Detatchable B-C deck?

[Albertese]

I've wondered about this for a long while now. Check this out from the U.S.S. Enterprise Officer's Manual by Geoffrey Mandel ((c) 1980).



Now, I am NOT here to discuss the saucer's possible landing ability. I'm curious what everyone thinks of this idea of the upper decks (oft times referred to as the "B-C decks" or sometimes the "command gondola") being able to essentially eject in an emergency, act as a lifeboat, and be able to soft land on it's own.

• How many people are expected to get in there and survive?
• What possible circumstances would make you abandon the rest of the ship but keep going in this craft? How would evacuation to this part of the ship be handled?
• What sort of equipment and facilities would this structure need to fill the role of a fairly robust emergency vehicle?
• Is this whole idea just silly?

I'm not sure what I think of this idea. Part of me thinks it's kinda neat but then part of me wants to think the captain and command crew are going to stick around and try to the last possible moment to fix whatever's going wrong enough to warrant abandoning ship. But I suppose sometimes you've just gotta jump ship.

Discuss.

--Alex

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Wouldn't this suck a bit of usable space out of both the B/C deck blister, and the areas below/around it?

 

[Mysterion]

I do not think this is a usable idea as lifeboat. Herkimer Jitty brings up a good point against this. The space that would be taken up with independant life support, propulsion and other crew support equipment and facilities would make the bulk of those decks pretty much no good for anything else. (Although as-is, B Deck must be taken up quite a bit by support equipment for the Bridge)

However, there is mention in the TNG Technical Manual that the bridge modules of Starfleet vessels are sometimes designed to be "swapped out" from time to time for equipment upgrades and such. I could see that process including the whole A-C structure, perhaps.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

It's worth mention that Mandell put out TWO versions of this book. The first one was loose-leaf, with one of those plastic ring bindings, like many offices use. It was, essentially, "home made." He came out with another version, several years later, which had much of the same info, plus some added material, and a FEW (purposeful) omissions. This later version was square-bound, had a cover made of heavy-weight, glossy cardstock, and so forth.

I mention this because Mandell chose to eliminate this from his later edition. It's one of only a few elements he dropped, and the rest were dropped because of low quality.

In this case, I suspect (strongly) that Mandell dropped it because he realized it was silly.

By the way, this is the ONLY place I've ever seen where the "Forbidden-planet" style landing scheme was shown. There are some out there who will try to tell you that this was the original intention, including one fellow who claims, without any evidence, that Richard Datin "told him" that this was "always the plan."

Of course, this same guy also says that Richard Datin said that the ship always had the gridlines, yet I have read two properly attributed interview with Datin where he said just the opposite. If in doubt, I tend to believe a published interview in a reputable magazine, which Datin had the opportunity to vet prior to publishing and could have disputed at any point.

It's POSSIBLE that he may have had the intention that the saucer land in this fashion, of course, but since both Matt Jefferies and Gene Roddenberry were quite clear that the ship "never lands," I see this as pure fantasy (from an "in-universe" standpoint, mind you... bearing in mind that the whole thing is pure fantasy, when you get down to it).

The fact is, there are certain similarities between the Star Trek universe and the Forbidden Planet universe, and there are even a few "coincidences" between teh C-57D and the Enterprise's saucer. So, with the ship having these two triangles down there, some folks have assumed that they're landing legs, so that the saucer could land and take off just like the C-57D did.

Another part of this is that people assume that the little raised "rib" on the long, inboard edge of triangle (as oppose to the tiny "tip" end... not as compared to the near-radial lines) is in fact a "hinge." But look closely, and you'll see that it's CURVED, which precludes it from being a hinge (a hinge, after all, is mathematically defined as an AXIS, which is straight, obviously!)

So, to me, though, I'll never buy that. On the other hand, one of these triangles is quite literally directly adjacent to the main transporter room. And since the writer's bible says that the ship has more than one transporter, I assume that the other one is symmetrically placed, next to this other triangle, and that the triangles are merely the "transporter emitters" (similar to what we see in TNG).

I've got a HUGE library of these old Trek fan-fiction and fan-tech works. They tend to be wildly contradictory, and that's OK... they're still fun. But don't ever forget, Mandell himself dumped this idea...

********

Now... the BRIDGE being detachable... that I can accept. It would not be a true "shuttle" per-se, but why not have emergency life support and so forth in the ring outboard of the bridge proper? Maybe with a handful of small impulse thrusters (facing "down" relative to the bridge) in that same region, to provide last-minute ejection capabilities?

This doesn't seem totally unreasonable for the TOS time, but it seems even more plausible when you get to the TMP era... it, for example, is the only practical reason I can see for having a bridge-level docking port! And those spots to either side of the bridge docking port... maybe those are some form of thrusters?

 

[Albertese]

Interesting. I was sorta worried about where all the gear would fit, too. And also how effective such an arrangement would really be in an emergency.

Quick reminder: I realize threads all eventually derail, but I was really hoping to NOT focus at all on whether or not the the saucer lands and how that might work or what the triangles are for. If you would like to go over that instead of the "B-C decks as lifeboat" idea, I would like to direct your attention to this older thread where the landing capabilities are discussed.

Thanks, guys!

--Alex

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Interesting. I was sorta worried about where all the gear would fit, too. And also how effective such an arrangement would really be in an emergency.

Quick reminder: I realize threads all eventually derail, but I was really hoping to NOT focus at all on whether or not the the saucer lands and how that might work or what the triangles are for. If you would like to go over that instead of the "B-C decks as lifeboat" idea, I would like to direct your attention to this older thread where the landing capabilities are discussed.

Thanks, guys!

--Alex

Well, to me, that's all part of the same concept. And thus, I treated it as such. But fair enough.

I don't think that the B/C deck as a lifeboat idea makes any sense. The BRIDGE as a lifeboat, on the other hand, does make sense, and I do think that this is something we can sort of see in the TMP era at least, as I said earlier.

The reason he did this, I suspect, was because he was trying to justify why this area was of a different, distinct shape re: the rest of the saucer.

For the most part, there's no evident reason for this. Mainly, I suspect, it's "forbidden planet" influence again... the shape does sort of resemble the topside dome on the C-57D.

In my own case, I treat it as a yard-replaceable (but not field-ejectable) module. And the teardrop shape is driven by the fact that the main subspace antenna (which "magic physics" requires to be approximately teardrop shaped) is embedded in that structure (and in the dark ring on the TMP ship).

But having the entire region... three decks... as a lifeboat? Complete with landing legs and so forth? Nah.... can't buy it.

 

[jayrath]

More to the point, three decks as a lifeboat for whom? The top officers? Don't tell me you're going to cram 430 people in there, even standing up and inhaling.

I dislike the whole lifeboat/lifepod concept. The primary hull is itself a lifeboat. That's why it's able to separate from the sparkly nastiness of the nacelles and secondary hull. Any more detachable parts are unnecessary; Starfleet is not a division of Lego.

 

[Captain Robert April]

The concept of the B/C superstructure being a swappable unit works fine for me (I even incorporated it into my deckplans). As a lifeboat, well, maybe not per se, but as a separate unit, it makes sense that it might be sufficiently strong enough to survive being blown clear from the rest of the ship if things really go to hell. Probably wouldn't survive an atmospheric entry, or even maneuver, but it could certainly sit there and send out a distress signal for as long as the batteries hold out.

Regarding the landing legs, it occurred to me recently that they might work a lot better if they don't just fold down, but out, with the foot being the furthest inward while folded in and swinging out when deployed.

I'll work up a diagram later.

 

[wildstar]

I always thought it was a neat idea, to be used as a lifeboat. Didn't Mr. Sternbach assert that deck 1 of Voyager was a lifeboat (with the little corner notches being RCS). So in-universe, these 2 concepts seem to go together. So not only the bridge being swappable, but the bridge plus a bit extra space being a large lifeboat.

 

[Timo]

I'm not sure there would necessarily be merit to having any sort of lifeboats on a TOS starship. The episodes themselves never mention any, despite many a story about the abandoning of a starship in an emergency. And ejecting in a low-endurance spacecraft would not be helpful if the shortest response time Starfleet can offer is six months...

This in mind, I just can't see Starfleet designing a survival-ejection element into the ship for just the command crew. A survival-ejection element for records, yes - that's tactically helpful, and records can be expected to survive for six months after ejection. But if most of the crew are to perish, then quite probably all are to.

The landing-capable saucer, OTOH, does sound reasonable - because it's more or less the only justification for having a saucer in the first place. Shapes seemingly optimized for slipping through air and sitting on the ground would not have much place in a spacecraft unless expected to do those very things. But once one introduces the saucer, one loses quite a bit of lateral hull surface, versus more natural spacecraft shapes like spheres and cylinders. So perhaps the dorsal superstructure is there because the engineers desperately needed more side walls for sideways-pointing sensors, comms systems and other instrumentation?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Well, there is one "on-screen" example of when this might've been a nice feature. Granted, I really don't much like ST'09 very much, but the opening sequence wasn't too bad (and could have been made just a little bit different and would have been great... say, make the ship feel like a "Pike-era" ship, not a factory floor, give the crew pike-era uniforms and props, keep the Kelvin at a reasonable crew complement and size, and have it be just a bit more like TOS/pre-TOS in general. Oh, and have someone else play George Kirk (not because I don't like the guy who played him, but because the guy who played George Kirk is the guy who SHOULD have played Jim Kirk!)

Now... imagine, that for some reason (a better one than "autopilot disabled," which makes NO sense if the ship can still be "flown by wire," now, does it???) someone has to fly the ship in on its suicide mission.

At that point, wouldn't it have been nice to have the ability to detach the bridge once impact was assured?

THAT is the one real advantage to being able to eject the bridge module - so that you can stay "in-combat" for as long as possible while not having that NECESSARILY mean "suicide."

 

[TIN_MAN]

Yeah, for once it seems like we're all pretty much in agreement that the B/C decks are detachable/replaceable, but don't work that well as a lifeboat. This might be a plausible in-universe explanation for why the Constellation (and presumably some other ships) have a more egg-shaped superstructure rather than the more tear-drop shape of the Enterprise? Incidentally I also like Cary's Idea that the 3 rings on the bottom of the primary hull indicate that the lower decks in this area can be swapped out on a more or less mission specific and/or class by class basis.

 

[jayrath]

Yeah, for once it seems like we're all pretty much in agreement that the B/C decks are detachable/replaceable, but don't work that well as a lifeboat. This might be a plausible in-universe explanation for why the Constellation (and presumably some other ships) have a more egg-shaped superstructure rather than the more tear-drop shape of the Enterprise? Incidentally I also like Cary's Idea that the 3 rings on the bottom of the primary hull indicate that the lower decks in this area can be swapped out on a more or less mission specific and/or class by class basis.

No, we are not all in even the slightest agreement on any of your points. Good Lord, the whole thing has snap-on attachments? Per assignment, even? We're going to run home during a five year mission to have major portions of the hull swapped out?

Look. In TOS, we're out of touch for years. Get it? Years. Yes, TNG ran home every time someone stubbed a toe, but in TOS we were alone. That was the fun of it. In space. Alone.

Otherwise, why a five-year mission in the first place? Why not make it monthly?

 

[throwback]

The NSEA Protector, from Galaxy Quest, was equipped with this feature, and the separation of the two ships was shown when the starship was in orbit of Earth.

(I think that Galaxy Quest was a better film than ST '09.)

 

[TIN_MAN]

Yeah, for once it seems like we're all pretty much in agreement that the B/C decks are detachable/replaceable, but don't work that well as a lifeboat. This might be a plausible in-universe explanation for why the Constellation (and presumably some other ships) have a more egg-shaped superstructure rather than the more tear-drop shape of the Enterprise? Incidentally I also like Cary's Idea that the 3 rings on the bottom of the primary hull indicate that the lower decks in this area can be swapped out on a more or less mission specific and/or class by class basis.

No, we are not all in even the slightest agreement on any of your points. Good Lord, the whole thing has snap-on attachments? Per assignment, even? We're going to run home during a five year mission to have major portions of the hull swapped out?

Look. In TOS, we're out of touch for years. Get it? Years. Yes, TNG ran home every time someone stubbed a toe, but in TOS we were alone. That was the fun of it. In space. Alone.

Otherwise, why a five-year mission in the first place? Why not make it monthly?

What the hell are you talking about? Your ramble has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I wrote!

Besides, what part of “pretty much” do you not understand? I agree with the three people out of the seven that responded to the OP, so that’s a total of four out of eight responses, i.e. half of those that posted are in agreement, so I think that more than justisfies my use of “pretty much”.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Ah, the internet... where "over the top reactions" are the rule of the day.

In case of point, I didn't say anything (in THIS thread) about the lower decks being modular, but in another thread, I did say exactly that.

That said, "modular" is not the same as "LEGO snap-together."

Rather, it means that you can alter the mission profile of the ship without a total frame tear-down, because certain elements are able to be torn out (IN A DOCKYARD) and replaced with upgrades or mission-specific hardware.

So, the overall primary hull construction is pretty much "permanent" but the details, top and bottom, can be altered with (relative) ease.

This can explain several things. Including:

1) Why the 3' model's primary hull underside has such a dramatically different shape? (The 3' model reflects an earlier configuration of the ship, where the "lower decks" were literally different.)

2) All the weapons systems seem to be located on the lowermost "ring?" (If new weapons systems are released, this "ring" is able to be swapped out at dockyard with minimal lost time-in-service.)

And so forth.

It makes every bit as much sense to have the bridge module and the B/C "command deck superstructure" be able to be removed/replaced at dockyard as well.

In fact, I placed my primary hull computer cores in areas where they would be able to be replaced, in their entireity, through just such a process. You'll see the "dockyard separation lines" in the form of double-thick, slanted walls, in this image:


Note - We're not talking "lego snap-together" stuff, we're talking about weeks, minimum, in the dockyard to make this sort of systemic change to the ship. But it does not require ripping into the ship's primary structural members, which is a huge deal.

FYI, as far as I'm concerned, this sort of thing would only be done in the pressurized, zero-g environment found at Starbase 1 (aka "The mushroom") or similar stations, not in open drydock facilities (like seen in TMP). Because you'd be opening up a portion of the ship to the environment... which would be catastrophic in a vacuum.

Yeah, for once it seems like we're all pretty much in agreement that the B/C decks are detachable/replaceable, but don't work that well as a lifeboat. This might be a plausible in-universe explanation for why the Constellation (and presumably some other ships) have a more egg-shaped superstructure rather than the more tear-drop shape of the Enterprise? Incidentally I also like Cary's Idea that the 3 rings on the bottom of the primary hull indicate that the lower decks in this area can be swapped out on a more or less mission specific and/or class by class basis.

No, we are not all in even the slightest agreement on any of your points. Good Lord, the whole thing has snap-on attachments? Per assignment, even? We're going to run home during a five year mission to have major portions of the hull swapped out?

Look. In TOS, we're out of touch for years. Get it? Years. Yes, TNG ran home every time someone stubbed a toe, but in TOS we were alone. That was the fun of it. In space. Alone.

Otherwise, why a five-year mission in the first place? Why not make it monthly?

 

[Timo]

I like the modularity idea a lot - but I'm not sure I like the swappability aspect of it. It might rather be that one has to decide on one's preferred set of modules at the factory, after which there's no going back, no swapping allowed. Not even within weeks; if a module proves a bad choice, it might take half a year, minimum, to adapt the ship for a different module (even if the physical cutting away of the old parts were a quick affair).

We haven't seen direct evidence of swaps, after all. We have seen internal changes to the bridge, ones that are in no way reflected by external changes, and certainly do not require external changes or the total swapping of Decks A through C as an explanation.

Otherwise, why a five-year mission in the first place? Why not make it monthly?

It might be worth the while that there's no five-year mission in canonical Trek. There's only Kirk's after-the-fact declaration that he spent five supposedly consecutive years "out there". The Enterprise, despite the voice-over of the opening credits, did not: she came back, and then went again, and came back again, and went again. Starbase visits were frequent plot occurrences, and may indeed have been far more common than what was actually shown onscreen. Various repairs and modifications were performed inside and outside. And we never learned of any event that would have marked the beginning or end of the ship's five-year mission; all we learned was that Kirk's personal mission to outer space ended in 2270.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Saul]

Maybe bridge ejection is more likely used to replace modules easily. Maybe other parts of the ship could be the same. Slide out apartments.

Or possible emergency ejection for dignitaries or high commanding officers in battle.

 

[jayrath]

It might be worth the while that there's no five-year mission in canonical Trek.ended in 2270.

Timo Saloniemi

Huh? How about Kirk's narration at the opening of every single show? "Its five year mission."

 

[Cary L. Brown]

It might be worth the while that there's no five-year mission in canonical Trek.ended in 2270.

Timo Saloniemi

Huh? How about Kirk's narration at the opening of every single show? "Its five year mission."

You can still hear the ORIGINAL voiceover if you play the "original version" of Where No Man Has Gone Before."

The original version said that the Enterprise was going on a long-range mission beyond the boundaries of known space.

They replaced that with the version we all know, which doesn't really say anything about the nature of the mission except that it's five years long and involves exploring worlds which have not yet been visited.

At no point is it stated, overtly or by inference, that they have to be out of contact with "civilization" during that period, or that they can't get periodic maintenance, or be assigned to other duties from time to time. Just that their "primary mission" is exploring unexplored worlds. Clearly they have secondary missions (warfare, diplomatic courier, delivery of salt tablets, protecting russian grain, etc) which they ALSO have to deal with.