I'm working on a Oberth Class Science ship and I'm wondering how to deal with the shuttlebay issue. I have already scaled the ship up to 200 meters as a compromise between the stated size of 120 meters and the bridge scene in The Search For Spock. I'm of the mind to assign the three square openings in the primary hull as shuttlebays.
I know the original series NCC-1701 had small docking ports under the primary hull, and the Miranda/Avenger class cruisers had primary hull mounted shuttlebays, so there is a precedence there. Thoughts, Opinions?
Thanks!
Christopher
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I'd say the opening at the front is a small shuttlebay and the two one the sides are more for workbees and EVA than shuttles (as the nacelles would bock easy access for shuttles).
Posted by ChristopherT (Member # 1634) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: I'd say the opening at the front is a small shuttlebay and the two one the sides are more for workbees and EVA than shuttles (as the nacelles would bock easy access for shuttles).
That would work good! I have workbees I could assign to the ship. I didn't think they would have a full blown shuttlebay like the larger ships. Probably small bays with a couple of shuttles each.
Thanks, Jason!
Christopher
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I'm sure back then they had type 25 shuttles or what ever they were - similar to the little ones seen in "Time Squared" and "The Ensigns of Command" etc.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I doubt it- we're talking about 85 years of advancment to get those little coffins...
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
The smaller square doors maybe for quick work-bee egress.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah, that's what I suggested. It's always kinda bugged me that starships seem incapable of major self-repairs by the TNG era. I mean, they have replicators, workbees, shuttles, tractor beams...
I think a ship (even an Oberth) would beed to be able to repair structural damage via EVA excursions (thus the need for workbee bays on a tiny science ship).
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I reckon the square at the front would be better suited as a deflector or comm dish/patch of some sort. The round domes UNDER where the bussard collectors would be could work AS bussard collectors. They don't all have to be glowy red.
Also does anyone know what the 'tunnel' is at the back of the secondary hull? That hull/pod has rather a Vulcan feel to it when viewing it from below: http://shipyard.scifi-art.com/sfa_oberth_bottom.jpg Posted by Jim NCC1701A (Member # 1021) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: Also does anyone know what the 'tunnel' is at the back of the secondary hull?
When I first saw the ship in STS- all those years ago - I thought the secondary hull was the warp nacelle. Nobody else seemed to agree (the old "no one or three nacelle" thing again?) so I shut up about it but I still have the feeling that it could be. Especially if the ship's design was based on the old Hermes or Saladin...
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
One set of fan-drawn plans (the one that called the ship the Glenn Class Fleet Survey Vessel) placed the shuttlebay in the secondary hull. It was beneath the domed section with access through overhead doors. Since the length of the ship is roughly the same as your tentative specs (the plans list a length of 198.4m), that location might work. Of course, even at that size you still have the problem of how to move between the hulls; God, I hate the ILM ship designs!
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I'm still not convinced that every starship needs a shuttle. Or even a workbee. What sort of a component would the ship have that would be too large for a spacesuited person or group of persons to handle, yet not too large to be taken to some sort of a workshop inside the ship, repaired, and taken out again?
There's no real point to carrying a big "forklift" or "crane" that can move entire warp coils if you don't have a trunk where you'd keep a spare warp coil.
The weird "tunnel" at the stern of the ventral pod is somewhat exaggerated in that artwork. It's the mounting point for the motion control rod, and I'm not convinced it is even there in those shots where the rod is not used... DVD 'caps of the introductory shot in ST3 should show it best.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by ChristopherT (Member # 1634) on :
Well, if it helps, this is what I came up with. I assigned the three areas on the primary hull as shuttlebays. The forward one is twenty meters deep to accept 1 or 2 Standard Shuttles at 18.5 meters each.(Surak style, TMP Era.) The port and starboard bays are 10 meters deep to accept a few workbees each.
The reason I have embarked craft on a two-hundred meter ships is for all the times when all the power is down, the tranporters are out, or Spock's other brother comes to dinner! Early Starfleet vessels are fairly tough, tougher than their TNG successors. But to do repairs you are either going to make it back to a spacedock or fix the ship on site. If you are going to fix the ship onsite, your EVA options are small craft or spacesuits.
I did notice the spaces on the back of the primary hull, but those looked tight for even a 2.7 meter workbee! I figured them for cargo areas.
I'm looking at even a 200 meter Orberth as being a real PITA for getting through the pylons into the lower hull. A dedicated single-pad tranporter would probably work better and be more energy efficient.
If I can post an image here, I'll try to get a shot of the Workbee up against the pylon to see if a turbolift shaft could fit a 200 meter Oberth.
Christopher
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I'm still not convinced that every starship needs a shuttle."
Well, I guess, if they're willing to not go to the surface of any planets where the transporters don't work...
Posted by ChristopherT (Member # 1634) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: Also does anyone know what the 'tunnel' is at the back of the secondary hull? That hull/pod has rather a Vulcan feel to it when viewing it from below: http://shipyard.scifi-art.com/sfa_oberth_bottom.jpg
I have that pegged as a large sensor pallet. The type of area that on some plans show up as "Open to all forms of EMS radiation, etc." On my model that area is blue to match the rest of the hull trim, the forward area of the secondary hull is bare hull.
Christopher
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Back in the day, I thought the lower pod was a nacelle....and it probably serves as the flush vents for the nacelles (that dark grey ventlike area at the pod's ventral aft could easily serve that purpose).
Now I think of it as a sensor only kind of thing: it might also house heavy equipment to be beamed down to a planet and then back up into storage (all done remotely from the primary hull).
That odd "tunnel" at the aft is visible in STIII and TNG, so it's probably a sensor (though a much-needed aft-facing probe launcher would work better).
I'd have to give the ship a shuttlebay: for the reasons Tim pointed out- sooo many planets have atmospheres that prohibit transporter use, and transporters are ofter dangerous to seriously injured crew and delicate specimans.
Posted by ChristopherT (Member # 1634) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Back in the day, I thought the lower pod was a nacelle....and it probably serves as the flush vents for the nacelles (that dark grey ventlike area at the pod's ventral aft could easily serve that purpose).
The Workbee is 1.3 meters tall, 1.3 meters wide and 2.7 long, roughly. We're looking at the back of the port pylon where it connects to the lower hull. You might do this with a dedicated 2 man turbolift, but even a 200 meter Oberth is going to have a messy time of it.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Nope. I dont dig it at all.
I'd rather there be only emergency crawlspaces for maintence between primary and secondary hulls.
For all we know, the lower pod might detatch, sprout solar panels and go into orbit around a planet for months on end while the primary hull heads off to Risa for some fun in the sun.
Posted by ChristopherT (Member # 1634) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Nope. I dont dig it at all.
I'd rather there be only emergency crawlspaces for maintence between primary and secondary hulls.
For all we know, the lower pod might detatch, sprout solar panels and go into orbit around a planet for months on end while the primary hull heads off to Risa for some fun in the sun.
Consider where the pylons terminate at the top section too. Right on the nacelles where the fins are. Now if I had short, stumpy warp nacelles that needed to be operated close to overload for very short periods (minutes?) I'd use the fins to cool the warp coils down. But putting a turbolift access here seems to be a little too suicidal even for redshirts!
I agree, some of the components of the warp drive are down there, but they are like the original Constitutions, mildly unaccessible. I'm wondering if that whole lower aft section might open up like a clamshell when all the systems are shut down? It could be used to change sensor pallets or other pieces of equipment.
Christopher
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I'd figure that large grey section on the pod's forward dorsal side lifts off to reveal sensor palates and such- it's probable that the interior of the pod is completely changed from the STIII era to the TNG era.
For the ship to still be in service by TNG, it must have some impressive capabilities (sensorwise).
BTW, welcome to Flare (always good to see new members that want to talk ships and tech).
Strange we should be diswcussing the Oberth- I'm making up three models of said ship as we speak (though two are going back to the garagge manufacturer as display pieces and for box art pgotography). The model is scaled to 150 meters (a figure I agree with).
Posted by ChristopherT (Member # 1634) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: I'd figure that large grey section on the pod's forward dorsal side lifts off to reveal sensor palates and such- it's probable that the interior of the pod is completely changed from the STIII era to the TNG era.
For the ship to still be in service by TNG, it must have some impressive capabilities (sensorwise).
BTW, welcome to Flare (always good to see new members that want to talk ships and tech).
Strange we should be diswcussing the Oberth- I'm making up three models of said ship as we speak (though two are going back to the garagge manufacturer as display pieces and for box art pgotography). The model is scaled to 150 meters (a figure I agree with).
I agree that interior must have been refit several times during the 80 years preceding the TNG era. Which makes you wonder what do they do with all that gear when they aren't counting whales?
I suppose if the aft underside of the pod was the same color as the deflector/sensors on the Enterprise-Refit, it would make more sense initially.
I've got 80 odd models on www.orbithangar.com and as I learn new techniques I like to go back and update them. This time the Grissom is getting updated, after Grissom will be the Regula 1 Spacelab. I do like them to be as accurate as possible so I when I wrote the config files for Grissom I wanted to make sure I wasn't way out in left field with the shuttlebays.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Sounds cool. BTW, no need to quote someone if it's the preceeding post- we dont stand on ceremony here at Flare. Posted by ChristopherT (Member # 1634) on :
Each board has it's own rules and vernacular, so it pays to be polite all the time. I don't know the dirty story behind the Oberths and ILM but I do know really bad design when I see it. I've never seen any plans for the Oberth on or off the net, so I'm guessing at the functions mostly. I'm guessing that no one at Paramount ever questioned the final design?
Christopher
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I really like the Oberth! Really! It's great to see a ship that now "saucer and secondary hull blob, plus nacelles".
Starfleet should have far stranger vessel design than that- according to it's numerous member species which should (but aparantly dont) have an influence on starship design.
Posted by ChristopherT (Member # 1634) on :
Ahh! That's the "Rod and Gun Club" theory of military design and appropriation. Same bunch of admirals that handed the US Navy the Mk 14 torpedoes back in the 1930's.
I like the Oberth too, if only for it's incredible underdogness. The warp nacelles have a look that defies description. They aren't PB-47's, they aren't the new Linear models, only half the length of the nacelle seems to have coils in it. Long range doesn't seem to be the catchword of the day here. It probably has mission durations measured in weeks not months or years. But in a sense, it's a lot like the pilot NCC-1701. Everything is smooth and hidden behind pods and panels.
Christopher
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
hey, those same nacelles were on the first Excelsior designs ILM made.
As to the Oberth, it makes sense that the ship not be an extremely long-range ship: these would be the ships that do all the real work of research once the Enterprise moves on to it's next "discovery of the week".
I'd think a whole fleet of science ships was sent out to the Dyson Sphere (along with tachyon detection grids and orbital defenses to prevent unwanted security breaches).
Posted by ChristopherT (Member # 1634) on :
I think I just found my next Operation Center Seat project. Oberth Class fan fiction for the masses.
I wonder how it would kitbash into something along the lines of a Ptolemy Tug?
I thought TOS was a monster/villian of the week driven series? We didn't get a discovery of the week until ST:TNG!
Christopher
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Jackill has a nice tug variant on the Oberth- no underslung pod, but two large tractor beam emitters under the nacelles.
He's also got a pair of combat versions- one with Miranda phasers and a third nacelle on the ventral side and one with a Miranda torpedo pod underslung where the Oberth's pod is.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
He Who Shall Not Be Named contributed this insight:
quote:
I've mentioned this before, I believe, but given the sheer volume of Oberths that must exist (I postulated 5000 or so over 150 years or the like) & the amazing adaptabiltiy of the pod design--pop it open or swap it out entirely--there has to be far more usage that JUST a research vessel. I've no problem with the Biko being an Oberth & a cargo vessel; that pod is perfect for cargo runs.
My favorite postulation for other subtypes is that of the "intelligence trawler" Threat forces see an Oberth nearby & think, "Oh, they're just studying that nova" but the pod really contains massive specialized passive intelligence-gathering sensors with maybe a few tight-focus active ones. They could be used as boder pickets, fleet AWACS ships, even Starfleet Intelligence command & training ships. Who's to say that there aren't a few with heavily upgraded engine desings & a pod that carries the sensor suites or intel training areas or both?
I agree. I also think their sensor suites could be rigged to detect cloaked ships (until cloaking tech moves up a notch, then sensor tech would need to catch up again).
Consider the Pegasus- it was likely chosen simply because it was so unassumning- and because top-secret intel is easier to maintain on a small ship.
Christopher, as you're new here, let me explain that "He Who Shall Not Be Named" does indeed refer to Chuthlu.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I've been here for... ever - I don't know who either of those names refer to.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
ZOOM! Right over Andrew's head.
I'll PM you and you'll say "D'Oh!" Of course!
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
Holy shit... we're up to 1600 members?
I suppose long range sensor sweeps could be possible. I find it odd that I think Adm Pressman said it tested a lot of tech for the Galaxy-class. Completely different engines, deflectors, and all that.
Posted by ChristopherT (Member # 1634) on :
My USS Podish Class was built along those lines, designed liked a Ptolemy Tug without the tow pad and the warp nacelles up against the primary hull.
The objective was to create a "superscout" that had high enough warp speed to coast through an enemy system with all it's system shut down and shielded passive sensors collecting ECM/ECCM data. Two nacelles gave it more redundancy than the standard Hermes/Saladin classes, hence the Superscout.
When I mentioned "counting whales" I was alluding to the idea that the Oberths were perfect for missions other than the standard ones a science vessel would have.
It might explain their long staying power in an otherwise extremely hostile enviroment. Compare the current B-52 bombers whose first flights were in 1952. They've got the hull and systems integrity to keep absorbing upgrades long after they should have been retired. (Enterprise was 40 when they tried to retire her?)
I once thought the idea of 80 year old ships running around ST:TNG was crazy! I'm beginning to rethink that position.
Christopher
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: I find it odd that I think Adm Pressman said it tested a lot of tech for the Galaxy-class. Completely different engines, deflectors, and all that.
The Pegasus was supposed to be a Cheyenne class vessel. The script reflects this, even the sets reflect this. But when they couldn't build a detailed Cheyenne model in time, they used the Oberth model (also, the Crazy Horse was also supposed to be a Cheyenne, thus the 5xxxx registry).
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
(1600ish people have signed up, anyway. We only have 503 members at the moment, unused accounts being trimmed from time to time by his bearded eminence.)
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: ZOOM! Right over Andrew's head.
I'll PM you and you'll say "D'Oh!" Of course!
I said "D'Oh".
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Topher:
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: I find it odd that I think Adm Pressman said it tested a lot of tech for the Galaxy-class. Completely different engines, deflectors, and all that.
The Pegasus was supposed to be a Cheyenne class vessel. The script reflects this, even the sets reflect this. But when they couldn't build a detailed Cheyenne model in time, they used the Oberth model (also, the Crazy Horse was also supposed to be a Cheyenne, thus the 5xxxx registry).
Admiral John Locke!
Now I just had an idea - a few 'special edition' eps - where they fix up some effects. They could nicely replace the Oberth Pegasus with a Cheyenne Pegasus!
Do we have ANY other views of the Cheyenne class other than that trading card version?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Topher:
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: I find it odd that I think Adm Pressman said it tested a lot of tech for the Galaxy-class. Completely different engines, deflectors, and all that.
The Pegasus was supposed to be a Cheyenne class vessel. The script reflects this, even the sets reflect this. But when they couldn't build a detailed Cheyenne model in time, they used the Oberth model (also, the Crazy Horse was also supposed to be a Cheyenne, thus the 5xxxx registry).
Huh. I though that Amby variant with the nacelles down and no neck (a sketch MSD of Sternbach's was sold two years ago on ebay and we talked about it untill I built my USS Hemidall model of it) was supposed to the the Pegasus.
I never heard of a Chyenne being considered before.
Anyhow, the systems being tested could have been targeting sensors, weapons interfaces, transporter and shield technology- none of which would preclude a larger ship.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Topher: The Pegasus was supposed to be a Cheyenne class vessel. The script reflects this, even the sets reflect this. But when they couldn't build a detailed Cheyenne model in time, they used the Oberth model (also, the Crazy Horse was also supposed to be a Cheyenne, thus the 5xxxx registry).
This is only partially correct. It is true that the Crazy Horse, after being mentioned by name only in "Descent, Part I" (TNG), was listed by Okuda as Cheyenne-class and assigned a registry of NCC-50446 in the first Star Trek Encylcopedia and only later appeared as an Excelsior in "The Pegasus" (TNG). It is also true that the Pegasus herself was originally intended to be a new design of ship, but it was not that of the Cheyenne Class. Rather, it was an Ambassador-derived design, as can be seen in this sketch by Rick Sternbach. When this was not allowed by the budget, the Oberth model was used instead.
While it is true that a display on the Pegasus Engineering set appears to show what might be four nacelles, I know of no official record citing a connection between the ship and the Cheyenne design. The display may indeed have been created by Okuda, one of the very few people on staff who would have had any idea what the Cheyenne looked like, (or even that it existed, modelled by Ed Miarecki and named by Okuda himself for use in "The Best of Both Worlds, Part II" [TNG]) but no other evidence for the oft-repeated fandom tale that the Pegasus was supposed to be a Cheyenne exists AFAIK. No TNG script makes any mention whatsoever of "Cheyenne class" in reference to any ship, nor does any episode's dialogue, although another Okuda-generated display from "Redemption, Part II" (TNG) establishes that the class does exist and that the ship from BoBWII (the Ahwahnee) was of it.
Unless anyone has further evidence in support of the claim, I tend to think that this little urban legend got started through confusion between the established background stories of the Pegasus and Crazy Horse, which both coincidentally culminated in the same episode, perhaps furthering the confusion.
-MMoM
P.S. I forgot to mention that a further point which might have contributed to the Pegasus-as-Cheyenne theory is the fact that her registry number (NCC-53847) is of comparable range to that of the number assigned to the Crazy Horse (NCC-50446) in the Encyclopedia, where (as mentioned) the latter was also listed as a Cheyenne.
-MM Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
They should have gone with the Amby version: it would have been schweet. Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
But the larger you make the ship, the less likely it is that the mutineers would fail to detain the Captain. It has to be a fairly short hop from the bridge to the shuttlebay if Pressman and Riker are to have any hope of making it.
Incidentally, this plot detail in "The Pegasus" does confirm that Oberth class vessels carry shuttlecraft. That is, unless the Pegasus herself was heavily modified from the class norm. Since she was something of a testbed, and since about half of her was hidden from our view, this is of course a distinct possibility...
The display in "Hero Worship" suggests that the shuttlebay is at the stern of the ventral pod, although there are no obvious openings for it. The aft "tunnel" is too small for the purpose. Perhaps a topside sliding panel?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Hmmm good points about the Pegasus' size needing to be small to accomidate the story better (though the shuttlebay on the Amby's "C-Deck" would have worked in the story's context of a running firefight from bridge to shuttlebay, I suppose).
How does Hero Worship confirm shuttles? Was there an MSD or something?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Yes. Specifically, this one. Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
The only way to get that Type 6 out of there without resorting to the "completely seamless dorsal doors" theory would be to say that the side "grilles" on the pod are rolling doors.
Quite possible, I guess, if we think of the pod as a mounting system for swappable instruments (or for assorted cargo in the oft-quoted supply ship role). However, rolling those doors away would definitely ruin the day for people working in the aftermost cabins of the pod...
...Unless those cabins are in the centerline only, and are flanked on both sides by pressure bulkheads. Such an arrangement would be relatively workable. And not every Oberth need have those centerline cabins; virtually the entire interior could be reconfigurable, save for the warp core in the middle (and that area is actually flanked by solid walls anyway). A science vessel would have the extra cabins and the extra computer core. A supply ship might have fuel tanks. A whaling vessel would have a boiling kettle. And so forth.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
but the MSD seems to indicate decks in the pylons as well, and that's just total bullshit.
Mabye the ship was carrying a shuttle or two as cargo to some outpost when disaster struck. Hapless (and doomed) crew had just enough time to lament "if only we could get to those shuttles we're carrying..." Posted by ChristopherT (Member # 1634) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: [QB] but the MSD seems to indicate decks in the pylons as well, and that's just total bullshit.
That's not the first time! It's possible that the Vico was a 400 meter Oberth, which would put it in league with the Klingon Bird of Prey for the same hull having been built in multiple scales.
Christopher
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: They should have gone with the Amby version: it would have been schweet.
what makes you think they can't?
i mean, Lucas redid/updated all three of his original Star Wars episodes back in the 90's, using CGI to cover his 'failings'. What is stopping Paramount or who ever from perhaps doing the same or similar to any of the TV episodes of TNG? hella, even TOS?
Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
Quick, someone email Mike Okuda and ask him if that MSD of the Vico is still around.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I doubt Paramount will be doing any FX revisions of TNG anytime soon.
Particularly when they could revised TOS' efects for DVD- they could have just taken the bueatiful Enterprise studio model from Trials and Tribulations, shot the ten or so scenes of the Enterprise that were always used and made the occasional CGI sky or enemy starship (instead of having the Orion ship look like a photon torpedo).
But Trek is not exactly at an all-time high: not after us lausy fans failed to support a wonderful film like Nemesis. Damn us fans!
I"d personally prefer SFX updates to TOS and TNG (along with a nice complete W359 battle scene) to another Stewart/Spiner ego-inflating TNG movie.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
You know, it's funny, I don't recall ever hearing a single positive reaction to what Lucas did to his Star Wars films...go figure...
Leave Trek VFX alone, please. Think of the children.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Some annotations to the back of the Oberth - illustrating what I mentioned in an earlier post. I put two sizes of 'person' there - both work. Sort of going by the 'bridge dome' being the actual bridge itself or just in the middle of it.
From that MSD I don't know about decks down the pylons either - but the two little guys I've got there could easily have a comfy turbolift. Failing that there's always an escalator!
Decks in the pylons might work for the little guy but there still wouldn't be much room to do or store much at all. I'd be really pissed off If I ended up with quarters in the pylons!
AND you can see that you don't have to go through the nacelles to get to the pylons and beyond since they sit on the flat upper primary hull further to the front.
It's not clear from the MSD (or actually it's not even a MSD, it's a cutaway viewed from aboard the Enterprise) whether the pylons are supposed to have "decks" in the sense of "cabins and closets and consoles and crew-accessible areas", or just in the sense of "horizontal and vertical reinforcing structures".
There is some detail there that looks similar to the cabin detail in the ventral pods, and there are arrows pointing to a couple of areas in the pylons. A better-resolution image would be quite interesting... Any hope that this could be turned into a series of detailed DVD caps and zoom-ins, combined with a transcript of what LaForge is saying when he hand-waves around that display? (I don't even have a VHS tape of this. )
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by ChristopherT (Member # 1634) on :
Andrew, is that a standard 120m Oberth?
Christopher
Posted by Johnny (Member # 878) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: I"d personally prefer SFX updates to TOS and TNG (along with a nice complete W359 battle scene) to another Stewart/Spiner ego-inflating TNG movie.
According to an interview I read with Patrick Stewart this morning, he doesn't want to do anymore Hollywood movies because "most of them are crap".
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well, as "most" of the movies he's been in were Trek or Lifeforce, I'd say he should guard his words a tad better....
I'm also intrested to see what scale Oberth that is- even at that size, I dont buy the "escalator" thing- too thin buikheads between the crew and space there for safety.
A Jeffries Tube with variable gravity (so you could not slide to your death,and would need no ladder) would work nicely though.
I still think that even in the movie-era, they could have made conduits that specifically routed a transporter matter-stream (hey they do it with superheated plasma, so why not) to "transport" crew to the Oberth's secondary hull/Miranda's torpedo pod. It's beaming, but without inherent the dangers thereof.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I don't like the idea of any ship having areas that require a transporter to access. What if they go down? With Starfleet's redundancy-lust, it hardly seems like something they would do.
As long Stewart is Prof X in X-Men 3, I'm good. He can enjoy his stage-only career after that.
Posted by ChristopherT (Member # 1634) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: I don't like the idea of any ship having areas that require a transporter to access. What if they go down? With Starfleet's redundancy-lust, it hardly seems like something they would do.
If it was for normal day to day operations I'd say that it might be okay. Maybe if it was modified with the waveguide like Jason said. Look at the distance between the Transporter rooms on the 1701D and the hull emitters. If I was the captain and there was any sort of emergency, I'd space the cargo and run for the nearest asteroid belt!
I settled on 200 meters for my Oberth and I'm comfortable with that. Maybe that would give room for some escalators (which can be made very narrow! I think what I need to do is make a 3D escalator and see how that approach would work.
Christopher
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Well, as "most" of the movies he's been in were Trek or Lifeforce, I'd say he should guard his words a tad better....
I'm also intrested to see what scale Oberth that is- even at that size, I dont buy the "escalator" thing- too thin buikheads between the crew and space there for safety.
A Jeffries Tube with variable gravity (so you could not slide to your death,and would need no ladder) would work nicely though.
I still think that even in the movie-era, they could have made conduits that specifically routed a transporter matter-stream (hey they do it with superheated plasma, so why not) to "transport" crew to the Oberth's secondary hull/Miranda's torpedo pod. It's beaming, but without inherent the dangers thereof.
As long as there is another reciveing Transporter pad, I don't think its a problem. They beam into other ships and bases frequently, why is it different beaming withen one's own ship?
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
At the start of The Original Series - site-to-site transporting on starships was risky business and the Oberth Clearly is an older ship.
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
I'm well aware of this. But is it still "site-to-site" transporting if both ends have a transporter pad? The issue with site-to-site is that you might end up in a wall or something because there is very little space inside a ship and the transporters weren't that precise. But when beaming to a pad, we always see them on the pad.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, for that matter, if it's two pads on one ship, they don't even have to "beam" you at all. They can send you through pipes.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
That's exactly what I'm talking about: some specilized conduit that channels the matter-stream.
That would be "safe" by Starfleet standards.
Remember that these guys shoot imporntant ambasadors off in torpedo casings and design ships that fire torpedos scant meters above from the bridge...
A conduit transporter system would be no more risky than the ol' suicidally-fast turbolift or shuttlebay-with-only-a-forcefield in an emergency situation.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
(There are no shuttlebays with only forcefields, and turbolifts go slow enough to allow long conversations.)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Turbolifts go exactly as fast as the story requires- see DS9's lift in season one for example. I'm certain starsleet lifts go just as fast (or the transporter room is right under the bridge on the Enterprise).
True, shuttlebays have physical doors, but the point is that in an emergency, those doors close waaay too slow to save anyone if the field drops.
It's all part of that "Risk is our business" line that some washed up captain once said before getting sucked into space.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
For what it's worth, trasporter to transporter, er, transporting was never seen in the original series. It first popped up in TOS. I'm guessing Okuda or Sternbach came up with the "it uses less energy and is safer if there's a receiving pad" theory.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: For what it's worth, trasporter to transporter, er, transporting was never seen in the original series. It first popped up in TOS.
^Just one of many examples of Liam going senile.
You did mean TMP, right?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
No. I meant Totally On SilverScreen. Which is what I call Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Yes.
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: For what it's worth, trasporter to transporter, er, transporting was never seen in the original series. It first popped up in TOS. I'm guessing Okuda or Sternbach came up with the "it uses less energy and is safer if there's a receiving pad" theory.
I belive that Kirk and Spock beamed from the Transporter room on the Enterprise to transporter pads on K-7.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I was thinking that too... but I don't remember for sure.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Nitpicking time! We see that the transport ends on twin station pads, but we never see whether the operation begins on the pads of the Enterprise.
We see Kirk leaving the bridge and ordering the transporter room to "stand by" - but is this because Kirk is going to be using the room to go to the station in a few minutes, or because Kirk is going to be transported there by the station system and merely wants the ship to be prepared to grab him back if there is trouble...?
Of course, one wonders why Kirk even leaves the bridge if he is going to rely on the station machinery.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Indeed... one does wonder.
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
Was there acctually a transporter operator on the other side? I can't remember.
If not, I'd certanly hope that the ship's transporter room had somethign to do with the beam over, otherwise I question the need for a transporter operator at all.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I think on K7 AND on the Starbase 11?? in "Court Martial" there was a set of pads on the other side. I two-man pad actually. One could argue that using pad-to-pad between facilities requires less energy than pad to 'any point' - annular confinement beams etc etc.
Also at that time it may have been more safe to go pad-to-pad.
But even on DS9 they still used pad-to-pad transport from Ops etc.
Although if we want to be picky still - if there was a problem at one of the upper docking pylons etc etc - a presumably long turbolift ride away - why not just use the transporter pad in ops to emergency beam a team to a particular spot?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I think Kirk and co beamed from Enterprise onto Regula's transporter (not 100% on this though).
Not transporting to another transporter seems unusal- as evidenced whenevr there's an emergency and specific instructions to "beam them directly to sickbay/ops/the bridge" are given by whoever is in charge. Otherwise it's just assumed they'll get directed to the pads.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I think Kirk and co beamed from Enterprise onto Regula's transporter (not 100% on this though).
Not transporting to another transporter seems unusal- as evidenced whenevr there's an emergency and specific instructions to "beam them directly to sickbay/ops/the bridge" are given by whoever is in charge. Otherwise it's just assumed they'll get directed to the pads.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Nope - Kirk's posse materialized in a corridor junction, then walked (via the central command area / mortuary) to the transporter room and found that it had been set for the interior of the Regula asteroid.
I in turn think that in "Doomsday Machine", the party was shown explicitly going from Enterprise pads to Constellation pads. Have to check later on.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Makes sense- they would have just replayed the dematerialization scene in reverse and saved on "effects".
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
They leave Spacedock via it's transporter to get back on the Enterprise. I think Scotty was at the controls on the Enterprise.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
You are speaking of ST3, I take it?
To nitpick, they leave via "The Old City Station" (presumably down in San Francisco, which suggests that McCoy was also held planetside), and their arrival on the Enterprise is never shown; when we join them again, they are IIRC shown entering the bridge via turbolift.
...Again, if they had transported to somewhere else besides the transporter room, why not directly to the bridge? This is another highly probable example of pad-to-pad, but again not a conclusive one.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
You might want to also check out "The Tholian Web" and "Omega Glory" for other scenes where they beam from the Enterprise to another Federation Starship.
In "Doomsday Machine," however, they beam into the corridor on the "Constellation."
Of course, in those two instances the ship they were beaming too was deserted (or at least had a dead crew) so there wasn't anyone operating the transporter.
And all this is still "I think that they did a transporter to transporter transport in such and such episode". Where it the proof, man?
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
For the record, they beam directly to the bridge in "Web", and to engineering in "Glory".
There's no explicit pad-to-pad in any of the TOS episodes (although it's implicit in "Tribbles"), nor in the TOS movies (although the dialogue is suggestive of pad-to-pad at least in the last trip of Commander Sonak), until ST6 rolls along - and suddenly it seems that pad-to-pad is the only possible way to do ship-to-ship!
I don't know if ENT ever did pad-to-pad. In terms of real-world chronology, the first instance was probably "A Matter of Honor". The first explicit Starfleet-pad-to-Starfleet-pad transport doesn't come until "Realm of Fear", although it's probably implicit in all transfers from "Where No One Has Gone Before" on, even though we only see one half of them. ("Encounter at Farpoint" doesn't count: no doubt McCoy used a shuttlecraft or went spacewalking!)
Come to think of it, we practically never see transporting between two Starfleet pads, unless it is a weird emergency such as in "Realm of Fear". DS9 does much more pad-to-pad between transporters from two different cultures than any of the other shows, but even there the circumstances are often exceptional. Pad-to-pad is not at all as common as it may appear at first glance...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
One, seemingly obvious, reason Starfleet might want all incoming to beam in through the receiving transporter system is so that the matter stream goes through the receiving bio-filter.
In instances where the receiving ship is doing the transporting, but rematerializing the subject somewhere else on the ship (beam them directly to sickbay), they would still be going through the bio-filter of that ship, so it would simply be a power conservation issue.
In Star Trek 6, the reason that *had* to beam pad-to-pad, was so that the evidence could be found. And while it's likely the computer logs were erased, the thought that noone even considered trying a DNA match from the transporter records is somewhat irritating.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
The DNA match wouldn't really have been worth the while. It was already known that it would be a victim's blood, after all, not a perpetrator's.
And even if the color hadn't told it for Klingon blood, the heroes would already know the assassins wore protective garments. There wouldn't be any telltale biomaterial transferred from the insides of the suits to the outsides. And the outsides are probably easily sterilized.
(Whoops! Edit: Completely misunderstood you, Aban! Have to plead erased records after all. Then again, we don't know if transporters already did the DNA scan thing back in the 2290s. They might retain no record of use other than "I was used on SD XXXX.XX on YYY's authority".)
What the heroes could have done is order everybody in recorded possession of such suits (they were personally identifiable, as Scotty later tells us) to present them to the searchers. Burke and Samno would have been caught literally with their pants down...
(Hmm. This is getting way off topic. Who's the moderator around here?)
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Well, I guess we don't know if the transporter keeps records, but in order to deconstruct a person, it would have to be able to read all the information that would be needed to identify them.
Here's a possibility, though: What if they didn't really use Enterprise's transporters? If they were working with Chang, they may have been given info on how to access the Klingon transporters to take them off Enterprise and put them on the Klingon ship. Then they used the Klingon's transporters to get back, only materializing in Ent's transporter room because they knew there wouldn't be anyone there, not because they were actually making use of the transporter. That would explain why they had to use the Klingon transporter pads and why there was no computer record of them being transported.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
quote: Well, I guess we don't know if the transporter keeps records, but in order to deconstruct a person, it would have to be able to read all the information that would be needed to identify them.
But since the task of handling all that information is so immense, we might postulate that the transporter doesn't handle it. Rather, it just gulps it down without chewing: the person is "dephased" and then "rephased" in an "analog" manner, without going into the "digital" specifics of his makeup.
Such a mechanism would leave no useful record or assembly instructions, which is a good thing dramatically speaking, because it makes the creation of transporter doppelg�ngers a bit more difficult.
The idea that the assassins used a Klingon transporter is logically sound. Also, since Burke and Samno were on guard duty at a transporter room when we first saw them, it might be that they were chosen specifically because they had legitimate access to such a room; they wouldn't have legitimate access to the machinery in that room, though, so Valeris would have to intervene if Starfleet transporters were to be used.
The downside of that speculation is that, IIRC, the transporter effect on the Qo'noS 1 and Enterprise pads was the Federation blue through and through. I hope I'm remembering wrong, though.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
I just checked: the transporter effect was red arriving on and departing from Kronos One; we never see Burke and Samno departing or returning to Enterprise. Also, when Kirk and McCoy arrive on Kronos One, the effect was red as well.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
So that supports Aban's interpretation all the way...
(Although I do seem to remember a shot of the assassins' feet when they return to the Enterprise, with the Klingon blood droplets falling down on the transporter platform. Was the effect there red, too?)
What does the Klingon transporter operator aboard the Qo'noS 1 say when the assassins arrive? Is he in on the plot? Did he beam the two aboard? Was he in the belief he was beaming somebody else aboard?
It would make sense for the conspirators to use the facilities of the Klingon ships as much as possible, but they must also make sure to leave lots of traces aboard the Enterprise so that they can implicate Kirk in case of a detailed investigation. So perhaps Valeris actually forged the records so that they would show the assassins used the Enterprise transporters, even when they didn't?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I believe the only guy in the transporter room is taken by surprise by their arrival, and then they kill him.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
...Which wouldn't be all that surprising if he were an accomplice of theirs.
So, is this guy's line translatable thlIngan Hol, or gibberish?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
I think the only guy in that sequence that actually says something is the guy that gets his arm shot off.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
And Timo, I think the scene with the falling blood that you're remembering is aboard the Klingon ship. We see the two in suits beam off, with blood floating over the pad and dematerializing. Then the power comes back on aboard the Klingon ship, and everything, including all the blood flyig about, falls with a splat to the deck. I don't think we ever saw the assassins return to Enterprise.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I think you are right...
...But I still have to rewatch ST6 and check. (Any excuse is good enough.)
I just hope I have time to do that before BSG premieres here tonight. Uh, oh, and "Terminator II" (the Incredible Actually Pretty Good Sequel) airs just before it. Better hurry.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Get the director's edition with the scenes added back in. It's better.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: In Star Trek 6, the reason that *had* to beam pad-to-pad, was so that the evidence could be found. And while it's likely the computer logs were erased, the thought that noone even considered trying a DNA match from the transporter records is somewhat irritating.
As Spock said in that same movie... logs can be altered. Or words to that effect.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
All this "pad to pad" talk is heading for a tampon joke. I sense it.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Surely you mean a maxi pad joke, which, as everyone knows, is the funniest of all feminine hygene products.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
No. My uncle used to live with my parents (he's much younger than my dad), and once when he was about 12 thought my Mums tampons were water bombs shaped amusingly like mice. Poor confused child. Although not so confused as the passers by.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
)![[Razz]](tongue.gif)