Spinner on front of TOS nacelle

[urbandefault]

Even as a kid, I noticed the rear nacelle differences especially; I can recall understanding that it was a change in the filming miniature, but rationalizing the different appearance in some shots as a "configurational" change that depended on the operational status of the ship..

As a kid in the early 70s, I noticed the difference. But being a big picture guy even then, it didn't matter. I was in for the whole experience.

 

[Mytran]

When I first noticed the difference (and new to Trek), I wondered if the lit globs were meant to represent some sort of high energy thrust coming out of the grills we saw in other shots.

A fellow Trekkie then explained to me that "warp engines don't work that way!"

 

[Gary Mitchell]

I never noticed that the globes were lit.

 

[scotpens]

I never noticed that the globes were lit.

That's because they weren't. They were solid wood and not illuminated. However, a memo from Gene Roddenberry dated April 1966 indicates he originally wanted the globes to have a lighting effect.

Link to source: When and Why Did the Enterprise Get Balls?

To: Robert H. Justman cc: H. Solow, M. Jefferies, B. Heath, Anderson Co. Date: April 7, 1966 Subject: SPACESHIP MODEL

Bob, here is a resume of our discussion of changes in the large model as per the Anderson Company drawing and cost list:

BALL POWER NODULES ON FRONT OF THE TWIN NACELLES. (....)

TIME AND PRODUCTION SCHEDULE. (....)

FILLIGREED PANELS ON TWIN POD STRUTS. We see this marked as "painted". We were of the impression we were going to use some applique which gave the illusion of something like solar cells. We're willing to go any intelligent way here, but wonder if this is an error.

ROUNDED DOMES ON REAR OF TWIN NACELLE PODS. We see no estimate for eliminating them. What is the minimal cost of putting a steady light source illumination in them? Incidentally, we do feel they should be somewhat the same color as the front pods, carrying out a feeling of the same power engines running through the whole pod.

HANDLES ON TWIN NACELLE PODS. We wanted these handles improved to look less like "handles", but wonder if it cannot be accomplished in some way at less cost than $180.00. Or, understanding that this is an estimate, could we review the cost of this shortening? At any rate, let's assume this is one of the last things we'll do, something which could be cut if our cost gets too high.

BRIDGE DOME. (....)

ADDITIONAL LIGHTED WINDOWS ON SHIP. (....)

MISCELLANEOUS DETAILING. (....)

LIGHT SOURCE ON INSIDE AREA OF BOTH PODS. We'll omit this item and cost of $300.00, discuss with Matt Jefferies an applique metal grid overpaint or something else which will require no structural change. And we'd like to have some sort of estimate on this or whether it can be included in the overall detailing figures. Incidentally, this eliminates Anderson's next quote about possible rebuilding of pod, an item for which he was going to give us a price later if it becomes necessary.

SMALLER QUARTER SIZE MODEL. Does the price of revamping this smaller model include some lights in the pods? it seems to us this is one change, since it involves elimination, that would affect any shooting of the smaller model, even if it's flashing by. Would like Anderson to tell us if, perhaps, we could do away with the fluctuating aspect of the lights here since it most often will flash past us very fast. Or, if we do need the fluctuation here, possibly we can do with a standard fluctuation and do without any change of intensity.

LETTERING AND ARTWORK. (....)

GENERAL "AGING" OF VESSEL. (....)

STEP BY STEP REVIEW AND APPROVALS. This U.S.S. Enterprise is terribly important to us -- if the audience does not believe it, they are not going to beleive a multimillion dollar series investment. Therefore I want to suggest and emphasize that I am making myself available to come by and review, discuss, and approve all these changes as they are going on. (....)

GENE RODDENBERRY

 

[alensatemybuick1]

I don't think the rear balls added after the second pilot were solid wood, rather a plastic partial dome.

Here's the April 1966 Roddenberry memo reproduced in its entirety, along with the Anderson Co. price list mentioned within:

 

[Kor]

That's an interesting concept... glowing, swirling red at both ends of the nacelles.

Kor

 

[scotpens]

I don't think as the rear balls added after the second pilot were solid wood, rather a plastic partial dome.

Well, whatever. Maybe I was getting the "balls" confused with the original hemispheres on the nacelle fronts (before the spinner lighting effects were added), which IIRC were solid wood painted red.

 

[publiusr]

I might split the difference. Production nacelle domes up front but keep the vents from the second pilots behind

 

[Spot261]

So. . . not to calm fidgeting?

Oh you beat me to it....

 

[TIN_MAN]

The way I currently understand it (in universe) is that the visible portion of the Bussard ram scoops are the vents or louvers behind the front domes. Here, interstellar/interplanetary atomic hydrogen is funneled inside the nacelles via magnetic fields. Then it is accumulated in the front dome/pods where it exists initially in a hot plasma state while it is slowly cooled and condensed (with the help of “spinners”) for delivery to the “atomic matter piles” before being converted to deuterium for fuel use.

 

[johnar]

Sorry for being silly.
I had to do a double take of the OP Title I thought it read: Spiner on Front of TOS Nacelle. LOL
Maybe a commentary by the legendary actor?
Perhaps an EV shot of Data on the ramscoop?
Smile.

 

[johnar]

I always thought the warp core belonged in the guts of the nacelles (lengthwise).
TOS canon did touch lightly on discarding nacelles and breaking away with the main section...
Not to derail the thread.

Was Finney jettisoned in a pod or a portion of the nacelle?

 

[scotpens]

Sorry for being silly.
I had to do a double take of the OP Title I thought it read: Spiner on Front of TOS Nacelle. LOL

Brent Spiner collecting buzzards?

I always thought the warp core belonged in the guts of the nacelles (lengthwise).
TOS canon did touch lightly on discarding nacelles and breaking away with the main section...
Not to derail the thread.

Was Finney jettisoned in a pod or a portion of the nacelle?

The term "warp core" was never used in Trek TOS.

In "Court Martial," the location of the "ion pod" was never specified. The TOS-R digital effects show it on the starboard side of the engineering hull just below the shuttlebay, with a "hole" and apparent scorch marks where the pod was jettisoned (presumably using explosive charges).

However, according to the fan-produced U.S.S. Enterprise Officer's Manual, the ion pod is the "nipple" in the middle of the lower sensor dome on the saucer.

 

[johnnybear]

Brent Spinner?
JB

 

[Mytran]

Was Finney jettisoned in a pod or a portion of the nacelle?

Brent Spiner collecting buzzards?
In "Court Martial," the location of the "ion pod" was never specified. The TOS-R digital effects show it on the starboard side of the engineering hull just below the shuttlebay, with a "hole" and apparent scorch marks where the pod was jettisoned (presumably using explosive charges).

However, according to the fan-produced U.S.S. Enterprise Officer's Manual, the ion pod is the "nipple" in the middle of the lower sensor dome on the saucer.

In the episode itself, dialogue is suggestive (to my mind) of the ion pod being at the leading edge of the ship, so as best to collect the essential ion readings (whatever they are). Therefore, my money is being on the pod being one of those 3 round lights at the front edge of the saucer.