Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
Star Trek
Byrne Robotics > Star Trek << Prev Page of 204 Next >>
Topic: STAR TREK: NEW VISIONS - Origins and Updates Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 14260
Posted: 13 August 2017 at 1:59pm | IP Logged | 1 post reply

Just finished reading "All The Ages Frozen". Loved it. A classic TREK-style mystery story.

The next issue looks pretty sweet, too. 
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 108727
Posted: 17 August 2017 at 11:20am | IP Logged | 2 post reply

I forgot to check before I handed out all my comps. Did my little "wrong transporter room" bit make it all the way to the printed version?
Back to Top profile | search
 
Doug Centers
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 February 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 2627
Posted: 17 August 2017 at 11:34am | IP Logged | 3 post reply

"Did my little "wrong transporter room" bit make it all the way to the printed version? "

...

Yes.
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 108727
Posted: 17 August 2017 at 12:18pm | IP Logged | 4 post reply

Another itch scratched!

I decided the solution to the problem of them only every saying "the transporter room" when there should probably be a dozen of 'em with a crew that large, was that there was one transporter room, the same one, that was always "on duty" while the others were brought on line only as needed.

We can assume, for instance, that when the crew is deserting the ship in "This Side of Paradise" the other transporter rooms are operational. Probably also true when the androids beam the whole crew down in "I, Mudd".

Back to Top profile | search
 
Doug Centers
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 February 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 2627
Posted: 17 August 2017 at 12:51pm | IP Logged | 5 post reply

"..when there should probably be a dozen of 'em with a crew that large...."

...

Absolutely!
Whenever I watch COURT MARTIAL I just assume it anyway.
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 108727
Posted: 17 August 2017 at 4:37pm | IP Logged | 6 post reply

Just "finished" issue 19, which contains ST:NV's first (drumroll!) DOUBLE PAGE SPREAD!

An exploding planet, no less. The effect I used, actually demolishing the model I'd built, came out very Kirby-licious, I thought. Strongly evocative of his own photomontages.

(Now we pause to imagine what the King might have done with modern technology!!)

Back to Top profile | search
 
Aleksandar Petrovic
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 13 January 2017
Location: Canada
Posts: 127
Posted: 17 August 2017 at 4:48pm | IP Logged | 7 post reply

Very nice, looking forward to that one. 

By the way I noticed that Amazon finally revised their entry for Star Trek: New Visions Volume 5. It now has the correct page count - 152 pages, the largest TPB so far - which makes sense, since the book includes three regular issues plus "More of the Serpent Than the Dove" bonus. The listing previously cited 128 pages, and it stood like that for months...  
Back to Top profile | search
 
Joseph Greathouse
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 August 2015
Location: United States
Posts: 425
Posted: 17 August 2017 at 5:55pm | IP Logged | 8 post reply

"I decided the solution to the problem of them only every saying "the transporter room" when there should probably be a dozen of 'em with a crew that large, was that there was one transporter room, the same one, that was always "on duty" while the others were brought on line only as needed."

Interesting itch. Though I can't think of many situations that engineers would think of as a day-to-day need for more than a couple transporter rooms (main and cargo for bigger items) when that space could be better used for other things. But still fun to consider I guess.
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 108727
Posted: 17 August 2017 at 6:57pm | IP Logged | 9 post reply

Day to day? Maybe not. But how about when Matt Decker beamed down his entire crew while the ship was under attack?. Do you imagine they all patiently lined up outside a single six-pad transporter room? What's the cycle time on the transporter?

It would also be most practical to get the crew aboard a new ship faster than six at a time.

In any case, based on the corridors and cabins -- not to mention Engineering itself -- I don't think wasted space is much of a consideration on a Constitution class starship.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 14260
Posted: 18 August 2017 at 4:00am | IP Logged | 10 post reply

That's a friggin' clever way to get around the illogic of the ship seemingly having only one Transporter Room. Works for me!

I suspect that the logistics simply weren't a consideration, at the time. After all, we saw that long line of crewmen waiting to beam down in "This Side of Paradise", and were basically left to assume that everyone was using that one and only Transporter. 

Of course, one of the great advantages of the fact that the ship wasn't planned out in great detail is that it leaves lots of room to the imagination for filling in gaps and "fixing" mistakes. There have been countless interpretations of the Enterprise's interior layout, over the years (both official and fanmade), and none of them are "wrong", per se. 

Fans have been discussing the location of Engineering, whether the Bridge is offset 37 degrees, and how many Transporter Rooms there are for decades. It's all part of the fun, really.


By the way, I recently learned one of the artists (Matt Cushman) who worked on the officially-licensed Enterprise cutaway poster from the mid-90s (which I still have a copy of) has been working on an all-new and revised cutaway poster as a (now-belated) part of the 50th anniversary celebration. He's posted some teaser images on Facebook. There are lots of little Easter Eggs and whatnot from various episodes sprinkled throughout. Looks like it's gonna be a must-buy, for me.

The original Enterprise just possesses a magic--inside and out--that no other fictional vehicle has ever quite been able to match. It vexes, thrills, and captivates all at the same time.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 108727
Posted: 18 August 2017 at 12:42pm | IP Logged | 11 post reply

Of course, one of the great advantages of the fact that the ship wasn't planned out in great detail is that it leaves lots of room to the imagination for filling in gaps and "fixing" mistakes. There have been countless interpretations of the Enterprise's interior layout, over the years (both official and fanmade), and none of them are "wrong", per se.

And, in a nutshell, there you have the most basic flaw in such projects as OHOTMU, which takes an RPG mentality and tries to nail down every detail of everything.

+++++

The original Enterprise just possesses a magic--inside and out--that no other fictional vehicle has ever quite been able to match. It vexes, thrills, and captivates all at the same time.

As I've noted before, the closest I've ever come to a religious epiphany was when the "Big E" swung into view across the screen of my parent's big console TV, that evening in 1966. It's not often one can point to a moment when one's life changed, but for me that was definitely such a moment!

Back to Top profile | search
 
Paul Newland
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 23 May 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 126
Posted: 18 August 2017 at 9:17pm | IP Logged | 12 post reply

It stands to reason that the Enterprise should have more than one transporter room, even if only one is active at a time (yellow and red alerts most likely requiring the back ups to be activated and manned).

The incongruity comes where damage to the system seems to be restricted the the local console (or at least repairs seem to be).  If there is more than one, why not simply boot up your spare console next door?

Even if there are integrated components, you would expect the transporters in the secondary hull to have their own circuits, otherwise the ship loses transporter capability following a saucer separation.

It still makes more sense than not though.

I think later versions postulate emergency transporters that can be booted up in the secondary hull - not as reliable but valuable in a crisis.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Eric Sofer
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 31 January 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 1578
Posted: 18 August 2017 at 10:01pm | IP Logged | 13 post reply

Mr. Byrne, I'd be rather surprised if there were only one transporter room on a Constitution class starship. Let's see... six transporter slots for 432 crew (for the math's simplicity's sake only...) is 72 trips with NO breakdowns. If I assume five minutes a cycle, that's six hours to load (or empty) a starship. 

Even if I allow some faster transfer of personnel with transport shuttles... that sounds kinda unreasonable for a starship out in the middle of nowhere all on its own. Six transporter chambers reduces that to an hour - even though events from TOS seem to indicate that they didn't have that many (as one transporter breakdown seemed to be kinda critical - speaking of Matt Decker...)
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 108727
Posted: 18 August 2017 at 10:59pm | IP Logged | 14 post reply

When Decker refers to the transporter being "out" he does not necessarily mean a single transporter room.

In the context of the script at the time, that is, of course, just what he meant. But in the broader context of this discussion, he could as easily mean several platforms. After all, the term "transporter" would technically apply to the individual units. A clutch of them together is thr "transporter room".

Anyway, the deed is done (and approved by Chris Ryall), so anyone who doesn't care for my bit of tinkering is more than welcome to ignore it!

Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 108727
Posted: 18 August 2017 at 11:03pm | IP Logged | 15 post reply

BTW, since it's so easy to do with the model I use, I am now tempted to add subtle lighting cues to show that different transporter rooms are in use.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 14260
Posted: 19 August 2017 at 12:14am | IP Logged | 16 post reply

When Decker refers to the transporter being "out" he does not necessarily mean a single transporter room.
In the context of the script at the time, that is, of course, just what he meant. But in the broader context of this discussion, he could as easily mean several platforms. After all, the term "transporter" would technically apply to the individual units. A clutch of them together is thr "transporter room".
+++++++++++++++++

By "the Transporter went out", I assume Decker was referring to main power being knocked out. After all, when the Enterprise comes upon the Constellation, scanners show all power plants to be dead, and the ship running on minimal auxiliary only. Just basic life-support, by the looks of it. So, no engines, weapons, or transporter.

Decker mentions the phasers being "useless" (not "inoperative"), but that was before the crew was beamed down to the third planet. So, the blow struck after the crew had abandoned ship was surely the one which decisively crippled all the major systems, transporter included.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Richard Stevens
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 04 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1155
Posted: 19 August 2017 at 1:29am | IP Logged | 17 post reply

For all we know, there are six Transporter rooms per *deck* - and the number available at any given time are simply limited by power. In a critical situation, shut a bunch of systems down and beam everyone out!
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 108727
Posted: 19 August 2017 at 1:52am | IP Logged | 18 post reply

I imagine no more than one transporter room per deck. I see them stacked -- shared function, like kitchens or bathrooms in an apartment building.

I can also imagine an emergency situation where the whole crew has to get off the ship, and almost all the power is channeled into the transporter rooms.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 14260
Posted: 19 August 2017 at 2:08am | IP Logged | 19 post reply

That all works for me.I believe that Franz Joseph's STAR FLEET TECHNICAL MANUAL showed large cargo tranporters which would also double as emergency personnel transporters.

Edited by Greg Kirkman on 19 August 2017 at 2:09am
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 108727
Posted: 19 August 2017 at 2:50am | IP Logged | 20 post reply

There is a subtle suggestion of more than one transporter room in "The City on the Edge of Forever." In the last moments, after having retrieved McCoy, SEVEN people beam back to the Enterprise.

;-)

Back to Top profile | search
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 14260
Posted: 19 August 2017 at 3:52am | IP Logged | 21 post reply

I seem to recall reading an explanation for that in David R. George's 40th anniversary novel trilogy (which centered around "City")--the six pads re-materialized the bulk of the landing party, with the seventh crewman held in the pattern buffer, awaiting a free pad until the others six were aboard. 

Doesn't quite work, but at least he made an attempt to explain it!
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Paul Newland
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 23 May 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 126
Posted: 19 August 2017 at 8:50am | IP Logged | 22 post reply

I lost track of the number of redshirts in the Apple, but aren't there at least 7 of them there too?

For the most part, the transporter would be impractical for mass evacuation.  Anyone who has been involved in an office fire drill even a supermarket queue will understand.  Plus, where are you going to send them?  How will they survive? How do you prioritise?  Technically, you don't even need transporter rooms for site to site, just communicators so the real issue isn't the number of pads available but the capacity of the system (how many of Kang's Klingons were beamed to the brig at once?).  If you have five rooms, can the system use all five at once in any event?

Escape pods and shuttles will be the primary form of evacuation even if close to a planet as they will also provide shelter, supplies, and emergency beacons.  Transporters would more likely be used to beam heavy equipment into space, where it can be towed by shuttles or to the planet where it could be used by the evacuees.

So, I think spare transporters would be a must in both primary and secondary hulls but whether you need more than two each (for when one is in maintenance cycle) is more of an open question.
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 108727
Posted: 19 August 2017 at 10:55am | IP Logged | 23 post reply

I seem to recall reading an explanation for that in David R. George's 40th anniversary novel trilogy (which centered around "City")--the six pads re-materialized the bulk of the landing party, with the seventh crewman held in the pattern buffer, awaiting a free pad until the others six were aboard.

Yuck!

Have you noticed that SO many "explanations" over-complicate things?

Occam's Razor, doods!!

Back to Top profile | search
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 14260
Posted: 19 August 2017 at 4:20pm | IP Logged | 24 post reply

Yep.

As I've noted on occasion, later TREK is the poster child for needlessly overcomplicated explanations to nitpicky questions, to the detriment of story and character.

TOS played fast and loose. As long as the technology was believable, and the story and characters were strong and engaging, then the nitty-gritty details didn't matter. 

As you've noted on occasion, JB, "Mirror, Mirror" doesn't really hold up to close scrutiny, in terms of the mechanics of the dimensional transposition. But, it's still a GREAT episode. One of the best in the entire run. Stopping to nitpick the mechanics of the plot does no good, and only serves to diminish the fun of watching it. The technical details aren't important, because the construction of the story and characters is so good and engaging.

Now, I can respect the fact that the later iterations took greater pains to ground themselves in then-current scientific theory in order to create a strong sense of versismilitude, but, all too often, this came at the cost of clean and efficient storytelling. Episodes hinged upon technobabble and naval-gazing rather than strong characterization.

This is a problem TOS never had. The fictional technology was a storytelling tool, not an unbilled co-star of the show.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 108727
Posted: 19 August 2017 at 4:48pm | IP Logged | 25 post reply

Technobabble is basically fan-wank on steroids. The moment we start to hear phrases like "warp field generators" and "Heisenberg compensators", we know people are starting to obsess over the wrong stuff.
Back to Top profile | search
 

<< Prev Page of 204 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login