FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Profile Log in to check your private messages
 Forum Index      Log in  Register
Design Thread: Nostromo interiors and deck configurations
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> General Discussion related to Alien
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Vader
Community Member


Joined: 19 Feb 2011
Posts: 255
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2017 12:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not unlikely it's been named a "docking tube" the same way the antenna has been named a "radar dish". Based on how radar actually works, I sincerely doubt the function of that dish can have anything to do with radar. Unless the Nostromo has a radar-targeted weapon somewhere...

I think the model shop could name their greeblies without putting all that much thought into it, leaving it to posterity (us) to figure out what the stuff "actually" is for.
_________________
26354
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
FenGiddel
Community Member


Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Posts: 343

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2017 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Starrigger wrote:
Found this quote online:

Bill Pearson: After most of the model had been built we were informed that the scale of it had changed from 1:35 to approximately 1:150! This necessitated the construction of a new bridge section. Originally this was located just behind the "twinned lobes" but, as it had to match the windows on the full-size set, we had to remake these smaller and perch them on either side of a new unit, now located in front of the lobes. Also Martin fixed a docking tube and radar dish in that area. (From Script to Screen, p94)

Whether this is just Bill's interpretation of what Martin did, I leave for others to debate. I would be fine with seeing it as a refueling structure of some sort.

Right, Steve; Bill's interp is why I call it "docking tube". Maybe it is obscured by docking tackle?

Other thoughts:

DRYDOCK
This docking tube topic has made me think more about what the Nostromo might look like in a space-based drydock where an airlock would be needed. Unless there are pressurized spaces in the nacelles, the forward hull seems as good a place as any for a docking tube. But then, there's that pesky main antennae array getting in the way.


AIRLOCK
And I've never figured out a good place for the airlock used for Kane's burial. It appears the body spins out aft between the main body and nacelle. For some reason, I believe it might be (looking aft) on the port side, with the lifter nacelle on the right.

Vader: you've got the main airlock/auxiliary airlock on -10 Level, with the shuttle. That seems to fit since the body's path appears to be a little below the shuttle bay.





In your plans, do you consider that "main airlock" to be the one used for Kane? I'm sure there is more than one airlock, but the onscreen evidence indicates the airlock faces aft.

The airlock exterior face is flat, which in the model of the shuttle bay would imply we're seeing the nacelle side (the main hull is usually angled); otherwise, I would wonder if they hadn't put him in the extendable lock used to get to the gangway lift. And on the right side of this image, there appears to be one of the lateral antennae masts that stick out from the sides of the main hull. Problem is, I don't know if we are shown anywhere else that an antenna projects inward form the nacalle to the main hull.






I don't find anything in the shot of the airlock interior to help, either.





And thanks again to Graham for the deck level plans. Very helpful in these discussions.[/img]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Author Message
Vader
Community Member


Joined: 19 Feb 2011
Posts: 255
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You've hit upon one of the main geometric dilemmas. The whole airlock question is one single, huge mess!

One thing is relatively easy, though: the "main airlock" is where they, according to the dialogue, hope to eject the Alien, once Dallas chases it out of the air duct, which in turn emerges into the antechamber.
The antechamber set is the same as that used for the landing egress/ingress scenes, so I call this airlock the "main airlock".

There being a "main" airlock suggests the existence of at least one auxiliary airlock.
Since the interior of the Kane burial airlock, as well as the proportions of its outer door, do not match those of what I've decided must be the main airlock, I elect to call this airlock the "auxiliary airlock".

After that ... it gets not so simple.

The fact that the hull section that the auxiliary airlock comes out of has antennae sticking out from it would suggest that it is the main hull ... that it is horizontal, well ... there is a section of the main hull that is horizontal, and I seem to recall that the portion where I've drawn in the aux. airlock more or less hits it (actually a little bit forward of where I've placed the dots, but ... more or less).



So that's how I've chosen to interpret it.

The problem is of course the direction where Kane's body flies ...there is no place I can think of to locate the airlock that could account for that, assuming the body is just carried away by the air escaping the airlock when the outer hatch is opened (which really makes no sense either — the body gains much too much velocity, much too quickly). Same as there is nowhere on the ship that an airlock could be placed that gives the view of any of the landing gears like that seen in the scene when the landing party exits — the open bay doors will always be in the way!


I have however thought of one possible explanation for the body's trajectory relative to the hull.
Incidentally, this would also explain why, when the shuttle launches to escape Nostromo's destruction, instead of using its main engines to boost forwards in relation to the ship, uses its small forward thrusters to boost backwards — and seems to achieve immense acceleration that way.

Here's how it goes:
Imagine that the hyperdrive generator, in bringing the ship to hyperspace, first needs to accelerate it to a c-fractional velocity. This would take some days of constant acceleration at several dozen, perhaps up towards a hundred, m/sē, before the hyperrelativistic bubble can form.
The inertial compensators of the ship's artificial gravity masks this immense acceleration for everything inside the hull, but as soon as an object leaves the artificial gravity field, it will continue to coast on inertia at the speed the ship (and therefore the object) had at the moment of separation, while the ship itself continues to accelerate away from the object, seemingly leaving it behind — or, from the ship's relative frame of reference, making the object seem to shoot away in a sternward direction.

Therefore, Kane's body does indeed leave the ship on a lateral vector, but in the same instant, the ship's continuous acceleration "leaves" it there. The body does continue to move on the vector away from the airlock, but that motion is rapidly dwarfed by the hyperdrive acceleration of the ship, which makes the body instead seem to fly off on a sternward trajectory.

This also makes heading aft, even with weaker thrusters, the absolutely fastest way for Narcissus to escape the ship.

A hypothesis not without a certain elegance, I can feel...



By the way, just a point of terminology: a "dry dock" is not just somewhere that a ship can dock; it's a facility where ships are repaired, and in some cases built.
In the terms of our contemporary universe, they're called that because they can be emptied of water:



In the terms of ALIEN's universe, I feel it proper to expand that to mean a dock in which a ship is moved out of its normal element (being water or space) and into an environment where humans can work over the entire ship's hull without any special equipment just to be able to be where they are.

Ergo, a "dry dock" for the Nostromo must be somewhere that the ship can settle on its gear, and then be worked on in normal gravity and atmosphere, with massive cranes and gantries all over the place.

An imposing facility, by any standards.
_________________
26354
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Starrigger
Community Member


Joined: 16 Aug 2009
Posts: 197

PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

the problem with some of that Vadar, is that the model detailing with the exception of the antenna is on the nacelle side, not the main hull side.

you can even see the recess where the lock is.





I can never get over how big this model was...... Shocked
_________________
Come on over to my place - CGiWorlds.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Author Message
Vader
Community Member


Joined: 19 Feb 2011
Posts: 255
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

One might easily think that was the case, but in actual fact it isn't so. This is just a case of panels being re-used in different locations for different shots. They do that kind of thing all the time, hoping that no-one will notice (and usually no-one does), just so as not to need waste time making different, but superficially identical, models that don't add value to the production.
Btw, the exact same panels as the airlock wall were, if I recall correctly, apart from this anonymous piece of nacelle wall, also used as hyperdrive cavern walls in the first version; the one whose towers were recycled as thrusters.

The fact that the antenna isn't there is significant — it means it's supposed to be perceived as some other greeblie-festooned wall than the otherwise identical one with the antenna.

Also, if you consider the geometry of what you're proposing, you'll quickly realise it doesn't add up: In the first shot, we see Kane's body ejected from the airlock, on a trajectory perpendicular to the wall. It is not reasonable, in the next shot, to see the same body have somehow looped around, to now fly past that same airlock on a trajectory parallel to the wall.

And rather conclusively I believe, you'll also note in pictures like the one below, that when the panels are reused as the nacelle wall at the shuttle, the recess no longer contains the airlock hatch.



I seem to recall we have also established as a point of consensus that walls with antennae belong to the main hull... That is obviously subject to reconsideration once better evidence to the contrary is presented, but for the time being, I believe we can take that much, at least, as given.
_________________
26354
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
FenGiddel
Community Member


Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Posts: 343

PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Starrigger: thanks for pointing out that the recess to the right of the shuttle is the airlock! I only just realized it.

Looking at the model and the shot of Kane's body shooting aft, I just cannot see how the onscreen shot can be explained. There just isn't an airlock facing aft that would line up with the channel between main hull and nacelle.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Author Message
Starrigger
Community Member


Joined: 16 Aug 2009
Posts: 197

PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FenGiddel wrote:
Starrigger: thanks for pointing out that the recess to the right of the shuttle is the airlock! I only just realized it.

Looking at the model and the shot of Kane's body shooting aft, I just cannot see how the onscreen shot can be explained. There just isn't an airlock facing aft that would line up with the channel between main hull and nacelle.


I'm thinking this is why Vadar and I keep knocking heads. I see a great movie with gaps in logic that I really have no desire to twist into shape.

Why a huge ship called a "tug" when it seems to be nothing more then a detachable wheelhouse.

Why a crew at all? The whole refinery is automated and yet it can't find its way home? If the crew is nothing more then a multi man harbor pilot. Why are they along for the trip?

How about gravity?

How does a body float down a path that has no place to start?

don't know, truthfully don't care.
_________________
Come on over to my place - CGiWorlds.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Author Message
Vader
Community Member


Joined: 19 Feb 2011
Posts: 255
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Then why this thread?

What is it these 23 pages set out to accomplish? Is a set of internal blueprints going to make sense it it's just a neat but mainly random piece of artwork with a somewhat vague connection to what it ostensibly depicts, or is it going to make more sense if we make it fit what is seen on-screen as accurately and with as little violence on the film as possible? To me, the latter is the only way to go — and that means finding ways to rationalise what we see, within the constraints of world of the film..

If none of that really matters ... hey, it's just a cool flick ... then what are we talking about?


A few posts ago, I tried to explain what I'm doing on this thread, what I feel this thread should accomplish. I also invited others to pipe in with their own philosophical starting points, in the hopes of reducing the amount of head-butting.
That offer still stands.
_________________
26354
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
joberg
Community Member


Joined: 06 Oct 2008
Posts: 8747

PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2017 6:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vader is right about re-using/re-dress a set or model (specially those "walls" of the Nostromo.

The first pic shows clearly an opening (to the left of those big round greeblies) and without an antenna.

Second pic is with the airlock (that was fitted in the opening now and lit) + the antenna affixed to a square base and screwed in the wall.

That type of transfo is easily done and without much damage to the main model Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Tennessee
Community Member


Joined: 05 May 2017
Posts: 32

PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looks like a bad place to eject Kane (or anything else), as they would splat onto the nacelle across from the hatch.
_________________
"I have been arrested three times, and I have stolen a vehicle, and I also punched a police officer's horse in the mouth on St. Patrick's day. And you guys have handed me the keys to the most expensive spaceship in history. Suckers."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Starrigger
Community Member


Joined: 16 Aug 2009
Posts: 197

PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2017 11:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vader wrote:
Then why this thread?

What is it these 23 pages set out to accomplish? Is a set of internal blueprints going to make sense it it's just a neat but mainly random piece of artwork with a somewhat vague connection to what it ostensibly depicts, or is it going to make more sense if we make it fit what is seen on-screen as accurately and with as little violence on the film as possible? To me, the latter is the only way to go — and that means finding ways to rationalise what we see, within the constraints of world of the film..

If none of that really matters ... hey, it's just a cool flick ... then what are we talking about?


A few posts ago, I tried to explain what I'm doing on this thread, what I feel this thread should accomplish. I also invited others to pipe in with their own philosophical starting points, in the hopes of reducing the amount of head-butting.
That offer still stands.


Perhaps my response is a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to the issues and problems we are having. As I stated before, many of the arguments you are making seem, in some ways to contradict themselves.

Example:

We can't call it a docking tube because the model makers didn't know what they were talking about, but... this wall has to be on the hull side because the model makers put an antenna on it... a lot of your reasoning, while in part may make sense, in others do not. mostly because we are dealing with movie logic. Things are done because "This Looks Awesome!"

"What looks good here?" Not always, "What makes sense here?" in the cold light of day.

case in point:

The underside of the "wings" on the Nostromo are at an angle to the ground-plain in all the full models, but in the shuttle/escape pod pictures we have been examining above, the underside is horizontal... doesn't fit real world logic, the model makers goofed, or it was just too difficult to make it work and look good on film. Maybe the director didn't care or notice, etc.. It can not be explained or justified in the making of real blueprints... Ask Space Jockey.. and the scale is ALL kind of just WRONG!

Because the movie was not meant to be a documentary, or based on real structures or events, things were made up. There is a lot of "This is close enough."

In most Sci-Fi movies, ( I would say that 2001 is one of the few exceptions.) the insides don't, could never, match the outsides. They are usually like Snoopy's dog house or the Dr's Tardis, bigger on the inside.

Please do not misunderstand, I would like to put some sense of order to the structure that is the Nostromo (I truly love this ship!)

However you say:
Quote:
One might easily think that was the case, but in actual fact it isn't so. This is just a case of panels being re-used in different locations for different shots.


Not sure where the "actual fact" comes from. This sounds like an easy way to avoid a possibility that doesn't fit your thinking. This statement says to me that you have already put a lot of thought into your interpretation of the facts, and will be having a hard time deviating from it, which is okay, you are drawing your plans. I just don't buy some of it as "fact."

Example:

Having the airlock where you think it should be, with the addition of your interpretation of possible details that aren't on any model, makes as much sense and is just as valid, as having it where the models make it appear to be, despite it violating a rule created by the group. (all antenna on the main hull)... Your show, your choice.

It is for me, a little too forced. In this process I am looking to see a plan that matches as best as possible how it could be.

In your description of what you are looking to do you said you are trying to create a plan that would match shot for shot pan for pan, what happens in the movie... If that is what you are looking for, why not just stick to the actual built set and do a commentary? I understand that is not what you are trying to do, but your very desire to make it all fit is going to be impossible without compromise. You will need to pick and choose, you will need to ignore details, or fudge the physics.

Example:

Ashes blister was a HUGE issue with Space Jockey's blueprints, and the end results do not match the actual set built. It never will, and cannot. And you chose to follow suit in your plans, and ignore the actual set build.

While I agree that things were reused in the models (saves time, saves money, brings a sense of unity of design. BTW that particular wall started out as the back of the unused engine room. It was used as the back wall on the final as well. see image below.) there are other details there that were not addressed.

Example:

The image of the airlock clearly shows a 90 degree "roof" feature above it that matches the detail in other established models. The only place in my opinion, that matches in any of the model work I've seen, is the nacelle / wing connection area of the large closeup model...



Another thing that you might review is that every time the Nostromo was enlarged in scale, details were added as you would expect.

Example:

In the smaller models there are NO antenna in the "wing" area, but in this close up there are several, quite large ones, that are big enough they would/should be seen on the other models.

Over all, when looking closely and in still picture form, you would be hard pressed to say they are the same place, because the details, structure and scale do not match up at all.

I can much better live with the thought that the director went for effect over real world logic or physics then to try and reconstruct the Nostromo to fit my sense of what is "real."

Example:

No Elevators. bring it up the landing leg openings. Interesting choice, but makes no engineering sense. That would mean that every huge door along the gear bay would be a breach risk. An engineering nightmare! Makes more real world sense to have one outside opening and sealed door with an internal conveyance mechanism. But that's my slant on things, and it fits my engineering sensibilities. You do not agree, your choice.
_________________
Come on over to my place - CGiWorlds.com


Last edited by Starrigger on Thu Jun 29, 2017 1:02 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Author Message
Starrigger
Community Member


Joined: 16 Aug 2009
Posts: 197

PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2017 11:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tennessee wrote:
Looks like a bad place to eject Kane (or anything else), as they would splat onto the nacelle across from the hatch.


Agreed, no matter where you put it, the body goes splat!
_________________
Come on over to my place - CGiWorlds.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Author Message
Vader
Community Member


Joined: 19 Feb 2011
Posts: 255
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 9:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

To try to begin to address the points you raise, in the order you raise them:

- what I've said is that we can't call it a docking tube because in scale, it's too narrow, and the stuff at the 'hatch' side of it make no sense as the hatch of a docking tube. I have never said that we can't call it a docking tube because the model makers didn't know what they were talking about.

- the antenna means that it's a different wall than the wall without the antenna in it, is all I've said. We made up the convention that antenna walls are main hull walls ourselves. As well you know.

- we know that the close-up sets of the shuttle dock and the airlock (or rather, these versions of the same set) and whatnot differ radically from the full-ship models, to the point that they are literally impossible to fit to the models. Apparently, they were made to just be, as you say, "close enough" to give the viewer a hunch of approximately where on the big ship we are, never mind the exact details. Also simplifies the build, since the model set is actually upside down -- the underside of the wing is really the floor of the studio.
But if we want to make a blueprint or a set of deck plans to represent what we see in the movie (and not just what the moviemakers built on-set) we somehow need to incorporate all these details anyway, meaning we need to reconcile these discrepancies. And you will find, Graham put in the shuttle in his blueprints, where none exist in any of the full-ship models.

- quite frankly, I do find it difficult to understand what it is you really want. If you want to make the ship make sense, why do you attack me for trying to "twist it into shape"?
And you get incensed by me being vocal about my ideas of how the ship could make sense, and yet you say you truthfully don't know, don't care?
You say I contradict myself, but man...!

- the "actual fact" comes from an understanding of how they made films back in the day. Re-using stuff, with or without some slight re-dressing, in different takes to represent different things or areas was common practice. It's not my opinion; it's just knowledge. There is no question about that the airlock hatch would somehow be supposed to be the same wall as the one behind the shuttle. It just isn't. The antenna is gone, the airlock itself inside the recess is gone -- it is clearly not supposed to be taken for the same wall:



Never mind if it's on the main hull or not; it's obviously not the same wall. And since it's not the same wall, we need to put it somewhere else -- and the presence of the antenna, while obviously not conclusive (I never said it was) might be construed as an indication that it's supposed to be on the main hull. Maybe.

- yes, we need to interpret details into the models that aren't there — more to the point, we need to place the close-up model sets somewhere on the ship, because none of them are there in the models — because we need to reconcile the discrepancies between what the filmmakers built to shoot the film with, and the film they shot with it.
Graham placed the shuttle and the main airlock/Ash's blister structure; I've placed the Kane burial airlock. And so on.

- why not just stick to the actual built set, you say? Because the sets don't make a plausible ship. I've written that often enough on this thread. I keep harping on about how I want to make deck plans that as far as ever possible connect every scene and take into a cohesive whole -- a ship! -- where you can follow the characters and understand how they move around inside it. The set plans do not allow that! The set plans are just that -- a set; a convenient place to shoot scenes. They are not the ship! So yes, you need to compromise, yes you will need to ignore details, yes you will need to make choices, yes you will need to fudge physics, yes you will need to invent stuff not seen on-screen -- but my goal is to do as little of all that as possible. Forced or not.
And yes, you will actually need to dabble a bit into Sci-Fi writing and invent how future technology and future understanding of physics might look like, to make what we see in the film fit ... but I've written quite extensively about that, too, elsewhere on this thread.

- I wrote not long ago that I want the geometry to mesh as completely as I can. Graham's airlock/blister structure is the best way I've seen to date to make that happen in that particular instance, so I've accepted it into my own model of thinking. But as soon as I think of something that solves the geometry without that addition, I'll go with that, instead.

- a bit funny that you wrote "BTW that particular wall started out as the back of the unused engine room" ... in the end of the same paragraph you just quoted, I wrote: "Btw, the exact same panels as the airlock wall were, if I recall correctly, apart from this anonymous piece of nacelle wall, also used as hyperdrive cavern walls in the first version; the one whose towers were recycled as thrusters."

- the wall at the end of the final engine room is actually not the same wall we've been discussing. Yes, it has a big, round feature, but that's where all similarity ends. Here's a clearer image:



- you remember I mentioned the model set being built upside down, on the floor of the soundstage? Obviously, they re-used most of that set for these two shots, just re-dressing details -- apart from shooting it from different angles, to help confuse the eye. So it is fully to be expected that you'll find the same features here and there.
Still doesn't mean they're supposed to be the same place, because they just aren't.
The model set not matching any given portion of any model in detail also happens to mean that it becomes slightly generic, and therefore can be -- and is -- used to represent different parts of the ship. A good real-world filmmaking reason to not let the "wing underside" follow the exact slant of the models ... not a goof or oversight, but a conscious choice? Or a virtue made out of necessity?

- um ... yes, as we "zoom in" on the ship, we get close-up models with increasing levels of detail ... that's sort of the point of close-up models. Some of this detail would reasonably have been seen on the smaller scale models but isn't, so it's clearly just there to give flavour or signal something a bit subliminal. And...?

- sure, SRS didn't give a hoot about real world physics. But he did shoot a movie, and it has left us with a mess of events and shots and implied stuff that we need to reconcile in some way, if we want to make deck plans that depict the movie as we see it; not just the sets, or the models.

- I think this is probably where you misunderstand me the most fundamentally. But please explain -- what am I trying to "reconstruct"? When trying to invent a set of deck plans that as seamlessly as possible matches what we see on screen, without altering or adding anything beyond what's absolutely necessary to make it mesh ... what am I "reconstructing"? What was there before, that I am altering? Except your own vision, perhaps?

- if I were to build the Nostromo from scratch, I probably wouldn't want to use the gearwells for access. Or depending of what materials technology I have available at the time, who knows -- I still might. But that doesn't matter! It's not me, or you, building the Nostromo -- it's already there; it's now up to us to try to make sense of it. And we know beyond a shadow of any doubt whatsoever that the Nostromo has huge access doors leading from big loading bays connected to the crew areas straight into the gearwells! Brett walks straight through one to his fatal encounter with the Alien. They're there! They exist! I didn't "reconstruct" them.
Why are they there? What are they for? Well, that's one of the things for us to reconcile. And I, at least, think I have a come up with a reasonable explanation.

Just as I think I found a plausible enough way to explain why Kane's body doesn't go "splat", and why the Narcissus backs away with her tiny bow thrusters instead of blasting away forward with her main engines.
_________________
26354


Last edited by Vader on Fri Jun 30, 2017 3:03 pm; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
FenGiddel
Community Member


Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Posts: 343

PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some other thoughts:

Maintenance lock
I'm thinking the airlock on the nacelle is probably
useful for maintenance, maybe using the "flying
bedstead". It certainly looks large enough. Of
course, the intakes are large enough for the bedstead
to enter without special access. Starrigger, have you
ever have the chance to put that thing next to the
intakes, sort of like you did here?







Docking clamp connector
This is an area that doesn't get much discussion.
Since it seems to be embedded in the ship's structural
center of mass, I wonder if it is simply an umbilical
connect hard point , or it there are mechanical
pass-throughs for the transfer of...I don't know what.
Doesn't matter which it is, but could affect the internal
layout depending on which way one went with it.

Other airlocks?
There are certain details on the sides of the main
hull of the miniature that could be other airlocks.
In the landing sequence, there are pinpoints of light
here and there also. Maybe that is a detail to keep
in mind for deck plans.

Consumables
While these would be limited due to the cryosleep
mode the crew travel within, there is probably a
reefer somewhere on Deck A, as well as refuse
disposal? Compressed air for pressurized spaces is
another thing that could either be near those
spaces or in a central area that has been sketched
by Cobb (I believe).



Water for consumption as well as hygiene is also a
factor to remember?

Hyperdrive
As big as a city center, those pieces of equipment
might need to be swapped out over a ship's lifetime.
Maybe there are access hatches on the belly of the
ship for that? Maybe there be access panels in the
upper angled areas of the main hull between it and
the nacelles? Or maybe the docking clamp "hood"
is detachable, allowing?

Fuel for the forward boosters
The three boosters directly forward of the
airlock/blister would seem to need space for
reactant tanks, possibly affecting the space
available in the forward module for the crew
and Mother?

Mechanisms for the large forward and
ventral antennae arrays

These enormous booms may be made of a
lightweight alloy, but if they are raised upon
landing (depending on which photos you look
at, your mileage may vary here), there
would seem to be a need for space for the
mechanisms that move them.

Spaceport and dry dock(s)
Starrigger has explored the support environment
into which the ship might fit
. It may be that it lands
on a docking field (as Starrigger imagines) that uses
portable gantries for cargo transfer, or in a pit with
gantries along its walls for the same use. Not sure how,
but it may be that how the Nostromo interconnects with
its (space borne or terrestrial) home port support and
maintenance system might have some effect on its
internal configuration.

As I sat back and looked over Graham's blueprint
poster, these are the things that came to mind about
this Brobdingnagian ship of mystery. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Author Message
Vader
Community Member


Joined: 19 Feb 2011
Posts: 255
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey Darrell, just wanted to check a couple of details with you:

First, I'm confident that you must see the same thing as I do in the picture I posted above — that the airlock hatch panel that terminates the recess in the burial shot is no longer there in the picture of the shuttle, having instead been replaced with a plain wall with some greeblies on it.
Same or not; I feel it is plain that in that specific wall, the filmmakers did not place an airlock.

Now, we are of course free to ignore that and instead decide that the recess, in fact, does contain an airlock here, too — a different one, but still an airlock — because we feel it makes more sense that way.

So when you say, "I'm thinking the airlock on the nacelle is probably useful for maintenance...", taking this airlock as a given even though it's not there in the close-up set, I assume that this is what's on your mind.

Unfortunately for me though, a vital part of the chain of reasoning leading up to that conclusion is eluding me. Could you please fill me in? Why do we need an airlock in this particular area?

I mean, there certainly is at least one additional airlock. The Kane burial lock's hatch says "L3"; I think we can safely assume that the main airlock is "L1", meaning that there presumably is an "L2" somewhere.
My immediate reflex would be to place it symmetrically on the opposite side of the hull, but there is no real reason for that, is there? When looking at the ship in detail, not much about her seems to be symmetrical.

So where to place L2?
And is there an L4? L5? ... Ln?

That brings me to the other question I wanted to ask — could you post a picture pointing out the airlock-candidate features you're referring to?
_________________
26354
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
FenGiddel
Community Member


Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Posts: 343

PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sure, Vader.

No deep thinking on that the nacelle airlock; sorry to disappoint. Wink Just a suggestion, really, of an interesting detail on the miniature.

Although here is that spot, blue-lit:

https://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/avp/images/5/51/Narcissus_docked.png/revision/latest?cb=20140805001716



Vader wrote:
That brings me to the other question I wanted to ask — could you post a picture pointing out the airlock-candidate features you're referring to?

Again, these are simply interesting niches or panels on the model that could be used for placing some imagined deck plan need.

Along the "neck" of the ship, aft of the antennae mounts:
https://johneaves.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/dsc08347.jpg?w=655&h=368

Louvered panel between the antennae masts.
https://johneaves.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/dsc08510.jpg?w=655&h=368


And while I was digging those up, I remembered this article by Ron Cobb.

He even thought the Nostromo might be much much smaller (Starrigger's "detachable wheelhouse"). See sketch on this page, about mid-way down, on the right-hand side.

(Sorry for the photo URLs, but I couldn't get the IMG code to work.) ;(


Last edited by FenGiddel on Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Author Message
Starrigger
Community Member


Joined: 16 Aug 2009
Posts: 197

PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FenGiddel wrote:
...

And while I was digging those up, I remembered this article by Ron Cobb.

He even thought the Nostromo might be much much smaller (Starrigger's "detachable wheelhouse"). See sketch on this page, about mid-way down, on the right-hand side.

(Sorry for the photo URLs, but I couldn't get the IMG code to work.) ;(


Cool! going to have to read it...

This One? The image label calls it "Another early design for Nostromo's shuttle", not sure if at that time the whole refinery was the Nostromo (I do see the name Nostromo on the side though, so this design was later in the concept process - after Snark and Leviathan). and they took this shuttle to the planet or it was just miss labeled by the editor. That would be an interesting take on the whole design concept (and to some extent seem more reasonable to me.) Reminds me very much of the "Bedstead" service vehicle. Also reminds me of a gorilla...



One note.. I see it has that observation dome on it too!
_________________
Come on over to my place - CGiWorlds.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Author Message
Starrigger
Community Member


Joined: 16 Aug 2009
Posts: 197

PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vader, you and I will continue to disagree on much of this I am afraid. It seems you have set yourself on a given course and are unable or unwilling to deviate.

Is it a airlock? Who really knows, we don't, If you say it is not, then so be it. However, saying it isn't because there is an antenna there, simply dismisses without cause the possibility that this antenna might be the "exception that proves the rule." Maybe it's there simply as a beacon or for tracking whatever the lock is usually used for? We don't know. Nothing canonical says no antenna on anything but the main hull. My personal opinion is that the director or model maker wanted more stuff on screen..

My biggest issue with your logic is that it doesn't have any real grounds, but you state yours as fact, and then dismiss others because they don't match your facts. Who stated these as facts? Sorry to bring this all down to earth, but we are all here to express opinions and speculate about a piece of fiction. There is no absolute truth here.

Example:

We have both stated and agree that the Nostromo models are out of scale, with each other and themselves at times, we are working hard to make some sense of it, but it is still out of scale. However, one of your biggest arguments against the tube thing sticking out the front being a docking tube is because you feel the scale is wrong. HUH? And that despite almost everyone else here, and the people who built the model, calling it a docking tube. So how is your idea a consensus, how has it become fact? You would prefer it to be a highly speculative Ram Scoop, when even modern physicist say it is highly unlikely to be of much use for fuel in space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet

Yes, they could be wrong, but so can you.

So until you loosen up a bit on the rhetoric we will be at odds.

Sorry for the heavy load.. Moving on...
_________________
Come on over to my place - CGiWorlds.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Author Message
Vader
Community Member


Joined: 19 Feb 2011
Posts: 255
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe that; certainly until you actually start reading what I write, and just perhaps stop working quite so hard on misconstruing the bits you do pick up...

"It isn't an airlock because there's an antenna there"...? Mattaku ... how many times haven't I said that the antenna convention is our own invention, that it's presence is not conclusive of anything, etc, etc, etc, words to similar effect, in my last three posts alone — but it's like water off a duck's back. No impression whatsoever.

And that's just the start ... then it goes on ... jeez. Rolling Eyes

And — surprise, surprise! — not one answer to a single question posed the other way...

But oh well. No matter. You go your own way, I go mine. I'm sure we're both happier that way.
_________________
26354


Last edited by Vader on Fri Jun 30, 2017 7:25 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Vader
Community Member


Joined: 19 Feb 2011
Posts: 255
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Brilliant pictures, Darrell — thanks for posting those!

I'll go back to the drawing board and see what I can think of...
_________________
26354
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> General Discussion related to Alien All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26  Next
Page 23 of 26

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

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
BBTech Template by © 2003-04 MDesign

Problems Registering Contact: help@propsummit.com