What's this...? TOS.5.2

[deg3D]

I'd like to think of the entire hull to be self-illuminating. Not much, but enough to be seen in the stark blackness of deep space.

As for who sees it, well... first of all, most windows offer at least a little piece of the hull in the view. Psychologically, I would say it would keep the shipboard crew grounded, even when not in a star system; to remind them that they're a part of a bigger whole. Then there's the whole idea about Starfleet not sneaking around; they are soaring proudly in the depths of space. At the least, the visual scanners of other ships (even possible enemies) should be able to get a decent picture instead of merely a heat-related visual.

EXACTLY!, and I might add, even "in-universe" I feel peeps would still add aestethics-based design touches to ships for the sole purpose of aestethics-based design. There is a technical aspect and/or reasoning and/or design behind applied psychology as well. The parts effected just can't be held in one's hands. Nevertheless, they are just as real. You can't hold a thought in your hand, and yet: Does that render it not-real, and thus beyond consideration?

Do stripes and/or paint-schemes on aircraft serve any other purpose beyond the psychological? No. And yet, there they are.

deg

 

[Santaman]

Do stripes and/or paint-schemes on aircraft serve any other purpose beyond the psychological? No. And yet, there they are.

deg

Well some paint schemes are called "camouflage" and as such they are not just there to impress someone.

 

[deg3D]

Do stripes and/or paint-schemes on aircraft serve any other purpose beyond the psychological? No. And yet, there they are.

deg

Well some paint schemes are called "camouflage" and as such they are not just there to impress someone.

Knew this would come up, so to be clear, not what I'm talkin' about. Those serve a specific purpose as to the (military) aircraft's effectual purpose.

Take commercial airliners or freight aircraft (UPS, FedEx, etc.), or even say the Thunderbirds or the Blue Angels. Cruiseships, exploratory vessels, etc. Heck, even NASA puts mission art and logos on their craft/rockets.

And there are often spots positioned to specifically light up such graphics.

deg

 

[Albertese]

Interesting you mention aircraft. Commercial jetliners are marked to establish brand. So you like to fly Alaskan? It's reassuring that the plane has a giant eskimo painted on the tail. At night, there are spotlights to keep those markings visible while the plane is at the airport, but once it's in flight and no one can see it from the outside, the lights are turned off. I expect the spotlights on a Starfleet ship are the same, just meant to light the ship up while in orbit or in dock. Not exactly to establish brand (though there is no doubt some of that) but rather to establish identity. But once the ship is cruising in deep space, normally they would probably be shut off. Though, for reasons of cinema, they generally are left on for the benefit of the audience.

--Alex

 

[Santaman]

(Is an answer to Deg) Agreed. even the navy used to paint ships in non purpose colours for a while.

 

[deg3D]

Interesting you mention aircraft. Commercial jetliners are marked to establish brand. So you like to fly Alaskan? It's reassuring that the plane has a giant eskimo painted on the tail. At night, there are spotlights to keep those markings visible while the plane is at the airport, but once it's in flight and no one can see it from the outside, the lights are turned off. I expect the spotlights on a Starfleet ship are the same, just meant to light the ship up while in orbit or in dock. Not exactly to establish brand (though there is no doubt some of that) but rather to establish identity. But once the ship is cruising in deep space, normally they would probably be shut off. Though, for reasons of cinema, they generally are left on for the benefit of the audience.

--Alex

I did not know that about commercial airliners turning off their identity floods when in flight, Alex. If I may, how do you know this?

Either way, as you say, in cinema, the audience is always there, so it's rendered a moot point.

deg

 

[deg3D]

(Is an answer to Deg) Agreed. even the navy used to paint ships in non purpose colours for a while.

Tactically, non purpose perhaps.

You get down to the nitty-gritty of it all, everything in existence has a "purpose" behind it. Otherwise, it would not exist. It's just whether or not one can discern that purpose, and/or a relation of value in regard to one's self.

Assigning any or no subjective value to anything has ultimately no meaning whatsoever passed anyone other than the person doing it.

deg

 

[deg3D]

(Is an answer to Deg) Agreed. even the navy used to paint ships in non purpose colours for a while.

And to take it one step further (or back perhaps) take a look at say, a Spanish Galleon. My God! the lengths they would go with artistically craving and painting the wood-work on those vessels!

They were veritable floating works of art, as well as very formidable military vessels no less.

deg

 

[Professor Moriarty]

M'Kay, there's entirely too much yakking and not enough pictures in this thread. Spill the goodies, deg!

(btw, if someone hasn't already suggested it, how about saying that the nacelle registry light source is a spotlight on the trailing edge of the saucer that points backwards and is trained just so on the appropriate spot? )

 

[deg3D]

M'Kay, there's entirely too much yakking and not enough pictures in this thread. Spill the goodies, deg!

(btw, if someone hasn't already suggested it, how about saying that the nacelle registry light source is a spotlight on the trailing edge of the saucer that points backwards and is trained just so on the appropriate spot?

Not sure that would work, Scott. I'd have to try it first, but my guess, the spot would get distorted. However, it would be in a direction going aft as far as fall-off. And that's a plus right there, as when I tried it off the exterior intercoolers it fell off going toward the bow and that killed the overall flow of her, IMO.

I will check it out though.

Here's one for you, Prof. I believe I toned the copper glow down a touch though since this render, so this is not the final look. Close, but not final, eh. Still working on the bussard(s) animation effect too, so it may change a touch given the addition of interior pulsating lights. Still, I like this overall effect and want to stick as close to it as I can to it come animating.



Enjoy!

deg

PS. Dig your new avie. Gotta love a 3/4 aft E, eh.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I did not know that about commercial airliners turning off their identity floods when in flight, Alex. If I may, how do you know this?

He's absolutely correct. When in flight, they'll have "running lights" on (long-distance locating flashers, basically), but nothing else.

There are two reasons for this. The main, and biggest, issue is simply one of efficiency. The power available on an airliner is limited. You have so much fuel. That fuel is burnt, with some of it converted into direct thrust, and some being tapped off the engines (by generator hardware located in the engine nacelles, typically tied directly into the main accessory gearbox assembly). Some is also used to drive air-pressurization hardware and so forth, which is not electrically powered (or rather, is TYPICALLY not electrical... these things do vary from design to design to one extent or another).

Running those lights consumes power. Every tiny bit of power consumed in flight is generated by fuel, and carrying more fuel also causes the ship to be heavier, making it require even more energy for the entire flight.

So the simple answer is... they turn off the exterior floods (as well as the landing floods and so forth) when in flight because THEY SERVE NO PURPOSE YET THEY CONSUME ENERGY.

There is another reason that this is often done as well, though it's far less common. In some circumstances, they turn these off because it makes the aircraft far less likely to be visually located. When flying near "hot spots" in the world, commercial airliners will often require that the interior shades be drawn, and they will shut down the running lights. It doesn't do a thing to protect against radar detection, but it does make it less likely to get brought down by someone who just happens to see you.

The main reason it's done is the first. The second explanation isn't very common. But some of us, who've traveled near "hot zones" at times, have experienced that as well.

 

[Kaiser]

ooooooo me likey alot

 

[sojourner]

In this case I think even Cary will be happy that there's somekind of technical explanation.

As for the cameras, yes of course, bloody Federation police speed cams!

Ahhhh, UFP speed cams, well there ya have it, eh.

deg

As the old saying goes, "186,000 miles per second, it's not just a good idea, it's the law."

 

[deg3D]

I did not know that about commercial airliners turning off their identity floods when in flight, Alex. If I may, how do you know this?

He's absolutely correct. When in flight, they'll have "running lights" on (long-distance locating flashers, basically), but nothing else.

There are two reasons for this. The main, and biggest, issue is simply one of efficiency. The power available on an airliner is limited. You have so much fuel. That fuel is burnt, with some of it converted into direct thrust, and some being tapped off the engines (by generator hardware located in the engine nacelles, typically tied directly into the main accessory gearbox assembly). Some is also used to drive air-pressurization hardware and so forth, which is not electrically powered (or rather, is TYPICALLY not electrical... these things do vary from design to design to one extent or another).

Running those lights consumes power. Every tiny bit of power consumed in flight is generated by fuel, and carrying more fuel also causes the ship to be heavier, making it require even more energy for the entire flight.

So the simple answer is... they turn off the exterior floods (as well as the landing floods and so forth) when in flight because THEY SERVE NO PURPOSE YET THEY CONSUME ENERGY.

There is another reason that this is often done as well, though it's far less common. In some circumstances, they turn these off because it makes the aircraft far less likely to be visually located. When flying near "hot spots" in the world, commercial airliners will often require that the interior shades be drawn, and they will shut down the running lights. It doesn't do a thing to protect against radar detection, but it does make it less likely to get brought down by someone who just happens to see you.

The main reason it's done is the first. The second explanation isn't very common. But some of us, who've traveled near "hot zones" at times, have experienced that as well.

Ah, thanks, Cary. Good to know. Learn somethin' new every day: check.

ooooooo me likey alot

Thanks, dude, glad you likey.

In this case I think even Cary will be happy that there's somekind of technical explanation.

As for the cameras, yes of course, bloody Federation police speed cams!

Ahhhh, UFP speed cams, well there ya have it, eh.

deg

As the old saying goes, "186,000 miles per second, it's not just a good idea, it's the law."

Good one, dude.

deg

 

[deg3D]

As the old saying goes, "186,000 miles per second, it's not just a good idea, it's the law."

And look at your location! Piers Anthony, baby! And Jumper the spider!

deg

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Really, really sharp work.

Of course it would have been out of place in the new movie. I liked the JJprise fine; I like this fine.

 

[TrekkieMonster]

First ...

I now have new new wallpaper.

Second, regarding this:

M'Kay, there's entirely too much yakking and not enough pictures in this thread. Spill the goodies, deg!

(btw, if someone hasn't already suggested it, how about saying that the nacelle registry light source is a spotlight on the trailing edge of the saucer that points backwards and is trained just so on the appropriate spot?

Not sure that would work, Scott. I'd have to try it first, but my guess, the spot would get distorted. However, it would be in a direction going aft as far as fall-off. And that's a plus right there, as when I tried it off the exterior intercoolers it fell off going toward the bow and that killed the overall flow of her, IMO.

I will check it out though.

If I may make a suggestion. While you might not be able to place a 21st century spotlight on the saucer of your model and get a desirable effect, maybe -- by way of explanation -- perhaps in the 23rd century they have some sort of high intensity spot lights (laser, maybe, to help minimize diffusion) mounted on the edges of the primary hull that are aimed back at the sides of the nacelles to illuminate the registry numbers. With that "Trek Tech explanation", perhaps it could merely help guide you a little in the placement of your external lighting so that it would look a little more like the source was the edges of the saucer, even though your actual light sources would have to be closer to avoid the distortion you anticipate.

Does that make sense?

Just a thought.

Regardless, I love this take on our lovely lady

 

[Vektor]

As I recall, the original rationale behind self-illumination of the Enterprise in TMP had to do with somebody, possibly the director, questioning how you'd even be able to see the ship in the depths of interstellar space with no nearby sun to cast light upon it. Somebody then had the bright idea (no pun intended) to have the ship light itself.

I work in the lighting business and I could probably go on for pages about the practical vs. psychological applications and ramifications of lighting an object or a building or a vehicle, but only one of them applies in the case of a 23rd century starship and that is the desire to make something beautiful. Fundamentally, there is absolutely no reason to design a space going vehicle like the Enterprise, particularly the much more stylishly artistic TMP refit, unless your intent is to create a piece of artistic expression. The mere fact that it isn't built out of trusses and modules and radiation shields and whatnot is testament to the fact that its designers cared about what it looked like at least as much as how well it functioned, whether or not anyone was in a position to actually see it most of the time.

I think it was Dianne Carey in one of her Trek novels who once described Federation starships as "cathedrals of light." I think it's debatable whether aesthetics had yet overtaken functionality in the time frame of the Original Series, but it was certainly not long after that when technology had reached the point where human beings could afford to build--or rebuild--one of these giant ships into something that was meant to evoke awe and wonder, not just among members of the television audience, but also in the eyes of whatever fictional beings in the Trek universe might chance to glimpse one of them sailing through the darkness of space like... well, a cathedral of light.

Is there a solid, practical reason to shine spotlights on the hull of a starship? No, probably not, but designers and engineers in the Trek universe moved beyond doing things for purely practical reasons at least as far back as TOS and probably long before.

So bring on the self-illumination and let these ships shine like all the other stars in the heavens!

 

[deg3D]

Thanks, gents.

And thanks extra for sharin' your insight/POV on that, TrekkieMonster.

deg

 

[deg3D]

As I recall, the original rationale behind self-illumination of the Enterprise in TMP had to do with somebody, possibly the director, questioning how you'd even be able to see the ship in the depths of interstellar space with no nearby sun to cast light upon it. Somebody then had the bright idea (no pun intended) to have the ship light itself.

I work in the lighting business and I could probably go on for pages about the practical vs. psychological applications and ramifications of lighting an object or a building or a vehicle, but only one of them applies in the case of a 23rd century starship and that is the desire to make something beautiful. Fundamentally, there is absolutely no reason to design a space going vehicle like the Enterprise, particularly the much more stylishly artistic TMP refit, unless your intent is to create a piece of artistic expression. The mere fact that it isn't built out of trusses and modules and radiation shields and whatnot is testament to the fact that its designers cared about what it looked like at least as much as how well it functioned, whether or not anyone was in a position to actually see it most of the time.

I think it was Dianne Carey in one of her Trek novels who once described Federation starships as "cathedrals of light." I think it's debatable whether aesthetics had yet overtaken functionality in the time frame of the Original Series, but it was certainly not long after that when technology had reached the point where human beings could afford to build--or rebuild--one of these giant ships into something that was meant to evoke awe and wonder, not just among members of the television audience, but also in the eyes of whatever fictional beings in the Trek universe might chance to glimpse one of them sailing through the darkness of space like... well, a cathedral of light.

Is there a solid, practical reason to shine spotlights on the hull of a starship? No, probably not, but designers and engineers in the Trek universe moved beyond doing things for purely practical reasons at least as far back as TOS and probably long before.

So bring on the self-illumination and let these ships shine like all the other stars in the heavens!

Oh, you know I concur. My only slight deviation, for me, would be the evocation of awe and wonder time-frame.

While TMP E most assuredly had it goin' on in spades come her time, (case in point the deliberate re-introduction of her in dry-dock, meant to to exactly that), I still feel the same in regard to Matt's original design. In some ways even more, for personal nostalgic reasons, as well as TOS E having the impact of never having been seen before, for herself, or for the likes of starships in general.

I do however like seeing her dressed up in light ala her later incarnation. Best of both world to me.

God, I could just gaze and gaze at her, and do quite often.

Love. Pure love.

"Cathedrals of light." I love that. Perfect.

deg