TOS Enterprise Cargo Bays

[James Wright]

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?

James

 

[Patrickivan]

They may have access through the forward bulkhead in the shuttle bay. I think some have speculated that some of the markings on the underside of the engineering hull may be access doors of some sort.

I certainly wouldn't rule out transporters as a means to move cargo. They must have had more industrial transporters. Though I suspect the energy requirments would limit their use to starbase facilities. Then again, where else would you really need to use them on a regular basis.

But there's nothing really conclusive one way or the other- So start designing something, Mister!

 

[James Wright]

I got to looking at the layout of the cargo holds on decks 9 & 10 of the primary hull and noticed they're quite small compared to the cargo holds on decks 22 & 23 of the engineering hull. Could a workbee be used to off load cargo from the cargo holds in the engineering hull while cargo transporters are used in the cargo holds on decks 9 & 10?

James

 

[ahkyahnan]

Could very well be the case. My guess is, since TOS relied on transporters most of the time for personnel transport and rarely the shuttles, Franz assumed the same would hold true for cargo.

Keep in mind too that in TOS, cargo containers were usually large boxes and not the really big ship containers we saw later on in TMP. Doesn't mean they weren't there, but we usually saw containers that could be moved on one or more crewman using anti-grav units.

Even that Klingon munitions dump in Errand Of Mercy consisted of a lot of boxes. So maybe those primary hull bays were only used for this type of container, and those in the secondary hull handled anything larger.

Mark

 

[Cary L. Brown]

It's worth remembering that, as a general rule, the Enterprise isn't tasked as a cargo hauler. In the occasional emergency, they may get that task, but that's not their primary role.

If they need to load cargo, it's generally going to be "consumables for the ship itself."

If they need to load cargo for some emergency medical mission, or so forth... they'll need a lot of manpower to carry things through the ship's corridors. But with a ship's complement of 430, only about 65 or so of whom are really required to keep the ship running smoothly at any given time, there's no shortage of available manpower. And with "antigrav" handles, it's not really all that labor-intensive, either.

If you and your buddy can move a couch into your living room through the front door, the crew of the 1701 can move barrels of quattrotriticale into the ship's corridors without a whole lotta difficulty.

And that's assuming "no cargo transporters." If you've got "cheap" cargo transporter capability (something never so much as hinted at during TOS, remember, though very common in TNG), it's literally a non-issue.

 

[JuanBolio]

I always assumed those yellow doors on the underside of the saucer were dual-purpose airlocks/cargo doors. Also probably used to load photon torpedoes, since the launchers weren't too far from there (That is, IF you ignore FJ, which I largely do).

 

[Captain Robert April]

In doing my layouts for the TOS E, I managed to work up some decent cargo areas (as Cary stated, pretty much ship consumables), but access is pretty much via dedicated transporters. The problem is that you also have to put in the engine machinery, and my personal preference is that those hatches on the lower surface of the secondary hull has more to do with those fidgety bits (specifically, the antimatter generators and the matter/antimatter reaction chamber ejection port, hinted at in "That Which Survives").

If they were ever tasked with hauling cargo for someone else, I think the better bet would be storing the stuff in the hangar bay, then moving into the adjoining corridors, as was shown in "More Tribbles, More Troubles".

 

[James Wright]

Were the cargo bays relocated on the refit Enterprise in TMP? (I'm assuming that's close to where Kirk & Scotty boarded the Enterprise.)

James

 

[Timo]

Well, the big thing to be refitted there was the warp engine/powerplant combo. There's real-world precedent to how those things usually go: the new engines are better but also smaller, freeing up a lot of space near where the powerplant used to be.

So I'd like to think that the main cargo holds of Kirk's ship were always just forward of the shuttlebay, and could be accessed through doors on the front wall of the bay, but were originally fairly small. The refit enabled much larger bays, and the front wall was also removed or made entirely retractable. The E-A underwent a refit of humbler scope, perhaps enlarging the cargo holds, but retaining the original front wall and the couple of doors in it.

There could always be a more direct access to the cargo area, too, but I don't think it would be necessary. In the redone TOS episodes, we learn that the big yellow circle roughly below where the cargo hold in TMP ended up being can open up and serve as a dispenser of small probes or satellites. A deep space cruiser might need such a dispenser even if it didn't double as a cargo hatch, though - and a round hole IMHO is nice for a dispenser but cumbersome for cargo.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[FalTorPan]

I believe some of the open panels on the underside of the saucer in the TMP drydock scene were meant to represent cargo bay hatches.

 

[Patrickivan]

It's worth remembering that, as a general rule, the Enterprise isn't tasked as a cargo hauler. In the occasional emergency, they may get that task, but that's not their primary role.

If they need to load cargo, it's generally going to be "consumables for the ship itself."

If they need to load cargo for some emergency medical mission, or so forth... they'll need a lot of manpower to carry things through the ship's corridors. But with a ship's complement of 430, only about 65 or so of whom are really required to keep the ship running smoothly at any given time, there's no shortage of available manpower. And with "antigrav" handles, it's not really all that labor-intensive, either.

If you and your buddy can move a couch into your living room through the front door, the crew of the 1701 can move barrels of quattrotriticale into the ship's corridors without a whole lotta difficulty.

And that's assuming "no cargo transporters." If you've got "cheap" cargo transporter capability (something never so much as hinted at during TOS, remember, though very common in TNG), it's literally a non-issue.

While I shouldn't make assumptions, I suspected he was using the word "cargo" to describe the containers used to hold supplies. I'm surprised you immediately thought that the OP was talking about cargo in the sense of the Enterprise being a cargo ship...

But why would you manually move stuff when you're getting those supplies from a station where it's their job to load the supplies- and they'd certainly have the technology, be it dedicated transporters or through a series of dedicated cargo doors that open into space.

Most bulk materials would be beamed to a centralized storgage area(s), then broken down and manually moved as required.

As for the Enterprise itself having a dedicated transporter for beaming on and off supplies or cargo, you're right that it was never mentioned in TOS, but it was never mentioned as not existing either. It never came up as being a plot issue.

I'd say that the Enterprise must have one. The technology exists, and it would be a useful tool.

 

[Patrickivan]

Were the cargo bays relocated on the refit Enterprise in TMP? (I'm assuming that's close to where Kirk & Scotty boarded the Enterprise.)

James

Concept stuff, with the final product. 3 pages. I really like the set up.

http://probertdesigns.com/Folder_DESIGN/CargoBay-1.html

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I believe some of the open panels on the underside of the saucer in the TMP drydock scene were meant to represent cargo bay hatches.

All we know for sure is that these were "loading hatches" of some form.

I would like to make a suggestion, for clarity's sake.

Let's come up with a clear delineation between "ship's stores" and "cargo bays."

CARGO isn't "ship's consumables." Rather, "cargo" is something which is not critical to the function of the ship. "Ship's consumables" are totally different from "cargo." Cargo is something you carry from point "A" to point "B." Carrying cargo is a mission. You're not supposed to "consume" your cargo during a voyage. You're supposed to "transport" it.

These two categories of material are sufficiently different, that I think we need to make every effort to keep them distinct. Do you guys disagree?

Why do I mention this?

Well, I see those hatches on the underside of the TMP Enterprise has being consumables-loading hatches. Not "cargo loading hatches."

I imagine air scrubber filters, and pressurized air tanks (yes, they "recycle" the air but they still need gas storage and it will, inevitably, be "consumed" over time, due to slow leakage or due to damage or to airlock openings or whatever else). They need water. They need "protein packs" which can be used as raw material for food processor/replicator units (again, remember, recycling of... "spent"... food will occur, but you'll still inevitably lose SOME over time). They need non-organic raw materials for part-replication. They need a store of some critical "repair parts" which they won't need to "replicate."

I envision those four larger hatches on the underside of the primary hull as being the "water/atmosphere gear" equipment/storage swap-out locations.
I see the two smaller ones up-front as being the "food" loading ports. (And note that I'm not talking about the landing footpads... in case anyone's confused, look at the blueprints.)

As for the two "airlock ports" (one of which Spock used to go spacewalking)... well, THOSE just seem totally insane to me. Anybody got a good, logical reason why you'd put an airlock in a place like that?

 

[Timo]

Why shouldn't the airlocks be there? The ship's gotta have extensive personnel airlock facilities somewhere - that goes for all spacecraft. Star Trek spacecraft have the alternate option of using transporters, though. But it then follows that the airlocks and transporter rooms might be located close together, so that they could share resources (staging areas, spacesuit lockers, weapons and gear lockers, decontamination systems, briefing and debriefing facilities). We have reason to believe the transporter rooms are clustered around the center of the saucer, on Deck 7 by some accounts. So clustering the airlocks on the deck below (where there's enough exterior curvature for an exit that isn't a mere hatch in the floor) would be logical. The deck above would be equally logical, but Starfleet chose otherwise - perhaps because the topside already has the bridge (or above-bridge?) docking port and airlock.

An obvious alternate location at the rim of the saucer might not be superior after all. If the purpose of a spacewalk is to access the ship's outer hull for repairs or de-limpeting or whatnot, using magnetic boots, it's probably easier to step on the upper or lower surface than to first balance on the rim and then do a 90 degree twist.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Patrickivan]

I believe some of the open panels on the underside of the saucer in the TMP drydock scene were meant to represent cargo bay hatches.

All we know for sure is that these were "loading hatches" of some form.

I would like to make a suggestion, for clarity's sake.

Let's come up with a clear delineation between "ship's stores" and "cargo bays."

CARGO isn't "ship's consumables." Rather, "cargo" is something which is not critical to the function of the ship. "Ship's consumables" are totally different from "cargo." Cargo is something you carry from point "A" to point "B." Carrying cargo is a mission. You're not supposed to "consume" your cargo during a voyage. You're supposed to "transport" it.

These two categories of material are sufficiently different, that I think we need to make every effort to keep them distinct. Do you guys disagree?

Why do I mention this?

Well, I see those hatches on the underside of the TMP Enterprise has being consumables-loading hatches. Not "cargo loading hatches."

I imagine air scrubber filters, and pressurized air tanks (yes, they "recycle" the air but they still need gas storage and it will, inevitably, be "consumed" over time, due to slow leakage or due to damage or to airlock openings or whatever else). They need water. They need "protein packs" which can be used as raw material for food processor/replicator units (again, remember, recycling of... "spent"... food will occur, but you'll still inevitably lose SOME over time). They need non-organic raw materials for part-replication. They need a store of some critical "repair parts" which they won't need to "replicate."

I envision those four larger hatches on the underside of the primary hull as being the "water/atmosphere gear" equipment/storage swap-out locations.
I see the two smaller ones up-front as being the "food" loading ports. (And note that I'm not talking about the landing footpads... in case anyone's confused, look at the blueprints.)

As for the two "airlock ports" (one of which Spock used to go spacewalking)... well, THOSE just seem totally insane to me. Anybody got a good, logical reason why you'd put an airlock in a place like that?

I understand and completely agree that there's a difference between the ship's consumables, and cargo (or to really make things clear- freight), and I'm on board with the difference being known. But for the most part, I know that people are just being general and calling those stores, cargo.

Regardless- I'm on board with the difference in what you're talking about. The areas for storing both types could not only be in different locations through-out the ship, but could have different means of getting them on and off. All depending on what the item is, where it's going, it's size- there would be many factors at play.

Though I'm sure that's something no one would argue. It's more a matter of where are these locations on the ship, and how they are accessed.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Why shouldn't the airlocks be there? The ship's gotta have extensive personnel airlock facilities somewhere - that goes for all spacecraft. Star Trek spacecraft have the alternate option of using transporters, though. But it then follows that the airlocks and transporter rooms might be located close together, so that they could share resources (staging areas, spacesuit lockers, weapons and gear lockers, decontamination systems, briefing and debriefing facilities). We have reason to believe the transporter rooms are clustered around the center of the saucer, on Deck 7 by some accounts. So clustering the airlocks on the deck below (where there's enough exterior curvature for an exit that isn't a mere hatch in the floor) would be logical. The deck above would be equally logical, but Starfleet chose otherwise - perhaps because the topside already has the bridge (or above-bridge?) docking port and airlock.

An obvious alternate location at the rim of the saucer might not be superior after all. If the purpose of a spacewalk is to access the ship's outer hull for repairs or de-limpeting or whatnot, using magnetic boots, it's probably easier to step on the upper or lower surface than to first balance on the rim and then do a 90 degree twist.

Timo Saloniemi

The main reason I object to that location for a "docking port/airlock" is due to practicality.

Consider what you have. The "docking ring" is at an angle, first off... meaning that if, by some means, you were able to connect to a specialized docking connection on another ship or station, it would be at an angle. You couldn't dock "alongside" another ship, nor "nose-on." Parking would be a bitch in Spacedock.

Now, remember that this "docking port" is then inside a big, wedge-shaped HOLLOW AREA where you have to slide back hull panels. This is nothing more or less than wasted space. Put the same facility on a more approximately FLAT surface, and you don't lose the same amount of internal volume.

Imagine trying to dock a shuttle or other vessel there. Maybe... MAYBE... you could fit a TMP "Travel Pod" into that space. I'm not entirely sure. But there's no real advantage to doing so, since the volume you have inside that wedge-ish bay behind the sliding doors, while consisting of a lot of volume, isn't a volume that matches any practical shuttle design. Close the "garage doors" on a travel pod, and you'd hit the pod mid-body. So you'd simply have to leave the bays open at all times.

This region of the hull, with that very shallow curvature, is marginally useful in the first place... it's not inhabitable. But it's ideally suited for equipment, or for tankage. Except, by using it as a set of "garage doors" over a docking port where you can't dock, you're losing a LOT of potentially usable volume.

It's not useful as a docking port. It might be a reasonable location, as you describe as a personnel airlock.

BUT...

If you need a personnel airlock door... why the massive garage doors, or the docking ring? Why not just a TOS-style yellow doorway?

That's really my point. It's not useful for docking purposes, and it's tremendously wasteful insofar as a simple "personnel hatch" would be concerned.

 

[Timo]

If you need a personnel airlock door... why the massive garage doors, or the docking ring? Why not just a TOS-style yellow doorway?

But why not?

We don't really know what the door area looks like, since it was never shot for TMP. Perhaps the docking ring isn't there, and the outer doors are big because the inner doors are. Big doors are better than small doors in at least one of the ship's airlock facilities, so that outsize tools or items to be repaired can be maneuvered through. And slanted doors (even if insufficiently slanted) are better than horizontal doors, in a ship internally configured for horizontal decks with artificial gravity.

But assuming that there indeed is a docking ring door there (and thus necessarily only a man-sized opening), it could simply be a "nice to have" addition to an otherwise vital facility. Small craft could mate with it, or various access tubes could snake up to it. Why not have the docking ring when you already have the door?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Cary L. Brown]

If you need a personnel airlock door... why the massive garage doors, or the docking ring? Why not just a TOS-style yellow doorway?

But why not?

We don't really know what the door area looks like, since it was never shot for TMP. Perhaps the docking ring isn't there, and the outer doors are big because the inner doors are. Big doors are better than small doors in at least one of the ship's airlock facilities, so that outsize tools or items to be repaired can be maneuvered through. And slanted doors (even if insufficiently slanted) are better than horizontal doors, in a ship internally configured for horizontal decks with artificial gravity.

But assuming that there indeed is a docking ring door there (and thus necessarily only a man-sized opening), it could simply be a "nice to have" addition to an otherwise vital facility. Small craft could mate with it, or various access tubes could snake up to it. Why not have the docking ring when you already have the door?

Timo Saloniemi

But it was shot for TMP. Those scenes were edited out (along with the original spacesuit design) when the rewrote the sequence to lose the "memory wall" bit.

You do get to see inside the space as Spock drifts away from Enterprise (and I think as Kirk does as well) in the "new" scenes. In the "extended" version of TMP from a few years back, they re-edited some of the "old" scenes back in. This was pretty interesting, as you then have to wonder about how Kirk and Spock manage to change spacesuits in mid-spacewalk, as well as why so much of the Enterprise's superstructure occasionally looks like a network of 2x4's.


And I think you're missing my point entirely about the inadequacy of that location. As I think I was pretty clear, very few "small craft" COULD dock there, the ability to connect docking tubes is restricted by angle, and there's a tremendous amount of wasted hull volume taken up by the "wedge" between the docking ring and the "garage doors."

It's not that I object to the concept of having a port down there. But it's not a practical implementation. Not remotely.

 

[Timo]

Okay, right, not counting cut/"unreal" scenes, there's indeed a reasonably close view of the doors in TMP DE as Spock departs (but not when he returns and Kirk catches him - there's too much distance and angle there for seeing inner door detail).

Timo Saloniemi

 

[James Wright]

Does it seem right that explorer type vessels have to lug cargo from place to place instead of being out on the frontier of Federation space expanding those frontiers?
There is/was a dedicated cargo carrier in the Ptolemy class vessels.

James