Where are those big windows on the Enterprise model on the set?

[Robert Comsol]

Although I believe the situation was fixed with the 4-foot model introduced later, and it's noticeably thicker saucer rim? I've never tried to measure it but I assumed that change was especially to "fix" Ten Forward.

Yes. It's really ridiculous when you examine the issue. The studio set had three forward sections with 3 windows each.

However, the 6-footer VFX model only had two forward sections with 3 windows with noticable space in between those. Not a chance to fit the Ten Forward location there (could "Ten" stand for ten tables?).

So they tried to fix their screw-up with the 4-footer, somehow trying to overwrite the existing 6-footer.

Of course, building the 4-footer they could have used the occasion to match the windows ahead of the NCC-1701-D.

But unfortunately they had already shown an exterior shot at the beginning of Season Two, so they couldn't or wouldn't pursue the chance to present the lower windows as a second location option - worse, they turned the lights off.

Bob

 

[Rick Sternbach]

The windows inside the phaser ring on the bottom are set inside recesses and look to be angled differently than the ones outside the phaser ring.

My question is, are the windows in the center (the larger ones in front of NCC-1701-D) supposed to be 10 Forward? If they are, 10 Forward was closed at the time.

No, 10-Forward is at the very forward-bottom rim of the saucer. The very front of the ship.

Those "windows" in the recess by the NCC number are said to be a deflector system to be used by the saucer when it's separated.

See on Rick Sternbach's blueprint here:
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/star-trek-the-next-generation-enterprise-sheet-2.jpg

In the canceled DeAgostini Japan Ent-D project data, I came up with a way to have our cake and eat it too. I described a yard change which removed the chunky deflector hardware from the window area, and installed new transparent deflector arrays and restored the visual clarity to the rooms in that area. So folks serving aboard Galaxy class vessels can enjoy raktajino or prune juice or a really, really good margarita while taking in the view.

Rick

 

[Forbin]

Well okay then!

 

[treknician1701]

This was always a problem. On the top of the saucer, allegedly, was Captain Picard's quarters, where you see these windows, and the set windows are not LONG enough.
It would have been good if there was somewhere on the sets that had the lower windows like that. It almost was, in "First Contact" movie, where Picard was showing the Earth, out of one of the windows, which was sort of like a lower window like that.
But, this is sort of like the "Jupiter 2" saucer from "Lost in Space", the model doesn't fit with the set design.

 

[SchwEnt]

Right. The set interior windows were a standard re-use, same angle.

But the saucer exterior shows that most all windows were much less sloped, nearly horizontal overhead (or underfoot, depending on saucer level). And much larger, too.

That's okay.

 

[USS Triumphant]

I described a yard change which removed the chunky deflector hardware from the window area, and installed new transparent deflector arrays and restored the visual clarity to the rooms in that area.

I can't help but think that transparency would interfere with the deflector being able to emit energy in the visible wavelengths. But what the heck do I know from 24th century technology?

 

[Maurice]

Since we never saw this "saucer deflector" in use or indicated in screen, and since those were originally intended to be windows, it's easier to assume they were always windows.

 

[Robert Comsol]

I honestly think this would be a good opportunity to make use of your "Bat-Phone hotline" so we can all dispense with the "assuming" and start the "knowing".

Bob

 

[Maurice]

What's to phone? Andy Probert has said in interviews those were designed to be windows.

 

[Robert Comsol]

Then that is what they are with no need to assume what they are (unless there is onscreen information indicating otherwise, which apparently isn't the case).

Bob

 

[Maurice]

Here it is from the man himself:

Hey gang... yup, it's me again.

Warp capability was never given to the Galaxy class design. I don't care how screwy the stories got and how little the time/distance details were considered... there are no warp engines in the Enterprise-D saucer. No saucer from the mind of Roddenberry had warp capability and I was not asked to include a system on the 'D'. That's why changing my large window alcoves into "deflectors" is bogus... at best an attempt to clean up shoddy script writing.

And to answer the original question... no, the latch design was totally adequate.

As always...
Andrew-

 

[Forbin]

Well there ya go!

 

[Takeru]

What's to phone? Andy Probert has said in interviews those were designed to be windows.

But that's just his opinion, the technical manual said it's a deflector, I put more weight on that. Just because Andrew Probert drew the ship doesn't mean he get's to decide what's what.

 

[Keith1701]

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:CGI_USS_Enterprise-D.jpg

The windows seem to be too big.

Too big for what?

The answer to your question is: they weren't on any set. They were never seen internally.

Yes, to big for what?

 

[Maurice]

What's to phone? Andy Probert has said in interviews those were designed to be windows.

But that's just his opinion, the technical manual said it's a deflector, I put more weight on that. Just because Andrew Probert drew the ship doesn't mean he get's to decide what's what.

Then do you accept that many of the numbers on the lifeboats are backwards just because they appear so on the blueprints that were sold?

 

[Robert Comsol]

Just because Andrew Probert drew the ship doesn't mean he get's to decide what's what.

The "sole person officially credited with the design for the USS Enterprise-D" doesn't get to decide what's what?

He didn't just drew the ship, he designed every detail about it and influenced the actual construction of the VFX model. In essence he is the creator of the ship and did care about the tiniest details. Seriously, who could or should know better than him?

Bob

 

[Takeru]

The "sole person officially credited with the design for the USS Enterprise-D" doesn't get to decide what's what?

On his own, no, he doesn't get to decide. His intentions are just that, intentions, he designed the shape of the ship, the producers, writers, set designers etc. all had a hand in bringing the ship to life, filling its interiors and deciding what's what.

He didn't just drew the ship, he designed every detail about it and influenced the actual construction of the VFX model. In essence he is the creator of the ship and did care about the tiniest details. Seriously, who could or should know better than him?

It's not about knowing better, it's about the reality of Star Trek as a tv series and a franchise, no one get's to do or decide things in a vacuum. Andrew Probert intended for the saucer rim to be one deck, the show made it two instead, he intended for the saucer not to have warp drive and while it was never directly stated to have it on the show it's already obvious in the pilot, the saucer did not drop out of warp after the separation and made it back to Farpoint on its own in a short time, that would have been impossible without some kind of warp.

If there was no other information I would defer to his intentions but for me licensed material trumps his intentions and the tv show trumps everything.

 

[F. King Daniel]

A lot changes between the design phase and what we see on TV. The designers are part of the process, but theirs is the first word, not the final - Ten Forward being TNG's case in point. IIRC, DS9's USS Defiant was designed with landing gear and no shuttle bay, but it ended up the other way around. The USS Voyager was designed with two computer cores and two warp cores but the stories themselves made it explicitly clear they had one of each. The new Enterprise was designed to be 366m, but plans changed and the CG model was made, detailed and sets built/locations used for a much larger 700m+ size.

That's not to say designer input, showing us how they originally conceived everything, isn't fascinating and insightful.

 

[Robert Comsol]

Andrew Probert intended for the saucer rim to be one deck, the show made it two instead.

...but in the inevitable process doubled the size of the Enterprise-D.
So when they made the small VFX model to accomodate Ten Forward, did the model makers accordingly reduce the size of the conference lounge windows, the shuttlebay doors and the docking ports?!?

Because if they didn't (and I'm not aware they did) the producers created a contradiction.
So it's not just Andrew Probert's intention standing against size and location of Ten Forward, but the conference lounge and other locations whose sizes had been well established.

He intended for the saucer not to have warp drive and while it was never directly stated to have it on the show it's already obvious in the pilot, the saucer did not drop out of warp after the separation and made it back to Farpoint on its own in a short time, that would have been impossible without some kind of warp.

I'm not aware that the episode did provide enough information to justify this conclusion. The separation could have taken place already in the Farpoint system. Always looked to me as if Picard wanted to deliver the saucer to safety first and then turned back to stop Q.

If there was no other information I would defer to his intentions but for me licensed material trumps his intentions and the tv show trumps everything.

I definitely can see both sides of the argument, i.e. creator's intent vs. what actually ended up on screen (apparently the basic reference for anyone to participate in treknological discussions, especially for those that do not have the behind-the-scenes information some of us do have).

But because Maurice observed that we never saw this "saucer deflector" in use or indicated on screen, the final TV Show doesn't trump anything here.

So then, licensed material trumps the intentions of the original creator?

Ain't that just great? Bad research and/or arrogance ("I know better") gets rewarded at the expense of the original designer.
Sounds to me like an attitude that's not compatible with the spirit of Star Trek and/or TNG. YMMV.

Bob

 

[Gotham Central]

The extreme slope and curves of the Enterprise D was always problematic. The sets were never able to fully depict the shape of the ship and in fact often contradicted the model.

For instance:

1) Picard's Ready Room has that single vertical window that he occasionally stares out of. However the model is all curves. There is no flat section on the bridge module.

2) The shuttle bays in the neck clearly have sloped walls yet the standing set had doors that rose straight up. (I never understood why they did that anyway since all they needed to do was give the wall with the door a slight slope).

3) The windows on the crew quarters were never big enough for the rooms. They should have gone from floor to ceiling and been at a sharper angle (or been on the ceiling).