U.S.S. Enterprise studio model visit

[airdave]

I personally like the lack of surface details on the Enterprise.
To me, this is more realistic.
I watched 2001 again the other night and I paid close attention to the Discovery and Pod scenes
since they are many closeups of the models.
I found that there is an excessive amount of surface detail.
Its not realistic.
Theres too much stuff on the outside of the ship.

Sure, some areas will be nothing but plumbing and gadgets.
But not the entire surface of a large spacecraft.
And the outer "skin" would be as smooth as possible.
Just from a construction and weight aspect, there needs to be less.
Theres no need to keep adding more redundant panels or access doors

Even windows seemed to limited on the Enterprise, which makes more sense.
Windows require a ridiculous amount of extra structural modification and offer up great risk to the ship and its interior.

Theres a reason why Submarines don't have windows.

The Enterprise D had an unbelievable amount of windows. Totally unbelievable.

Discovery has massive windows surrounding the bridge and other areas. Ridiculous.

[JohnGay]

Submarines don't have windows because we haven't perfected transparent aluminum yet.

[airdave]

Computer...?

[southwestforests]

I dunno. My take is different. Humans like to see, and I'm going to expect that if the impulse is strong enough they will find the tech to make it happen.

Ultimately what spacecraft in entertainment are is artwork. And the creators want interesting artwork so as to keep your focus on the entertainment.
And there are several ways to create interesting; some involving more complexity, some involving less.

And then I look at the ISS which has a tremendous amount of stuff hanging out in the breeze so to speak.

If a vehicle will not be operated in atmosphere I don't think it needs a slick shell unless for aesthetics or armor against micrometeorites and such. The shell would add mass. And as far as our current tech level is concerned adding mass adds a requirement for more fuel which then adds more mass and volume.

And then I consider the Star Wars ships which enter atmosphere and go through the reentry heating and think they must have some amazing materials for making conduits and I-beams out of.

[airdave]

ISS is not a space craft as much as it is a space "station" or satellite.
It can't really 'fly" anywhere.
...and it is constantly being augmented and added to.

I'm not talking about a slick shell for aerodynamics.
I'm talking about keeping it simple in design...lighter and less complicated to build.
It also needs more surface protection from debris, meteorites, radiation, etc
and less things sticking out that can be damaged by the smallest of space particles.

My biggest moment was when, in 2001, there is a good clear rear view of the engines on Discovery.
The exhausts are separated into pairs (3 of them) and these are framed in hexagonal "hoods".
I didn't understand the purpose of adding these hoods.
Seems like pointless extra structure and materials to me.

But then I notice the inside of the "hoods"...they are lined with more raised panels and surface details.
What is all this stuff for back here? and what exactly would you need to access in this area?
Is it extra protection from the engine blast?...then why are the hoods there in the first place?! lol
Its a lot more material and redundant surface panels than are necessary.
More weight too.

Anyone designing spacecraft will tell you, more weight means more of everything!
Including more engine power and fuel.

I get it...artists, model builders, having fun adding greeblies and all kinds of visually interesting extras.
I found the Close Encounters spacecraft to be fantastically interesting to examine at the Smithsonian.
So much stuff added to the top of that craft.
(Keeping in mind, it has a smooth protected side for atmospheric entry.)

I just think, the realism is lost in the model making when it comes to larger long distance craft like Discovery or the big ships in Star Wars.
I like the smoother cleaner finish of Star Trek craft.
They strike me as more realistic for their time.

Why not keep as much as possible inside the smooth Hull, where it can be serviced more easily?

[THE DC]

Originally Posted by airdave

TV shows were shot on magnetic tape. Cassette Tape basically.
Not film.
(Just reverse the tape image after filming!)

Actually, that's later on. The originals were shot with film and in later years transferred to tape during later years syndication. I've seen the original film reels, years ago. Some cutting room frames can be purchased around and Mr. Roddenberry use to cut up his reels and sell frames through his company.

The concept of resolution, as we think of it today, is very different when discussing film, and especially back then when we spoke of exposure control and the particulars regarding the quality of film, especially for 70MM, often described through film speed.

The reason that quality suffered over the years is that the later magnetic tape transfers loose quality with each generation, and they decay quicker than film. I saw several episodes from original film and the quality when projected was surprising.

[THE DC]

Originally Posted by airdave

I personally like the lack of surface details on the Enterprise.
To me, this is more realistic.

You might be glad to know that your thinking is in good company.

After Star Wars; all sci-fi moved toward greebles, but Matt Jefferies strongly felt that advanced technology wouldn't include exposed components but would be covered in ceramics and polymers that protected the hull while conducted energies that permitted operations. The lack of "indented" plating and greebles was a choice of vision, both in the Enterprise and the D-7.

Later incarnations of Trek reflected more of a Star Wars visual than Jefferies initial vision, though he was reportedly satisfied with the minor increased detailing of the second series revisions to his original models (which were more detailed with surface art. The quality of this 11 ft. model is often ignored because his perception of advanced hull dynamics has fallen out of popular zeitgeist.

So your preference is in good company!

[THE DC]

Originally Posted by JohnGay

Submarines don't have windows because we haven't perfected transparent aluminum yet.

Submarines use to have windows. The first submarine, the Turtle, has little ports, as did the CSS David.

Submarines in WWI, the real birth of modern submarine warfare, had small ports but thick glass windows. Over time the value of these was questioned in favor of hull integrity. Great depths were more valuable than the very limited visibility that a sub gains with a port.

FYI: the old german U's had their windows in the conning tower. Read Captain Von Trapp's bok for some interesting notes about them.

[THE DC]

Originally Posted by southwestforests

I dunno. My take is different. Humans like to see, and I'm going to expect that if the impulse is strong enough they will find the tech to make it happen.

Ultimately what spacecraft in entertainment are is artwork. And the creators want interesting artwork so as to keep your focus on the entertainment.
And there are several ways to create interesting; some involving more complexity, some involving less.

And then I look at the ISS which has a tremendous amount of stuff hanging out in the breeze so to speak.

If a vehicle will not be operated in atmosphere I don't think it needs a slick shell unless for aesthetics or armor against micrometeorites and such. The shell would add mass. And as far as our current tech level is concerned adding mass adds a requirement for more fuel which then adds more mass and volume.

And then I consider the Star Wars ships which enter atmosphere and go through the reentry heating and think they must have some amazing materials for making conduits and I-beams out of.

Your pint of human wanting windows in fair, as even the ISS installed one, but they would have very limited value in a ship, although pretty on a TV screen. The distances involved in space would make "seeing" anything with the naked eye rather difficult, unless in orbit (and then only if the right side of the vessel permits view, and there's no major solar glare or atmospheric reflection...). One would be better with vliewscreens projecting external sensor output.

On Star Trek, the view screen isn't a reflection of what radiation reflections the eye would see, but a projection of enhanced sensor data, cumulated from many varied sensor readings. The screen images don't suffer from the darkness, deep shadows, and other impediments that would exist in space due to solar proximity and ambient lighting. In fact, sensor images used far more than the radiation reflected off the molecular surface (visual input), as what our eyes see is not really the object but what our brains are developed to perceived; the reflection of the surface, not the "actual" color of the object.

Even with "transparent aluminum" the loss of hull integrity would justify limiting windows, if not dispensing with them for the most part.

Please also remember that in the original ship, not all illuminated circles or rectangles were windows; some represented beacons, active sensor pads or strips, and other tech more advanced than our science permits understanding.

You might be interested to note that in Jefferies' vision, advanced ships had few windows or ports until extremely advanced, like the Enterprise. His DY-100 had no visual ports.

You are right, that the models used are artwork, but a factor in the original; series was to push the limits of realism to encourage the suspension of disbelief. Roddenberry, Coon, and Jefferies all wrote and spoke copiously about preparing entertainment for the smartest person in the audience. It could be argued that later incarnations were not as invested in this value.

The "slick shell" was not only present for atmospheric entry, even if a rare occurrence, and to diffuse the effect of spatial drag and heat (especially in a nebular event). Traveling at such great speed as high sunlight would generate heat along the hull, due to the expenditure of energy and the traversing of gravitational wakes. A recent NASA paper discussed the realistic effects of attempting high velocities in space, including theoretical faster than light efforts reflected in fiction. One area rarely considered in sci-fi is the impact of heat generated by the plasma like flow of light particles the hull would wake at great speeds. Even if space was empty vacuums, which we know it isn't (and I'm not just speaking of dust...and don't get me started on dark matter), there is a cost for a physical object encountering photons at high speeds.

So the smooth surface effort reflected what the contemporary science of the time suggested about FTL travel and the effort to indicated very advanced materials to protect the delicate apparatus, such as sensor platforms, transporter nodes, and such, and limiting the very caustic environment of space on components such as hatches, etc. Sooth covering, instead of grebes, was visualized as accounting for protecting components, and that tightly fit hatches and apertures permitted exposure of these components only during use, and protection at all other times.


They were shooting for more than aesthetics; they really consulted scientists and knowledgable writers (such as Asimov) and NASA engineers at the time. In fact; the K-7 space station arouse from such a consultation, allowing the usage of a conceptual model for a NASA shelter.

[THE DC]

Originally Posted by airdave

Why not keep as much as possible inside the smooth Hull, where it can be serviced more easily?

That's another good point!