Markings on saucer section of NCC-1701

[JuanBolio]

Well, the saucer might be designed to land on "tiptoe", standing high above the ground rather than resting on the lower dome. The fin and the two curved landing struts (supposedly made of superstrong materials) would create a nice 1950s UFO feel in such a pose, and would give good clearance in case the ground was uneven or the landing engine sprayed up lots of dirt just before touchdown. And reaching the ground even from great heights would be fairly simple if the fin remained intact.

However, the "tiptoe" approach is not something I'd willingly associate with what's supposed to be an emergency maneuver. It doesn't look or feel robust enough, what with the saucer probably being more or less damaged whenever such a maneuver has to be performed.

Timo Saloniemi

I don't think tip-toe would be a good idea - you'd want the landing struts as wide apart as possible while stille keeping the sensor dome off the ground. Also it still seems like the neck would be too long to function as a landing leg unless the other two were nearly vertical, if then. Given their curved nature and the width of the saucer this strikes me as very unstable, especially given that the ground they land on would likely be uneven.

 

[Vance]

Originally, when the ship was 'small', those are indeed where the landing legs would deploy from. That concept was dropped pretty early on, but the ship detail kept.

A few works, official and not, has had them listed as part of the sensor/scanner network now, which makes some amount of sense, but there hasn't been a 'definitive' statement as to them yet.

 

[SonicRanger]

... OTOH, "Enemy Within" suggests there are single points of failure in the system. So I wouldn't attempt to create a setup where there are two basically independent systems, each with its own emitter array. Rather, the arrays should be shared resources...

"Wink of an Eye" also suggests that there is either just one transporter room or that they are all tied together.

 

[UssGlenn]

... OTOH, "Enemy Within" suggests there are single points of failure in the system. So I wouldn't attempt to create a setup where there are two basically independent systems, each with its own emitter array. Rather, the arrays should be shared resources...

"Wink of an Eye" also suggests that there is either just one transporter room or that they are all tied together.

I'm guessing that there is a dedicated computer for transporter operations, considering the processing power needed. But there is probably only one used by all pads, knock out the computer and all transporter systems go offline.

 

[Maurice]

Originally, when the ship was 'small', those are indeed where the landing legs would deploy from. That concept was dropped pretty early on, but the ship detail kept.

Source, please.

 

[Kaziarl]

Originally, when the ship was 'small', those are indeed where the landing legs would deploy from. That concept was dropped pretty early on, but the ship detail kept.

Source, please.

According to MA, back when they were designing the ship they had intended for separation to be possible, they just never used it.

 

[Maurice]

Originally, when the ship was 'small', those are indeed where the landing legs would deploy from. That concept was dropped pretty early on, but the ship detail kept.

Source, please.

According to MA, back when they were designing the ship they had intended for separation to be possible, they just never used it.

1. Who is MA?
2. Just because there was intention for separation doesn't automaticall mean those triangles were intended to be part of that.

I still want a source.

 

[Vance]

Source, please.

Art of Star Trek, among many, many, other sources over the years - including Jefferies' own design sketches.

But, please, be a complete ass about 'sourcing' on a casual form like this. It makes you look so much better than everyone else here!

 

[SonicRanger]

Source, please.

Art of Star Trek, among many, many, other sources over the years - including Jefferies' own design sketches.

But, please, be a complete ass about 'sourcing' on a casual form like this. It makes you look so much better than everyone else here!

There's so much hearsay, half-truths, misremembered tibits, fanon falsehoods, and utter crap floating around these boards that it is entirely appropriate to ask for an attribution on something so bold as "Matt Jefferies intended..." when such a claim falls outside common knowledge.

 

[Vance]

There's so much hearsay, half-truths, misremembered tibits, fanon falsehoods, and utter crap floating around these boards that it is entirely appropriate to ask for an attribution on something so bold as "Matt Jefferies intended..." when such a claim falls outside common knowledge.

I can understand that to a point, but considering Memory Alpha was already cited...But say "I still want a source!" in that manner is just dickery.. he can use Google just as well as the rest of us.

 

[SonicRanger]

There's so much hearsay, half-truths, misremembered tibits, fanon falsehoods, and utter crap floating around these boards that it is entirely appropriate to ask for an attribution on something so bold as "Matt Jefferies intended..." when such a claim falls outside common knowledge.

I can understand that to a point, but considering Memory Alpha was already cited...But say "I still want a source!" in that manner is just dickery.. he can use Google just as well as the rest of us.

Well, Memory Alpha certainly isn't above reproach (especially without a link to the relevant page), and though Google is at his disposal, the burden should be on the person making the claim, not the person reading it.

 

[Kaziarl]

Source, please.

According to MA, back when they were designing the ship they had intended for separation to be possible, they just never used it.

1. Who is MA?
2. Just because there was intention for separation doesn't automaticall mean those triangles were intended to be part of that.

I still want a source.

Uh... MA is Memory Alpha.

So you ask for the source of the information someone gives you, then when it's offered you blatantly dismiss it? Interesting.

Edit: I would have thought that a normal, thinking person upon being given the location of the information would be able to deduce how to look it up. However, as that is not the case, here you go. Sorry if I sound cranky, two days without sleep for unknown reasons can do that to you.
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Constitution_class

Saucer separation for the Constitution-class, suggested by the ship's design but never seen on film, has made non-canonical appearances. In the DC Comics Star Trek: Debt of Honor, Kirk used "explosive bolts" to sever the connection between the saucer module and the engineering section of the USS Farragut. The same trick was used again in the DC Comics Star Trek: The Mirror Universe Saga, where Kirk and his crew escaped the self-destruction of the ISS Enterprise's engineering section in a last-minute separation. Another Constitution-class ship, the USS Confederate, was shown operating without its saucer section in Marvel Comics Star Trek Unlimited Issue 4; after the crew abandoned the engineering hull via saucer separation due to a failure in an experimental propulsion system upgrade. In the early drafts of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, the Enterprise was to separate the saucer. The 2006 Star Trek: Ships of the Line calendar includes a picture of a separated Constitution-class ship, engaging Klingons – or possibly a Klingon ship flown by the Romulans – in battle.

 

[Shaw]

While I've never heard either Jefferies or Datin discuss the detail asked about in the original post of this thread (and I highly doubt that DS9Sega was asking for a source for saucer separation), and my collection of Jefferies' sketch work doesn't include small details like that surface detail, I can confirm that the feature existed on both models for The Cage (Dec. 1964).

And I've been working under the assumption (based on this) that the detail was also on Jefferies' original construction plans. But I don't believe it strong enough to include them in my up coming reconstruction of those plans. After all, both models also have the same hull markings yet no hull markings existed on the original plans... and if these were meant as markings rather than surface features, they might not have been on the original plans.

For the series (April 1966), the base of both triangles were given a raised feature (11 foot model only) and were much darker in color.

I don't know if any of that is of any help to anyone here, other than the fact that they were there on both models from the start.

 

[Vance]

I know the details were there, but I also know that the concept was dropped somewhere between the original pitch and the script of the first pilot. It was considered just 'too expensive to shoot' since the ship would have to land and launch regularly. That's why we got the transporters.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

I call these triangles and the white rectangles on top of the saucer Debate Greeblies because noone can ever agree on what they are.

 

[noknowes]

Actually they are external service hatches for dry dock for vital system servicing.

A secondary function is mass ejection of lifeboat pods in an emergency.

They also function as attachment ports for secondary hulls so that a secondary hull could be attached before the first one is detached.

Forth they house the downward facing impulse engines.

They are mutifunction ports.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

Actually they are external service hatches for dry dock for vital system servicing.

A secondary function is mass ejection of lifeboat pods in an emergency.

They also function as attachment ports for secondary hulls so that a secondary hull could be attached before the first one is detached.

They are mutifunction ports.

You make it sound as if it's completely canon.

 

[Royal Fizzbin]

I thought I had heard/read that the triangles were subspace antennae. Am I just confused or has that been bandied about anywhere?

 

[Birdog]

Actually they are external service hatches for dry dock for vital system servicing.

Plausible and due to the images we see in TMP, likely.

A secondary function is mass ejection of lifeboat pods in an emergency.

Plausible but no evidence

They also function as attachment ports for secondary hulls so that a secondary hull could be attached before the first one is detached.

WTF? That makes no sense. Why attach a new hull there and then move it down to where it should be.

Forth they house the downward facing impulse engines.

They are mutifunction ports.

Now you're just making crap up

 

[Vance]

I thought I had heard/read that the triangles were subspace antennae. Am I just confused or has that been bandied about anywhere?

Oh, I imagine there's some fandom image SOMEWHERE that has them called that. I don't think there's an official one that does (at least not one of the 'biggie' tech books), but I easily could have missed one.