You make it sound as if it's completely canon.
Maybe he's just trying to prove why things need to be sourced?
Markings on saucer section of NCC-1701
- Thread starter S'kai
- Start date
Maybe he's just trying to prove why things need to be sourced?
I, too, had heard the notion that when the ship was smaller the idea was that those would be landing legs, and rather than a transporter they would basically pull a "Lost in Space" and land the saucer while leaving the secondary hull/engines in orbit, and when landed it would probably look a lot like the C-57D from "Forbidden Planet."
I have no source. I'm assuming I've heard it speculated on here before, but I feel like I've also read it elsewhere. It could just be a rumor.
I have no source. I'm assuming I've heard it speculated on here before, but I feel like I've also read it elsewhere. It could just be a rumor.
The idea of landing the ship was dropped before the design had even been close to being finalized, back when the idea was that the ship was going to be fourteen stories tall (the final design is closer to 22 decks).
In other words, the notion was dropped before they even knew what the ship was going to look like, and dropping the idea probably had a big influence in the final design.
As for those triangles, we don't even know who put 'em there, Jefferies or Datin, or an overly eager assistant. And any intended purpose probably started and ended with adding some much needed surface detail to an otherwise featureless area of the hull.
In other words, the notion was dropped before they even knew what the ship was going to look like, and dropping the idea probably had a big influence in the final design.
As for those triangles, we don't even know who put 'em there, Jefferies or Datin, or an overly eager assistant. And any intended purpose probably started and ended with adding some much needed surface detail to an otherwise featureless area of the hull.
You know, I do have that book, so that could be where I've read it. But haven't we decided that there are other flaws in its text, so this might be one too?
Devil's advocate: do we know this for absolute certain? I think we've decided before that the crew of 203 in "The Cage" was probably just a holdover from earlier drafts where the ship was smaller, and the ship's scale itself had been firmly established by this point.
But isn't the similarity between the saucer and the C-57D just a little too coincidental? We know they went from abstract rockety things, to the sphere and tubes shapes, to saucer and tubes, to what we ended up with. But do we know for sure that the reason we ended up with what we ended up with wasn't so the saucer could detach and land.
Shaw might know for sure.
You may be right. At least: the reason they were kept/bulked up was probably to give detail to the hull.
I know that the book has errors, but other sources show this as concept work as well, such as Star Trek Sketchbook. There never was a lot of work done for the 'landing pads' since the concept was completely dropped when they came up with the transporter (and the ship became simply too big to be a 'portable' set). That's why you won't find much work on the subject, it was ditched very early.
The detail, though, which appears on the early ship art sometimes, was likely just kept just to break up the underside of the saucer. I doubt there was much thought put into their actual function AFTER the pilot was made...
You may be right. And I'm definitely inclined to agree that whatever the original point of the triangles was, if any, no thought was likely given to their function after the first pilot.
The window placement on the models is a pretty good indicator of when the scale was established, and at the very least, it was nailed down before principal photography was completed and before effects filming had started (there's that nice pic of Jeff Hunter and Gene Roddenberry handling the three-footer while at the Rigel VII location).
I'm guessing it's at least partially an airlock like in TMP. Part of it could house transporter strips (the outer sections)
Allow me to clarify.
First, I believe I can be excused for not intuiting that MA was meant to reference Memory Alpha, given the tendency of posts to refer to Gene Roddenberry as GR, Matt Jefferies as MJ, etc., and the fact that the first time the term "MA" appeared in this thread Memory Alpha had not been referred to.
Secondly, the source I was requesting was for the very strong assertion that the triangles were intended to be landing legs for the original smaller version of the ship. I was not asking about saucer separation because the topic IS "Markings on saucer section of NCC-1701".
Third, even if I accept Memory Alpha as a source (and many of its entries are inaccurate...I see several bald mistakes in the entry on the Constitution Class at a glance), I don't see anything on that page referenced that points to that's what they are intended for. If I missed it, someone please point it out to me.
Finally, I believe my request for a source for the following assertion--
First, I believe I can be excused for not intuiting that MA was meant to reference Memory Alpha, given the tendency of posts to refer to Gene Roddenberry as GR, Matt Jefferies as MJ, etc., and the fact that the first time the term "MA" appeared in this thread Memory Alpha had not been referred to.
Secondly, the source I was requesting was for the very strong assertion that the triangles were intended to be landing legs for the original smaller version of the ship. I was not asking about saucer separation because the topic IS "Markings on saucer section of NCC-1701".
Third, even if I accept Memory Alpha as a source (and many of its entries are inaccurate...I see several bald mistakes in the entry on the Constitution Class at a glance), I don't see anything on that page referenced that points to that's what they are intended for. If I missed it, someone please point it out to me.
Finally, I believe my request for a source for the following assertion--
--remains valid, and did not merit the tone of response it received.
I'm reticent to make any assertions about the true nature of the markings as honestly I don't have enough information for even a educated guess at this point. But I can point out some general facts about the design/construction timeline... if that helps at all.
The general shape was established by the end of August of 1964, but size wasn't. Many of the technical aspects were debated, consultants consulted, and options weighed through September, and by October Jefferies was starting more detailed (scaled) drawings of the final design. One early set of nearly complete drawings was at 1:192 scale which had a more recognizable shape of the final Enterprise. These plans were most likely the ones shown to Richard Datin when he was contracted on November 4, 1964. The final plans were finished on November 7, 1964, and one could guess that they took a few weeks to draw using pen and paper drafting techniques... which gives us a rough date of when the scale was finalized. On paper at that time, the only feature linking the live action sets and the model was the bridge (and the zoom-in seems to have been planned by this point).
So if the size was a factor, mid to late October of 1964 was when the size was finalized.
For me, knowing that Roddenberry and Jefferies were constantly at odds with each other over the amount of exterior detailing on the models, these triangles served the same purpose as the small numbers on the secondary hull... they made Roddenberry happy. And considering that those little numbers came from an earlier set of plans (on which all the hull markings seem to have been drawn, as they don't exist on the final construction plans), it isn't too far fetched to say that the triangle features are also from the earlier drawings of a smaller ship as well.
That is a lot of filling in the blanks... but if some of the surface markings came from earlier drawings of the smaller ship, and the smaller ship included those triangles as landing gear, then even if the landing gear idea was dropped from the final plans the origin of them would have been as landing gear for the smaller ship.
All of that is little more than a mental exercise though, more information specifically about those details would be needed before I subscribe to any theory beyond the obvious... they were there to pacify Roddenberry.
Most of early Trek was based on Forbidden Planet, so once the saucer hull had made it to the final design, having it land like the C-57D would have been understandable.
Early Trek seemed to have been a proof of concept that what was done as a massive budget feature film of the 50s could be done as a weekly television series in the 60s. The Cage really does seem to be attempting to hit bench marks set by Forbidden Planet.
That's it! I'm writing Myth Busters. We need to end this once and for all!
Seriously though. I've bashed this image from Gilso's Star Trek Schematics, to show a potential answer to the "third" leg... If the neck breaks (heh) at a lower point, it could work. Though it would certainly be a one time deal. And the lack of any markings don't exactly back up my idea.
Seriously though. I've bashed this image from Gilso's Star Trek Schematics, to show a potential answer to the "third" leg... If the neck breaks (heh) at a lower point, it could work. Though it would certainly be a one time deal. And the lack of any markings don't exactly back up my idea.
Last edited:
Looks preeeeetty impractical to me!That's it! I'm writing Myth Busters. We need to end this once and for all!
Seriously though. I've bashed this image from Gilso's Star Trek Schematics, to show a potential answer to the "third" leg... If the neck breaks (heh) at a lower point, it could work. Though it would certainly be a one time deal. And the lack of any markings don't exactly back up my idea.
Thanks for chiming in, Shaw. I think you might be onto something, there. I'm not totally convinced myself, but it seems like the best explanation for all the facts we have so far.
That's it! I'm writing Myth Busters. We need to end this once and for all!
Seriously though. I've bashed this image from Gilso's Star Trek Schematics, to show a potential answer to the "third" leg... If the neck breaks (heh) at a lower point, it could work. Though it would certainly be a one time deal. And the lack of any markings don't exactly back up my idea.
Eh... impractical or not, that seems like it might have been the way it would have worked.
Perhaps they'd merely bend further down?
The first time I ever saw this approach presented (1976, as memory serves)... the idea was pretty much what Patrick has shown, with one significant exception.
They'd eject the lower dome as well.
It's certainly true that the early days of Trek borrowed liberally from "Forbidden Planet." Now, note what the C57D looked like... with a central "pillar" and three "stabilizing legs."
So... what I envision is (1) dump the lower dome, (2) detach the dorsal from the secondary hull, (3) swing down the forward legs. And Voila... you have a landed primary hull.
Early versions may have had something different down there (ie, not a dome)... that's what I mean by "dump the dome." IF they wanted to do routine landing, that's how you'd do it.
Personally, I don't see much reason that you'd ever "land" the saucer, or any other part of the ship. After all, once they'd come up with that nifty idea of teleportation, it's sorta pointless, isn't it? Just leave the saucer in orbit (where it's more likely to be noticed by a rescue party anyway!) and beam your people down.
But I suspect that the original intent (long before any miniatures were built) was probably very much like the C57D. Including the central pillar.
Well, I do have that book (both versions... the spiral-bound one and the square-bound one)... but the thing I'm thinking of predated that by several years.
