Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Space Seed Deck 1 exits... plus other things.

This is topic Space Seed Deck 1 exits... plus other things. in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/1149.html

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

We have always assumed that the Enterprise in TOS only had one entry/exit - and that was the turbolift.

While watching Space Seed I noticed that Kahn mentions - after locks out the bridge, and begins to suffocate those on the bridge, that he has also blocked all the exits from the bridge - a plural. So one assumes that there is Jeffery tube access?? to the bridge - or some sort of ladder? where would/could this be located!?!

Space Seed was a VERY good episode. Uhura really shone in this episode too, even though she had little to do. Her whole defiance of Kahn was very... admirable. Something you don't see much of even now in TV shows. Usually the 'girly-girl' will give out - or after a few 'beatings' too... unless their relatively 'butch' or 'trained'. Uhura stands her post. Very Valiant.

They say that - when Kahn has taken over the Enterprise that they leave the Botany Bay behind. I might have missed a few lines at the end, when I was away from the TV a bit, but when they were putting them on Seti Alpha V, did Kirk go back/give Kahn the Bontany Bay? How come we then see it in TWOK...

*cue Chekov* Botany Bay... BOTANY BAY!

Oh also, people complain about Chekov knowing about the events of "Space Seed". So what - he could have been assigned to the late shift, or lower decks etc. I'm sure though, he would have remembered such a major event as the Ship being taken over by someone from 200 years ago.

Also I noticed that Joaquin was listed in the credits at the end - of course not played by Judson Scott?? But at least they kept the character!

------------------
Homer: I'm gonna miss Springfield. This town's been awfully good to us.
Bart: No, it hasn't, Dad. That's why we're leaving.
Homer: Oh, yeah. [pokes his head out the window] So long, Stinktown!

Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :

I thought in ST2 his character was spelt "Joachim"..

As for the "exits" to the bridge, it's long been suspected taht you could easily get off the bridge without using the turbolift if you REALLY wanted to. Franz Joeseph's bridge blueprints denote the turboluft alcove walls to be "kickout panels", which can be snapped out to access a corridor encircling th bridge, which includes a forward gangway down to deck two.

Mark

------------------
"Why build one, when you can have two at twice the price?"

- Carl Sagan, "Contact"

Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :

In Mr. Scott's Guide, there is an emergency hatch to B-deck just forward of the helm/nav console. Another such hatch could have been present on the original E. God knows we never got to see much of the floor.

Also, if they were really smart, they could have just forced the turbolift doors and escaped that way.

They never said anything remotely implying that the Botany Bay was returned to Kahn in ST:II. Terrell made a remark about cargo modules, and I've always assumed they were of Starfleet issue, otherwise he wouldn't have assumed a Starfleet ship had been marooned there. Also, Chekov was looking at a belt upon which was inscribed "BOTANY BAY" when he made that oh so dramatic comment.

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :

It was a restraining strap attached to the side of the cargo container -- implying it was the container that was from the S.S. Botany Bay, not just the strap.

--Jonah

------------------
"It's obvious I'm dealing with a moron..."

--Col. Edwards, ROBOTECH

Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :

What is your source, Jonah? Or, how can you tell?

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Er...the source would be the scene in question, no?

------------------
"Excuse me, Mr. Rampaging Killer? Why don't you put down the gun and take a look at this hand-held monkey? Does it not have clever little forepaws? It eats gum and sap!"
--
L. Fitzgerald Sj�berg
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet" and something pleasent will happen to you. Possibly involving syrup.

Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :

Sorry, off topic, but Sol: where on Earth did you get that signature phrase???

------------------
Kryten: Pub? - Ah yes. A meeting place where people attempt to achieve
advanced states of mental incompetence by the repeated consumption of
fermented vegetable drinks. - Red Dwarf "Timeslides"

Posted by Daniel (Member # 453) on :

In other words, a restraining strap for what? Why was it on the inside? How do you know it was a restraining strap? (As you can tell, my knowledge of cargo manipulation is severely lacking.)

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Austin Powers: He got it from the Brunching Shuttlecocks.

------------------
"Although, from what I understand, having travelled around the Mid-west quite a bit, apparently Jesus is coming, so I guess the choice now is we should decide whether we should spit or swallow."
-Maynard James Keenan

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

A couple of things about those cargo crates:

1) They were bigger than the crates we saw aboard the Enterprise in TMP, but of a similar shape, with a ribbed outer surface in place of the rolling door.

2) They were smaller than the big wedgelike container thingies visible on the Botany Bay exterior.

If they originated from the Botany Bay, they probably had traveled aboard that ship stricken down, since the ship didn't look as if it had internal room for these crates. If they in turn came from aboard the Enterprise, they could have been lying assembled in a cargo hold somewhere (we didn't see the holds in TOS), and simply emptied for this task.

In any case, they probably ended up on the planetary surface with the help of the Enterprise's (cargo) transporters, since we never saw any landing-capable ships or shuttles that could have carried such big crates or even their wall elements in TOS.

Timo Saloniemi

Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :

Thanx TSN!

Timo: They could still have been transported to the surface by some as yet unseen shuttle type, although you're probably right, it does seem rather unlikely.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Of course, we never saw Cargo Transporters in TOS either. As far as I remember, the Enterprise-nil has ONE transporter.

One transporter. One door on the bridge. I wonder what happened for Starfleet to start laying the massive back-ups we saw in TNG.

------------------
You know, when Comedy Central asked us to do a Thanksgiving episode, the first thought that went through my mind was, "Boy, I'd like to have sex with Jennifer Aniston."
-Trey Parker, co-creator of South Park

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

Given how we sometimes saw differing door colors for the "single" transporter room in TOS, I'd suggest at least two, symmetrically mounted on both sides of the saucer. From there, it's not a big step to the preferred fanfic arrangement of four transporter rooms: one as shown; one opposite the existing room, across the corridor; and a mirrored pair on the other side of the ship.

Why not make use of multiple transporters in storytelling? Let's forget the obvious reason (namely, that there weren't multiple sets to be used), and invent some technobabble. Those transporters could have been the sharpest cutting edge of semi-experimental high tech at the time, so a ship would *have* to have four: one operational, one spare, one being torn down so that the engineers can figure out what went wrong the last time, and one reserved for running experiments to figure out what will go wrong the next time. It's much like the British SSBNs: with sufficiently superhuman effort, one out of four can actually be out at sea performing its job, while the other three undergo repairs or resupply.

Timo Saloniemi

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

Just re: the Botany Bay. How come the boarding party on the BB in "Space Seed" could walk about... how come there was gravity!?! There was no artificial gravity in 1990 was there

Also, it also applies to the SS Birdseye from "The Neutral Zone" how come Data and Worf can be walking around on there when there is no Artificial Gravity?

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

1996, actually. And the Birdseye could have been launched as late as 2000. Obviously, such technologies don't exist now. However, it has been consistently shown that, in the Trek universe, technology advanced much more quickly than in reality (cryoships in the '90s, transparent aluminum in the '80s, warp drive by the 2160s, which we're probably not going to have). So, in Trek, they could very well have had artificial gravity at that point. Granted, Ares IV (that's right number, yes?) didn't have it. But, maybe that was to save money, or something...

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :

Warp by the 2060s, I think you mean

--Jonah

------------------
"It's obvious I'm dealing with a moron..."

--Col. Edwards, ROBOTECH

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Hmm. I'm not sure I buy the multiple transporter room thing. They never mentioned there being more than one, and they constantly said "THE transporter room.". And they never tried using another one when it broke down either.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

2060s... Yes... I knew that...

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

Well, anyway - still on the gravity thing. How could Kirk and Co. not to mention the just awakened Genetic Supermen, stand on the Botany Bay? Did that 'pod' region in the middle rotate perhaps!?! Still also doesn't explain the Birdseye's non gravity... or gravity.

Also, I was thinking the other day - after we've been discussing a lot of early Trek/TOS stuff... actually WHEN our timeline and the Trek time line (for all we know ;o) ) divided. I'm thinking, maybe the Moon program didn't stop at Apollo 17, but kept going. Then we'd get Nomad, Voyagers up to 6... moon and mars settlement, etc. etc. Its seems as if it is around this time (well TOS of course) that the events change. Rember Colonel Richie and Spock's comment about his Son playing an important role in the first human travel to Saturn... That would have to have been, if his son was say about 5 during "Tomorrow is Yesterday" about 1986-90.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

How does "So, in Trek, they could very well have had artificial gravity at that point." not mean they could have had artificial gravity. The Trek universe in the '90s has technologies we don't have in reality. Artificial gravity could very well be one of them.

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

Ooops! Sorry, I didn't read that post properly. But I would have assumed that Gravity Plates would be a big scientific leap for just 20 years (i.e. the time from 1970 - 1990. (In the trek Universe) Although true, it may have been a top priority to investigate for long travel in space - which people seemed to be doing more of in the 'trek' time line

The Saturn Mission
The Mars Missions
(presumably Jupiter missions)
The sleeper ships

then all those ships that seemed to have left Earth into the great unknown - as seen a few times in TNG...

The Charybdis, the Mariposa etc.

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

If we did invent gravity manipulation in the 1970s, that would definitely make the conquest of space so much easier. We wouldn't waste it on deck plating - we would apply it to the propulsion systems! Apparently, one can't simply float a rocket off Earth on antigravs even in the Trek universe, but gravity manipulation would at least make the rockets much more efficient.

Once we had that kind of super-propulsion, it might not be necessary to develop "gravitic deck-plating" very rapidly. After all, space travel would be so fast that people wouldn't *mind* being weightless for those short hours or days. Some freighters like the BB could perhaps have optional gravity for ease of cargo handling... Or then Khan installed this rare luxury item aboard his ship because he knew he was going to stay in space longer than most people.

Timo Saloniemi

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :

The point of divergence is much farther back. I originally placed it as being the child who would be Gene Roddenberry not being born, or being born a girl, or dying in WWII, or some such, because we have to explain Edith Keeler (Trek) vs. no Edith Keeler (Reality-Land)...

But then I remembered a bunch of other stuff, and basically I'd say the point of divergence is early in the life of the universe. Maybe the origin of the Q Continuum in the Trekniverse, versus no such critter in our universe. But that in the infinity of diverging timestreams, there's a large wing of parallel dimensions that have a lot of similar or even identical surface features, even if the details are different.

On a quantum level, I'd say every decision gate (to steal a computer term) results in diverging timelines. Every either-or case, no matter how trivial or minute generates one universe for each alternate outcome.

In the case of Trek, much of their 20th century resembled ours, but their American space program wasn't hobbled after the early success of the Apollo missions -- maybe because Kennedy wasn't assassinated, maybe because of something else. Who knows. But they had their promised space stations in the 70s, lunar outposts in the 80s, and manned interstellar probes in the 90s. I just wish the lowest common denominator of Star Trek's viewership didn't have to be spoon-fed their sci-fi. The "dumbing-down" of recent Trek is largely due to that portion of the audience that doesn't GET that Star Trek is not a direct extension of our reality. Not to say that what we have is better or worse -- just playing out differently. There will be no Vulcans in our universe, but there may end up being some other race even more spectacular than we can imagine...

--Jonah

------------------
"It's obvious I'm dealing with a moron..."

--Col. Edwards, ROBOTECH