TOS Enterprise Internals

[blssdwlf]

I have a big problem with the concept of ball-type, phasers under hatches. We know phasers are fired at ship warp/FTL speeds, which would mean that the turret balls and hatches would need to operate or physically move at very high (warp/FTL/light) speeds, too. The fastest mechanism observed during the three years of the series is probably the sliding doors on the turbolifts which are painfully slow compared to the speed of light (the Scalosians would agree). Same with TMP ball turrets if they are expected to rotate or move which I don't think they do in any of the VXF shots in the movies, so, the aiming is probably "electronic" and not physical movement. Elaan of Troyius showed us that it is easier to move/rotate the ship at warp speed to target other high-warp speed vessels than the aiming/firing system could do on its own. I assume this last observation is why the ship's weapons are controlled by the helmsman. YMMV.

That is an interesting problem. There are a few variables in play:
1. the time to open the hatch
2. the time to pop-out the phaser emitter
3. the time to point the emitter at the target

An external sliding hatch or folding out hatch on average takes 1.2 seconds to open or close (see "Galileo Seven" shuttlecraft door open and close and "The Mark of Gideon" external window cover opening).

The time to pop-out the phaser emitter might only take another second or two and it could rotate to aim at the target in the same motion.

So maybe 2 to 3 seconds to popout and fire. Although "Balance of Terror" seems to suggest that phasers could be fired almost immediately ("phasers fire point-blank!") so maybe even faster than that.

"Journey to Babel" would suggest that the phasers have a maximum traversal speed as they were unable to hit the Orion ship when there is a huge difference in relative speed and distance between enemy ships.

Some possible alternative approaches:
1. phaser emitters fire behind energy transparent sections in the hull so they don't need time to wait for the hatch to open. This allows them to be able to lock-on (track) and then fire immediately.
2. phaser emitters wait for a hatch to open but track and fire immediately without popping up.

 

[yotsuya]

The alternate approaches are what I am looking at. #1 allows for a smooth hull with no visible weapons, which fits with the model. #2 would work if the hatch is only large enough for the beam, not the entire emitter.

In both cases I see a mechanism that acts like the ball turret but is heftier and uses the emitter as the rotational center of the phaser. In both examples in the graphics the emitter could be the small bottom end. And the two different designs would be interchangeable.

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

I have a big problem with the concept of ball-type, phasers under hatches. We know phasers are fired at ship warp/FTL speeds, which would mean that the turret balls and hatches would need to operate or physically move at very high (warp/FTL/light) speeds, too. The fastest mechanism observed during the three years of the series is probably the sliding doors on the turbolifts which are painfully slow compared to the speed of light (the Scalosians would agree). Same with TMP ball turrets if they are expected to rotate or move which I don't think they do in any of the VXF shots in the movies, so, the aiming is probably "electronic" and not physical movement. Elaan of Troyius showed us that it is easier to move/rotate the ship at warp speed to target other high-warp speed vessels than the aiming/firing system could do on its own. I assume this last observation is why the ship's weapons are controlled by the helmsman. YMMV.

As someone already said, the doors do not need to open faster than light, just the beams need to be as fast as the plot requires, once the doors open.

If we were talking about a totally new, probably alien, ship, or a ship in another franchise, then the idea of a invisible weapons grid that would allow firing from anywhere on the model, and not just some point which roughly corresponds to a "gun" of some kind could be really cool. But since Star Trek is at least trying to seem based on real tech of the navy and NASA in the time it was created, just extrapolated into future form, I think some discrete location from which the phasers fire is needed.

What was referred to that the phasers wait to fire until a hatch opens, but do not have to take time to pop up, and instead fire through the open door, would work for me.

Although there is plenty that does not fit from the 2009 movies, the way that weapons turrets appear on the Kelvin actually kind of fits an alternative for TOS, where the weapons raise up to fire but are only barely visible the rest of the time.

 

[QuinnTV]

My take is that for the NX class the hull plating couldn't be painted.

ARCHER: Slow down. There, those are the ports that buckled during the last test. They need to be reinforced. (Tucker makes a note and the pod bounces against the ship's hull) Great, you scratched the paint.

 

[blssdwlf]

ARCHER: Slow down. There, those are the ports that buckled during the last test. They need to be reinforced. (Tucker makes a note and the pod bounces against the ship's hull) Great, you scratched the paint.

LOL - the NX-01 is either painted with some gray paint that looks like metal or the aztec pattern were never metal plates but a paint scheme to look like in metal plates in-universe.

 

[David cgc]

Maybe he was just speaking flippantly, since it was easier to say than "you scratched the anodization" or whatever.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Yeah, I think it was more of a figure of speech than something to be taken literally. Aside from the registry markers and pinstriping, I don't see the NX as being painted at all.

 

[blssdwlf]

That seems to be the most reasonable explanation that it was a figure of speech.

 

[yotsuya]

That seems to be the most reasonable explanation that it was a figure of speech.

Yeah, I have not ever seen all of Enterprise so I've just been going off the visuals where it looks like metal and the references to the hull plating that I remember and have read. The NX and the movie era (1701 Refit, Reliant, Excelsior, etc) don't look painted to me. The blues on the Excelsior and later appear to areas of paint, but the detail isn't really there to know if later ships are painted or coated or bare.

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

ARCHER: Slow down. There, those are the ports that buckled during the last test. They need to be reinforced. (Tucker makes a note and the pod bounces against the ship's hull) Great, you scratched the paint.

Sounds like an ironic joke that would be made by the teenagers today: saying the other guy scratched the paint, when there is no paint, as a way of telling him it was okay he made the piloting mistake, while still getting to complain about it.

This bugged me the first time I saw that episode and it still bugs me. This either needed changed in the script or the model should have been signed to look painted if the script already existed. They could have said "Watch it, you'll dent the hull," and it would have been just as funny, or better stated, not funny.

Or perhaps this kind of humor will stay around even after today's teenagers have grown up, with their grandchildren building ships, and this episode's script was oddly good at predicting that.

 

[publiusr]

There might be another reason for that nice lower dome besides holding phasers

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[yotsuya]

So the bridge came up elsewhere and I took an image provided to prove that the bridge wasn't intended to be rotated and proved that from the alignment of the center lines, it actually does prove the bridge was intended to rotate. The person I was "discussing" this with didn't like that, but his only comment (after sharing this image) was that the image was two random shots. Hardly. The angle the shots were filmed at show a deliberate attempt to align them.

Both in terms of scale and angle these overlayed FX images show that the bridge was not just rotated randomly because the set was movable, but that Jefferies was in on it and they attempted (not too badly for 1964 TV quality) to align them to create the illusion we were zooming through the dome. But the very first thing I noticed when this came up was how clearly you can identify the centerline of the ship and how obviously off the command island is.

 

[ChallengerHK]

Just for my curiosity, are you thinking then that the bridge has to be recessed? I don't think this image supports that notion, although admittedly it's a little hard to tell for sure.

 

[blssdwlf]

Yeah, not only does the bridge alignment not match the centerline and not match the turbolift location to the back nob it also floats vertically and forward and back as well during the sequence. The most you can get out of it is that the bridge is there.

I like to think that on Pike's Enterprise the bridge dome was always in the tall mode and contained the bridge center. For Kirk's Enterprise the dome can retract to half-height and the bridge is actually one level lower in the tear-drop structure. The lower level with the helm and captain's chair can rotate left-to-right for fun. YMMV

 

[yotsuya]

Just for my curiosity, are you thinking then that the bridge has to be recessed? I don't think this image supports that notion, although admittedly it's a little hard to tell for sure.

This is the pilot bridge so no, this bridge is not recessed into deck 2. At this point the dome was still tall enough that it fit inside as designed leaving deck 2 fully accessible. Though in the way I lay out the interior, there is a control column that runs through the center of the saucer and that area of deck 2 would still be occupied by bridge related systems. Not until the series refit does the bridge have to sink and Jefferies cross section supports that.

 

[publiusr]

My favorite drawing of the TOS.

I wonder if a program exists that could wrap a CGI “skin” of the 11 foot model version around that—given volume. The secondary hull deserves a good teardrop as shown there.

 

[ChallengerHK]

Re: the secondar hull, it's embarrassing to admit that, as much as I've studied this stuff, especially back in the day, I never realized that there was a radical difference between the model and the drawings until a short time ago.

 

[Henoch]

My favorite drawing of the TOS.

I wonder if a program exists that could wrap a CGI “skin” of the 11 foot model version around that—given volume. The secondary hull deserves a good teardrop as shown there.

I would prefer a slightly bigger/bulbous secondary hull, too; it gives more room for curved corridors in front of the engineering room.

 

[yotsuya]

My favorite drawing of the TOS.

I wonder if a program exists that could wrap a CGI “skin” of the 11 foot model version around that—given volume. The secondary hull deserves a good teardrop as shown there.

Well, it actually has one, just not that pronounced. That is one mistake I have found in Gary Kerr's drawings. There is a line the roughly is where the back of the neck meets the secondary hull where the line of the secondary hull goes from straight (aft of there) to a slighter bulbous curve. It is hidden because of the neck and the two recesses (on the bottom and starboard side). There are so few photos that capture the actual turned shape of the secondary hull and the angle difference is so subtle that it is easy to miss. I estimate that from the tangent of the curve to the stern (as Kerr drew it) to that shallow angle change is about 1/4" on the 11 foot model or 1/16" on the 33 inch model. To modify any of the model kits based on Kerr's work you have to carve in that indent and thin the aft end of the secondary hull.

 

[ChallengerHK]

I estimate that from the tangent of the curve to the stern (as Kerr drew it) to that shallow angle change is about 1/4" on the 11 foot model or 1/16" on the 33 inch model.

With such a subtle change, are we sure that wasn't a breakdown in the model?