed as part of the mission that he may need to jettison the saucer in planetary orbit and have it act as a "base camp", while the stardrive section of his ship conducts other mission activities requiring warp drive outside the system. Leaving the saucer in orbit allows the bulk of the crew time to concentrate on their mission on the planet; Starfleet Command doesn't know from a distance if the saucer will be able to land or should stay in orbit. But the saucer will act as a kind of temporary outpost during the mission (it could be archaeological, or exploratory, or a prelude to colonization, or a military mission) and may need shuttlecraft to serve as either an FTL means to travel in close proximity to the planet or as a means to get from planet to space (assuming the saucer has landed) or as a liaison between the saucer and the stardrive section in deep space.

This kind of mission profile seems very possible in the STAR TREK Universe, and would necessitate some kind of minimal hangar facility somewhere in the saucer housing.

That's why I posted to this "size" discussion: I wanted to know if a typical TOS-style saucer had enough room (assuming a starship roughly 300 meters in overall length) to house a full crew and a mini-hangar.
That sounds like a very mission specific capability. To leave the saucer as a base of ops would more then likely require a shuttle or two. I don't see anything larger then a worker bee or two without some serious modifications to the hull. And that's going to eat up a decent amount of space. But I suspect it could be done. Just with concessions.
__________________
http://patrickivan.wordpress.com/page/2/

40 Years and ticking. Damn, that's too old fashioned.
40 years and still processing!
Patrickivan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2008, 07:18 AM   #118
Herkimer Jitty
Rear Admiral
 
Herkimer Jitty's Avatar
 
Location: Dayglow, New California Republic
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Herkimer Jitty
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

If I may interject, the solution for shuttle storage could be quite simple, no bay required. Why not simply have an external carrying rack mounted to the saucer, with passegeways and umbilical connects? If maintenance is an issue, I'm sure a unfoldable pressure "box" to go around a shuttle would be no issue. That way, you don't have to cut into the ship's structure and be forced to cutback on crew accomodations and other important starship stuff. It won't be pretty, but it might get the job done.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1965-1965½, 1966-1969, Jan. 21-23 1972, 1979-2001, 2003-2005, 2009-?
Herkimer Jitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2008, 07:26 AM   #119
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Well, that settles it. I'm chucking the escape pod idea and turning that area into cabins.

There, plenty of room now.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2008, 06:27 PM   #120
Ryan Thomas Riddle
Rear Admiral
 
Ryan Thomas Riddle's Avatar
 
Location: The Bay Area
View Ryan Thomas Riddle's Twitter Profile
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Thinking about what shaw states upthread. Was it not written in The Making of Star Trek that the saucer/primary hall was the lifeboat? Hence, why the "engines could be jettisioned."
__________________
A mild-mannered reporter
Ryan Thomas Riddle 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 06:24 PM.

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