[Saquist]

Originally Posted by Commodore

Unlike 24th-Century ships in which you see almost everything on the hull, one old idea is that 23rd-Century ships concealed a lot of stuff on their hulls--either with a layer of insulating thermocoat or behind hatches that are flush with other hull plates and are only visible when opened. Lifeboats probably fit under the latter category and on the nuEnterprise could be pretty much anywhere near key crew sections of the saucer, interhull, and engineering sections, IMO.

Fanwank.

The correct answer is: We don't know.

[Livingston]

Originally Posted by chator

Yes, the one that lauches naughty-boy Kirk onto Delta Vega.

It was especially designed for him.

[Commodore]

Originally Posted by Saquist

Fanwank.

The correct answer is: We don't know.

No, the correct answer is: I couldn't care less what Saquist says.

People are free to speculate on whatever they want and since no one is declaring it as actual fact (since it can't be proven or disproven), then it remains plausible speculation like most comments here are about Trek.

FYI, the idea that the original Enterprise had features hidden in its hull is indeed keeping with Matt Jefferies' original philosophy behind the ship:
http://www.ottens.co.uk/forgottentrek/tos_1.php

Even when the shape was approved, that was not the end of Jefferies’ efforts. He theorized that since space was an extremely dangerous place, starship engineers would not put any important machinery on the outside of their vessel. This meant that, logically, the hull would be smooth. Not everyone agreed with Jefferies and he had to fight his corner. “I constantly had to fight anyone who wanted to put surface details on the thing,” he says.

[horatio]

Indeed. In my opinion, the Jeffries design philosophy is nicely contrasted in ENT where the guts of the NX-class are visible, e.g. open nacelles with visible warp coils, the grappler or phase guns on the hull. And of course there are some fan designs, e.g. of the Daedalus-class, which sketch the transition from the "open guts" to the Jefferies period.

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by Commodore

No, the correct answer is: I couldn't care less what Saquist says.

Correction, Commodore, that is a retort or reply not a correct answer.

People are free to speculate on whatever they want and since no one is declaring it as actual fact (since it can't be proven or disproven), then it remains plausible speculation like most comments here are about Trek.

The only correct answer to the question is "we do not know" There is nothing wrong with declaring your ignorance on a subject. There is nothing wrong with being truthful. There is also nothing wrong with speculation either in the proper setting.

This isn't a peer review secession, there is no proven or dis-proven only canon (officialism) . If it doesn't happen then it doesn't exist officially.

FYI, the idea that the original Enterprise had features hidden in its hull is indeed keeping with Matt Jefferies' original philosophy behind the ship:
http://www.ottens.co.uk/forgottentrek/tos_1.php

I am well versed in Jefferies designs. I am not contradicting you.

[Commodore]

You just don't get it at all. You always miss the point.

[Saquist]

I assure you I almost always understand points of contention. I defer, though, to relevancy when making reply.

[Commodore]

You don't even understand what you're saying half the time, so it's not so surprising that you don't get what others say.

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by Commodore

You don't even understand what you're saying half the time, so it's not so surprising that you don't get what others say.

Although you speak with authority you do not have it, Commodore.
Your confidence is not an acceptable substitute.

[Commodore]

That statement means absolutely nothing and is quite illogical.