# Refit Enterprise Cutaway Blueprints - Whose are accurate/most accurate?



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

While searching the old threads for info I came across the subject of the Enterprise Refit cross-section treated in a thread on a different topic.

Rather then extend that very old thread that was primarily about how large the TOS E would have to be to hold everything mentioned in the series,

or if the blueprinters intended the production model to represent a scale that made her larger then 947 feet,

I thought since this is a seperate subject I would remake the request here.




What I am looking for is the most accurate cross section that has been done on the Refit Enterprise.

I have access to many of the blueprints but I don't have the expertise to know which one is the most accurate.



Would everyone or anyone who has studied the subject please give their opinions of the best Refit interior cross sections available?

Especially guys like Aridas, Phil Broad, MGagen, Todd, Trekkist, etc who I know have poured over the details of this issue for hours apon hours.

But anyone who has blues on the subject or info to share please do so.

I don't care about fan vs. official but am looking for either ones drawn by the Trek production staff or 

the most accurate based on what little we did see on screen.

Publisher, name, website?

*I'm especially interested in accurate renditions of the Refit Hanger deck/Cargo deck as seen in TMP.*

Thanks in advance to anyone who can help,
Chuck


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

IMO the best would be a combination of Probert's drawings. Like this one (and the other information from his matte paintings, etc):

http://probertdesigns.com/Folder_DESIGN/CargoBay-3.html

...AND the cutaway poster by David Kimble. Kimble worked closely with Probert, and had access to all the necessary information to get it right.

I know Shane had some access to Probert as well, but I don't think he did a great job on his hangar bay/cargo deck.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Any links to David Kimble's poster? (or others)

I don't seem to have that one.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

As I remember it, Dave Kimble's cross-section is virtually (if not entirely) identical to the one in Mr. Scott's Guide. A little more creative license in Mr Scotts? but essentially the same. But now I can't find my Kimble cross to make sure. Can anyone post it or point to a link to it?


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

starseeker said:


> As I remember it, Dave Kimble's cross-section is virtually (if not entirely) identical to the one in Mr. Scott's Guide. A little more creative license in Mr Scotts? but essentially the same. But now I can't find my Kimble cross to make sure. Can anyone post it or point to a link to it?


The differences are most noticeable in the area Chuck is interested in:

http://home.comcast.net/~thewoozle2/startrek/enterprise.jpg

The site where this was posted isn't a bad source for info:

http://home.comcast.net/~woozletrek/cut-away_enterprise-A.htm

While the title refers to the E-A, he includes information of the model as it looked in TMP, too.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Once again, thanks a million Aridas!

I was hoping Kimble's work would be more _blueprint-ish_ but it is still gorgeous. He did no more work on detailing the Refit then that poster, I assume? ( I did some internet searching but found nothing but that poster, beautiful as it is.)

Thanks for the links! I'm about to go over them but wanted to thank you first.

Also thanks to starseeker, I will checkout my Mr. Scott's guide, though from what I'm reading from Aridas it may not be very authoritive that stuff is still fun to go through. I had forgotten that book entirely. Thanks for reminding me about it starseeker.

Anyone else have any info they can share?

BTWay, I have a very crude Matt Jefferies cutaway of the Phase II Enterprise I downloaded from Phil Broad's cloudster.com website(thanks yet again, Phil!)

Are there more detailed, fleshed out cutaways Jefferies did then this one?

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/Phase_2_Enterprise_Inboard_Profile.jpg


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

That one should be used in conjunction with this one:

http://home.comcast.net/~woozletrek/enterprise/Phase2_MJ_cutaway.jpg

This last one is smaller but clearer, and yet lacks much of the labeling and text crucial to interpreting what is going on.

That cutaway by *Jefferies* is the key to understanding the _*original*_ 1701, not the refit. It does several things very clearly. First, it shows us what the original hangar deck was really supposed to look like, unaltered by forced distortions built into the miniature for filming purposes. And that he intended main engineering to be in the secondary hull, but directly under the pylons and directly forward of the hangar deck. This is a critical point in proportioning that hangar -- it means that if you are going to go by the designer's intent, you can't have it intrude too far under the pylons. That space is reserved for engineering -- in the *Phase 2* ship for a dramatic, four level space that is vertically oriented, and in the original for a tall single deck.

Second, it shows us just how seriously we should take the cross section in *TMoST* as a guide to the original ship. Though it was a smallish illustration, it nevertheless was the intended layout of decks, because it was carried over to a very substantial degree in the refit as *Jefferies* intended it. 

This is an important point as well -- that the refit as *Jefferies* designed it was extrapolated from the original in every way. The interior defined the exterior. *Probert* and *Taylor* let the _exterior_ of the *Jefferies, Phase 2* refit guide their work on the *TMP* model, but made the crucial change of length that really breaks the connection between it and the original. Unless we assume the original was "melted down" and/ or stripped to the keel and only its innermost frame elements reused, there is no way to explain the proportional disconnect.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

That pic is a lot cleaner and I can use it in conjunction with the more clearly labeled pic.

Thanks! 

Also, might not the difference in size be explained by the adding of additional space to the primary and secondary hull?

I wouldn't necessarily imagine it as being stripped plate-by-plate, per se.

But perhaps they added on to each and converted the old outer hull with some sort of transporter technology?

Converting the existing hull to energy and then back to matter?
Using energy based replicator technology to create the pieces on site?

It would sure cut down on the need to transport huge masses of material from whatever planet into orbit. As long as you had enough energy you have material available on demand with virtually zero storage space.

If one where to assume extentions of the primary and secondary hull in that matter, could the proportions then be made to fit?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Aridas or anyone else have any opinions of the accuracy of this Phase II set of Blueprints?

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/enterprise-phase-2-refit-program.php



Especially this cutaway:

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/enterprise-phase-2-refit-program-sheet-11.jpg


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

So anybody recognize the artist/publisher of these plans?

http://cgi.ebay.com/1977-Star-Trek-Enterprise-Construction-Blueprint-Set_W0QQitemZ6065252743QQihZ009QQcategoryZ155QQcmdZViewItem

I'm assuming they are of the TOS E and have nothing to do with the Phase II Enterprise that was under development at the time(1977).


----------



## norge71 (Apr 13, 2004)

Having been in a book store recently going over the Star Wars Cross-section/ Location books, I'm just wondering why Star Trek hasn't done that yet? I know that there's lots of stuff left to the imagination, but why not do a book for each series with key ships and locations? I think there's money to be had there....


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Yep.

They have done the TOS E of course. Franz Joseph's blueprints are still the "official" ones, even though there are some issues with it.

But I'm hard pressed to know why they haven't at least done the Refit in cross-section.

I can understand passing on the Phase II because it was never used.

But no "official" internal blueprints of the Refit?
(Other then the incomplete, non-orthographic painting/poster by David Kimble).

Quite confusing.


----------

