1701 Design

[Gagarin]

Well, it seems there's lots of 'debate' about the in-universe length of the original E.

Question - has anyone ever read something about why there's that huge undercut on the bottom of the primary hull? It seems there's a LOT of volume that is lost because of that. In the MoST the cutway drawn by MJ there's no undercut/taper shown. Did his cutaway for Phase II show the undercut on the bottom?

Did Andy Probert ever talk about that undercut? I know he likes to have realism and I wondered if he's ever commented on that. The undercut seems to make for a lot of trouble when doing things like placing the rec room and trying to fit things into the ship.

If you had to reimagine the ship, would you have the undercut? Would you make the saucer have 2 very tall decks at the in the center, making the undercut still have 'normal' deck heigth? Why would you build a ship that was one deck thick at one point?

I guess how would you slightly re-imagine the ship? =)

 

[Trekker4747]

Fanwank:

First of all we've seen time and time again in Trek that Starfleet is more form over function. Because "function" is flexible in their time what with their tech level, manipulation of matter, force fields, etc.

So while the undercut may use up a lot of real-estate it becomes a case of, "well, how much more space do we really need? Besides it looks nice."

There's also the idea that the saucer can seperate from the drive-section (as a one-shot deal in emergencies) and maybe the under-cut aids in aerodynamics during an emergency landing on a planet?

As for reimagining the ship?

Wouldn't do it. I think the 1701 is perfect as-is. The only thing I *might* add is some "greebles" on the hull to represent docking ports and torpedo tubes, but even that I'm not sure I'd do.

 

[Data Holmes]

The undercut actually makes the saucer sans secondary hull very aerodynamic. So it definitely has a functional aspect, whether it was designed that way from the start or not...


There used to be a website which had all this research done with trek models in wind tunnels and such which proved it, but I don't remember the URL.

 

[Trekker4747]

hutt359 said:
The undercut actually makes the saucer sans secondary hull very aerodynamic. So it definitely has a functional aspect, whether it was designed that way from the start or not...

I remember hearing the wind-tunnel tests before too.

Which is kind of why I go with the planetary emergency landing idea. Unless we try and imagine it's good for "crazy subspace aerodynamics" aerodynamic designs mean nothing in space.

 

[Gagarin]

Trekker4747 said:
Fanwank:

Hahahahaha... thanks.

 

[Forbin]

Yes, the undercut was there as an aerodynamic lift feature for emergency landings from the very beginning. It was always part of the design.

And others may quibble about the canon length of the ship, but it says 947 feet in TMoST, so that's what it is as far as Im concerned.

 

[QuinnTV]

hutt359 said:
There used to be a website which had all this research done with trek models in wind tunnels and such which proved it, but I don't remember the URL.

I know of this one: linky

 

[Data Holmes]

QuinnTV said:

hutt359 said:
There used to be a website which had all this research done with trek models in wind tunnels and such which proved it, but I don't remember the URL.

I know of this one: linky

Yes, Thanks! :thumbsup:

 

[Ronald Held]

Interesting "linky" thanks.

 

[stupidname]

I've read somewhere that the undercut works with the sensor dome to form a sort of giant sensor dish. I can't remember where I read it, but I'm sure it was some recent theory rather than design intent. And it's not even an idea I'm very fond of... I just wanted to throw it in.

 

[Timo]

...One then wonders why the helmsman always points that giant sensor dish away from the target of interest.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Forbin]

...and we've never seen the ship in orbit with the bottom of the saucer facing the planet.

 

[Timo]

Yup - although we have seen the main viewscreen suggestively showing the planet's curvature at the bottom and the stars atop, this has never been matched by an exterior shot where the ship's bottom would be facing the planet.

(Apart from ST3 and the rare shot of the Enterprise approaching the cloaked BoP, that is. And there are comparable shots of the E-D, but that's not relevant to this thread.)

Funnily enough, there have been plenty of shots, especially in ENT, where the ship presents her top to the planet. Perhaps it is good form to have the ventral sensor dome positioned so that it can sample both the planet below and the space around, preventing nasty surprises. Essentially, the side-towards-planet orientation would then be preferable. But the idea of a directional dish would have to be discarded in that case.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[JuanBolio]

I imagine the undercut serves to collect incoming transporter signals.

 

[Forbin]

^Then how do the beam in different directions other than straight down?

 

[Wingsley]

Forbin said:
...and we've never seen the ship in orbit with the bottom of the saucer facing the planet.

Ahhhh, but not always...

Take, for instance, when Kirk orders Scotty to rain phaser fire down on Vaal in "The Apple":

http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=59&pos=362

 

[JuanBolio]

Forbin said:
^Then how do the beam in different directions other than straight down?

Why would they need to? The ship can pitch, roll, and yaw as much as it needs to.

 

[Ronald Held]

That is true and still maintain orbit.

 

[Forbin]

JuanBolio said:

Forbin said:
^Then how do the beam in different directions other than straight down?

Why would they need to? The ship can pitch, roll, and yaw as much as it needs to.

That takes time, no matter how fast New Voyages shows the enterprise spinning like a top. You don't want to have to rotate the ship when the capt calls for an emergency beamout.

Besides, we've SEEN situations with the ship facing laterally to beaming targets. They beamed into the Botany Bay while it was "in tow" aft and to starboard. They beamed onto the Exeter in Omega Glory while trailing behind it in orbit. They beamed to the Defiant in Tholian Web while hanging randomly nearby. They beamed between Enterprise and Constellation while parked above and forward of it....

There's nothing in any series that says they have to be in a certain relation to the target to beam, and plenty of evidence they don't.

 

[JuanBolio]

Beaming out only requires a point of transmission. Beaming back in requires a collector. Maybe in later years the technology became more advanced, but in the days of TOS they still used dishes for enhanced signal reception.

If you want to argue about the absurdities of the transporter, one might question how someone can be dematerialized or rematerialized on a barren planetary surface with no machinery around to re-integrate the matter/energy beam.