TOS Enterprise Question...

Discussion in 'Trek Tech' started by MadMan1701A, Oct 2, 2011.

  1. Timo

    Timo Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    I'd still keep the "TMP style rec deck" where Probert wanted it, right behind the bridge at the ship centerline. After all, "LTBYLB" claims that it is three decks high, not two! Plus, such a location would serve the "LTBYLB" plotline well, as our two clowns with their ability to remotely shut down turbolifts would then be hiking down stairwells directly below the bridge, running around the center of the saucer in search of the next well down. (Little would they realize that they could use the multi-deck Rec Room as a shortcut!)

    Since that one is explicitly Rec Room 3, yet in "Charlie X" we hear of Rec Room 6, we should probably not limit ourselves to thinking in terms of just four rooms! Let's assign the four saucer rim squares to, say, Rec Rooms 1, 2, 4 and 5 because there is no conflicting info on those, and then place Rec Room 6 on the forward part of Deck 3 because we know its deck from "Charlie X" - and Rec Room 3 on the aft part, going down three decks to reach Deck 5 of both "LTBYLB" and "Trials and Tribble-ations" fame.

    If we desire, we can then add a ceiling window rectangle to Room 3, too - it just happens to be shuttered by that yellow thing that's so prominent on the aft bridge superstructure of the TOS ship!

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  2. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    "Who are you?"
    Neat idea, sky windows in a rec room. I like it!

    In an arboretum it could add an extra touch of realism, as part of a nighttime setting.
     
  3. Timo

    Timo Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Why would an arboretum need a window? Trees and flowers probably hate a direct view of space! Permanent three-kelvin night is not "realistic", nor is a ten-second day that's a hundred times hotter than any on Earth...

    Much better (for the plants and for those using them for recreation) to bury the garden deep inside the ship, where the environment is stable, and then provide the walls and ceiling with entertaining visuals - not just starscapes but landscapes or more complex art as well.

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  4. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    "Who are you?"
    Oh, I oh I don't know. My romantic side was getting carried away I suppose.

    Direct sunlight would be harmful for people too, so they would filter out that anyway. The environment under these windows would always be regulated, and the stars would just be a view that wouldn't contribute much radiation and any heat to the ship's environment under any circumstances (only enough visible radiation to see things would be allowed through, and no other wavelengths).

    Of course, the arboretum wouldn't need the window for the sake of the trees; why would you assume that I would think it would? The window would only be for the benefit of the people in the first place. In addition, the arboretum on the TMP Enterprise did have side facing windows to space. I was extrapolating from that I suppose.

    But the artificial sunlight in an arboretum would waste the view to space at least half the time. Like I said, I suppose I was just getting carried away with the idea of a walk in nature under real stars.
     
  5. Cary L. Brown

    Cary L. Brown Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    And there we have the only practical purpose for such windows, I think. Human psychology. Big "skylight" windows would serve as a means to combat claustrophobia. (On the other hand, it would be really rough on agoraphobics, wouldn't it?)

    Now, the argument for these being windows to science bays is not unreasonable, but there is one major counter-argument against that. Why would you design your science hardware so it all faced in only one direction? This seems to be to be a fatal flaw in the idea of these being skylights for sensor hardware.

    But for human psychology, "the sky overhead" is a big deal. At the very worst, with the lights dimmed, you'd be able to see the stars. And this would give the crew the opportunity to see interesting sights (nebulae, planets, etc) as well.

    These windows would serve very little "functional" purpose, except from a psychological standpoint, I think... which is why I feel so certain that this is what they must be.
     
  6. Wingsley

    Wingsley Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2007
    Location:
    Wingsley
    Lots of neat ideas in this thread for what those "thingies" might be.

    Here's another one to add to the mix: subspace radio transceivers. We never really knew where Uhura's extraship comm traffic was conducted through, did we? Why not there?
     
  7. Cary L. Brown

    Cary L. Brown Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    It's entirely possible, though I have my own take on the subspace subsystem.

    To me, on the TMP ship, the dark inset ring around the B/C deck superstructure is the main subspace antenna. A similar structure, inside of the hull, existed on the TOS Enterprise, just not exposed. I also put the "Star Trek V" ballroom at the front of the B/C deck superstructure, adjacent to this... which explains why the emergency transmitter would be in that location.

    For the TOS ship, I have main communications at the front of B-deck, with the main antenna being an ovoid ring near the deck, ringing the entire deck.

    This is how I explain why that part of the ship is shaped like a separate section... it's shaped by the requirements of the antenna.

    I also treat the two little red arcs on the aft underside of the saucer as some form of antenna... likely the "backup communications" subsystem.

    That's my personal take on this... but of course, all we know about "subspace radio" or real is what it does, in-story, so nobody else has to accept this. I can't support it, except as described above.
     
  8. Wingsley

    Wingsley Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2007
    Location:
    Wingsley
    ^ Another interesting theory.
     
  9. Albertese

    Albertese Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 3, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Yeah, I'm still in the sensor bay category. The saucer itself acts as a huge platform placing the equipment at the widest possible separation capable on this structure. These particular sensor act together as widely placed elements of one huge long range sensor. All have to be pointed at the same target but need to have some space between them to function correctly, for whatever reason. Why be limited to one direction? You aren't, really. It turns out the whole ship is quite capable of maneuvering to whatever attitude is required to face these things at any given target. (After all, RL space telescopes, Hubble, et al are similarly limited in direction, but maneuver to aim the lens.) The only occasion where the ship's orientation might perhaps limit such a set-up would be in a combat scenario, in which case, there are larger priorities than long range scanning.

    --Alex
     
  10. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    "Who are you?"
    • And except when it's in warp.
    • 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).
    • And except when you need to scan things in two different directions.
    • And except when any number of other reasonable scenarios might apply.
    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.

    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.
     
  11. Cary L. Brown

    Cary L. Brown Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    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! :devil:
     
  12. Albertese

    Albertese Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 3, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    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.

    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.

    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.

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

    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.

    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
     
  13. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    "Who are you?"
    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.
     
  14. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    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.
     
  15. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    "Who are you?"
    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.)
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2011
  16. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    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 :)
     
  17. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    "Who are you?"
    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:
    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. :techman:
     
  18. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    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.

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

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

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

    Sure. :techman:
     
  19. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    "Who are you?"
    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.

    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.
     
  20. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    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.

    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 :D