TMP / TOS Skin Detail

[CuttingEdge100]

You know, I'm honestly starting to think that maybe TOS got it right with the ships having very little surface and skin detail.

A lot of highly advanced designs (look at the F-22 for example) are advanced, but often have a very clean cut quality about them.


On the other hand though, of course, the TMP Enterprise was one of the most beautiful designs because of it's perlescent skin...

I'm wondering could the "panels" be some kind of ablative system with a smooth coat like the TOS Enterprise and all these overlapping ablative panels to take some extra abuse the regular skin couldn't take or something like that?


CuttingEdge100

 

[GodThingFormerly]

I'm wondering could the "panels" be some kind of ablative system with a smooth coat like the TOS Enterprise and all these overlapping ablative panels to take some extra abuse the regular skin couldn't take or something like that?

Aside from looking très cool, I imagine that the discrete hull plating on the NCC-1701 Refit is intended to stop mechanical fractures from propagating beyond the impacted segment as well as simplifying hull repair procedures.

TGT (aka Sisyphus)

 

[Timo]

Barring exotic manufacturing methods, it would seem that something the size of a starship skin would have to be constructed in pieces, even if there never was any intention of removing or moving those pieces again. OTOH, assuming such exotic methods, one might expect the pattern of discrete elements not to consist of straight angles like that if the intent is to stop cracks.

Just musing. But it would seem rather reasonable for all the hulls to consist of piece-by-piece plating, which is then covered by a paintlike protective finish that varies in composition and perhaps purpose from era to era. The TMP ship with its stunning shiny looks might have been "factory fresh", launched before the final application of a protective paint layer. By TWoK, she might have received that layer, and then several more, eventually resulting in a rather weary-looking ship.

And perhaps the TOS ship, after decades of service, was the recipient of dozens upon dozens of paint layers that eventually hid all the seams and turned the ship a dirty shade of grey..?

(Personally, I rather like to believe that the properties of hull paint at that time called for a thicker layer than before or after.)

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Patrickivan]

I don't quite buy into the prominant display of the hull plating. If you look at any relative sized contemporary naval vessel (military/ tanker) from a distance where you can comfortably take in the entire vessel in your field of vision, you can see that the hulls look fairly smooth. Especially with a new paint job. You can see some plating in some cases, though it's faint, and you don't really get the detail of the plating until you get really close.

I don't think the paint would be liquid in the 23rd century. Hell, something along the lines of a powder coating/ electroplating of some sort, would be more plausible. Or even that the plating materials would already be replicated with the colours infused or applied to the materials in question.

I think those kind of details should be left to close up views. The ship looks cleaner- more realistic (as compared to what I said about about ships). As far as cool factor goes, when did clutter ever become the definition for detail as opposed to simplicity? More of 'something' does not equate to detail in some cases.

Now I'm just rambling. It's slow at work today. We need more pictures!

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Timo,

Barring exotic manufacturing methods, it would seem that something the size of a starship skin would have to be constructed in pieces, even if there never was any intention of removing or moving those pieces again. OTOH, assuming such exotic methods, one might expect the pattern of discrete elements not to consist of straight angles like that if the intent is to stop cracks.

Well it would be highly unlikely that the ship would be constructed out of one piece of metal, or whatever you'd make it out of (composites, ceramics, metals, nano-fibers, some kind of combination of all of the above). However the size of the panels probably would be quite large.

If you look at an early 747 for example fresh out of the factory you'll notice that the amount of panelling is much more extreme than on the later models. Also, look at the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner -- it's made out of a remarkably small number of parts compared to previous commercial jets.

Keep in mind that the ideology of the Enterprise's design was that very little important things were kept externally as well, so the number of access panels would be kept down as well.

However, I'm wondering if having layers and layers of various types of ablative hull coatings could produce such a panelling effect...


Patrickivan,

I don't quite buy into the prominant display of the hull plating. If you look at any relative sized contemporary naval vessel (military/ tanker) from a distance where you can comfortably take in the entire vessel in your field of vision, you can see that the hulls look fairly smooth. Especially with a new paint job. You can see some plating in some cases, though it's faint, and you don't really get the detail of the plating until you get really close.

And that's a modern day vessel...

As far as cool factor goes, when did clutter ever become the definition for detail as opposed to simplicity? More of 'something' does not equate to detail in some cases.

Agreed!


CuttingEdge100

 

[Robert Simmons]

Personally I prefer the TOS 1701 better. Smoother is prettier and less cluttered. I think the Production version of the 11 foot model is more attractive and pleasing and easier on the eyes.

I'm firmly of the belief that the faint grid on the origional 11 foot model was to hide / camoflage in plain view the alignment marks to the centerline on the model and to align it to the outside outline base of the bridge dome marked off on the stage floor, so as to facilitate ease to composite the "push in" shot for "The Cage". Although Stage 9 was used to shoot the series after they moved, I'm confident the floor markation around the bridge seen in the stage 9 diagram would have been faithfully replcated from the previous markation around the bridge from the stage where they shot the "push in" live action element for "The Cage". Datin in his interview mentions that the 11 foot model did not have the grid when initially delivered in 1964. In the test shots of the bridge dome after delivery show no grid at that point in time. But the grid was visible on the "push in" shot in "The Cage". Which means it was added immediately after the bridge dome test shots and before the 11 foot model was returned to Datin for conversion to the "Production" TV series version modifications. My guess the grid was approved by Roddenbury when I suspect Anderson wanted some form of visual reference mark on the saucer to help in aligning the miniature plate to the live action plate in the compositing process and the grid was then added by the effects team for that purpose to make their job easier. The faint grid would have been just dark enough to give visual reference to the optical printer team, but still be light enough to be hardly seen by the viewer after the entire shot was comped. I suspect they potentailly hoped that the grid would be light enough to bleed out in the final composites. It didn't and is visible if you look hard enough. Too bad they couldn't get high enough or further toward the front of the bridge to get a better alignment of the live action to match the model master for comping. So much effort in pre-planning for the shot to not line up.

Just my suspicions guys. But the floor markation on the stage 9 plan around the bridge with the centerline and the foot of the bridge outline around the brige would be the essential "minimal" visual reference to line up and match the corresponding frames for the shot in the optical printer.

Beyond that...the grid I believe serves no other purpose.

 

[Patrickivan]

Personally I prefer the TOS 1701 better. Smoother is prettier and less cluttered. I think the Production version of the 11 foot model is more attractive and pleasing and easier on the eyes.

I'm firmly of the belief that the faint grid on the origional 11 foot model was to hide / camoflage in plain view the alignment marks to the centerline on the model and to align it to the outside outline base of the bridge dome marked off on the stage floor, so as to facilitate ease to composite the "push in" shot for "The Cage". Although Stage 9 was used to shoot the series after they moved, I'm confident the floor markation around the bridge seen in the stage 9 diagram would have been faithfully replcated from the previous markation around the bridge from the stage where they shot the "push in" live action element for "The Cage". Datin in his interview mentions that the 11 foot model did not have the grid when initially delivered in 1964. In the test shots of the bridge dome after delivery show no grid at that point in time. But the grid was visible on the "push in" shot in "The Cage". Which means it was added immediately after the bridge dome test shots and before the 11 foot model was returned to Datin for conversion to the "Production" TV series version modifications. My guess the grid was approved by Roddenbury when I suspect Anderson wanted some form of visual reference mark on the saucer to help in aligning the miniature plate to the live action plate in the compositing process and the grid was then added by the effects team for that purpose to make their job easier. The faint grid would have been just dark enough to give visual reference to the optical printer team, but still be light enough to be hardly seen by the viewer after the entire shot was comped. I suspect they potentailly hoped that the grid would be light enough to bleed out in the final composites. It didn't and is visible if you look hard enough. Too bad they couldn't get high enough or further toward the front of the bridge to get a better alignment of the live action to match the model master for comping. So much effort in pre-planning for the shot to not line up.

Just my suspicions guys. But the floor markation on the stage 9 plan around the bridge with the centerline and the foot of the bridge outline around the brige would be the essential "minimal" visual reference to line up and match the corresponding frames for the shot in the optical printer.

Beyond that...the grid I believe serves no other purpose.

Fair enough (and some really neat information!)- but in the realm of the Trek universe, the grid is evident, and therefore we should have an explanation for its purpose.

That being said, I'm in the minority were i am pleased that we have to look really hard to see that detail.

 

[Forbin]

The F-22 is a bad example to represent an unblemished finish - its RAM paint job has so many varied finishes and interruptions for specialized panels, it almost resembles an aztecking job. Check out a top view from the AF gallery:
http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/050812-F-2295B-947.jpg

And, not for nothin', but I'd pay real money if no one ever used the word "ablative" again.
I'm just sayin'

Anyhoo, yes, I agree that the original ship with its nice even gray paint job looks more believable to me than the piles of oddly-shaped paneling that's been typical since TMP. It never made sense to me that they'd either not paint the ship (if that's what they were gojng for) or paint it odd patterns of odd colors (if that'e what it's meant to be).

Look at a naval vessel today, and though you may see skin paneling, it's at least all painted one color gray!

 

[Patrickivan]

The F-22 is a bad example to represent an unblemished finish - its RAM paint job has so many varied finishes and interruptions for specialized panels, it almost resembles an aztecking job. Check out a top view from the AF gallery:
http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/050812-F-2295B-947.jpg

And, not for nothin', but I'd pay real money if no one ever used the word "ablative" again.
I'm just sayin'

Anyhoo, yes, I agree that the original ship with its nice even gray paint job looks more believable to me than the piles of oddly-shaped paneling that's been typical since TMP. It never made sense to me that they'd either not paint the ship (if that's what they were gojng for) or paint it odd patterns of odd colors (if that'e what it's meant to be).

Look at a naval vessel today, and though you may see skin paneling, it's at least all painted one color gray!

Oh man- I am so with you on that ablative armour BS... I wouldn't pay anyone, but I cringe when I hear it...

You're point is made about the F22- and it also confirms that the detail is in the close-ups too...

 

[Robert Simmons]

Fair enough (and some really neat information!)- but in the realm of the Trek universe, the grid is evident, and therefore we should have an explanation for its purpose.

That being said, I'm in the minority were i am pleased that we have to look really hard to see that detail.

Thanks,
I am sure Roddenbury or anyone can make up some form of techno babble purpose for the grid. I'm fairly convinced that the idea was to hide the centerline reference marks for the optical crew by making it part of the surface detail so it wouldn't be so obvious. The way I look at it was that it wasn't part of the model when delivered, so it was really not important except to the optical printing team. But if it did become visible in the final prints, then the centerline reference hid in the grid would look like a natural part of the ship and not stand out like a sore thmb as one big line or mark drawn straight down the moddle of the sauce.

And I agree with you in that I am also glad that it is barely visible. I'm really not keen on the grid and view it as unnecessary surface clutter and in lots of art and models I've seen, the grid often is an ugly eyesore that detracts and hurts the appeal of the image. Whenever I got the old AMT 18 inch kit I sanded off. I used the old book "Spaceships - Fact and Fantasy" as a guide to fix this. They give details as to how to make the kit in either Production version or Pilot version. I still have my copy of it. But it's seen some wear and thecover is falling off.

 

[Patrickivan]

Fair enough (and some really neat information!)- but in the realm of the Trek universe, the grid is evident, and therefore we should have an explanation for its purpose.

That being said, I'm in the minority were i am pleased that we have to look really hard to see that detail.

Thanks,
I am sure Roddenbury or anyone can make up some form of techno babble purpose for the grid. I'm fairly convinced that the idea was to hide the centerline reference marks for the optical crew by making it part of the surface detail so it wouldn't be so obvious. The way I look at it was that it wasn't part of the model when delivered, so it was really not important except to the optical printing team. But if it did become visible in the final prints, then the centerline reference hid in the grid would look like a natural part of the ship and not stand out like a sore thmb as one big line or mark drawn straight down the moddle of the sauce.

And I agree with you in that I am also glad that it is barely visible. I'm really not keen on the grid and view it as unnecessary surface clutter and in lots of art and models I've seen, the grid often is an ugly eyesore that detracts and hurts the appeal of the image. Whenever I got the old AMT 18 inch kit I sanded off. I used the old book "Spaceships - Fact and Fantasy" as a guide to fix this. They give details as to how to make the kit in either Production version or Pilot version. I still have my copy of it. But it's seen some wear and thecover is falling off.

Yeah- I'd sand off the grid lines too. I've got an old kit that I'm working on, and I'm pencilling the detail (and not with that blurry weathering that seems to be popular on the TOS grid lines now), with a translucent light grey over coat. More (very close up) detail on top of that too.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

The explanation for the grid in TOS and TMP was that it was part of the deflector system

 

[USS Mariner]

I've always looked at the hull pattern as more of a component to the deflector shields, with the specific pattern reflecting how the shield wraps about each part of the hull.

As for the argument about the grid specifically being an invention of the effects team, why in hell did they use a 28-section pattern?

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Here's another confusing detail as well...

In Star Trek TMP... Decker talked about taking a defensive posture "shields and screens". When V'ger was powering up to take a shot at the Enterprise, Chekov shouted out "Forcefields and deflectors coming up".

Okay what's the difference between a forcefield and a deflector?


I'm guessing a forcefield is basically you're typical "energy wall" designed to abruptly stop and distribute energy from phaser blasts and photon-torpedo hits and stuff. Think kevlar bulletproof-vest

The Navigational Deflector is transmitted ahead of the ship, and apparently at FTL speeds and is a relatively long range and powerful in terms of overall energy output, but a low energy density... think a thick atmosphere or a thin liquid, or water

I'm guessing the Deflector Grid acts like something in between the Nav-Deflector and the Forcefield... higher energy density than the nav-deflector, lower energy density than the forcefield, and less diffuse than the navigational deflector. Think a foam mattress.

Okay, now we imagine a bullet, first it travels through the nav-deflector which is slowed down gradually over the large diffuse navigational deflector field as if it was travelling through air or water... then it hits the deflector-grid's field which slows it down much more abruptly as if the bullet now hit a foam-mattress which slows it down even more. Then it finally hits the forcefield which simply stops the bullet which has been slowed down a great deal already cold.

That make sense?


CuttingEdge100

 

[JuanBolio]

Mr. Scott's Guide mentions that the reason they left the smooth, gray paint job off the refit Enterprise is that it saved thousands of tons of mass, and the designers liked the way it looked without it just fine.

Makes enough sense, I suppose.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Mr. Scott's Guide mentions that the reason they left the smooth, gray paint job off the refit Enterprise is that it saved thousands of tons of mass, and the designers liked the way it looked without it just fine.

Makes enough sense, I suppose.

But that's basically saying the original engineers were dumb enough to add all that unnecessary mass in the first place, isn't it? Sure makes the original designers sound like idiots!

 

[GodThingFormerly]

But that's basically saying the original engineers were dumb enough to add all that unnecessary mass in the first place, isn't it? Sure makes the original designers sound like idiots!

Seriously. I prefer to think that 23rd century solid-state physics and materials science continued to evolve (like presumably every other scientific and engineering discipline) during the decades between the NCC-1701's original fabrication and her refitting. UESPA/Starfleet simply ordered the strongest and lightest hull plating materials that were available at the moment the respective contracts were signed.

TGT

 

[JuanBolio]

Mr. Scott's Guide mentions that the reason they left the smooth, gray paint job off the refit Enterprise is that it saved thousands of tons of mass, and the designers liked the way it looked without it just fine.

Makes enough sense, I suppose.

But that's basically saying the original engineers were dumb enough to add all that unnecessary mass in the first place, isn't it? Sure makes the original designers sound like idiots!

Not necessarily. It might've made only a minor difference in terms of performance or cost. Besides, Starfleet is probably much like the Navy in terms of tradition - how much weight could be saved if the Navy didn't add coat after coat of "battleship gray" to all its vessels?

 

[Timo]

Also, the thick coat of paint (SJ calls it a "thermocoat") might originally have been a stealth measure, perhaps primarily intended to reduce the reflectivity of the hull at infrared frequencies, perhaps intended to trap any escaping heat and then work some anti-thermodynamic wonders on it.

In that way, it would be quite analogous to the way paint is used in many military applications. The degree of stealth it would offer would depend on what sort of sensors or tactics the enemy had. Once that changed, the old "camo paint" would become unnecessary or even counterproductive.

Naval vessels of course primarily use paint to slow down rusting. In space, there's seldom any rusting (although low orbits might expose starships to high-atmosphere atomic oxygen which could cause very intense rusting and other degradation in a short period of time), but one could always argue that the paint indeed is an ablative armor against the nanometeoroids that get through deflectors.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[GodThingFormerly]

Also, the thick coat of paint (SJ calls it a "thermocoat") might originally have been a stealth measure, perhaps primarily intended to reduce the reflectivity of the hull at infrared frequencies, perhaps intended to trap any escaping heat and then work some anti-thermodynamic wonders on it.

I naturally disagree. I think it is quite clear that Matt Jefferies intended those tubes on the original NCC-1701's warp nacelles to function as the condensers of a heat pipe radiator system. After all, why else would they have grooves but to maximize surface area? If such is the case then what would be the point of playing around with hull (which would already be insulated to hell) coatings to reduce the ship's IR signature when these things would be blinding in that part of the EM spectrum.

In that way, it would be quite analogous to the way paint is used in many military applications. The degree of stealth it would offer would depend on what sort of sensors or tactics the enemy had. Once that changed, the old "camo paint" would become unnecessary or even counterproductive.

Impulse exhaust - which your accursed ST:VI stated was ionized gas - would also render any such "stealth" measures relatively ineffective.

Naval vessels of course primarily use paint to slow down rusting. In space, there's seldom any rusting (although low orbits might expose starships to high-atmosphere atomic oxygen which could cause very intense rusting and other degradation in a short period of time)...

Not just starships, but I am willing to accept that TOS-era spacecraft required the application of gunk on the hull to protect it from degradation by atomic oxygen, "ion storm" coronal mass ejecta and other particulate events...

...but one could always argue that the paint indeed is an ablative armor against the nanometeoroids that get through deflectors.

...until advances in materials engineering rendered it moot for the TMP-era.

TGT