*Spoilers* U.S.S. Franklin Design?

[Gingerbread Demon]

Here's a photo of the USS Enterprise model, from the time of the original pilot episode. Your argument is invalid.

What was that episode of TOS where the Enterprise was shrunk down in size, they actually used a large filming model for the ship, and I remember Kirk looking at the front of the ship as if he could see the crew inside the bridge.

 

[MarsWeeps]

What was that episode of TOS where the Enterprise was shrunk down in size, they actually used a large filming model for the ship, and I remember Kirk looking at the front of the ship as if he could see the crew inside the bridge.

Requiem for Methuselah
Here are some pics from the episode. The last one shows the Enterprise on the table and interestingly enough, there is no "window" on the bridge that can be seen from the outside. Hard to tell because I shrunk the picture but if you check out the original on Trek Core, you'll see there is no window.


Ok, let me see if I can insert a thumbnail of the Enterprise, clicking on it will show a larger picture:

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

Requiem for Methuselah
Here are some pics from the episode. The last one shows the Enterprise on the table and interestingly enough, there is no "window" on the bridge that can be seen from the outside. Hard to tell because I shrunk the picture but if you check out the original on Trek Core, you'll see there is no window.
View attachment 1295

Ok, let me see if I can insert a thumbnail of the Enterprise, clicking on it will show a larger picture:
View attachment 1296

That is the episode but I remember that model being a lot larger unless they changed it in a revamp of effects. I didn't think he'd shrunk it that small.

 

[BillJ]

That is the episode but I remember that model being a lot larger unless they changed it in a revamp of effects. I didn't think he'd shrunk it that small.

That's the size I've always remembered it being.

 

[BillJ]

Here's a photo of the USS Enterprise model, from the time of the original pilot episode. Your argument is invalid.

That Roddenberry guy obviously didn't give two shits about science.

 

[Timo]

"Methuselah" does very little to suggest that Kirk could see from the outside of the ship to the inside, and actually quite a lot to suggest that the view out is wholly synthetic. For one thing, he himself never suggests he'd be capable of this - he's worried about his crew, but not in any sort of contact with them (which is why he is worried!). He doesn't think they are frozen (as the audience sees them), he thinks Flint has killed them all already. Flint has to specifically explain to Kirk that there are tiny immobile figurines inside that scale model.

For another, Kirk is not looking in through any particular window - he's hovering above the ship, looking down on the saucer - yet his face is seen from dead ahead on the viewscreen, evidently because some sort of a camera is staring at him and creating the image on the main viewer.

Whether that thing atop the table is the shrunken Enterprise herself, or just some sort of an image for practical demonstration of Flint's mastery over the vessel, we never find out. But the details of the story make this one an especially useless occasion for finding out whether the Enterprise has bona fide see-through windows anywhere - Kirk sees nothing in there, and nobody inside is in a position to see anything out there.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[mos6507]

We want to know why Starfleet does things this way instead. Say, why do they put engine nacelles on their ships?

The difference is that Gene has stated on the record why the design of starships look the way they do, even going so far as to try to prevent odd-numbered nacelles. Did he explain every single detail of the production design? No. But it's not entirely up to fan speculation either.

Has there ever been any official statement or documentation out of the nuTrek world other than maybe JJ saying "Yeah, well, we thought it would be cool" on the literal bridge window?

 

[Nerys Myk]

The difference is that Gene has stated on the record why the design of starships look the way they do, even going so far as to try to prevent odd-numbered nacelles. Did he explain every single detail of the production design? No. But it's not entirely up to fan speculation either.

Has there ever been any official statement or documentation out of the nuTrek world other than maybe JJ saying "Yeah, well, we thought it would be cool" on the literal bridge window?

When? In 1964 or much later? What were Matt Jefferies' thoughts since, IIRC, he did the actual work?

 

[M'Sharak]

When? In 1964 or much later?

Much later - during the preparation for production of TNG. And dictated at least as much by Andy Probert as by Roddenberry.

Q31
Tyler: Do you know the origin of what have become known as "Roddenberry's Rules of Starship Design" -- the idea that warp nacelles have to be in pairs, and things of that sort. I understand that there were a set of guidelines. Do you recall the origin of those?
Probert: Gene specified to me, in fact, that starship warp engines operate in pairs... only in pairs because they're codependent. If you had one warp engine, you'd probably go in a circle, I don't know... (laughs) So in the same breath he negated the three-engined dreadnoughts along with the single-engined destroyers, on the edict simply that, to achieve warp drive, you had to have codependent warp engine pairs. As far as the line-of-sight requirement, that was my edict, that, in order to be codependent, the warp engines had to "see" each other, totally. I'm taking about the power combs, not necessarily the Bussard collectors but the bulk of those combs have an energy path between them. And then for other starships, just like in World War II, where all the nations had fighter aircraft that all looked different -- you know, a cultural distinction between, say, a German aircraft and an American aircraft or a Japanese aircraft -- they all operated in the same way having the same basic components of wings, body, and engine, so I applied that thinking to the alien ships I designed as well, so the Ferengi ships, and Romulan Warbirds, have twin warp engines that have to see each other in order to operate. Even my shuttlecraft having a very shallow clearance, still see each other. That's why designs like the Romulan scout ship, where the engines cannot see each other, aren't consistent. There are also some cool Starfleet designs like the Nebula Class ships, but their warp engines cannot see each other. Even those runabouts ignore that ruling which messes up the continuity. Science fiction in particular NEEDS to be consistent. If you negate that,...it all falls apart.
Tyler: I recall another rule about the nacelles being visible from the front...
Probert: That's probably something that I came up with, simply to allow for clearer access to free hydrogen that those collectors have to... collect.

Also: said "rules" were never consistently applied.

See also: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/design.htm

 

[137th Gebirg]

IIRC, Roddenberry created those "rules" to retcon Franz Joseph's designs out of the canon. All those rules had something in them to kill the Joseph designs, really. This article perfectly delineates all of them.

 

[Timo]

So basically the "evidence" we have is worse than the nothing we usually get: it's in contradiction with what we actually see. I'd much rather take the 2000s movies as presented than try and sort out the silly "thinking" that went into ST:TMP but never saw any real applications there.

In any case, "scientific thinking" has happened in Trek on occasion, but generally well after a feature has been introduced purely for its coolness value. That's how you build fictional universes: by taking the cool bits and choosing to repeat them, to expand on them, and to invent fancy rationalizations for them ("subspace signals decay to lightspeed after X ly"; "sensors see X but not Y"; "heroes don't do Z because it's a health hazard"). The less cool bits get justly forgotten.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[F. King Daniel]

The difference is that Gene has stated on the record why the design of starships look the way they do, even going so far as to try to prevent odd-numbered nacelles. Did he explain every single detail of the production design? No. But it's not entirely up to fan speculation either.

Has there ever been any official statement or documentation out of the nuTrek world other than maybe JJ saying "Yeah, well, we thought it would be cool" on the literal bridge window?

...it was based on the odd fact that, although the bridge didn't usually have a window, it was nonetheless situated, much like a naval ship, at a high look out vantage point (which, by the way, seems unnecessarily vulnerable to attack). Rather than move the bridge, we added a window to justify its location."
http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/22/orc...-fan-qa/?_ga=1.250885326.931737089.1454923862

 

[Mr. Nova]

Just throwing this out there, FWIW. In ENT episode "Twilight" Archer says to T'Pol, "There's a reason I chose these quarters. You can see a lot from this window". So apparently the NX-01 had SOME windows.

And I think all their monitors were running "Windows 47".

 

[starburst]

Just throwing this out there, FWIW. In ENT episode "Twilight" Archer says to T'Pol, "There's a reason I chose these quarters. You can see a lot from this window". So apparently the NX-01 had SOME windows.

And I think all their monitors were running "Windows 47".

Crew quarters and the ships mess which were round the saucer edge had windows as did Archers Ready Room, not many other rooms did though.

 

[Timo]

One wonders what happened between ENT and TOS to make Starfleet remove most portholes from the saucer rim. There were still plenty elsewhere on the ship (especially if we believe in seamless shutters), but many of the sets could have supported an against-the-rim location (especially the Briefing Room/Mess Hall one, but also the quarters) yet went without portholes.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[137th Gebirg]

Portholes and windows are weak points on the hull, tactically speaking. If I were to guess, what happened between ENT and TOS was the Romulan War, where inter-ship nukes were used (IIRC). During the time of NX-01, all they had was "polarized hull plating", as opposed to 23rd century deflector shields. It's conceivable that a near-proximity nuke detonation could blow out any windows facing the blast, causing all kinds of on-board havoc. This likely not only led to a lower number of exposed windows on the hull, but also improvements in force-field-based shielding technology later on down the line.

 

[Timo]

Windows need not be weak points - in many a real spacecraft, they are the structurally strongest parts of the vehicle, the only ones capable of resisting puncturing impact (although the designers would love to do away with that feature and introduce something more lightweight).

Whether the transition from opaque hull to transparent hull presents a weak spot depends on construction methods. It might be that the whole hull is actually transparent, and parts of it are simply painted over to reduce the amount of radiation coming in (as in Larry Niven's universe). Or it might be that parts of the material are turned transparent through the sort of chemical trickery that does not weaken the material.

Today's science of course says that the beneficial qualities of metals, such as tensile strength, are the fundamental opposite of transparency. But would starships be built of metal? Making them of glass might be a smarter move, even if this was done over a metal skeleton.

As for porthole numbers taking a dip after the introduction of interstellar enemies but before the invention of forcefield defenses, ENT lamentably seems to make that time window very narrow if not nonexistent...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Jedi_Master]

I wonder how many gazelles Archer could see through his window?

 

[EyalM]

Transparency is a problematic term. Glass is transparent for some wavelengths, but opaque in IR and UV, so it might actually give a pretty good protection in space (with no atmosphere to filter the light). Other materials which we consider opaque can still flood the ship with radiation of other wavelengths. And space is full of radiation of many types.
In reality, in deep space the Enterprise crew will probably see nothing since the inside of the ship is brightly lit, so every window will act more as a mirror. With the notable exception being when they are in orbit.

 

[137th Gebirg]

I wonder how many gazelles Archer could see through his window?