One memorable idea from TOS was the Preservers. More could have been done with this. Imagine that exploration has begun of a new sector of space. A number of Earth like planets have been discovered, with human cultures derived from antiquity. For example, imagine ancient Romans finally realizing a steampunk culture. Perhaps also a planet where Skags (ENT) or Briori (VOY) dumped human slaves, creating societies derived from more recent cultures.
TOS in the 29th century...
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
The Captain has three options in regards to weapons, each depending on the situation. The helmsman has weapons control if/when the situation doesn't require his/her attention for much else. In a combat situation the Weapons/Defence Monitor is also manned to act as gunner. The final option, of course, is the ship's A.I. who can utilize ship's weaponry very effectively and against multiple targets simultaneously if need be.
If this weren't Star Trek I'd have the A.I. doing a lot more. By all rights the way Starfleet technology was depicted in TOS reflected a lack of awareness (understandably) of what computer tech would eventually be able to do. In some instances alien computers were shown to be very advanced (conceptually), but Starfleet tech could be lacking. The introduction of M5 showcased more of where Starfleet's tech should have been at, in light of what we've learned of computer potential in the decades since TOS was in production. TNG and the other Treks don't get off free either considering how much has changed since TNG was in production. Nanotech seemed so out there in TNG's third season, but more realistically much of TOS' and TNG's science would need nanotech to be in pretty common use for it to work as depicted. For one thing never mind the different kinds of food they often called up, what about the different costumes they also called for? McCoy was dressed as a Gestapo officer within a very short period of time. They obviously didn't have time to actually cut fabric and sew it together. And it's highly doubtful they actually had a specific centuries old military uniform on hand. So how else did something like that get made so quickly? How could they manufacture dozens of flintlocks so quickly? And Kirk once stated they could manufacture numerous gemstones with ease to the point the stones held no real value to them.
The vestigial piece on the right of the helm console was simply a way of finishing off the console in a tidy way because I found myself a bit stumped as to how to finish it off without it looking ungainly.
If this weren't Star Trek I'd have the A.I. doing a lot more. By all rights the way Starfleet technology was depicted in TOS reflected a lack of awareness (understandably) of what computer tech would eventually be able to do. In some instances alien computers were shown to be very advanced (conceptually), but Starfleet tech could be lacking. The introduction of M5 showcased more of where Starfleet's tech should have been at, in light of what we've learned of computer potential in the decades since TOS was in production. TNG and the other Treks don't get off free either considering how much has changed since TNG was in production. Nanotech seemed so out there in TNG's third season, but more realistically much of TOS' and TNG's science would need nanotech to be in pretty common use for it to work as depicted. For one thing never mind the different kinds of food they often called up, what about the different costumes they also called for? McCoy was dressed as a Gestapo officer within a very short period of time. They obviously didn't have time to actually cut fabric and sew it together. And it's highly doubtful they actually had a specific centuries old military uniform on hand. So how else did something like that get made so quickly? How could they manufacture dozens of flintlocks so quickly? And Kirk once stated they could manufacture numerous gemstones with ease to the point the stones held no real value to them.
The vestigial piece on the right of the helm console was simply a way of finishing off the console in a tidy way because I found myself a bit stumped as to how to finish it off without it looking ungainly.
Sure they do.
The ship I was stationed on in the USCG, USCGC Sundew (WLB-404) was built in 1946. The bridge was the top part of the superstructure. below that was the radio room. Below that was the captains quarters, and below that you got to the main deck, which spread out along the aft two-thirds of the ship. Below that was just about everything else.
Yep. I'd forgotten about that. But otherwise, outside of M5, they never showed that in action. In other instances the computer could likely do a more effective job of hitting a fast moving target rather than relying on the Captain telling Sulu or Chekov when to fire. Of course, this would have meant occasionally one less word of dialogue for William Shatner or Patrick Stewart (or whoever) to say onscreen during a firefight.
Last edited:
That makes a lot of sense, I think. If not a full-size transporter room, at least a smaller one for beaming VIPs straight to the command deck.
Hell Star Trek Online put a full transporter on the freaking bridge of the Enterprise-F.
Why not? I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I'd like to hear why you think so.
Wasn't the possibility of a Transporter Room on the Bridge bandied around when Phase 2 (or was it TNG) was being put together? Either way, the decision was nixed because Roddenberry wanted to retain the option of having conversations in the turbolift/corridor etc on the way to the Transporter Room. It makes for better television.
Realistically though, there's no reason not to have a small transporter station on Deck 1. They were more or less doing that in late TNG/VOY anyway, with all that "site to site" transporting and commands like "beam him directly to the Bridge".
Realistically though, there's no reason not to have a small transporter station on Deck 1. They were more or less doing that in late TNG/VOY anyway, with all that "site to site" transporting and commands like "beam him directly to the Bridge".
Exactly. Site-to-site means you aren't tied to "transporter rooms" anymore. Yes, the three sliders are iconic, but a transporter console can be located anywhere. The key question is where are the transporter transceivers located, and that matters most from the standpoint of damage, repair, and what the capabilities are for each section during maneuvers like saucer separation/multi-vector mode.
Sure.
Mostly this. Plus a large number of TOS stories depend on having the transporter be an isolated room lightly manned. Episodes like Dagger of the Mind, The Enemy Within, Mirror, Mirror, Assignment: Earth, Space Seed, etc.
It's a thought that just occurred to me as I wondered about what else could be on Deck 1. Obviously it wouldn't be the only transporter room aboard, but merely one of a number of rooms aboard.
I don't mind the capability of beaming someone to a given site (such as when TNG would transport someone directly to Sickbay), but I don't care for individuals beaming themselves from place to place pretty much at will.
I don't mind the capability of beaming someone to a given site (such as when TNG would transport someone directly to Sickbay), but I don't care for individuals beaming themselves from place to place pretty much at will.
Transporter on the same deck as the bridge? Depends on how much power you have to feed the equipment. If the power supply comes from engineering, then your sending a lot of power a long way. The more cable you have to lay the more chance there is for failure. Also, if there is a catastrophic failure (any type of explosion), you're liable to take out your command center.
The transporter could be done in basically two different ways even though it could be depicted in numerous different ways.
One could retain the idea that has been used from the beginning: matter is changed into energy, transmitted and then changed back into matter. From this you can argue about what is really happening. You can handwave it and insist what comes out the other end is still the original or you can accept that what rematerializes is in fact a copy, but no one really cares about the difference anymore, including the individual who was just beamed through. From this standpoint you can depict the process in any number of ways as has already been done in Trek and elsewhere. The ring system used in Stargate was essentially the same thing as a Trek style transporter. Of course the Asgard in Stargate had a transporter system that didn’t need a receiving apparatus.
Another idea would be to explain the transporter as a form of wormhole device. It opens a very small wormhole through which your personnel or whatever other matter travels to emerge on the other side. Again, although depicted differently, it would be very much like what we saw in Stargate: when you step into the wormhole you’re converted to energy and then reassembled on the other end. The difference with the Stargate setup is that you difinitely need a receiving apparatus on the other end.
A variation of the wormhole idea and one seen in Trek (as well as other places) would be something like the Iconian portal seen in TNG. This wasn’t explained as it was in Stargate, but it worked essentially the same way except there was no receiving apparatus on the other end. But the way it was visualized could work based on an idea I read about in a book co-authored by Stephen Baxter and Arthur C. Clark called The Light Of Other Days. In that scenario it’s discovered how to establish very small wormholes in places distant from Earth so that they could be studied more closely. And (if I remember correctly) the wormhole could be manipulated so they could actually look around another star system as if you were actually there. Think of it as analogous to a incredibly powerful telescope that could zoom in with incredible detail and even change the p.o.v. without losing any resolution. Extrapolating from this your transport coordinates open a small wormhole through which you can actually see the destination and then send your personnel through to rematerialize on the other side. With this scenario you would know exactly (or at least a helluva lot more) about what awaits on the other side. This would be a huge step up from what was usually shown in Trek where those transported were effectively going in blind. This in itself was poorly done because given what resources a furturistic starship should have they should have all sorts of information available from diverse scans including overhead visuals at least much like satellite imaging we can do today.
If one allows site-to-site beaming then one could even use the idea of simply telling the ship’s computer to beam specified indivuduals to a common beam-down point, or even separate points depending on the situation (as was done in early TNG). My reservation with this approach is it seems just a bit too easy and loses some of the drama of having personnel assemble in a common place.
Obviously there are a number of ways you can do this.
One could retain the idea that has been used from the beginning: matter is changed into energy, transmitted and then changed back into matter. From this you can argue about what is really happening. You can handwave it and insist what comes out the other end is still the original or you can accept that what rematerializes is in fact a copy, but no one really cares about the difference anymore, including the individual who was just beamed through. From this standpoint you can depict the process in any number of ways as has already been done in Trek and elsewhere. The ring system used in Stargate was essentially the same thing as a Trek style transporter. Of course the Asgard in Stargate had a transporter system that didn’t need a receiving apparatus.
Another idea would be to explain the transporter as a form of wormhole device. It opens a very small wormhole through which your personnel or whatever other matter travels to emerge on the other side. Again, although depicted differently, it would be very much like what we saw in Stargate: when you step into the wormhole you’re converted to energy and then reassembled on the other end. The difference with the Stargate setup is that you difinitely need a receiving apparatus on the other end.
A variation of the wormhole idea and one seen in Trek (as well as other places) would be something like the Iconian portal seen in TNG. This wasn’t explained as it was in Stargate, but it worked essentially the same way except there was no receiving apparatus on the other end. But the way it was visualized could work based on an idea I read about in a book co-authored by Stephen Baxter and Arthur C. Clark called The Light Of Other Days. In that scenario it’s discovered how to establish very small wormholes in places distant from Earth so that they could be studied more closely. And (if I remember correctly) the wormhole could be manipulated so they could actually look around another star system as if you were actually there. Think of it as analogous to a incredibly powerful telescope that could zoom in with incredible detail and even change the p.o.v. without losing any resolution. Extrapolating from this your transport coordinates open a small wormhole through which you can actually see the destination and then send your personnel through to rematerialize on the other side. With this scenario you would know exactly (or at least a helluva lot more) about what awaits on the other side. This would be a huge step up from what was usually shown in Trek where those transported were effectively going in blind. This in itself was poorly done because given what resources a furturistic starship should have they should have all sorts of information available from diverse scans including overhead visuals at least much like satellite imaging we can do today.
If one allows site-to-site beaming then one could even use the idea of simply telling the ship’s computer to beam specified indivuduals to a common beam-down point, or even separate points depending on the situation (as was done in early TNG). My reservation with this approach is it seems just a bit too easy and loses some of the drama of having personnel assemble in a common place.
Obviously there are a number of ways you can do this.
Might as well make it the only transporter room. It seems as though the bridge crew are the only people ever getting off the ship.
(Not really...but really).
TNG did make an effort to show landing parties a bit more realistically in that Riker was supposed to usually lead the away teams. And periodically we saw other officers and crew going on missions that didn't include the familiar command staff. Even in TOS there were references to other officers and crew besides the command staff involved in landing party tasks.
We can assume the episodes we've seen are the high points where the Captain and First Officer were more directly involved and that during the more routine times other crew were being utilized more regularly.
Regular transporter traffic wouldn’t go through this facility, but if someone needs to reach the Bridge or be brought to the VIP lounge ASAP then this would be the quickest way. Also if the Captain or one of the command staff on duty has to reach somewhere planetside or aboard another ship or station ASAP then this would again be the quickest way.
We can assume the episodes we've seen are the high points where the Captain and First Officer were more directly involved and that during the more routine times other crew were being utilized more regularly.
Regular transporter traffic wouldn’t go through this facility, but if someone needs to reach the Bridge or be brought to the VIP lounge ASAP then this would be the quickest way. Also if the Captain or one of the command staff on duty has to reach somewhere planetside or aboard another ship or station ASAP then this would again be the quickest way.
Last edited:
Warped9,
I've been reading the thread as more comes and the designs get fleshed out, and I've been mostly silent, because I think something like this deserves reflection before making rash judgments. As usual, the beauty in your designs is in the details, and I find myself nerding out while checking out each image.
The thing that sets your work apart from the pedestrian stuff that permeates the Trek fan web is the obvious care for the subject matter. Like parts of what you do or not, the love for it cannot be denied.
And I think my one positive contribution to this thread will be an observation that just fully formed in my mind yesterday: you said earlier that part of the reason you wanted to make your warp nacelles shrink down, to suggest some future version of warp technologies, kind of like the TNG artists did for the Enterprise D. The reason that the scaling down works for the Enterprise D is that they likewise scaled down the secondary hull, to maintain the sense of scale, together. Makes sense right? Main engineering is in the secondary hull, and as you also said early on, your new approach may not have a warp drive the size of a walnut, but to my eye, it would be best served visually scaled down to be more cohesive with your nacelles.
I think your struggles with getting the nacelles' size just right reflects your observation of the mismatch of scale between the nacelles and the secondary hull.
I love the basic morphology of that hull, and I love what you've down with the interior of the shuttle bay, but I'd experiment with reducing the size of that hull 20%-30% before you get too far with the little things that won't allow you that luxury.
Just my two cents.
I've been reading the thread as more comes and the designs get fleshed out, and I've been mostly silent, because I think something like this deserves reflection before making rash judgments. As usual, the beauty in your designs is in the details, and I find myself nerding out while checking out each image.
The thing that sets your work apart from the pedestrian stuff that permeates the Trek fan web is the obvious care for the subject matter. Like parts of what you do or not, the love for it cannot be denied.And I think my one positive contribution to this thread will be an observation that just fully formed in my mind yesterday: you said earlier that part of the reason you wanted to make your warp nacelles shrink down, to suggest some future version of warp technologies, kind of like the TNG artists did for the Enterprise D. The reason that the scaling down works for the Enterprise D is that they likewise scaled down the secondary hull, to maintain the sense of scale, together. Makes sense right? Main engineering is in the secondary hull, and as you also said early on, your new approach may not have a warp drive the size of a walnut, but to my eye, it would be best served visually scaled down to be more cohesive with your nacelles.
I think your struggles with getting the nacelles' size just right reflects your observation of the mismatch of scale between the nacelles and the secondary hull.
I love the basic morphology of that hull, and I love what you've down with the interior of the shuttle bay, but I'd experiment with reducing the size of that hull 20%-30% before you get too far with the little things that won't allow you that luxury.
Just my two cents.
Similar threads
