• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

TOS Enterprise Cargo Bays

Well, there is cargo, and then there is cargo.

Usually Kirk's ship was tasked with hauling high priority cargo: stuff that may at times have been bulky (such as the chemicals sprayed to cure entire planets of disease), more typically was compact in size, but always was needed in a hurry. Starfleet's explorer-warships would always be on alert for "troubleshooting", so they'd be the ones most easily and quickly diverted to ship emergency cargo like that. Also, an explorer-warship would be built to be fast, while many freighters would be built to be slow if that were more economical (like it is today for certain types of freighter - although for example a big container ferry may be much faster than warships for reasons of economy).

OTOH, sometimes Kirk hauled very small amounts of cargo to destinations no freighter would visit: places too far away to be profitable as stops on a distribution route, or perhaps even completely off limits to civilian vessels, such as those criminal asylums.

Of course, there would at times be military uses for cargo hauling capacity, too. Reinforcement of forward bases at locations too risky for a clumsy and poorly armed transport, for example.

Finally, "being out on the frontier" might as such involve hauling cargo - say, founding important outposts or colonies.

Timo Saloniemi
 
I went back to the blueprints to see whether or not that large circle just aft of the teactor beam emitter was marked as a cargo bay hatch, it's not marked as anything. Being almost the same size as the the main deflector dish it could be a cargo bay hatch.
Hey Timo, if Kirk and crew founded colonies, wouldn't said colonies be named for their founders?

James
 
I went back to the blueprints to see whether or not that large circle just aft of the teactor beam emitter was marked as a cargo bay hatch, it's not marked as anything. Being almost the same size as the the main deflector dish it could be a cargo bay hatch.
Hey Timo, if Kirk and crew founded colonies, wouldn't said colonies be named for their founders?

James
James, you need to realize that the Franz Joseph blueprints, while very interesting and entertaining, have very little to do with the actual design of the U.S.S. Enterprise. They are, for all practical purposes, an "alternate universe" version, albeit one that's closer to what we really had on TV than what we were given in this recent flick.

So referring to them as an unassailable reference is probably a bad idea.
 
Cary L. Brown, I didn't say anything of the sort, I said it "COULD BE" a cargo bay hatch.
All I know is that it's a big yellow circle on the underside of the engineering hull!:mad:

James
 
Cary, while we know it's inaccurate, to this day it's the only officially signed source on the ship (both by Paramount/Desilu/CBS and by Gene Roddenberry himself). It's about as unassailable a source as you can get at this point, short of plot-related lines of dialog.
 
The inaccuracies make it anything but "unassailable."

The Gold Key comics were just as authorized and just as studio approved, but nobody with half a brain uses them as a reference of anything.
 
No they weren't, April. And at no time did anyone, anywhere, say "This is the official Gold Key technical manual for Star Trek - which we're using while making the movies while we're at it!" ... the Technical Manual was the 'canon', for quite a long time.
 
Cary L. Brown, I didn't say anything of the sort, I said it "COULD BE" a cargo bay hatch.
All I know is that it's a big yellow circle on the underside of the engineering hull!:mad:

James
James,

My point was that I wanted to make clear that "what it is on the F.J. blueprints" really has very little in common with "what it is on the ship we saw on TV."

Your initial comment, after all, was:
I was looking through the set of Franz Joseph TOS Enterprise blueprints and noticed that the ship doesn't have any exterior doors for the cargo bays indicated!
There is a cargo transporter on deck 10, is it possible this is the only way to move cargo on to and off of the ship?
And my response was to point out that just because the FJ blueprints show something, or don't show something, this doesn't really have any relationship to what the "real" ship (the one we saw on-screen) might or might not have.

It's a different ship. So... if you're looking at the "Franz Joseph" ship, the answer is that you get cargo on and off by that cargo transporter. But on the starship U.S.S. Enterprise, as we saw on TV, there are no "cargo transporters." As far as you can say for certain, there may be only the one, 6-place transporter room in the entire ship. (I tend to think that there ought be be more than one, but nowhere nearly so many as we saw on FJ's prints!)

For many years, when I was a kid, I thought that the FJ prints were what the ship really looked like. It wasn't 'til a number of years later that I started to notice just how significant the errors were.

I LOVE FJ's work, but it's not very close to anything we saw on-screen. That was my point.
 
How well detailed was TOS Enterprise filming model, didn't FJ base his blueprints off of it?
Does anybody know if FJ and GR ever had any discussions about the layout of the decks of the Enterprise or was FJ on his own working out the layout?

James
 
Cary, sure it's close.. but the question is WHICH ship is it close to? All those set redresses, all those touching up of the models, the several DIFFERENT models, etc... At some point, guys, we have to agree that we're seeing a 'Hollywood interpretation' of things and say 'yeah, Canon can get awfully stupid at times'.
 
IMHO, the FJ blueprints fall short mainly on their "doctrinal approach" - that of randomly filling the very complex shapes of the ship's exterior with internal detail, without creating a relationship between the exterior and the interior. Why is there a narrow neck, say? It's not explained - instead, random rooms that can be squeezed into the neck are squeezed in there.

The rest is debatable. Although the episodes do give solid "facts" on things like "which deck are Kirk's quarters located on", these facts can be confusing, since said quarters are stated to lie both on decks 12 ("Mudd's Women") and 5 ("Journey to Babel")...

Hey Timo, if Kirk and crew founded colonies, wouldn't said colonies be named for their founders?

Hmm... An interesting idea. We seldom hear the names of Star Trek colonies, assuming they even have names. Our Starfleet heroes at least refer to the colonies by the systematic name of the planet they were founded on, with just one or two exceptions like "Earth Colony Two" or "Terra Nova" or perhaps "Gravesworld". What would happen if a planet had two or more colonies? How many colonies were founded on an ideological basis and got named after a great visionary of a creed or a great idea? How many Nirvanas or Golgathas or Leninos are there out there?

Timo Saloniemi
 
How well detailed was TOS Enterprise filming model, didn't FJ base his blueprints off of it?
Does anybody know if FJ and GR ever had any discussions about the layout of the decks of the Enterprise or was FJ on his own working out the layout?

James
James,

It might be worth checking out my current project, in case you haven't seen it yet.

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=89810

I'm far from the only person ever to do this, but I've spent a great deal of time recently trying to figure out how the "real" Enterprise would really be constructed, and internally-arranged.

Plenty of other "TrekBBS" notables (including David Shaw and Captain Robert April, both of whom I believe have posted in this very thread) have done work along this same pathway. My approach is slightly different than others... then again, these others have also have their own approaches.

But you should just realize that there's been a lot of effort, over the past 40+ years, to work out all the details of the Enterprise.

Franz Joseph, by contrast, had only "pencil and paper" tools, a limited access to some production materials, and a great deal of creativity.

I love his work. My point is that his work isn't all that close to "what was seen on-screen." It's something else entirely. That doesn't say it's not worthwhile. Quite the contrary - this (and it's contemporary works) kept me intellectually occupied throughout most of my youth! :)
 
I understand and completely agree that there's a difference between the ship's consumables, and cargo (or to really make things clear- freight)....
Not to be nit-picky, but in the case of the Enterprise or other non-commercial vessels, the term "freight" is actually less clear. "Freight" designates cargo that is being shipped for a fee from one party to another. Party A wants to ship something to Party B, and they pay a shipping company...Party C...a fee to do so. It's a business transaction performed by a commercial shipping operation. Commercial operations like that call their ships 'freighters', while the military and other non-commercial entities call their vessels 'cargo' or 'transport' ships. They're the same thing physically, but the former entity charges for their services while the latter generally doesn't. Since the Enterprise presumably doesn't charge a fee to transport medical vaccines and such, it would be transporting cargo, not freight.

Mark
 
I understand and completely agree that there's a difference between the ship's consumables, and cargo (or to really make things clear- freight)....
Not to be nit-picky, but in the case of the Enterprise or other non-commercial vessels, the term "freight" is actually less clear. "Freight" designates cargo that is being shipped for a fee from one party to another. Party A wants to ship something to Party B, and they pay a shipping company...Party C...a fee to do so. It's a business transaction performed by a commercial shipping operation. Commercial operations like that call their ships 'freighters', while the military and other non-commercial entities call their vessels 'cargo' or 'transport' ships. They're the same thing physically, but the former entity charges for their services while the latter generally doesn't. Since the Enterprise presumably doesn't charge a fee to transport medical vaccines and such, it would be transporting cargo, not freight.

Mark

I'm not trying to stir up shit, but that's not entirely correct, Mark- Freight can be either a commodity transfered in exchange for some other good/service/money, or something of value (or space junk for that matter) that is just being transported by a vehicle.

That being said, regardless of what the Enterprise is carrying, be it for their use, or another's eventual use, the questions are where do these items go for storage and how do they get there?
 
The Stephen E. Whitfield, Gene Roddenberry book "The Making of Star Trek" and FJ's blueprint matchup until the torpedo bays and torpedo launcher and science labs come up.

James
 
The drawings in that book, and the slightly wonky descriptions contained therein, constitute the bulk of FJ's available reference material. The model was still languishing away in Paramount's prop warehouse (he could've probably asked for it and they would've given it to him, just to be rid of it).
 
One nevertheless wonders about FJ's torpedo placement. Surely he would have had some idea of the fact that the ship always spat fire from the underside of her saucer and seldom was seen from other angles at all.

Was this a simple goof, of being mistaken about the placement? Or a simple goof of assuming that the placement in the episodes was ambiguous and subject to artistic license, rather than set in stone? Or a deliberate choice of matching the torpedo tubes with actual exterior features, in this case the windows below the bridge?

Timo Saloniemi
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top