About the Ent-D's shuttle bay's 2 and 3 doors....

[The Rock]

In TNG, on the outside of the Enterprise-D, shuttle bay doors 2 and 3 are slanted to match the shape of the "hill" on the back of the neck of the star drive section.

But in the inside shots of those shuttle bays, the doors are shown as being completely flat and going straight up.

Now my question is, what is up with that? I mean, why did the doors change shape from outside to inside? Was it supposed to be like that in the Trek universe? Or did it have something to do with the show's budget and perhaps the makers of TNG couldn't afford to build a shuttle bay set that had the door being slanted (which would be silly, because I can't imagine building a set which had the door slanted would be that much more expensive than building it the way they built it).

 

[thesovereignman]

In TNG, on the outside of the Enterprise-D, shuttle bay doors 2 and 3 are slanted to match the shape of the "hill" on the back of the neck of the star drive section.

But in the inside shots of those shuttle bays (well I'm assuming we've only seen the inside of shuttle bay 2 since shuttle bay 3 is a bit wider), the doors are shown as being completely flat and going straight up.

Now my question is, what is up with that? I mean, why did the doors change shape from outside to inside? Was it supposed to be like that in the Trek universe? Or did it have something to do with the show's budget and perhaps the makers of TNG couldn't afford to build a shuttle bay set that had the door being slanted (which would be silly, because I can't imagine building a set which had the door slanted would be that much more expensive than building it the way they built it).

It is entirely possible that the door was slanted on the outside, and that there was another door on the inside, like an airlock. I've not seen the show in ages, so I can't testify to that.

 

[Timo]

Yes, this is possible in most shots.

It is, however, not possible in the first shot of the beautiful new shuttlebay set, in "The Child". When Pulaski's shuttle departs and returns to the Hood, we see the departure from a high angle that shows empty space (and the Hood) right beyond the lower threshold of the shuttlebay door. No sloping neck there, no sloping side walls.

Another way to explain the doors is to say that Bays 2 and 3 are set at an angle - that their floors are sloping so that the door is indeed flat against the outer hull. But again, the shot in "The Child" contradicts this, because the Hood is seen flying in formation, establishing the horizontal plane for good.

http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s2/2x01/child006.jpg

And BTW, that's Bay 3, like the floor art sez. It's also the portside bay, apparently, or else the (already in many ways impossible) shot would be completely impossible, as the view of space would be blocked by the secondary hull.

I guess the double door explanation is the best - I for one would want to have double doors for my large interior space that borders on vacuum... But not all scenes agree with this explanation. Not unless we squint a lot.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[T'Girl]

^ In the still from above, shouldn't you be able to see the port nacelle's foreward end?

 

[thesovereignman]

Yes, this is possible in most shots.

It is, however, not possible in the first shot of the beautiful new shuttlebay set, in "The Child". When Pulaski's shuttle departs and returns to the Hood, we see the departure from a high angle that shows empty space (and the Hood) right beyond the lower threshold of the shuttlebay door. No sloping neck there, no sloping side walls.

Another way to explain the doors is to say that Bays 2 and 3 are set at an angle - that their floors are sloping so that the door is indeed flat against the outer hull. But again, the shot in "The Child" contradicts this, because the Hood is seen flying in formation, establishing the horizontal plane for good.

http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s2/2x01/child006.jpg

And BTW, that's Bay 3, like the floor art sez. It's also the portside bay, apparently, or else the (already in many ways impossible) shot would be completely impossible, as the view of space would be blocked by the secondary hull.

I guess the double door explanation is the best - I for one would want to have double doors for my large interior space that borders on vacuum... But not all scenes agree with this explanation. Not unless we squint a lot.

Timo Saloniemi

Looking at the image it doesn't make any sense at all. However, in this thread:
http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=90666&page=5
There was the same solution I proposed, that of the double doors. Here's a sketch:

of course there is no correct answer, as the set design was a mistake.

 

[Mytran]

The set was built on a budget, with all the limitations that comes with. I think squinting is the best solution, IMO!
It wasn't until Voyager's CGI shuttlebay doors that we got an accurate inside view of a sloping door.

 

[Tomalak]

The set was built on a budget, with all the limitations that comes with. I think squinting is the best solution, IMO!
It wasn't until Voyager's CGI shuttlebay doors that we got an accurate inside view of a sloping door.

There you have it: the first time anyone has used the words "Voyager's CGI shuttlebay" and "accurate" in the same sentence!

 

[USS Jack Riley]

http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s2/2x01/child006.jpg

Timo Saloniemi

Timo - In the shot you provided, it is possible that the panels over the interior shuttle bay could act as the interior doors. Just an observation, but it might explain the discrepancy betrween the curved and straight doorways on the set.

Of course, given the force field in place, the shuttle bay might have been designed by Monty Python's Department of Redundancy Department. I suppose you need the doors in the event of a power failure that leaves the force field inoperable, but what are the chances? Even when the Ent-D experiences nearly catastrophic failure (I forget the episode, but it involved Picard stuck in a turbolift with some kids and Troi, as senior officer on the bridge, left in command of the ship), I belive the forcefield was still in place when LaForge and Dr. Crusher were stuck in the shuttle bay.

 

[Forbin]

That's a shot they'll correct on the TNG Remastered disks.

 

[FalTorPan]

of course there is no correct answer, as the set design was a mistake.

I agree that there is no correct answer, but I disagree with the claim that the set design was a mistake. Much of the set was originally built during the first season to serve as a cargo bay (as well as the containing space for the holodeck). The decision to utilize the existing set to represent shuttlebays must have been made with at least some of the show's artistic staff being aware that a vertical outer wall would not mesh with the angled outer walls of the doors as seen on the ship's exterior.

All I'm getting at is that the set design was a necessary compromise based on space and budgetary restrictions, and not a mistake in the sense that the designers didn't know what they were doing.

 

[The Rock]

of course there is no correct answer, as the set design was a mistake.

I agree that there is no correct answer, but I disagree with the claim that the set design was a mistake. Much of the set was originally built during the first season to serve as a cargo bay (as well as the containing space for the holodeck). The decision to utilize the existing set to represent shuttlebays must have been made with at least some of the show's artistic staff being aware that a vertical outer wall would not mesh with the angled outer walls of the doors as seen on the ship's exterior.

All I'm getting at is that the set design was a necessary compromise based on space and budgetary restrictions, and not a mistake in the sense that the designers didn't know what they were doing.

But really, how much more expensive could it have been to build angled outer walls? I can't imagine it would've cost that much more. All they are are just walls, after all.

 

[FalTorPan]

But really, how much more expensive could it have been to build angled outer walls? I can't imagine it would've cost that much more. All they are are just walls, after all.

Much more. The only part that you see is a wall, but behind a slanted wall is a much more complicated support frame. In addition to that, because the wall slopes "inward," overhead lighting becomes much more constrained, likely requiring complex lighting to be designed in some of the visible portions of the set.

And... the cargo bay set was built right up against one corner of the soundstage. Because there was no room to grow within the soundstage, an inward-slanting wall would have made the shuttlebay set even smaller than it wound up being.

 

[The Rock]

But really, how much more expensive could it have been to build angled outer walls? I can't imagine it would've cost that much more. All they are are just walls, after all.

Much more. The only part that you see is a wall, but behind a slanted wall is a much more complicated support frame. In addition to that, because the wall slopes "inward," overhead lighting becomes much more constrained, likely requiring complex lighting to be designed in some of the visible portions of the set.

And... the cargo bay set was built right up against one corner of the soundstage. Because there was no room to grow within the soundstage, an inward-slanting wall would have made the shuttlebay set even smaller than it wound up being.

Ah OK, I see your point. I stand corrected.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Anyone else but me always noticed that the bay doors also aren't nearly LARGE enough to fit the external features on the model? I mean, the doors for both of those bays or at least three decks high and dozens of meters wide, even smaller of the two should be twice as wide as the door seen in the set.

Almost makes me wonder if the bay doors being used were actually the little mini ones next to shuttle bay two and not the big door at all.

 

[FalTorPan]

The TNG shuttlebay/cargo bay set was inadequate for almost every role that it filled. It was too small and featureless to be an effective shuttlebay, and as has been discussed, its outer wall was not sloped correctly. For similar reasons it was not an effective cargo bay, unless it was completely internal to the ship, in which case it should not have had the large external door.

On the whole the set was a victim of constraints in money and space.

 

[EmperorTiberius]

Anyone else but me always noticed that the bay doors also aren't nearly LARGE enough to fit the external features on the model? I mean, the doors for both of those bays or at least three decks high and dozens of meters wide, even smaller of the two should be twice as wide as the door seen in the set.

Almost makes me wonder if the bay doors being used were actually the little mini ones next to shuttle bay two and not the big door at all.

Seconded.

 

[Timo]

Thirded - although that doesn't solve most of the problems associated with the set. It only helps with the door size issue.

...its outer wall was not sloped correctly.

Why should the wall be sloped? Only the door need be sloping along the outer surface of the hull. The facility within may easily be perfectly rectangular, and probably would be. A sloping wall would be an inconvenience, with people banging their heads on it and all. And the space left between a sloping outer wall and a perfectly vertical inner wall would be well used for all the machinery associated with door operation, forcefield airscreens, air management, tractor beams, and assorted other stuff.

It shouldn't be difficult to "install" the outer slope in retrospect by VFX means, because it would in any case exist in a place that is covered by a greenscreen in the original material - a greenscreen on which stars were projected. Even if the footage no longer retains any raw greenscreen shots, the starscape can no doubt be easily used as a "blackscreen" or its digital equivalent. That'd be an obvious thing to do in a putative "TNG Remastered" project.

It wouldn't solve the door size issue, but we could go the "they were using a mini-bay" route. It might not make the shuttlebay a particularly interesting set, but it might not need to be. And the shortcomings of the set as a cargo bay would need to be addressed by different means - say, by doing a "Raiders of the Lost Ark" matte extension with shelves upon shelves of those silly blue barrels.

The scenes where a cargo bay has a space door on one of its vertical walls are problematic, yes. It would be fascinating to replace the starscape in "Disaster" with the walls of the vertical cargo shaft that is supposedly there on the saucer, behind the large ovoid doors (much like NX-01 has such vertical shafts, like the one whose hatch got bumped in "Shuttlepod One" and misled the pod people into thinking the ship had been destroyed)...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Forbin]

Ah, if only they'd had the finacial and effects wherewithall to show us that giant main hangar complex in the saucer!

 

[AnyStar]

it also depends on which model you're looking at.

the 4' model has flat doors: hard to see because of the shadows on this pic, but its the clearest view into those doors on an angle i have

the 6' is still slightly sloped:

even though from the interior set you never see the curve of the neck, just the flat wall, then space. i think the flat doors on the smaller model (built late in the series) are an attempt they made to adress it.

 

[RapidNadion]

^ Would you mind resizing those?

Also, though, thanks for posting the shots. What the hell happened to the models? Shipping damage? The 6' is in better shape ... but is that a coffee stain? Sad to see these beauties in such disrepair.

EDIT: I always thought those two rectangles next to the portside shuttlebay were lifeboats, but thanks to the model shots, I can see that they're significantly smaller than that. Wonder what they were intended to be.