# How big is the TOS Enterprise?



## MGagen

This is an offshoot of an off-topic digression from the "TOS Galileo Shuttlecraft, the Bob Villa version" thread.

What size is the "real" Enterprise. What scale is the studio model?

Phil Broad posted the following in that thread. He was responding to previous posts. To understand this discussion in context you'd probably better read up on the previous thread.



X15-A2 said:


> SNIP
> 
> The scale of the Enterprise miniature is not 1/84 or 1/85th, period. Rick [Sternbach] is mistaken if he believes that the studio art departments drew plans in odd scales like that, they don't. They draw plans in scales that they can measure with rulers, such as; 1/8, 1/12, 1/16, 1/32, 1/48, 1/96th, etc. If the model to be built is larger than they can comfortably draw on a given sheet of paper then it is drawn at a smaller scale and a note is placed on the face of the drawing such as "build twice size".
> 
> The obvious answer here is that the Enterprise is not 947 feet long. This is my belief; the Writers Guide plans have incorrect notations. The Enterprise is bigger, not a lot but somewhat (about 100 feet, more or less). Also, at 1/96th scale the dimension between the centerlines of the Warp Drive nacelles "hits" at 302 feet. This tells me that if the length does not hit but the centerlines do, then the Enterprise is not built to the proportions of the Writers Guide dimensions either, otherwise they would all "hit" or all "miss" but not a little of both. It is possible that the actual drawing or "cartoon" (engineers typically work according to dimensions only, the drawing is derisively called "the cartoon") is correct but the dimensions are off.
> 
> This opinion is based on my experience as a professional draftsmen and also the study of hundreds of sheets of studio blueprints in my collection. Of course this note won't change the minds of most people but those with my kind of experience will know what I'm saying is true.
> 
> Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course but I haven't heard any compelling reasons to change my position on this (yet, mind not nailed shut).
> 
> SNIP
> 
> Phil Broad
> Model Builders Reference Vault
> http://www.cloudster.com


As I stated earlier in the previous thread, you are quite correct about studios never blueprinting in anything but a rational scale. The ship was originally drafted to yield a 33.75" model (the "3-footer") in 1:192 (1/16" = 1'). These same plans were used to build a 4X model (the "11-footer) in 1:48 (1/4" = 1'). The bizarre 1:84.75 scale is the result of an after-the-fact size change that happened after the blueprints were drawn and probably after at least the small model was built.

That said, there are several reasons I believe that the Enterprise is, in the end, intended to be 947'. One of them is that the original artboard drawing that was made for the Writers' Guide/TMOST was drawn in a scale logically derived from 947' (1:1152 or 1"=96'). It doesn't work out to a reasonable scale from 1080'. 

One of the points you raise is that the dimensions on the Jefferies 3-view don't match the drawing. This was my initial assesment, too, when I had only the TMOST reproduction to go on. However, upon examination of the scan of the original artboard, I find that they DO in fact match the drawing pretty well, given that they are such small drawings to begin with. What is more, they also match the model "as built" quite well, too. Where they differ is in the relative position of the components to each other. For example, each component is pretty much the same size and proportion as built; but on the model, the engines are mounted closer together since the pylons anchor lower on the engine rather than at the center line. The pylons also anchor in the Secondary hull lower than the centerline. These were apparently modifications made for ease of construction. Also, the dorsal pylon is much thicker on the model than on the drawing (for obvious reasons), and it holds the primary hull a little higher aloft. 

It seems to me that, when the components are all the proper size at the stated dimension (947'), to look past this and focus on the fact that the engines happen to be the "right" distance apart if you enlarge it bigger than it is supposed to be is to miss the point. You end up with one dimension "right" and all the rest of the dimensions "wrong." There is simply no justification for doing this, especially when it is a detail that was obviously changed when the model was constructed.

I am attaching below a few images to illustrate how close the drawing is to the model as built. The Jefferies drawing is reproduced in blue and the Polar Lights drawing of the same component is overlaid in red to the exact same scale. I have it on good authority that the PL blueprints are extremely accurate except for a few minor (intentional) details. None of these details bear on this discussion.
I hope the above demonstrates at least why I have "left the fold" on the 1:96 scale. It is not that I don't think a case can be made for a larger ship. As you mentioned previously, you need all the space you can get to shoehorn in the shuttle bay! But I have been forced back to 947' (somewhat unwillingly, I admit) by these, and other facts.

BTW, I don't think I mentioned before how much I am impressed by the recent updates on your site. I absolutely love what you've done with the Hangar Deck! You seem to have a real knack for putting yourself in the design aesthetic of the original series. In reference to style, it is of a piece with the original art direction. And it is functional, to boot. Great work!

Mark Gagen


----------



## John P

Honestly, it doesn't matter to me if the studio model was built to ANY scale or not. It really doesn't matter. As long as it looks good on screen, that's all that counts. The Making of Star Trek said 947 feet, and that's what I've been calling it since the damn book came out. That's good enough for me. All the figuring and rationalizing and measuring of deck height and speculation is pointless to me, since the first book on the subject I ever read said 947 feet. Dat's dat.


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Mark,

You may be right with your aurguments here but I do like having that extra bit of space...

I'm glad you like my design efforts too. It is a fun challenge for a designer.

The "actual size" of the ship only really matters if one is interested in studying the relationship between the interior and the exterior. Of course for most model builders "true scale" issues go right to the heart of their hobby. Since many people are interested in further detailing the ship by working out deck plans and such, the "true size" then becomes primary. For me the search is to discover the true intent of the original designers and therefore learn a little more about the design.

But in the big scheme of things it is of no real importance.

Phil Broad
Model Builders Reference Vault
http://www.cloudster.com


----------



## StarshipClass

X15-A2 said:


> . . . But in the big scheme of things it is of no real importance.


Oh, come on! Don't rain on my parade! :jest: 

Seriously, it is an interesting discussion. I enjoy hearing the arguments on scale especially in relation to the _ST:TMP_ refit which I think ought to be rethought in order to make it more sensible. 

The refit is very close to the original in proportions yet all the comparisons show the refit as being bigger as if the newer higher tech engines should be the same size as the old ones. If one matches the saucer diameters, the secondary hulls match in terms of max. diameter and the neck is pretty close. If I'm not mistaken, a study model was made using the AMT 18" for the phase II version which is essentially the _ST:TMP_ version.

To make the refit bigger in the _ST_ universe, it would have required adding a lot to the exterior of the secondary and primary hulls. 

If they were the same size, it would have just been some reshaping here and there and replacement of modular units, mainly cutting back the secondary hull. This makes more sense and perhaps the 1/96th scaling would make the two ships match more closely.


----------



## heiki

Is it known if the big white rectangle on the outside front of the bridge is the view screen?


----------



## StarshipClass

heiki said:


> Is it known if the big white rectangle on the outside front of the bridge is the view screen?


I think it was supposed to be for the second pilot despite what I think was intended from the very beginning to be a monitor and not a direct viewport.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

John P said:


> Honestly, it doesn't matter to me if the studio model was built to ANY scale or not. It really doesn't matter. As long as it looks good on screen, that's all that counts. The Making of Star Trek said 947 feet, and that's what I've been calling it since the damn book came out. That's good enough for me. All the figuring and rationalizing and measuring of deck height and speculation is pointless to me, since the first book on the subject I ever read said 947 feet. Dat's dat.


I get where you are coming from John P, and to a large degree I agree with you.

However, you have to understand the genesis of the this thread to understand the importance of the size issue to X15-A2 and a few others. We were discussing the Galileo, which led to a discussion of the true size of the shuttlecraft bay.

X15-A2 has constructed an excellent 3D model of the TOS E, and has also worked on an excellent 3D model of the shutttlecraft bay.

Trying to get a believable, practical, workable shuttlecraft bay out of a 947 foot ship can be problematic, to say the least.

In examining some of the source materials for the original design, X15-A2 came across some descrepancies in the original plans that suggests that the plan drawings that led to a supposition that the ship was 947 feet long might have been in error. If that is so, it not only would make the original plans seem a little more logically scaled, but also provide X15-A2 with an accurate framework in which to place a workable shuttlecraft bay, as well as other details.

Again, for most modelers only concerned with building externally proportionately accurate models, you are right John P, that the real world length is less of an issue. 

But for someone trying to construct an accurate, believable 3D model with accurate interior details such as the shuttlecraft bay it's of tremendous importance.

Perhaps it would help, X15-A2 if you would briefly restate and explain those original plan discrepancies(the exact plans you are referencing, their source, the nature and source of Sternbach's misreading that you refered to, etc) and how it's led you to suppose that the true length should have been originally stated as longer then 947 feet.


Also a couple of links to you TOS E 3-D model and shuttlebay model would probably help illustrate your points. Besides that they're impressive in and of themselves.


----------



## MGagen

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I enjoy hearing the arguments on scale especially in relation to the _ST:TMP_ refit which I think ought to be rethought in order to make it more sensible.


I agree whole heartedly.



> The refit is very close to the original in proportions yet all the comparisons show the refit as being bigger as if the newer higher tech engines should be the same size as the old ones. If one matches the saucer diameters, the secondary hulls match in terms of max. diameter and the neck is pretty close.


Actually, equalizing the saucer diameters won't get you where you want to go. What is needed is to scale it to the size of the drawings Matt Jefferies did for Phase II. When you compare the cross section he prepared for the refit you notice that the deck layouts match his cross section of the original ship in TMOST almost exactly. Even the turbo shafts seem to be the same. This has lead me to the following hypothesis about what was intended for the refit. This is still in it's formative stage and I am still assembling material to test it.

I believe the refit was intended to have been carried out by separating the various components and discarding the dorsal pylon, engine pylons and engines. The Primary hull was enlarged by adding an extra construction to extend it's edge. This corresponds to the flat ring on the underside which is similar to the old AMT model. The real E didn't have it -- the underside curved all the way to the edge. The refit picks up here and adds the extra flat ring, adding to the diameter of the hull. The curve leading up to this flat ring pretty well matches the profile of the original hull. 

The upper section of the hull was stripped down to the top edge of the rim and a new upper curve and bridge were built on. This explains the new upper profile. Next the deflector array on the secondary hull was reworked, as well as the very back edge of the fantail.

The two hulls were joined together by a new Dorsal Pylon and the new engines (smaller, more powerful) were attached by the new pylons.

The interior of the Hangar Deck from the Phase II cross section looks just the same as the original Hangar, with the exception that it is a true plan with no converging details like the forced miniature set drawing in TMOST. In fact, it served as the guide for my own work on interpreting the original Hangar.

Mark Gagen


----------



## Richard Compton

Mark sent me this message in reply to a question I had:



> Richard,
> 
> I am saying:
> 
> Ship was originally envisioned as 540 feet long.
> 
> Blueprints were drawn up to create a 1:192 model (33.75" long).
> 
> Later, the same blueprints were used to construct a 4X size 1:48 model (135" intended; 134" and change, actually)
> 
> At some point after blueprints were drawn (and maybe as late as after the large model was completed) the descision was taken to enlarge the ship. The ship was then rescaled to the current 947' length (1:84.1777 intended, 1:84.75 actually). The extra windows on the secondary hull and dorsal were added. The original station numbers remained from the 1:48 scale. The primary hull windows and bridge dome were not adjusted until series production.
> 
> An interesting side note: If the ship was intended to be 945' in length, the scale would have worked out to exactly 1:84.
> 
> Hope this helps,
> 
> Mark


It does help, thanks! That difference of 2 feet which would make the scale exactly 1:84 is interesting. I wonder if this could be explained somehow.

Is there some way that either through innaccurate measurements of the models (3 footer and 11 footer) as they existed, or the models not being built exactly as planned (11 footer slightly shorter), that this could have led them to make the mistake that 947' was in fact exactly 1:84?


----------



## John P

MGagen said:


> The Primary hull was enlarged by adding an extra construction to extend it's edge.


That's my theory too. Specifically, I believe a corridor was added around the rim with crew mess areas where the windows are, and the new RCS thruster quads. This, to me, is the simplest explaination for the saucer being juuuuust a little wider.


----------



## StarshipClass

MGagen said:


> In fact, it served as the guide for my own work on interpreting the original Hangar.


I'd like to see you do some comparison diagrams showing your interpretation of the entire refit. Sounds interesting! :thumbsup:


----------



## MGagen

Richard Compton said:


> Is there some way that either through innaccurate measurements of the models (3 footer and 11 footer) as they existed, or the models not being built exactly as planned (11 footer slightly shorter), that this could have led them to make the mistake that 947' was in fact exactly 1:84?


I don't believe anyone at the time ever bothered to measure the models. They would have assumed that they were pretty much the size the blueprints called for. We know for certain what the blueprints called for. Richard Datin, who helped build the model, still has the blueprints and has gone on the record with the major dimensions. He states an overall length of 33-3/4". This is the magic number for comparisons with the "real" E's length. Unfortunately, there is no "neat" way to come up with 947' from it. All we are left with is the assumption that someone mistook a "5" for a "7" on a drawing somewhere and the error was never caught.

Of course, if someone has access to Mr. Datin, he could probably answer in a moment. The blues likely have a scale indicated on them. If the scale was changed before or during the construction of the big E model there would likely be some notation on them to that effect. Perhaps even the new rows of windows added in to boot.

I have tried to get in touch with him but have never been able to. Anyone know how to reach him? I'd love to put my findings in front of him...

Mark Gagen


----------



## Richard Compton

Is Mr. Datin in danger of dying? We recently lost Matt Jefferies and Wah Chang...

He still has the blueprints? Have these been reproduced anywhere? I wonder if he would allow them to be scanned.


----------



## heiki

*This one statement may determine the proper direction that the bridge sits. With the turbo life directly (180 degrees) behind the viewscreen!*

Quote:
Originally Posted by heiki
Is it known if the big white rectangle on the outside front of the bridge is the view screen?​


PerfesserCoffee said:


> I think it was supposed to be for the second pilot despite what I think was intended from the very beginning to be a monitor and not a direct viewport.


----------



## heiki

*This one statement may determine the proper direction that the bridge sits. With the turbo lift directly (180 degrees) behind the viewscreen!*

Quote:
Originally Posted by heiki
Is it known if the big white rectangle on the outside front of the bridge is the view screen?​


PerfesserCoffee said:


> I think it was supposed to be for the second pilot despite what I think was intended from the very beginning to be a monitor and not a direct viewport.


----------



## Richard Compton

Is the PL Ent accurately 1:1000?


----------



## Trek Ace

It is, as based on the stated length of 947'. Which makes the model 11.364" in 1/1000th scale.


----------



## John P

Trek Ace said:


> It is, as based on the stated length of 947'. Which makes the model 11.364" in 1/1000th scale.


Unless you don't push those nacelle end caps on hard enough, then it's longer .


----------



## StarshipClass

heiki said:


> *This one statement may determine the proper direction that the bridge sits. With the turbo lift directly (180 degrees) behind the viewscreen!*
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by heiki
> Is it known if the big white rectangle on the outside front of the bridge is the view screen?​



That's what I've always figured. Surely that exterior 'post' is part of the turbolift shaft system but perhaps the turbolift moves over just a little since it is capable of both horizontal and vertical movement.

The screen window from the 2nd pilot version is very obviously meant to represent the main viewscreen.


----------



## Trek Ace

Or, it _could_ be a flood light to illuminate the name and registry number on the top saucer...


----------



## StarshipClass

Trek Ace said:


> Or, it _could_ be a flood light to illuminate the name and registry number on the top saucer...


  

Now, I really *LIKE  * that idea! _Brilliant!_ (No pun intended :freak: )


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Okay, the point of TOS E size has recently been brought up in a thread in another forum(though I doubt it will last long without being locked down, I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time).

Okay, so I understand what Phil has said about designers not doing blueprints in weird butt scales like 1/84, and his reasoning that it was 1/96 makes sense. 

Then the question becomes, is that large enough to fit everything we know about in the regular production series?


----------



## StarshipClass

My _guess _ would be yes. It would certainly give room for the bridge turbolift to scoot over sideways between the outer hull and the bridge walls whereas it really doesn't seem to have enough room at 1/84th.

Has anyone tried to fit the Jefferies' shuttlebay into 1/96th?


----------



## StarshipClass

I appreciate what David Winfrey is saying in the other thread but wouldn't one expect a lens distortion effect of a telscopic nature due to the curvature of the transparent ceiling in the bridge?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Sorry they closed your thread in the other forum. I sent you a head's up the moment I saw your post in the Galileo thread, as well as a PM but you mustn't have gotten either in time.

I could pretty much tell where that was going to go over there as I once had a thread that actually was shut down after the introductory question, with zero replies. I was asking about what resources the McMaster's had for his blueprints of the Romulan BOP so I could determine what he based his sizing/scaling on. Even though it was asked with the intention of evaluating the accuracy of existing model kits and perhaps a scratchbuild it was immediately shut down under the assumption that it couldn't possibly have anything to do with physical models and therefore didn't belong there.

Perhaps that might have been appropriate if the question about why the sizing was an issue and I had answered that I was only interested in the prints themselves. However, I wasn't allowed that opportunity and conclusions were jumped to prematurely.

So I could see where questions about scaling not primarily directly related to an exact model would lead.

I do not think it is just a theoretical issue for someone trying to construct a convincing 3D or paper plans. In that case it's a very pertinent issue. Here you won't have to worry about having a thread shut down the instant you're assumed to be straying from the forum or thread topic.


----------



## MGagen

There are serious flaws in Trekkist's chain of reasoning as presented over on Culty's BBS here:

Closed thread on CultTVman's board 

First off, the scene looking in the bridge is wildly inaccurate since the perpsective, scale and even direction shifts throughout the scene. Just about every theory of bridge scale and orientation can be "proved" from this scene by merely selecting the appropriate frame from the sequence... Not to take away from the effects folks who worked on The Cage--this is just the best that could be accomplished before motion control camera rigs were invented.

Secondly, the blueprint of the hangar deck he uses to scale things from the aft end is unquestionably a drawing of the forced perspective miniature set, not the actual hangar. This is easily determined by noticing that all the lines converge toward the back of the set. Even the observation gallery gets shorter as it goes aft. By the time you get to the control booth by the doors only a midget could operate them. Obviously, this drawing has NO scale -- the little ruler is bogus.

As for Phil Broad's assertion that no one ever drafts this kind of thing at an odd scale like 1:84/85 -- he's absolutely right. However, the jump to 1:96 only makes sense if the model was blueprinted at it's current size. 

As it happens, it was not. The ship was designed to be 540 feet in length initially. This means the large studio model was INTENDED to be 1:48 (a perfectly logical scale of 1/4" = 1'). Some time after the scale drawings were drafted someone (probably GR) decided the ship needed to be bigger. At that point, the decision was taken to make it 947 feet. Yes this is a bastard scale, but at that point it really didn't matter, since it was already drafted (and at least the small study model built).

What is more, I too at one time thought she was meant to be 1:96 (before I found evidence to the contrary) and back then did a thorough study to see if the bridge could be rotated to forward facing since the dome would be correspondingly bigger. Unfortunately, the answer was no. Even given the extra room, the turbo lift is still doesn't clear the tube at the back of the dome when it comes to rest at it's station. In fact, it would still be fully half way inside the tube. As a result, the only way for it to travel around the extra 36 degrees is for it to break out of the dome. There would have to be a visible structure on the port side to contain it at rest and on its path around.

She is 947 feet long -- and even it she weren't, it wouldn't make any difference to the bridge problem.

Mark


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Actually Mark, I remember an interview with Franz Joseph in which he said that the Enterprise was drawn in the general shape it finally appeared in at three different scales, not just two.

Which reinforces the view that the blueprints and even some of the exterior details can't be taken too literally as to the designer's intentions, as at many points I don't think even they knew what they wanted in terms of design as they went along.

Originally the shape of the Enterprise was designed with only a supposition that the crew consisted of a few dozen crew members, if that many. It of course was upscaled before even the first pilot, muchless the second, as scripts were written. This change the design as we go along was constantly in evidence during the series. According to FJ the bridge set was changed three times in the first season, though they probably weren't major changes. 

The reason that the turbolift was set over Kirk's left shoulder had zero to do with the model. It was because the interior shot designer/director wanted the angle for dramatic purposes. The either never even thought about the model and/or didn't care. Maybe both.

There was no such thing as a technical continuity advisor on the show. This was the infancy of Sci-fi special effect ladden series as you have pointed out. At least one that cosmetically attempted to be believable. They gradually made more and more attempts to develop a consistent formula for F/X, but these guys were largely inventing the wheel on a week to week basis.

I think they did their best. Also FJ did an admirable job trying to fit everything in the series in his blueprints. In some cases he may have taken a couple of liberties, it's hard to tell. But it should be pointed out that Roddenberry saw all his plans and other then throw 10,000 35mm clips and a few paper drawings at the guy gave little input. However that wasn't FJ's fault.

I was simply wondering if perhaps everything could be fit in a 1/96 model. 

Apparently perhaps the short answer is everything but the bridge turbolift could be, if I understand you Mark. 

And apparently you feel the same could be said of a 947 foot TOS Enterprise, bridge turbolift being the exception.

Maybe I misunderstood Phil, but I thought that his belief was that what happened was that the 1/48th blueprints probably had a notation to "build at double size" as 1/96 prints would have been too big to draw practically, and that what happened is that they accidentally misread the blues and assumed the miniature to be 1/84 scale instead of representing a 1/96 scale. Thus the evaluation of 11 foot model's real world length just represents a misreading of the plans and a corresponding miscalculation of the real-world length. Those kind of transposed number problems are pretty understandable, and it is questionable that a professional designer would pick an oddball 1/84th scale out of thin air. Not impossible but highly unlikely.

But as I said earlier, to me all of that is moot if everything but the bridge turbolift shaft fits within both 947 feet and a 1/96 scale 1100 foot model.

Six of one, half dozen of the other. As long as everything but the turbolift shaft fits believably both ways I'm willing to chalk up the turbolift to a sloppy set designer, or someone who irrevocably took too much artistic license with the design for the purposes of dramatic effect.

Not much can be done about it. As long as somebody can come up with a semi-plausible way to squeeze it in their 3D/physical models we just have to live with it.


----------



## StarshipClass

Well, from the above, it seems that FJ did the reasonable thing in moving the bridge off center to accommodate the turbolift shaft.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Well, from the above, it seems that FJ did the reasonable thing in moving the bridge off center to accommodate the turbolift shaft.


That's the only way it could have been arranged.
I think it wasn't made clear that what we were talking about was the supposition that perhaps the scale of the ship could be increased to the point where one could say that that alcolve wasn't actually the turbolift, but something else. That would take quite a massive rescaling was the main point.


----------



## John P

1/48 scale is 1/4"=1'
1/96 is 1/8"=1'


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Right John P,

If I understand Phil correctly his argument is that the roughly 11 foot model, rather then being 1/84th scale was actually a 1/96th scale miniature, representing an approximately 1100 foot realworld craft. I don't have the exact measurements right in front of me to be more exact. Unless I'm wrong Phil thinks the miniature was correctly built as it was intended(1/48 plans with an instruction to double the dimensions), but then when people later went back to look at the plans to determine the intended scale of the "real" Enterprise they somehow misread the instructions on the 1/48th plans to double the size as plans for a 1/84th scale ship. 

Personally I have to agree that it's unlikely that any designer would have picked a scale like 1/84 out of thin air, plus how would you sanely display proportions of a 1/84th scale ship on a set of plans originally drawn for a 1/48th ship? It's possible I guess but unlikely.

However, personally 1/84th or 1/96th it makes little difference to me as long as a believable craft can be constructed.

The reason this particular thread started was because of some discoveries made by Phil during the construction of his 3D model.

So while these issues may seem like small ones to us to someone trying to construct a believable 3D model it might make a difference.

The real test is whether all of the reasonably measurable structures all fit. Phil Broad would be a much more qualified judge of that then I.

I'm hoping I haven't misstated any of his thoughts on this, but that's how I understand his 1/96th theory. Perhaps I've misunderstood something along the way, wouldn't be the first time I've made a mistake.


----------



## MGagen

John P said:


> 1/48 scale is 1/4"=1'
> 1/96 is 1/8"=1'


Thanks, John P! I've fixed it above. My bad...

Chuck PR: I'll have to wait until tonight to respond to you in detail. Stay tuned...

Mark


----------



## X15-A2

Yo, yo, yo!

My theory is that the 11 foot miniature WAS built to 1/48th scale and filmed that way for the various pilots. Afterwards it was determined to be too small of a ship so the simple answer, without having to build a whole new miniature, was to change it to twice as big. This simplifys the scale problems with existing blueprints and miniatures. The scale of the blueprint changes by changing its notation and the model changes by adding more rows of windows.

My study of the inboard profile drawing indicates that the deck heights "hit" at very desireable heights such as 8', 10' and 18' (cargo area). The FJ plans have a deck height of about 6-7', far too small. The 1/96th scale version also allows a 2 foot crawl space between decks for structure and systems which is an added plus. The bridge fits very nicely too (but the turbolift is still in its blister, not inside the bridge dome itself).

That is my operating philosophy with the ship. I can't prove that I'm right but no one else can prove that I'm wrong so it is good enogh for me. I must say that I wish the 947' measurement worked for me, it would be nice if these preproduction details were consistent but they just aren't so we are all left twisting in the wind.

Phil


----------



## MGagen

X15-A2 said:


> Yo, yo, yo!
> 
> My theory is that the 11 foot miniature WAS built to 1/48th scale and filmed that way for the various pilots.


We are in agreement that the large model was originally intended to be in 1:48, but I now believe the rescale happened before the model was delivered. This is because footage from The Cage and the photo of the model on the day it was finished already show the extra windows on the dorsal and secondary hull (the primary hull windows were added later). If the model was still 1:48 at this point the ship would have to be manned by midgets.



> Afterwards it was determined to be too small of a ship so the simple answer, without having to build a whole new miniature, was to change it to twice as big. This simplifys the scale problems with existing blueprints and miniatures.


I agree that it _would_ have been simpler to merely double the length, but the one externally visible piece of evidence suggests that they enlarged it by about 175%. At 947' the turbolift fits exactly into the tube on the outside of the hull. I do not believe this is a coincidence. 



> My study of the inboard profile drawing indicates that the deck heights "hit" at very desireable heights such as 8', 10' and 18' (cargo area). The FJ plans have a deck height of about 6-7', far too small. The 1/96th scale version also allows a 2 foot crawl space between decks for structure and systems which is an added plus.


The decks work out fine at 947'. The fact that you have two feet left over between decks suggests to me that you have the scale too large. An examination of Jefferies' far more detailed cross section prepared for Phase II (which matches his TOS layout down to the turbolift tube passages) shows he intended no such interdeck space. The problem with FJ's plans is not his scale, but the fact he crammed too many decks into the ship. He followed the verbal description in TMOST rather than the clear cross section from the man who designed her.



> That is my operating philosophy with the ship. I can't prove that I'm right but no one else can prove that I'm wrong so it is good enogh for me.


I would never quibble with a creative take on the subject. I myself have advocated enlarging the shuttlecraft to make it consistant with what was seen onscreen. I applaud your efforts to make the ship more realistic. However, I would encourage you to keep an open mind about evidence to the contrary. Just because we have yet to find a "smoking gun" doesn't mean there isn't one.



> I must say that I wish the 947' measurement worked for me, it would be nice if these preproduction details were consistent but they just aren't so we are all left twisting in the wind.
> 
> Phil


If it is any consolation, the more I have dug into the "preproduction details" the more consistant I have found them to be. Often compromises were made -- the re-shuffling of the bridge layout comes to mind -- but my money's on the proposition that at least "out of the gate" Matt Jefferies was a man with a definite plan.

Mark


----------



## MGagen

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Actually Mark, I remember an interview with Franz Joseph in which he said that the Enterprise was drawn in the general shape it finally appeared in at three different scales, not just two.


Can you give me a source for this? Did it mention why he thought so?



> Which reinforces the view that the blueprints and even some of the exterior details can't be taken too literally as to the designer's intentions, as at many points I don't think even they knew what they wanted in terms of design as they went along.


I don't believe this follows logically. TMOST records the design process. There were various sketches which refined the configuration as a shape. But then it goes on to say they sat down to do "scale drawings." By the time they were delivered to Richard Datin to build the "3 footer" they were pretty close to final configuration. Only minor changes were made after that model was finished.



> Originally the shape of the Enterprise was designed with only a supposition that the crew consisted of a few dozen crew members, if that many. It of course was upscaled before even the first pilot, muchless the second, as scripts were written. This change the design as we go along was constantly in evidence during the series. According to FJ the bridge set was changed three times in the first season, though they probably weren't major changes.


You are confusing very early concepts before the design was even settled with the one rescale that happened after the blueprints were prepared, but before the first pilot was finished.



> The reason that the turbolift was set over Kirk's left shoulder had zero to do with the model. It was because the interior shot designer/director wanted the angle for dramatic purposes. The either never even thought about the model and/or didn't care. Maybe both.


But the position and size of the tube on the outside of the model had _ everything_ to do with the bridge set. It was purposely designed to fit in the right place at the right scale. The inconsistancy occurred when the set layout was adjusted. That in no way invalidates the intentions or planning of the model.



> There was no such thing as a technical continuity advisor on the show. This was the infancy of Sci-fi special effect ladden series as you have pointed out. At least one that cosmetically attempted to be believable. They gradually made more and more attempts to develop a consistent formula for F/X, but these guys were largely inventing the wheel on a week to week basis.


Actually there was a technical advisor. Desilu paid for technical advice from a research firm (I believe it was "Kellam Deforest" oddly enough). Of course they innovated week to week -- but you speak as if this was just a 1940s space opera. They took more care to get things right than that -- and it shows!

SNIP: I am leaving out some of your post which I addressed above in response to Phil.



> As long as everything but the turbolift shaft fits believably both ways I'm willing to chalk up the turbolift to a sloppy set designer, or someone who irrevocably took too much artistic license with the design for the purposes of dramatic effect.


If you had seen as much of Matt Jefferies' work as I have you'd be reluctant to put anything down to a "sloppy designer." 

Mark


----------



## X15-A2

Mark,

"but the one externally visible piece of evidence suggests that they enlarged it by about 175%."

What external evidence of scale are you refering to here?

BTW, it does not make sense to have "no crawl space" between decks. First, there needs to be more structure than what we see on the show. Second, there must also be space there for systems to pass through (not least of which is one for generating artificial gravity on each deck). We don't see the system hardware (pipes, air ducts, etc) hanging from the ceiling so we must assume that they are in it. At 1/96th it allows for a 24 inch space which works beautifully, it is sufficient not only for the elements listed above but also allows room for maintenance crawlways as necessary. That's my thinking on it.

Phil


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

MGagen said:


> Can you give me a source for this? Did it mention why he thought so?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe this follows logically. TMOST records the design process. There were various sketches which refined the configuration as a shape. But then it goes on to say they sat down to do "scale drawings." By the time they were delivered to Richard Datin to build the "3 footer" they were pretty close to final configuration. Only minor changes were made after that model was finished.
> 
> If you had seen as much of Matt Jefferies' work as I have you'd be reluctant to put anything down to a "sloppy designer."
> 
> Mark


You are confusing my comments about the interior filming director's decision to have the bridge set built with the turbolift visible over Kirk's shoulder for shooting angle purposes and somehow are assuming I was referring to Matt Jeffries.

The design process of the sets was indeed not well thought out from a continuity standpoint. In the case of the bridge set either the filming director ignored the bridge section of the external filming miniature or more likely he just wasn't concerned about it.



MGagen said:


> Can you give me a source for this? Did it mention why he thought so?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe this follows logically. TMOST records the design process. There were various sketches which refined the configuration as a shape. But then it goes on to say they sat down to do "scale drawings." By the time they were delivered to Richard Datin to build the "3 footer" they were pretty close to final configuration. Only minor changes were made after that model was finished.
> Mark


Why do you assume I was necessarily talking about after the 3 foot miniature was finished? The final general shape/design was decided on prior to that.

He mentioned in an interview with Paul Newitt in 1982 that when the general sketches for the ship were first done, before the first pilot, the ship was originally envisioned at an extremely smaller scale. He skips the part where they increased the scale from the pilot to the production series length(maybe because he didn't know about it). His source was supposedly correspondance and conversations with Gene Roddenberry.
Here's a quote from a Trekplace.com interview with him by Paul Newitt(http://www.trekplace.com/interviews/fj-fjnewittint01.shtml):

"When the Enterprise was first sketched in the design as it now appears, but not the arrangement used in the TV series, it was originally intended to be a vehicle about 180 feet long, with an eight-man crew riding in the cab on top. The cab was a long cab, like an Aerocommander airplane, with the pilot and co-pilot sitting in front, and the rest of the crew sitting behind with viewscreens in front of them, like in an airplane cockpit. In the course of getting from there to the basic design for the TV pilot, they talked with academic people who decided that when man ventured into space he would still be a gregarious animal, as has been proven by our astronaut program. On any extended voyage like this, of months or years, the survival potential of a few number of persons is very poor. The survival potential, of an interacting colony, like you had in the TV series, is much better. So, without changing the proportions and external arrangement of the design, they increased the length to 947 feet, raised the number of the crew to 430, and took off on shooting the TV pilot. You can figure it out from there."

But again. I think we are beating a dead horse here.

I'm satisfied with Phil's answer that a 1/96th size is needed to make the craft reasonably believable.

What was jotted down in a hastily contrived book(I contend that it was hastily, or at least inaccurately, contrived if a number they made up is unusable and results in 6-7 foot deck heights, etc, nothing personal John P. :tongue: ) or even quoted on model boxes as some scale of an assumed 947 foot craft is irrelevant.

Trekkist has made the very valid point elsewhere that these sizes were never stated anywhere onscreen in any of the series.

Good thing as 6-7 foot deck heights just don't add up.

But in the final analysis we're really just bitching about the shortcomings of "technical" people who were having to make up this stuff as they went along and probably didn't even know if the series would make a second season, muchless be picked apart like this almost four decades later.

For people like Phil who are trying to make thoroughly convincing 3D models within exact drawings of the 11 foot miniature these issues are pertinent, and I'll look forward to the day when someone such as he has finished a nice cyber-Enterprise whose decks we can roam. 

But for those of us not designing such a 3D model I don't think it should be such an involved issue.

I think we're kind of beating this one to death here.


----------



## MGagen

X15-A2 said:


> Mark,
> 
> "but the one externally visible piece of evidence suggests that they enlarged it by about 175%."
> 
> What external evidence of scale are you refering to here?


I'm referring to the turbolift tube. It is a specific distance from the center of the bridge dome. That distance lines up very deliberately with the distance of the turbolift from the center of the bridge set.



> BTW, it does not make sense to have "no crawl space" between decks. First, there needs to be more structure than what we see on the show. Second, there must also be space there for systems to pass through (not least of which is one for generating artificial gravity on each deck). We don't see the system hardware (pipes, air ducts, etc) hanging from the ceiling so we must assume that they are in it. At 1/96th it allows for a 24 inch space which works beautifully, it is sufficient not only for the elements listed above but also allows room for maintenance crawlways as necessary. That's my thinking on it.
> 
> Phil


I don't dispute that it might make sense to have a crawlway. I'm just saying that there's evidence that Jefferies didn't design it that way. Also, I would submit that we've never seen the ceiling or what's hanging from it. The set has structures that screen our view of the (non-existant) ceiling. That area between the screening structures strikes me as quite suitable to hang any needed equipment and conduits. This has the advantage of rendering them easily accessable without the necessary wasted mass of an enclosing "floor." We see similar structure on Navy ships. The deck is sometimes merely a mesh. When it is solid it is often just a solid plate. Necessary piping and support structure runs under it.

I am not saying you couldn't enlarge the ship to make it more feasable to your way of thinking. I'm just interested in discovering the designer's intention when that is possible. When there is no compelling reason to change his vision I prefer to stick with it.

Mark


----------



## StarshipClass

I'm not sure if there's much left to be said on the subject but I, for one at least, appreciate the posts and consider them to be very enlightening on the subject. It is obvious that a lot of digging and contemplation have gone into the subject. 

I have a lot to think about now.


----------



## MGagen

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Why do you assume I was necessarily talking about after the 3 foot miniature was finished? The final general shape/design was decided on prior to that.


Because you said



> It of course was upscaled before even the first pilot, muchless the second, as scripts were written. This change the design as we go along was constantly in evidence during the series.


and later on



> He skips the part where they increased the scale from the pilot to the production series length(maybe because he didn't know about it).


This certainly looks like you are claiming that the ship was upscaled after the first pilot, and perhaps even later in the run of the series. I am saying the final configuration was settled by the time the 3-footer was built -- which was during the production of the first pilot. Only minor changes were made to the design after this point. The rescale happened sometime after the final configuration was settled and the blueprints for the 3 footer were drafted, but before the delivery of the large model during the production of the first pilot.

Thanks for the source of the FJ quote. It doesn't negate my argument in the least, however, since he is plainly speaking about the early, pre-scale drawing concept stage.



> I'm satisfied with Phil's answer that a 1/96th size is needed to make the craft reasonably believable.


See my above response to Phil regarding just this issue.



> What was jotted down in a hastily contrived book(I contend that it was hastily, or at least inaccurately, contrived if a number they made up is unusable and results in 6-7 foot deck heights, etc, nothing personal John P. :tongue: ) or even quoted on model boxes as some scale of an assumed 947 foot craft is irrelevant.
> 
> Trekkist has made the very valid point elsewhere that these sizes were never stated anywhere onscreen in any of the series.
> 
> Good thing as 6-7 foot deck heights just don't add up.


The 947 foot scale does occur on a scale drawing by Matt Jefferies. This alone, in absence of evidence suggesting that the scale marking are bogus, should count toward what he intended the dimension to be. Also, the 6-7 foot deck issue does not come from Jefferies. His 947 foot design allows plenty of head room. It merely doesn't have 11 decks in the primary hull. The error is in the written description, not the design.



> But in the final analysis we're really just bitching about the shortcomings of "technical" people who were having to make up this stuff as they went along and probably didn't even know if the series would make a second season, muchless be picked apart like this almost four decades later.


I would submit that you are complaining about the "shortcomings" of "technical" people where few shortcomings exist. The inconsistancies in these matters are nearly ALL due to compromises made in the heat of production, not flaws in the initial design. The design concepts were thought out very reasonably. If you take the time to really dig into them, rather than rejecting them out of hand, you find that ol' Uncle Matt usually knew what he was doing.



> For people like Phil who are trying to make thoroughly convincing 3D models within exact drawings of the 11 foot miniature these issues are pertinent, and I'll look forward to the day when someone such as he has finished a nice cyber-Enterprise whose decks we can roam.
> 
> But for those of us not designing such a 3D model I don't think it should be such an involved issue.
> 
> I think we're kind of beating this one to death here.


As one of those "like Phil" who is building a 3D model, I have been dealing with the same issues for years now. Phil and I began corresponding in fact because I contacted him about the 1:96 theory. I had arrived at the same conclusion independently and wanted to compare notes.

It has been a joy to discover, over and over again, that when I thought the design was inconsistant and obviously flawed -- when I thought I had a better solution to a given problem -- I discovered I was wrong. Many times over, upon closer examination, Matt Jefferies' clear and logical foresight has shined through.

Now as to making a cyber Enterprise, I'll bet Phil's your best choice for that. Not only does he work at lightening speed, but his version of the ship -- while it may differ from Jefferies' concept -- will be a logically well thought out ship and perfectly consistant with the design philosophy he sets for himself.

Mark


----------



## trekkist

Mark makes reference to a closed thread of mine in which I proposed the Constitution class be resized based on on-screen evidence, that is, the view into the bridge with which "The Cage" begins, and the apparent size of the hangar deck in relation to a shuttlecraft...or rather, a shuttlecraft enlarged from the on-air stated length of 24 ft., to 29 ft (so to contain the on-screen depicted interior...which cannot fit inside the "full scale" 24(?) ft soundstage exterior prop).

(I restate the above only to reprise the closed thread...itself the proper result of my posting in the wrong place...sorry, all!).

MGagen then goes on to critique my analysis, as follows:

_First off, the scene looking in the bridge is wildly inaccurate since the perpsective, scale and even direction shifts throughout the scene. Just about every theory of bridge scale and orientation can be "proved" from this scene by merely selecting the appropriate frame from the sequence... _ 

Actually, the sequence in question doesn't vary that much. Examine and compare the screen grabs posted at:

http://www.trek5.com/caps/tos/00_CAGE/index.htm

and you'll see several things: 

1)the first shot showing a part of the bridge (which I admit is in all probability *not * the very *first * frame showing such) does indeed not jibe with the exterior...which is to say, the unseen, topmost portion of the bridge would be, according to this view, outside the ship...BUT:

2)the latter three shots -- and indeed, the first -- show bridge and ship relatively closely matched in terms of perspective, and -- more importantly:

3)comparative measurement of a clearly-visible "size datum" -- I chose the section of rail between the centermost post, and the post to the left (left as the viewer looks, that is) -- reveals that the bridge-as-seen does not vary significantly in terms of size (variance is at most some 15% -- well within the margin of human-measurement error, particularly since I chose to print out the 4 scenes on a single page, with the clear bubble sized at 1 inch diameter!). Which is to say: we see about the same amount of bridge regardless of how close the point-of-view comes to the apparently-transparent dome, just as though we were actually looking through such a dome into an actual interior. 

To further quoth Mark:

_Not to take away from the effects folks who worked on The Cage--this is just the best that could be accomplished before motion control camera rigs were invented._

Amen! They achieved a pretty darn consistent result with their "stone knives and bearskins" -- but *not* the result (i.e., a bridge consistent with a vessel 947 ft long) that we after-the-fact observers would think would have been intended. One suspects they achieved that result because "they" (including, presumably, Roddenberry) chose a bridge-to-ship size relationship that "looked right" -- and stuck with it.

Which leads in turn to the question: when was the 947-foot length "established?" Making of ST, after all, includes (pre?) production memos alluding to a (I paraphrase) "port...possibly overhead...though which we could see the engines, _*thousands* of feet long_ and _*hundreds* of feet above_ our heads" (my emphasis).

Is it possible the 947-ft length was an after-the-fact (the fact of filming "The Cage," anyway) assignment? Sure...given the fact that Pike's ship was, after all, said to carry 203 crew (a number boosted some 100% with the second pilot, due to, as Making says, "the size established for the Enterprise"). 

Understand I am not taking issue with what the show's creators (with whose talents and skills I have only the highest respect) intended...only with what things look like on screen. 

Now for the aft end. MGagen:

_Secondly, the blueprint of the hangar deck he uses to scale things from the aft end is unquestionably a drawing of the forced perspective miniature set, not the actual hangar. This is easily determined by noticing that all the lines converge toward the back of the set. Even the observation gallery gets shorter as it goes aft. By the time you get to the control booth by the doors only a midget could operate them. Obviously, this drawing has NO scale -- the little ruler is bogus._

This observation is completely valid...but regardless of my occasional reference to same, I do not point to "blueprints" as the source of the hangar deck's driving the ship to a larger-than-947-ft length. Rather, I rely upon the apparent (i.e., observed) extent to which the hanger _as filmed _ dwarfs the shuttle. This dwarfing is indeed the result of forced perspective...but it is the_ intended _ result. That is, the set was built "wrong" so as to look (when filmed) "right."

If we accept a larger-than-soundstage-prop shuttle (in order to accomodate -- indeed, allow -- the human action that we see occur within)...and if we further accept that the hanger was indeed that much larger than that ("enlarged") shuttle (i.e., that the relative size was not simply a mistake, as where in "Doomsday Machine" the shuttle appears nearly as large as the Constellation when taking its death plunge)...then the ship itself must be bigger than we've been "told."

Had no figure been conclusively "established" - as with the original Galactica -- arguments of size would revolve about issues of screengrab measurement, and/or accuracy/consistency/believability of what appeared on screen. My point -- with which I am NOT in love (I grew up with 947 ft too...indeed know all the specs of Making by heart) -- is that critiques of "size apostasy" are most properly couched in those terms and no other. 

All I'm saying is, she looks bigger...and looks bigger consistently (or so it seems from my [rather casual] "research"). The same logic by which the shuttle cannot be 24 ft long applies to Constitution size...save we ignore the bridge bit, and rescale (in shuttle-relative terms) the hangar.

I'm well aware the "bigger" path leads to a nightmare of inconsistency with the cinema refit -- which cannot be resized so readily (if at all) due to having been designed from the first with far more consistency and attention to detail than its ancestor. But the degree to which Andrew Probert et al "got it right" in the late '70s is to me somewhat less relevant than whether they got it consistent with what had come before.

The simple truth is that we fanboys have time to take each and every little thing apart and examine its implications. Hollywood professionals do not. Thus the TNG shuttle (the first one -- the nice streamlined thing that never saw full-scale existence) was sized by Probert in terms of 24-ft Franz Joseph TOS shuttle (and corresponding sized human figure). Does this mean the TNG shuttle was "really" larger than the stated length? I dunno...but I "know" how big the first Galileo was.

I make no such claim about the Constitution...and, I repeat, loathe the thought of casting the "canonical" specs aside...but must, save I see valid analytical refutation, maintain:

"That's a big ship."

_Really_ big.

David Winfrey


----------



## trekkist

I just remembered -- the builder of the hangar deck miniature (Richard Datin, if memory serves) actually cites its dimensions in an interview in _ST Communicator_. Do you have that issue, Mark? If not, I'll dig it up and post that data here.

David Winfrey


----------



## StarshipClass

I hear what you're saying, David.

I think that what it boils down to is that all we can do in the end is pick and choose among the mass of conflicting evidence exactly what we prefer aesthetically and/or what we think fits most logically.

The TMOST size of the ship is, at best, semi-canonical giving us some freedom in terms of scaling her. 

Thanks to the various research I've read here, I've done a huge rethink on the whole matter recently and think that about 50 feet more would put her in close range to the canonical size of the refit and put the large 60s model at 1/96th scale but that the bridge, as pointed out, would still need to be offset as in FJ's blueprints.

I can _live _ with 947 feet but I think I _prefer _ a little larger. :freak:


----------



## MGagen

Welcome David!

Steve can be a "right tartar" when it comes to keeping his BB on subject. I respect him for it -- it's one of the reasons his board is so great. But I am glad to have a home for less styrene-focused musings. (Thanks, Capt. Locknar.)

I respect your exercise in "scale heterodoxy" -- I am with you on the need to re-scale the Shuttlecraft -- but I have a few reservations about enlarging the E. Herewith, some excerpts from your post and my response...



trekkist said:


> Actually, the sequence in question [the bridge zoom from The Cage] doesn't vary that much.


I plead guilty to a bit of hyperbole. But I should point out that there are points in the sequence which make the turbolift look much closer to the exterior tube than the full rotated position. I also still maintain that due to the rudimentary technology employed to make the shot, it should be ruled out as a source of size and orientation data.



> Is it possible the 947-ft length was an after-the-fact (the fact of filming "The Cage," anyway) assignment? Sure...given the fact that Pike's ship was, after all, said to carry 203 crew (a number boosted some 100% with the second pilot, due to, as Making says, "the size established for the Enterprise").


I used to think this too, but a careful examination of the model at this point shows the extra "decks of windows" have already been added to the model on the dorsal and secondary hull. This proves that the re-scale had already happened before the model was completed. The much smaller scaled, "one deck per hump," bridge schematic that is plainly visible in The Cage shows that when the bridge set was constructed the exterior concept was still in flux. This is consistant with what we know of the chronology of the production. The "3-footer" was shown to Roddenberry for the first time when they were on location at the Rigel Fortress. The large model was completed a few weeks later. The "203" figure is probably dialog that was written before the rescale happened and remained in the script. The decision about the actual size of the ship was definitely taken before the live action shooting wrapped.



> ...I do not point to "blueprints" as the source of the hangar deck's driving the ship to a larger-than-947-ft length. Rather, I rely upon the apparent (i.e., observed) extent to which the hanger _as filmed _ dwarfs the shuttle. This dwarfing is indeed the result of forced perspective...but it is the_ intended _ result. That is, the set was built "wrong" so as to look (when filmed) "right."


There is one word I'd like to say: Focal length (alright, it's _two_ words...) How large something looks has a lot to do with how wide angle the camera lens is. Give me a 28mm lens and I'll shoot a photo of a bicycle in a one car garage and make it look like it's sitting in the middle of NASA's Vehicle Assembly Building! (Hyperbole Alert) Alright, but I can make it look a lot bigger than it really is. My point is that a real scale model of the hangar deck built to the size it would need to be to fit in a 947' hull can be photographed to look just as large as what was seen onscreen. How things subjectively look is a very slippery criterion to hang a total rescale on.



> I'm well aware the "bigger" path leads to a nightmare of inconsistency with the cinema refit -- which cannot be resized so readily (if at all) due to having been designed from the first with far more consistency and attention to detail than its ancestor.


I must totally disagree with this. First off, Jefferies himself designed the Refit for Phase II. After it became TMP Probert came in and polished his design, adding some very nice touches and bolloxing up the scale at the same time.

Jefferies put just as much care into the original TOS design. And having seen his original cross section for the Refit, I can say he really did intend it to be the same ship. His initial version matches up scale wise, and, what is more, the cross section matches the original cross section down to the paths the turbolifts take. The Refit cross section has the advantage of being a much bigger scale drawing than the one reproduced in TMOST. As such, it serves as a sort of Rosetta Stone for interpreting the original. One of the things it shows is an undistorted, true side view of the hangar deck -- complete with observation gallery. It is no cavernous void extending forward of the pylons as FJ depicts it in his blueprints. It fits in the hull in the space aft of where the old pylons connected.

This Refit cross section also shows us the deck heights and thicknesses planned by Jefferies. It matches the previous ship and proves the level of thoughtful detail he put into both incarnations of our favorite ship.



> I make no such claim about the Constitution...and, I repeat, loathe the thought of casting the "canonical" specs aside...but must, save I see valid analytical refutation...


I would encourage you to take the opposite tack. Hold onto the "canonical" specs until you see valid refutation. With the Shuttlecraft, you get this when Spock stands fully erect and doesn't bump his head. With the Enterprise, though, there is no such concrete objection. If you really look into it, most of the apparent objections vanish and you are left to marvel at the careful planning that went into her design. 

Mark


----------



## MGagen

trekkist said:


> I just remembered -- the builder of the hangar deck miniature (Richard Datin, if memory serves) actually cites its dimensions in an interview in _ST Communicator_. Do you have that issue, Mark? If not, I'll dig it up and post that data here.
> 
> David Winfrey


I just re-read this over the weekend. I'll look it up tonight and post it. In the article he mentions a definite scale, but doesn't talk at all about the forced perspective element of the design.

I may be able to get some new, primary source data about this, though...

Stay tuned.

Mark


----------



## X15-A2

Where is the refit cross section available?


----------



## StarshipClass

X15-A2 said:


> Where is the refit cross section available?



Yeah! I'd like to see that in comparison to the original cross-section. :thumbsup:


----------



## pcumby

I'd like to see the Jeffries cross section of the refit as well.


----------



## MGagen

I am reluctant to share the cross section without the permission of my source. I have emailed him about it and will let you know if I can (or he will ). 

Mark


----------



## StarshipClass

^^Thanks for looking into it! :thumbsup:


----------



## trevanian

MGagen said:


> I must totally disagree with this. First off, Jefferies himself designed the Refit for Phase II. After it became TMP Probert came in and polished his design, adding some very nice touches and bolloxing up the scale at the same time.


Well, you really gotta spread the blame on this. Probert was only responsible for select elements of the refit, under Richard Taylor. I'm assuming the fan-continuity part of Probert would have chosen to maintain the dimensions very faithfully if he didn't have to answer to Taylor (not saying that is a good or bad thing, just my opinion.) 

Taylor insisted on the deco lines on the saucer rim (which were real scale blowers in my opinion), and on tweaking the nacelles, and probably had more input on the observation lounge (until Michaelson on the production end started messing with that), but I can't tell who chose to retain the torpedos in the strut (I think when Jeffries added this feature for Phase II it was just the phaser bank there, which ties in with the notion of warp power chanelling through a vertical intermix with a routing to the phaser area in the middle.) Presumably that is a feature Minor drew on with his vertical intermix. 

Also, the E under Taylor was going to be nearly as featureless as the series version, with only a fancy paint job to suggest scale. As best I can tell, the fancy paint job only took place after Taylor/Abel were long gone, done mainly by Paul Olsen (though Ron Gress has often been credited with doing the majority of the work), but the extra detail also all came in when Trumbull took over. Magicam made a point of mentioning the extra skin detail in their pre-release interview in STARLOG 27, saying they liked the ship better before all the extra detail was added (but that might be sour grapes, since a couple principal models -- like the klingon ship -- underwent considerable upgrades by Trumbull's and Dykstra's people after Magicam delivered.)


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Mark,

OK, after all your prodding, I went back and created two tables of dimesional data on the ship, one based on the 947' (1/84.1777) length and one based on 1080' (1/96th). After converting Richard Datin's dimensions to 4x size then working both the TMOST dimensions and the resulting 1/96th scale dimensions back and forth (miniature to full scale/full scale to miniature), I think I can say one thing is certain.

It proves nothing either way.

I guess neither of us can prove, with absolute certainty, our position. It comes down to a matter of personal preference.

The 1/96th scale version is bigger than what the TMOST drawings specify. Harumph.

The size of the ship was not specified on-air. Harumph. 

A model built at 1/84.1777 scale seems extremely unlikely. Harumph.

I will say that Mr. Jeffries is not quite as precise a draftsman as you have described him, the dimensions at 1/84.1777 scale are certainly "close" (TMOST drawings versus miniature measurements) but not exact matches. In some cases they are very close, in other cases they are simply "close". The degree of error by less than 5 feet in some cases is very small true but it is still an error. I could well imagine that if they did indeed pick the very odd scale that you describe, then determining the true dimensions might be difficult when figuring them out long-hand on a piece of paper. So those TMOST drawing variances could be owed to that factor (a computer makes it so much easier!).

Either set of dimensions render a ship of nearly the exact same proportions, if not exact size. At 1/96th scale the ship is 133 feet larger. Big deal. Not an astonishing difference. I have yet to hear a good reason why they would have picked 947' feet for an overall length to begin with. I could speculate that somebody other than Mr. Jeffires came up with that number and it was then forced upon him (by Roddenberry?). It may be a number that was dear to somebody's heart (same length as some famous ship perhaps?) but there appears to be no "obvious" reason for settling on that lentgh. Even computing a 1/48th scale model at 540 feet by 1.75 results in 945 feet. Once again, "close" but not exactly on the mark. 947 seems purely arbitrary.

My conclusion thus far (until further data comes along) is that the ship could be scaled either way. You can reasonably say that a total length of 947' is "right" because that is the way it appears in TMOST, eventhough it was never actually stated in the show and remains an "unvetted" fact. The slightly larger 1/96th scale version makes fitting some of the interior in a bit easier and is a logical scale at which to build a model, but that is about all that can be said about that arguement.

----------------------------

I can tell you from practical experience that you will find fitting the hangar deck into a smaller ship, a big headache. That opening at the back of my version is so small that the control booths overhead nearly touch. And don't even think about getting a Shuttlecraft, much bigger than the one they built full size, through the remaining hole. I had enough trouble with my "slightly larger" version but smaller? Forget it... :freak: 

While the hangar deck may fit in the elevation view, it is a whole other story when it comes to the plan view.

Still, it is a fun challenge and I will definitely look forward to seeing your model when it is completed. At least I will be able to fully appreciate the amount of work that has gone into it, much more so than most other observers!

BTW, how is your little one doing? I don't think you told us his (he, right?) name?

Phil (The 1/96th-scale heretic)


----------



## MGagen

Phil,

Can you post your chart? Or is it somewhere on your website? I would like to see your results. BTW, were you using the "artboard scan" I sent you, or the slightly distorted Writers Guide image from your website? The scan I sent you is more accurate.



X15-A2 said:


> I guess neither of us can prove, with absolute certainty, our position. It comes down to a matter of personal preference.


Perhaps. Of course, there is always the possibility of new data coming to light.



> A model built at 1/84.1777 scale seems extremely unlikely.


I'm not sure why you still say this when it is pretty well established that it _wasn't_ built at 1:84.1777 scale. It was built in 1:48 (540') and then "rescaled" with the wave of a hand after (or during) construction. Since the hard part had been done, an odd scale at this juncture would be no big deal.

Your suggestion of why such a number might have been chosen is inspired:



> It may be a number that was dear to somebody's heart (same length as some famous ship perhaps?) but there appears to be no "obvious" reason for settling on that lentgh.


To that I might add -- perhaps it was intended to be 945' and someone thought it was too "even" a number ... "make it 94_7_', Matt."



> I will say that Mr. Jeffries is not quite as precise a draftsman as you have described him, the dimensions at 1/84.1777 scale are certainly "close" (TMOST drawings versus miniature measurements) but not exact matches. In some cases they are very close, in other cases they are simply "close".


I would simply ask you to bear in mind how small those TMOST drawings are. On the original artboard the full 3-view drawing only measures 12.875" x 7". And they were done with T-square, compass and technical pens. You can't expect pinpoint accuracy. And most reproductions of the drawing are distorted (TMOST is worst). Also, I have collated all the fragments of the original construction blueprints that have been released with the Datin measurements and I can say authoritatively that the TMOST 3-view is not the final version. There were changes made before the construction blues were made for the "3-footer" and afterwards, there were additional minor changes before the "11-footer was built.



> Still, it is a fun challenge and I will definitely look forward to seeing your model when it is completed. At least I will be able to fully appreciate the amount of work that has gone into it, much more so than most other observers!


Ditto, brother. No one who hasn't wrestled with this in 3D space can appreciate what it take to work it out. The advantage I have is that, since your model is mostly done, I can have nice renders of it as my desktop picture to encourage me to finish the task!



> BTW, how is your little one doing? I don't think you told us his (he, right?) name?


Little Samuel is doing great. He generally does his best to entertain us every few hours throughout the night...

Mark


----------



## Richard Compton

Maybe after we nail down the "real" scale, IF there is one to agree on, we can argue about how big the Enterprise SHOULD be, all citations be damned.

Would such a ship be based on the necessary size of the shuttle within the perceived size of the hanger, put inside a ship big enough to fit such a hanger? What would that ship come out to be?


----------



## StarshipClass

^^I like that idea!


----------



## MGagen

PHIL:

Your Yahoo mailboxes are bouncing. Please empty them -- I have a present I would like to send you...  

Mark


----------



## Pygar

Perhaps a stupid question, but...

It seems to me the engines were designed to be easily pulled and replaced, modified or whatever. Certainly we saw changes! It would be logical to assume that upgrades might take place that would involve putting engines on that were longer or shorter than the ones that were shown, over the course of a ship's working life. 

What if 947' refers to the primary and engineering hulls only? How would that work out? Those could not be changed without major dockyard work, and it might be a reasonable assumption that the "ship" is those areas, and that the engines, which probably would be changed over the course of time, would not be considered as quite the same thing.


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Mark,

I got one messsage with attachments, thank you very much for sending it and thanks to its original contributor! If there are more, my two email accounts should be ready to receive them.

I will post my table of dimensions to the web site. The reason that I hadn't done it before is that I thought it might inspire more questions than it answers, if you know what I mean. The scale thing can be worked out without it since it is just a question of simple multiplying and dividing anyway. But it can be handy to see the numbers side by side so I will go ahead and put it up. It only deals with the major lengths and the overall length, not the various minor details.

On the question of the measurements on the face of the TMOST drawing, I was assuming that they got them from the large scale drawings, not by measuring that smaller drawing itself. But maybe they didn't bother with the large sheets? If someone else in the art dept was preparing the TMOST drawing, then maybe they just didn't feel like dealing with the big unwieldy sheets for something that was not seen as being "that important" anyway. What they had was good enough? I wouldn't be surprised if that is the way it went down, with Jeffries just glancing it over and saying "OK".

I absolutley must gloat here, just a bit. It looks to me like Mr. Jeffries is showing a deck thickness/crawl space in the drawing you sent...

(just trying to give you a hard time  )

Thanks again for the great research material, I'll put it up on the site so everyone can study it (you did say that was OK, right?)

Phil


----------



## X15-A2

Pygar,

That is a very inspired idea! Not outside the realm of possiblity or probability. I'll definitely look into the implications of that change.

Phil


----------



## MGagen

Phil,

I'm assuming you only got the second email. I've sent the first one over again. It has the bulk of my message to you and its attachment is described in it.

Your theory about the callouts on the TMOST drawing being done by someone other than Jefferies is reasonable. I am still wondering if you are measuring my artboard scan I sent you or the writer's guide image from your website. Can you tell me? It would probably make a difference in your results.



> I absolutley must gloat here, just a bit. It looks to me like Mr. Jeffries is showing a deck thickness/crawl space in the drawing you sent...
> 
> (just trying to give you a hard time  )\


Go ahead! I can take it!

Actually, he does render a 2-foot deck thickness. I wonder, though, how reasonable it is to have a "crawlway" inside it since you have to subtract at least the upper and lower deck surface that contains it. Say the actual deck material is 6 inches thick that would only leave about a foot of space between them. You'd have to be a certified "spelunker" to worm your way through that. Seems more like the kind of space where you'd pop up a deck plate and reach in with a sonic screwdriver or Feinberg Occillating Fram-a-zam to effect repairs.

Mark

P.S.: By the way, everyone, the Phase II blueprints you will see shortly on Phil's site are courtesy of Aridas Sofia of Star Fleet Printing Office.


----------



## StarshipClass

MGagen said:


> P.S.: By the way, everyone, the Phase II blueprints you will see shortly on Phil's site are courtesy of Aridas Sofia of Star Fleet Printing Office.


Thanks!


----------



## jfleisher

947' seems like an odd length to me, but so does 1100'....

what if someone back then was thinking, "let's make it 1000' long"?

What scale would that make it?

Maybe they were using engineering scales in the art department that day, which have 1/100 on them...

just a thought...


----------



## MGagen

Phil,

Tried sending my first Blueprint post to you again at both Yahoo addresses. Still bouncing.

Can you email me a _real_ address? I'm nothing if not discrete.

Mark


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Mark,

Actually my description should have been that there "could be" a crawl way, meaning that there is room for one where necessary. I wasn't thinking that they would be all over, just where circumstances dictate.

Er, I wasn't measuring drawings, just taking the various dimensions shown on the face of the drawing or listed online, such the R. Datin ones. So no, the condition of the drawing wasn't really a factor to my table of dimensions.

I'll send you another address for those drawings.

Thanks again,

Phil


----------



## X15-A2

Mark,

Please send the other images to my work email as soon as you can (I leave work at 6, LA time), I won't be back to work until next Tuesday and will be out of town until probably Sunday night. I'd like to post those images tonight but I'll need to burn them to CD before I go home just to transfer them.

Phil


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Mark,

The table of dimensions has been posted to the "Writers Guide Drawings" section of the TOS Enterprise part of my web site.

I won't be back in town until Sunday night so I probably won't see any further email or postings until Monday.

Phil


----------



## trekkist

MGagen,

Without going long this time: the hangar thing drives me nuts. Doesn't take much attention to see that some ("long") shots distort the shape of the hangar in relation to those shot at near-eye level...nor to wonder what the right comparative size is. 

And that's *without * getting into issues of lens focal length, etc. 

Be interesting to do some research of contemporary film techniques, try and puzzle out, for a model bay of such & such size, built forced perspective as you've documented, what lens(es) would have had to've been used to get the appearance as seen.

Or is that too many variables? Sure sounds like it.

Damnit...there must be an answer.

And I don't mean to my own wildhair Connie size issue (on which proper emphasis, I agree with you, BTW: "The Cage" be damned, she's 947-ish til proven otherwise).

But how big "is" the *hangar???*

David Winfrey


----------



## MGagen

Phil,

I had already sent the one email you were lacking at 5:26 p.m. Eastern Time. Not sure why it didn't show up. By the time I saw your posting last night it was too late to send again.

If it doesn't show up by the time you return, email me and we'll figure out what to do about it.

Mark


----------



## MGagen

Trekkist,

Looks like Phil didn't get all my emails in time to post them this weekend.

So here's a small preview of the hangar deck.

The TMOST cross section is scaled to 947 feet, the detail from the Phase II cross section is scaled to the size indicated on that drawing.

Both images are reproduced at 1mm = 1 foot. If you have an image editing program that lets you set your ruler to millemeters you're in business to measure directly in "feet."

Sorry about the small size of the image. You have to reduce things so much to post them here. For the record, the Phase II blueprints were provided to me by Aridas Sofia of Star Fleet Printing Office. (Thanks!)

As you can see, it's pretty obvious that THIS is what MJ had in mind for the "real" hangar deck of the TOS E. The why and wherefore of the miniature set may remain a mystery. The obvious reason seems to be the necessity to pour light in around the bulky movie camera. I am making inquiries of a certain source that may bear some fruit in this direction. I'll let you know.

As for the focal length issue, the best thing would be to model the Hangar as shown here in a 3D modeler. It would then be a simple thing to try out viewpoints and focal lengths to see how close one can get to the on screen appearance.

Enjoy.

Mark


----------



## MGagen

One further point:

The Phase II Hangar Deck seems to support something else I have been suspecting for some time now. I am beginning to believe that Jefferies intended the Hangar doors to be elliptical in the side view, not spherical. This allows a little more room for the Hangar since the depth of the doors would be shorter front to back. It also suggests a geometric solution to the old "how do they seal" conundrum. They would still share an axis of rotation, and in consequence, their surfaces would move apart as they open. A beveled lip on each door with some form of futuristic gasket and, viola: Doors that don't scrape past each other and present a smooth surface with only seams visible from the outside.

The following illustration shows what I mean.

Now I'm not saying the model was built this way, (it seems to have spherical doors) but perhaps this is Jefferies' original concept, since he seems to render the doors with an elliptical profile on both the TMOST and Phase II cross sections.

Just some food for thought...

Mark

P.S.: Line illustrations can be much larger if you save them as GIFs!


----------



## Richard Compton

Cool! I'd like to see that Phase II cross section. It's not in the book is it?

And great idea on the door, I'dhave never thought of that.


----------



## aridas sofia

No need to wait:










I hope this helps. I'm sure Mark has provided Phil with the full size scans he was given, and that Phil will give you more detailed images when he returns. Unfortunately the scans are not of the best quality -- the drawings are quite large and I have yet to make the trip to the only scanner large enough to make quality scans of them. BTW, this came to me a long time ago via Paul Newitt and Andy Probert. It was part of the material that ended up being used to create the _Constitution II_ class in the _USS Enterprise Heavy Cruiser Evolution Plans_ and the first volume of _Ships of the Star Fleet_.


----------



## Richard Compton

Thanks aridas,

That's very interesting. Is that a 100% Jefferies drawing? I ask because other designers came into the fray eventually and sometimes it's hard to distinguish who did what. So this is Jefferies, before any of the other guys made alterations?


----------



## aridas sofia

^ Yes, that one is 100% Jefferies. You're right about other designers being involved in the process -- I'm sure all of you know the long haul involving Jefferies, Jennings, Taylor, Michaelson, Probert and others. There is another page to this set (haven't got that one uploaded yet), that has detailed exteriors of the Phase II ship as it was to be built, and I am pretty sure it was drawn by Joe Jennings. But at the beginning you have Jefferies doing the conceptualizing over how the old ship would be refit, as is evidenced by the misplaced drawing on page 69 of the "Star Trek Sketchbook". Judging from the date on it, (6-77) that drawing is from Phase II, not Star Trek, and it shows the Phase II ship in an early state of redesign. It also tells us that as far as Matt Jefferies was concerned, the "A" added to 1701 would only be done for refits of the original ship. That fits with something Andy Probert told me, and that is borne out in some of his sketches. They realized that they were radically altering the original ship for "The Motion Picture". Because of that, the TMP ship was supposed have a whole new registry number -- NCC-1800. But Roddenberry felt abandoning the old number was too much a break with the original show, so it went back to just 1701. How the "A" was lost I don't know. But it got added later -- unfortunately in a way that doesn't make sense.


----------



## Richard Compton

What's the date on this drawing?


----------



## aridas sofia

^ The last date on the plans is a note that says the drawing does not reflect changes made to the miniature by Matt Jefferies. That note is dated November 1977.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Quoteof Chuck)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But in the final analysis we're really just bitching about the shortcomings of "technical" people who were having to make up this stuff as they went along and probably didn't even know if the series would make a second season, muchless be picked apart like this almost four decades later.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quoteof MGagen)
"I would submit that you are complaining about the "shortcomings" of "technical" people where few shortcomings exist. The inconsistancies in these matters are nearly ALL due to compromises made in the heat of production, not flaws in the initial design."

Though that's what I had just said?
Perhaps feciousness doesn't come across as clearly in type as it does in print. What I was suggesting was basically the same thing you said. These guys were working a set job, doing the best they could under the stress of week to week deadlines.
We really have no disagreement there.


On the number of scales issue, perhaps I also wasn't as clear as I could have been. The three scales I was refferring to was the intial scale the ship was envisioned at, with a crew of less then a couple dozen people. Secondly, the ship size and complement that it was envisioned as for the pilot. And finally the production model scale. There was one scale(in the strictest definition meaning simply "size" the ship was initially envisioned to be(the one FJ referred to that was revised even before the pilot) was the one other scale I was referring to.

It didn't seem clear when you were talking about the scales that you meant to only talk about ones that had been finalized in measured blueprints. Sorry if I didn't define what I meant by scales in my post.


----------



## jheilman

*Tos E*

Hi Mark - this thread has really ballooned since I checked in last.

So, am I correct in assuming that the current concensus agrees with the 540' original length and a resizing? The time and scale of the resizing remain the areas of contention?

Actually, I have it on good authority that the original Enterprise was to resemble the DY-100 class ship. It was to be commanded by John (Gomez) Astin and in an attempt to draw in the female viewers, the entire vessel was to be painted pink. Jamie Lee Curtis was to play a yeoman in Phase II, but she was involved in some submarine show at the time. That's what my sources are telling me.

Phil, let me say I really appreciate the info on your web site. Particularly the new info on the Icarus. Also, your 3D E is impressive. The closeup of the shuttlebay is fabulous. Almost makes me want to dust off my 3D E and revise it with all the current info...almost.


----------



## MGagen

Hi, Chuck.

Actually, I understood you to mean that the people who were "making it up" were the ones who were to blame for most inconsistancies.



Chuck_P.R. said:


> But in the final analysis we're really just bitching about the shortcomings of "technical" people who were having to make up this stuff as they went along and probably didn't even know if the series would make a second season, muchless be picked apart like this almost four decades later.


I was disagreeing with this, saying, in essence, that the person who was "making up" the configuration of the Enterprise (Jefferies) WASN'T to blame for the inconsistancies. Most inconsistancies stem from the original, well thought-out design being changed or set aside at the last minute for production reasons. For example, "let's reshuffle how the bridge is layed out so the turbo door is over the Captain's shoulder for a better camera angle." 

Perhaps this is indeed what you meant. If so, we are in agreement.

That said, it is because the design of the Enterprise is so well thought out that a little digging can usually show what was intended by the designer -- and it usually makes good sense. In the case of the ultimate scale of the ship, there's no need to make it bigger than 947 feet. 




> On the number of scales issue, perhaps I also wasn't as clear as I could have been. The three scales I was refferring to was the intial scale the ship was envisioned at, with a crew of less then a couple dozen people.


The early concept, before even the shape of the vessel was settled on.



> Secondly, the ship size and complement that it was envisioned as for the pilot.


This would be the 540 foot length -- but I must point out that _during_ the production of the first pilot this was changed to the final 947 foot size. Although the model was drafted to be 540 feet long, Pike's ship as seen in the pilot was 947' long. The big model, when delivered to the studio, had the extra windows already added to the dorsal and secondary hull. In essence, there isn't a "Production Scale", only a Production configuration.

I've also had it confirmed to me by someone in the know that the original bridge dome seen in the pilot configuration is actually the same as the Production dome. They merely chopped a section off the bottom to make it shorter. As a result, the pilot dome was a little bit wider at its base, but not wide enough to contain the bridge set if the ship is 540 feet long. It would be very interesting to know what the bridge dome looked like when the ship was on the drawing board at that scale.

Mark


----------



## MGagen

jheilman said:


> So, am I correct in assuming that the current concensus agrees with the 540' original length and a resizing? The time and scale of the resizing remain the areas of contention?


I think the evidence is there to settle the planned 540' length pretty authoritatively. The current debate is on whether it was doubled to 1080' (1072' as built) or if it really was "rescaled" to 947' resulting in an oddball 1:84/85 scale.



> Actually, I have it on good authority that the original Enterprise was to resemble the DY-100 class ship. It was to be commanded by John (Gomez) Astin and in an attempt to draw in the female viewers, the entire vessel was to be painted pink. Jamie Lee Curtis was to play a yeoman in Phase II, but she was involved in some submarine show at the time. That's what my sources are telling me.


Wasn't that "Operation Petticoat"? Considering that the models were built/supervised by Richard Datin, perhaps that should have been "Operation Petticoat Junction"!  

Mark


----------



## StarshipClass

MGagen said:


> This would be the 540 foot length -- but I must point out that _during_ the production of the first pilot this was changed to the final 947 foot size. Although the model was drafted to be 540 feet long, Pike's ship as seen in the pilot was 947' long.


_TMOST _ doesn't seem to be indicating this. IIRC, it states that the scale changed _between _ pilot episodes. Where do you get your information?


----------



## MGagen

PerfesserCoffee said:


> _TMOST _ doesn't seem to be indicating this. IIRC, it states that the scale changed _between _ pilot episodes. Where do you get your information?


TMOST doesn't tell the whole story. 

Here's a bare bones summary of the evidence I have assembled...

That the original construction plan called for a 540' ship:
1-Fragment of construction blueprint showing diameter of secondary hull.
2-Station Numbers on hull work out to one inch increments at that size.
3-Model works out to very reasonable 1:48 scale.

That the ship was still 540' during initial phase of First Pilot production:
1-Bridge graphic depicting "one deck per hump" cross section (set was completed before model).
2-Crew figure of 200-odd retained in dialog.

That the ship was rescaled to 947' before wrapping First Pilot:
1-Photo of model on day of completion before delivery to studio already sporting extra deck windows on secondary and dorsal sections.
2-Even First Pilot bridge dome too small if ship is 540'

As you can see, there is no single source for this information. I believe I'm the first one to piece it together.

Mark


----------



## StarshipClass

MGagen said:


> That the ship was rescaled to 947' before wrapping First Pilot:
> 1-Photo of model on day of completion before delivery to studio already sporting extra deck windows on secondary and dorsal sections.
> 2-Even First Pilot bridge dome too small if ship is 540'
> 
> As you can see, there is no single source for this information. I believe I'm the first one to piece it together.


You may well be correct, however, those are two fairly slender points to be disputing the written record in _TMOST _ which, as is often the case, carries a lot of weight simply because it was documentation from the era and using what seem to be primary sources.

I haven't measured the windows out on the secondary hull so I can't really address that one, yet. However, the small bridge dome _may _ be explained by the teardrop being the originally intended location for the bridge with the 'bridge dome' being just the very high ceiling above it (like an observatory?).


----------



## MGagen

PerfesserCoffee said:


> You may well be correct, however, those are two fairly slender points to be disputing the written record in _TMOST _ which, as is often the case, carries a lot of weight simply because it was documentation from the era and using what seem to be primary sources.


As I mentioned in my post, this is just a very brief recap of the information. I have written at great length on each of these points in other places. In addition, every point I listed is based on primary source material or observations drawn directly from them.



> I haven't measured the windows out on the secondary hull so I can't really address that one, yet. However, the small bridge dome _may _ be explained by the teardrop being the originally intended location for the bridge with the 'bridge dome' being just the very high ceiling above it (like an observatory?).


While this is a possibility, it is seemingly contradicted by the deck plan shown on in the mentioned bridge graphic, which depicts the dome as a separate deck. The window dimensions on the secondary hull and dorsal are well established, however, and would not work out for a 540 foot ship unless she were manned by midgets.  

Mark


----------



## jheilman

*Tos E*

My sources now confirm that the original names for "Mudd's Women" were in fact Betty-Jo, Billie-Jo and Bobbie-Jo.


----------



## Richard Compton

There's a picture of Roddenberry holding the 3 footer outside, I recently saw other photos from this time that showed Jeffrey Hunter in costume looking at them as well. So this was taken during production of the pilot, and perhaps before the 11-footer was built....or at least completed. Does the 3 footer give any clues to when the changes were made based on these photos?


----------



## MGagen

Richard Compton said:


> There's a picture of Roddenberry holding the 3 footer outside, I recently saw other photos from this time that showed Jeffrey Hunter in costume looking at them as well. So this was taken during production of the pilot, and perhaps before the 11-footer was built....or at least completed. Does the 3 footer give any clues to when the changes were made based on these photos?


The "three footer" was presented to Roddenberry by Richard Datin while he was filming the exterior scenes of the Rigel Fortress. He asked for a few minor changes and construction of the "eleven footer" was begun from the same blueprints.

The only photo I have seen of the model that is definitely from this stage is the one of Datin holding it up for Roddenberry with the gate of the fortress in the background. The model obviously has the pennant and other markings on it, but the photo isn't clear enough to determine the window configuration.

Can you point me to any other photos -- especially the one of Hunter with it -- or a clearer copy of the one I described?

To give you an idea of how quickly these things went down: According to Datin the small model was begun in November of 1964. It was completed in less than two weeks. After Roddenberry approved it with changes, the large model was constructed and delivered to Howard Anderson's effects studio in December. That means the construction of the large model took 6 weeks or less. I believe I have further data at home that narrows this time line down even more. I'll try to find it and let you know.
Mark


----------



## MGagen

jheilman said:


> My sources now confirm that the original names for "Mudd's Women" were in fact Betty-Jo, Billie-Jo and Bobbie-Jo.


And I suppose you also have unused footage from the title sequence of Petticoat Junction. You know, the part filmed from the _inside_ of the water tower?


----------



## Richard Compton

Mark,

I can't remember for sure where I saw the Jeffrey Hunter pic, but it might be on a CD I have. I'll check it out tonight if I find it, I'll get it to you.

Could you describe whether any aspects of the 3-footer are illustrative of what Jefferies intended? What I mean is, for instance, it has a different "look" than the 11-footer and I was wondering if this is closer to Jefferie's ideal or if the 11-footer was? You mentioned changes were requested from the 3-footer and I wonder if any of these concerned the hull shapes and that's why the 11-footer is somewhat different. The other thing is, are the windows on the port side of the 3-footer different than the ones of the starboard side? I know that reversed decals were used on the 11-footer and so the canon port side of the ship basically mirrors the details of the starboard side, but is this preferred, or just accepted because that's how it appeared on the show?


----------



## capt Locknar

Looks like this thread is picking up.

Learning some new things here too. 

Fantastic replies.


----------



## StarshipClass

MGagen said:


> . . . The window dimensions on the secondary hull and dorsal are well established, however, and would not work out for a 540 foot ship unless she were manned by midgets.


The dorsal looks to have window spacing equivalent to the saucer. The spacing around the middle of the secondary hull IS too close I will admit. That could be a screw-up though since it's the only area where the levels appear too close together.


----------



## jheilman

*Tos E*



Richard Compton said:


> Could you describe whether any aspects of the 3-footer are illustrative of what Jefferies intended? What I mean is, for instance, it has a different "look" than the 11-footer and I was wondering if this is closer to Jefferie's ideal or if the 11-footer was?


Mark may have more info, but I believe that most of the structural differences between the two were compromises due to constraints in construction. So, ideally the saucer would have had the underside rim of the 3-footer. I actually prefer the contour of the 11-footer. 

Now, the fact that the Phase II ship and the refit restore/add the rim can either confirm that they wanted it there all along...or they never intended it to be there and added it to emphasize the differences between the original and the refit.


----------



## StarshipClass

MGagen said:


> To give you an idea of how quickly these things went down: According to Datin the small model was begun in November of 1964. It was completed in less than two weeks. After Roddenberry approved it with changes, the large model was constructed and delivered to Howard Anderson's effects studio in December. That means the construction of the large model took 6 weeks or less. I believe I have further data at home that narrows this time line down even more. I'll try to find it and let you know.
> Mark


I must admit that you're close to having me convinced of the resizing of the ship _during _ the first pilot. I still reserve some doubts but I'm pretty much there. :thumbsup:


----------



## StarshipClass

jheilman said:


> Now, the fact that the Phase II ship and the refit restore/add the rim can either confirm that they wanted it there all along...or they never intended it to be there and added it to emphasize the differences between the original and the refit.


The rim may be added saucer circumference for new compartments and such.


----------



## MGagen

PerfesserCoffee said:


> The dorsal looks to have window spacing equivalent to the saucer. The spacing around the middle of the secondary hull IS too close I will admit. That could be a screw-up though since it's the only area where the levels appear too close together.



Perfesser,

Here's a section of the PL blueprints I have scaled to 540 feet. This is the production version, so there are extra windows on each deck, but the deck spacing is pretty much the same as the first pilot version.

Just to make it clear that the windows are a clue that the rescale has already happened by the time the model was delivered, take a look...

Mark


----------



## MGagen

PerfesserCoffee said:


> The rim may be added saucer circumference for new compartments and such.


This is exactly my contention. As Jefferies originally had the refit scaled, the rim is almost exactly the place where the old underside contour reaches the edge of the hull. In essence, the old underside is still there with the new rim extension adding to the diameter of the hull.

Mark


----------



## StarshipClass

Okay, I'm buying it. :thumbsup: 

Your theory is also supported by Jefferies' blueprints which we've never seen but one complete version at just the one scale. It seems there would be another set of blueprints at the different scale. _TMOST_ is apparently incomplete and mistaken in their version of this story.


----------



## StarCruiser

Numbers look about right to me. Most decks are about have or so of the proper height needed when scaled to 540'...

Doesn't really clear up the overall size issue entirely though - even at 947', some decks would have low overhead issues.


----------



## MGagen

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Okay, I'm buying it. :thumbsup:
> 
> Your theory is also supported by Jefferies' blueprints which we've never seen but one complete version at just the one scale. It seems there would be another set of blueprints at the different scale. _TMOST_ is apparently incomplete in relating this story.


Actually, the "baby bottle" fragment reproduced in ST Communicator shows a full scale measurement of the diameter of the Secondary Hull. It is consistant with the 540' length. This was the "smoking gun" that confirmed my theory.

When the ship was re-scaled, they didn't redraft new blueprints. They just agreed that it was now another (odd ball) scale. Perhaps they put a new scale notation on the drawings, but, really there would be no sense in redrafting it. According to Datin, the windows were added to the drawings in pencil at his shop.

Mark


----------



## uss_columbia

I know this has been covered in other threads before, but I can't remember the result. In the MOST overlay of 1701 w/ CVN65, does the scale confirm or at least support the 947' number or does it raise additional questions?


----------



## MGagen

uss_griffin said:


> I know this has been covered in other threads before, but I can't remember the result. In the MOST overlay of 1701 w/ CVN65, does the scale confirm or at least support the 947' number or does it raise additional questions?


It has been a while since I looked at this, but I did check it. One difficulty is getting an accurate LOA figure for the Big E circa 1965. The decks change from refit to refit on a nuclear carrier. I did find a figure, though and I seem to recall it the starship came up a little smaller than 947'. The ruler on the drawing didn't seem to match either way. I believe that the image was a 'quickie' intended to convey the rough size.

Mark


----------



## Richard Compton

Might be interesting to guess where in the 1960's you'd quickly find schematics of the carrier.

By the way, I don't want to hijack the thread but I didn't want to start a new one either. What about the refit? Jefferies originally drew the refit, so was that ever toyed around with? Does it have a hard number and what about the minature, does it have a set scale?


----------



## Trek Ace

Mark,

I believe at the time of the Jefferies size comparison, that the Enterprise carrier was 1,123 feet long (it is a little longer, now, since the refit in 1979).

Richard,

There was no trick with coming up with specs in the 60's. You could find them in any number of publications of the time - books, magazines, Jayne's, etc. Yes, we did have resources back then before the internet and the World Wide Web. 

BTW, the refit model from TMP was built to a scale of 1/10"=1' (1"=10', or 1/120 scale), making the model exactly 100" long.


----------



## Richard Compton

Well, yeah. But what did they use? I'm just saying, it was probably more limited as it's mostly a reference book of some sort as it'd be unlikely they'd want a schematic of a carrier and find a magazine article with it, they'd probably go and look for it in a reference book. I dunno, it's a stupid question. What kind of pencils did they use?!


----------



## Trek Ace

I have several magazines from 1962 with the Enterprise photos, plans and articles (she was launched that year). National Geographic, Naval Air Power, Popular Mechanics, etc., and many others, all had extensive coverage of the Navy's latest and greatest. Jayne's Fighting Ships is a standard for info on all naval vessels. Matt probably had all of that available in his own references within easy reach.

BTW, he didn't use pencil for that plan, rather it is an ink drawing on a 10"x15" art board, with rub-on shading from Letraset for the carrier.


----------



## Richard Compton

Show-off.


----------



## MGagen

Trek Ace said:


> BTW, he didn't use pencil for that plan, rather it is an ink drawing on a 10"x15" art board, with rub-on shading from Letraset for the carrier.


<OLD MAN VOICE> Back in _my_ day, we used a brand called Zip-A-Tone to shade our drawings. And there was none of this "hop in the car and drive to the art supply store" -- we _walked_, on things called "feet"!<\OLD MAN VOICE>

I feel much better now! :jest:

Mark


----------



## MGagen

Richard Compton said:


> By the way, I don't want to hijack the thread but I didn't want to start a new one either. What about the refit? Jefferies originally drew the refit, so was that ever toyed around with? Does it have a hard number and what about the minature, does it have a set scale?


Jefferies was apparently not involved any longer by the time the TMP Refit was finalized. The scale of that model changed from the time he designed it. I can't speak to exactly how long that model is, or, given it's "canonical" size, what scale it is. I can say that Jefferies created the design configuration with the intention of it being a _little_ smaller than it is now. Everyone complains that the refit "can't really be the same ship because the sizes and proportions are all wrong." A close look at the cross section of his Phase II drawing shows that it really was meant to be. The inconsistancy is a product of the irresistable urge to "make the ship bigger" that has infected every incarnation of Trek except "Enterprise." (That series merely settled for making it _too cool_ instead.)

Mark


----------



## trevanian

Well, the one inch equalling ten feet number came from Richard Taylor, who was in charge at Abel (over Probert) of redesigning the E AFTER it had jumped from Phase II to TMP feature movie status. 

So THAT matter of scale doesn't owe to MJ, unless he had locked it at 1000 ft during Phase II (and nothing I've seen indicates that.) 

Taylor also sez in the online interview that the Phase II model was something like four feet, but other sources I recall (perhaps even earlier remarks from Taylor, or from Magicam in American Cinematographer) put the discarded/incomplete Phase II E at something JUST missing Taylor's desired scale, which would have it at something in the six foot range, and that reconciles with most pics I've seen. 

But a lot of Taylor's interview comments are suspect: he mentions intending to employ Illusion Arts for matte paintings, even though they didn't form until the mid 80s (prior to that time, the two guys who later made up the core of Illusion Arts worked under Al Whitlock, pretty much exclusively at Universal.) 

I've thought that the Abel organization pushing for a new miniature E was a way of establishing their pull early on, commmiting the production to following their dictates. I mean, a snorkel lens on a six footer is going to produce similar looks as a snorkel on an 8 footer ... in order to get fantastic scale effects on a mostly undetailed surface (since the E wasn't ever going to look like a star destroyer in terms of junk parts) you'd have had to build it huge to get REAL HEAVY DUTY scale on the E model.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

MGagen said:


> Hi, Chuck.
> 
> Actually, I understood you to mean that the people who were "making it up" were the ones who were to blame for most inconsistancies.
> 
> 
> 
> I was disagreeing with this, saying, in essence, that the person who was "making up" the configuration of the Enterprise (Jefferies) WASN'T to blame for the inconsistancies. Most inconsistancies stem from the original, well thought-out design being changed or set aside at the last minute for production reasons. For example, "let's reshuffle how the bridge is layed out so the turbo door is over the Captain's shoulder for a better camera angle."
> 
> Perhaps this is indeed what you meant. If so, we are in agreement.
> 
> Mark


Yep. That's who I was talking about...


----------



## Trek Ace

Sometimes I miss those old days of having to actually draw everything out and use rub-on graphics and burnishers. Computers almost take all of the fun out of it.


----------



## trekkist

I almost hesitate to say this, given MGagen's (understandably) strong feelings on the subject, but...

Tonight, I completed my "layup" of the Matt Jeffries hangar deck and cutaway drawings. Which is to say, I enlarged the former until the shuttle became the size of the old pewter-like Galoob Galileo...then enlarged the cutaway such that the hangar bay fit (lengthwise) the indicated area.

The way I figure it, even given the hangar set's being built in forced-perspective, the maximum overall length is still from the ship's boattail to the back of the warp pylons...and as for the hangar/shuttle proportions, "removal" of forced perspective from the plans (which do of course reflect it, per the decreasing-toward-the-rear height of the wall "cabins," as well as the hangar's tail being shorter than the layup height would have it) would only make the hangar _bigger_ -- i.e., longer -- right, Mark? 

Thus, this method gives a minimum size to the ship overall [save one forsake the look of the hangar for that fittable into a 947-ft ship...results seen on the Model Builder's Reference Vault CGI shots...which (in the case of the hangar) are gorgeous, but NOT what's seen on screen.

Result: she's some 1284 feet long (and the bridge fits into her in a "Cage"-esque fashion).

Implications in terms of existing models:

ERTL's 22-inch cutaway Enterprise is a hair from 1/700 (standard model ship scale).

ERTL's refit model -- if enlarged proportionally, i.e., considered to be as much larger percentage-wise than the original as it calculates to be in "canon" figures -- is to the *same * scale [and although this enlargement does some damage to deck spacing and of course travel pod hatch diameters, it can be rationalized with Probert's hangar deck painting IF one assumes the 2 visible shuttlecabins are "long range" (like the Surak's), not the smaller "mediums" posited by Probert].

Polar Light's lil ol 11.36-incher becomes 1/1356 scale -- pretty much what ERTL's larger Enterprise-D was, and since a "standard" garage kit scale (at 1/1400, 1284 ft would come to 11.01 in -- close enough for rock n' roll if you ask me). 

Heresy? Yeah -- but it's a fun, consistent heresy. 

David Winfrey


----------



## StarshipClass

^^Heehee! Yeah! FUN!


----------



## uss_columbia

So how would you all scale out a Tardis?


----------



## StarCruiser

uss_griffin said:


> So how would you all scale out a Tardis?


Outside - easy - same exact size/shape as a 1940/1950 London police call box (which is actually what it is). Inside - ANYTHING GOES!!!!


----------



## StarshipClass

StarCruiser said:


> Outside - easy - same exact size/shape as a 1940/1950 London police call box (which is actually what it is). Inside - ANYTHING GOES!!!!


The same scaling system used for the Jupiter 2. :thumbsup:


----------



## StarCruiser

PerfesserCoffee said:


> The same scaling system used for the Jupiter 2. :thumbsup:


YES! You are correct sir! Ho, ho, ho...


----------



## trekkist

Damnit. This AM's heretical figures were miscalculated, being based on my using length of ship _without _ nacelles as reference.

Here's the relationships and how I derived 'em, and my results (correct this time...I think):

Length "eleven-foot" miniature -- 134 inches 
(cited from the ST Poster book on Phil's site, and there questioned...but looking at his own comparisons of the Jeffries' cutaway and the recent restoration measurements by one Kerr, 134 agrees with length derivations based on primary diameter, secondary length and nacelle length, so let's go with: 134 inches

Secondary (without dish) length -- .3663 of full (i.e. the ship is 2.773 times its secondary's length)

Hangar vs. secondary -- 1/4 -- secondary is 4 times the minimum hangar length

So: if she's 947, the hangar's 83.25 ft. -- about what Jeffries' cutaway says it is, but WAY to small to contain a 29 ft. shuttle in the way it does onscreen.

If one enlarges the hangar (I'm taking calculations from Jeffries cutaway of same -- as before, it seems to me this being a side plan of a forced perspective miniature as built would only make the "real" thing longer) to accomodate, as shown, a 29 ft. shuttle, ship becomes:

160 (hanger length) times 4 times 2.773, or.....1774 ft. long.

One can fool around a bit with this number (margins of error on the drawings and so forth) and get 1776, or 1787 (year the Constitution was signed) ("Constitution" class....ouch). But I can't see she can be much smaller, and not end up with the "Voyager-class" (to coin a phrase) hangar as so nicely reverse-engineered by Phil, to fit into a 947-ft Connie hull.

*PHIL * -- could I PAY you to do an analysis of the as-shown hangar/29 ft. shuttlecraft, to determine EXACTLY how big it is? I've been throwing wild-a** numbers at this for a couple of weeks now, think I've got it down to a (semi-)science...but would like some machine-enhanced confirmation. 

David Winfrey


----------



## Richard Compton

David,

Is this your "she would need to be" size of the Enterprise, or your "She really is" size of the Enterprise?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Okay,
it seems that this thread is becoming more and more confusing.

Would everyone please chime in with a bottom line size they think the enterprise was or should be in feet, and a BRIEF(key word being "brief") explanation of their evidence/reasoning.


----------



## StarshipClass

1701 _*is* _ 947 feet.

1701 _*should be* _ 1072 feet. :thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

PerfesserCoffee, your numbers sound feasible, but what do you base the second number on? I know where the first one came from of course.


Just so no one misses the question from the previous page, let me take a quick sec to restate it...

Okay,
it seems that this thread is becoming more and more confusing.

Would everyone please chime in with a bottom line size they think the enterprise was or should be in feet, and a BRIEF(key word being "brief") explanation of their evidence/reasoning.


----------



## uss_columbia

She's 947' long (scaled up from 540').
I agree with all of MGagen's reasons.
(And I accept that the shuttle bay is a tighter fit than it appeared on screen.)


----------



## uss_columbia

Also, (what a heretic), I prefer to think of the "standard" bridge layout as having the turbolift directly behind the captain's chair and the viewscreen facing forward, the fact that some director rearranged and rotated the bridge on the 1701 notwithstanding.


----------



## StarshipClass

Chuck_P.R. said:


> PerfesserCoffee, your numbers sound feasible, but what do you base the second number on? I know where the first one came from of course.


Yes, 947' scaled up from 540' is the actual situation.

1072' (well, maybe that should be 1080'  got my figures wrong) just seems to put it more in line with the refit size and I like the idea of the 11 footer being 1/96th scale. :devil: Just personal preference.


----------



## StarshipClass

Are there some blueprints that show how big a properly sized 29' shuttle would be inside a shuttlebay that actually fits into the ship's hull?


----------



## Richard Compton

I wonder what a study of the shuttlebay would reveal if you just tried to suggest what the miniature showed. For instance, do the control boxes need to be as large as they are to let people stand upright in them? Perhaps these things can be shrunk down some and this would give more room for the shuttle to fly in. Of course, with a bigger shuttle, smaller hanger, and smaller control booths, the shuttle might come out looking twice it's normal size.


----------



## MGagen

Sorry I've been out of touch, guys. Real life took up all my time last weekend...

Trekkist:

Never hesitate to chime in with _any_ opinion on one of "my" threads. Even when I hold an opinion pretty strongly I'm always glad for some well thought out give and take.

As for whether undoing the forced perspective actually makes the deck longer -- that's one way to do it. You can also compress it front to back at the same time to get much closer to the area he provided for it in the cross section. Keep in mind, though, that Jefferies wasn't using a computer modeling program to design that set. A simple "undistort" isn't going to get you where you want to be.

Chuck_PR:

I believe she IS 947' because it is pretty clear Matt Jefferies intended her to be that size. And it happens to work out quite well provided you stick with his concept for the interior (and don't try to shoe-horn eleven decks into the primary hull).

I am still searching for documentation of the reason why he didn't just double her length to 1080', though.

Mark


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

"Chuck_PR:

I believe she IS 947' because it is pretty clear Matt Jefferies intended her to be that size. And it happens to work out quite well provided you stick with his concept for the interior (and don't try to shoe-horn eleven decks into the primary hull).

I am still searching for documentation of the reason why he didn't just double her length to 1080', though.

Mark"

Other then a number scribbled on one set of blueprints(perhaps not even scribbled by Jefferies) is there any documentation anywhere that confirms Jefferies' intention that she was to be 947 feet?

It seems that's an odd number, and as Phil has pointed out - 1/84.xxxx is an odd scale as well.

It would seem more likely that someone misread a notation somewhere, rather then a man as logical as Jefferies would come up with the 947 foot number or the 1/84.xxxx scale.

Maybe I should already know this, but what documentation is there other then a notation on the old set of blueprints quoted in TMOST that the ship was to be 947 feet?

Anyone know?


----------



## trekkist

"Undistort" won't work eh? So much for them newfangled computers...me & Sam Cogley, we get time, we're gonna start making paper mockups of the hangar deck (soon as my replacment Micromachine shuttlecraft comes from Ebay...dunno where I put my first one) to try and eyeball how big it'd have to be to "dwarf" as onscreen, the shuttle.

At the moment, I'm hoping -- for no good reason whatsoever -- things work such that applying the same enlargement percentage as took 134 in. @ 1/48 to 947 will make the ship of a size to contain a near-lookalike shuttlebay.

As for the question, as I saying, "she IS this big" or "she SHOULD be this big," well, she's an imaginary ship...whose resizing is a matter of aesthetics.

Personally, I both like and find compelling the larger (as shown on screen) hangar deck, have no intrinsic issue with so radical a resizing, and feel Matt Jeffries' (never shown on screen?) cutaway deck levels can be "resolved" by applying what space is left after inserting 11 decks into the saucer and 16 into the secondary to "'tween-deck spaces" (such as walked in -- ugh -- in ST V, maybe). 

Am still wrestling with what the hull station markings might denote. Can these be put into rational units? I hope so.

And as for the visible (but unreadable) scalebar on "The Enterprise Incident's" Connie/K-7 comparision...though we know what it says (it's a Jeffries' comp, from Making, after all) it can't say that...they don't use feet, after all, but meters.

David Winfrey


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Guys,

It seems to me that there is no real way to nail-down the exact size of the ship because none of the dimensions were ever stated in the show. This means that all stated dimensions are "non-cannon", including Mr Jefferies. We might all agree to the notion that Mr Jefferies "opinion" is the "top opinion", because he designed the ship. But because the ship's size was never stated in the show, this will always remain an un-vetted "fact". Or in other words _his opinion_. Personally I have no problem with Mark or anyone else who would argue that the Jefferies dimension is _the _ dimension. You just can't prove it by watching the show, thats all.

No matter how you look at it, the overall length will be very close to 1,000 feet. 100 feet plus or minus is a very small difference. There is only 133 feet difference between the 1/84.1777 and the 1/96th scale versions. My personal preference is for the larger dimension because it makes the model a scale that makes sense and also permits a slightly greater amount of interior space but the 947 length works too and is apparently what Mr Jefferies intended.

Personally, I discount the model of the Hangar Deck altogether. It seems to bear the same relationship to the exterior that the Jupiter II interior bears to its exterior. In other words, there isn't one. The Hangar Deck model is just wrong. It may be correct in general details but certainly not in terms of dimensions.

Although I haven't actually looked into it, it seems possible that scaling the overall ship to fit the apparent dimensions of the Hangar Deck might render a ship that really does have eleven decks in the saucer! BIG. REALLY BIG.

"King Kong Enterprise" anyone? (KKE..?)

Phil

BTW, Last night I learned that 1701 was the year Captain Kidd was hanged. Not sure if there is any real significance but thought it was an interesting "pirate" coinidence.


----------



## heiki

Here's a nutty thought, is there a side by side image of the Jupiter 2 and the enterprise? or possibility of the J2 fitting in the hanger of the enterprise?


----------



## StarshipClass

heiki said:


> Here's a nutty thought, is there a side by side image of the Jupiter 2 and the enterprise? or possibility of the J2 fitting in the hanger of the enterprise?



I think the Johnny Lightning small die-cast J2 is about in scale to the 1/530th AMT 1701 and refit. It's too big for the hangar bay but would make an interesting replacement on a kitbashed saucer by replacing the b/c teardrop with it :devil:


----------



## StarshipClass

X15-A2 said:


> BTW, Last night I learned that 1701 was the year Captain Kidd was hanged. Not sure if there is any real significance but thought it was an interesting "pirate" coinidence.


Arrrgh, matey! Be that the feller hanged in Charleston, SC? (Or be that another matey I be thinking of?)


----------



## X15-A2

Well, blow me down!

Er, don't know where he was hanged, actually. I was looking at a book last night about the search for his ship, which was apparently sunk near Madagascar.

The Juptiter II might possibly fit at the front of the Hangar Deck (farthest from the clam-shell doors) but it would never fit through the opening (except maybe on the King Kong Enterprise..).

Phil


----------



## StarshipClass

Nevermind, that was Blackbeard that was hanged in Charleston at White Point.


----------



## ssgt-cheese

If you all look at this image from trek5.com;

http://trek5.com/caps/tos/59_EI/pages/59EI-012.htm

There's a scale on the top right portion of the viewer, I can disern 50 or so meters on one portion of the bar, maybe it goes up to 1000m. If somebody can blow the image up, we can probably use this scale as reference.

Mike


----------



## MGagen

Chuck_PR:

Regarding the 947 foot figure being a mis-read notation -- This doesn't stand to reason unless you believe all the other notations on the drawing were misread by the same proportion as well. I once thought the measurements were spurious, too, since they didn't seem to match the drawing very well. Then I got a dimensionally accurate scan of the drawing and found that the dimensions match up quite well. This seems pretty strong evidence that 947 feet is deliberate. 

As for other evidence that Jefferies intended it to be 947, here are just a couple...

If the ship is 947', then the artboard for the TMOST 3-view is drawn in 1:1152 scale which works out to 1" = 96'. The 1:96 hypothesis yields an intended length of 1080 feet LOA. At that size, the TMOST artboard would be drawn in 1:1313.735 scale which works out to 1" = 109' 5-47/64". (Not very likely.)

Jefferies original design for Phase II has features that scale out extremely close to the original E at 947'. The P II cross section is very well annotated for scale. Can it really be a fluke that his secondary hull is exactly the same length (304') as the original's? Even the deck layout and turbolift pathways are a close match. If you go with the 1080' theory, the P II refit has a substantially smaller secondary hull than the original! 

Trekkist:



> and feel Matt Jeffries' (never shown on screen?) cutaway deck levels can be "resolved" by applying what space is left after inserting 11 decks into the saucer and 16 into the secondary to "'tween-deck spaces"


It's a really tight fit to get eleven reasonable decks into a 1080' ship. There certainly wouldn't be any leftover room.



> Am still wrestling with what the hull station markings might denote. Can these be put into rational units? I hope so.


These only make sense at the 540 foot length. I guess you explain them at any larger size as a consistant, but as yet unknown measuring system.

Mark


----------



## trekkist

The Klingon/Enterprise comparision shot is from "The Enterprise Incident." The scale bar does indeed "confirm" a 947 foot length...but cannot (the scale bar) be considered canon being as how it's scaled in FEET.

How is this known? Because the same diagram (and the side view comp too) appear in The Making of "Star Trek."

David Winfrey


----------



## StarshipClass

trekkist said:


> The Klingon/Enterprise comparision shot is from "The Enterprise Incident." The scale bar does indeed "confirm" a 947 foot length...but cannot (the scale bar) be considered canon being as how it's scaled in FEET.
> 
> How is this known? Because the same diagram (and the side view comp too) appear in The Making of "Star Trek."
> 
> David Winfrey


Feet are canon. :freak:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Actually the use of feet as a measurement of length is definitely canon.

However, technically speaking none of the blueprints or charts considered are canon - i.e. they never appeared on screen. They are only secondary reference material and until somebody quotes the length it's definitely not canon.


----------



## StarshipClass

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Actually the use of feet as a measurement of length is definitely canon.
> 
> However, technically speaking none of the blueprints or charts considered are canon - i.e. they never appeared on screen. They are only secondary reference material and until somebody quotes the length it's definitely not canon.


Some things are debatable as to canonicity. Some throw away line in a STOS episode can't necessarily be considered canon just because it's in a show. It may be totally nonsensical to use that line in an attempt to rationalise the design of the ship.

The chart itself may to some degree be considered canon since it was seen on screen but where it is in dispute with the filming miniature, many hold the filming miniature to take priority.

The trouble is that, despite doing a relatively good job, consistency wasn't always the number one priority on the show. We are left to pick and choose among the various choices given us decades ago. Now we must simply make the best argument for what is best considered canon when there is a conflict. :thumbsup:


----------



## Ignatz

That's _canonsensical_, Perfesser!


----------



## StarshipClass

Ignatz said:


> That's _canonsensical_, Perfesser!


Grooooaaaaaannnnnn!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Apparently I'm missing something. Perhaps Trekkist was perhaps referring to something I was assumed to have known about...

Where did a comparison chart with a scale in feet of the subjects appear onscreen Perfesser?


----------



## StarshipClass

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Where did a comparison chart with a scale in feet of the subjects appear onscreen Perfesser?


_The Enterprise Incident_

Trek5.com has screen grabs.


----------



## trekkist

Feet are only canon in terms of their being used in addition (to clarify matters for a 1960s audience, prior to the wholesale US switch to metric -- remember that?).

Metric measurement was employed by ALL crew for ALL "official" measurements at ALL times. Feet, etc. were in effect slang, nonstandard or informal usage (for the above reason).

This is stated in the original ST Writer's Guide, as cited in "Making," and conclusively demo'd thoughout the original series.

Thus the chart's scale bar cannot "really" be in meters...save we assume it was so scaled for the 20th c. audience who were being treated to weekly downloads from the future, ala FJ's tech manual's arrival in USAF computers.

David Winfrey


----------



## jheilman

*meter vs. yard*

But we all know there were numerous examples of the metric system and the English system used in "official" terms. Sometimes both in the same episode.


----------



## TheYoshinator!

Wasn't there supposed to be a larger version of this Aridas Sofia's Phase II cross-section posted?

Or did I miss the post somewhere?

I'd love to be able to read the notes on that.

Btw, do you notice the first deck of the Dorsal, below the saucer rim?

It seems that the issue of deck placement in the Dorsal originated with this illustration. Purhaps then the derivatives were taken too literal... given Mr. Jefferies usual attention to accuracy?


----------



## Warped9

I've had similar thoughts on this subject myself and some years went through quite a few calculations to make sense of it. I'll see if I can find that stuff, but essentially I too came to a figure about 100ft. more than the oft stated 947ft. measurement. It makes more sense to allow for the facilities we saw onscreen as well as allowing for larger shuttlecraft which I've always thought it had to be.


----------



## TheYoshinator!

My love has always been the Refit. I was 10 years old when I saw it and was so blown away by it. So as a result of the seemingly great differences, I never payed much attention to the measurements of the TOS design (which so many of you here seem to want to know more than Refit). Now since this pic above was posted. I'm excited by the connection that just wasn't so obvious before.

Andy Probert's VIP lounge illustrations always seemed based on an earlier incarnation of the Refit. Looking at this illustration it looks like they could have been based on the shape or some correlation of distances here. If so... this illustration may be something of a Rosetta Stone for both TOS and Refit since Andy Probert's VIP illustrations have measurements related to at least that area of the ship.

Hopefully that larger version will be posted so we can find out.


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Guys,

I will post my copy of the drawing to my web site. I was meaning to earlier but got side-tracked. I'll post a note here when its up.

Phil


----------



## Warped9

The 11ft studio minature is actually stated as 134ins. If it is indeed at 1/96th scale as is being conjectured than that would make the actual ship 1072ft. l.o.a. I really don't have a problem with this. Firstly it makes much more sense in terms of allowing for more space to accomodate the facilities as depicted onscreen more consistently. Secondly it allows for a larger hangar deck to accomodate the generally accepted notion of larger shuttlecraft. Thirdly, the ship's length has never been stated anywhere or anytime onscreen. And we've already seen that no one until recently has ever offered genuinely accurate and authentic schematics of the ship (until recently) in the face of any drawings we have seen--be they in TMoST or FJ's works--are very inconsistent with the studio miniature and what we we evidently saw onscreen.

I see this issue similarly to the issue of determining how fast warp speeds actually are in TOS. I've gone over it and over it and the formula as stated in TMoST and official Paramount references is simply unworkable and inconsistent with how warp speeds were depicted in TOS--the ship is simply much faster and thus inconsistent with the stated formula. The generally accepted warp speed formula only works if you're relegated to an area of space of about 500lys in diameter--still plenty of places to go in that area, but it's inconsistent with distance and time references made onscreen. But we know the ship ranged hundreds to thousands of light-years farther than a mere 500lys. With this in mind I worked out something that does work and it's elegantly simple too: WF cubed x .02 = Light-years per hour. Now the speeds are consistent with what we see onscreen in TOS (note that I wholly dismiss any post TMP references as total b.s. and wholly irrelevant).
The major sticking point is that Warp One is supposedly the speed of light. I challenge that simply because nothing with mass can travel the speed of light and thus you have to circumvent that sticky little bit of physics.

Anyway, sorry to get a bit off-topic, but that's my take on it. Now back to our regular programming.


----------



## Warped9

^^ Oops. Just noticed Phil's table showing the studio miniature as 135ins. so that would mean a ship of 1080ft. But really which is it?

133.75ins at 1/96 scale = 1070ft.
134ins at 1/96 scale = 1072ft.
135ins at 1/96 scale = 1080ft.


----------



## MGagen

Jefferies blueprinted the model to be 4 x 33-3/4" or 135". The actual model, as built, came up nearly an inch short.

As I see it, there are two different philosophies that can be applied to this question: 1 - What was the designer's intention; 2 - What makes sense for a "real" ship.

What I have discovered is that the two are most times the same, where Jefferies was able to keep the final execution of his ideas true to his plan. In those cases where compromises were made in the heat of series production, we end up with things like a rotated bridge and a Shuttlecraft that's taller on the inside than on the outside.

Where possible, stick close to Jefferies -- he'll seldom steer you wrong. When this doesn't work, look for the reason; then choose your favorite work-around.

Mark


----------



## TheYoshinator!

Thanks Phil... can't wait to see that. I and I'm pretty sure plenty of others appreciate it a great deal as well.

And I have to agree with MGagen. The designer's intent seems more relevant than anything to me. Like Rick Sternbach's Voyager... where the lower front of the bottom of the 'saucer' has a rounded tip that was reflected in the CGI model. Even though, aesthetically, I liked what Tony Meininger did by adding the point to the physical model.


----------



## Jim NCC1701A

MGagen said:


> The Primary hull was enlarged by adding an extra construction to extend it's edge. This corresponds to the flat ring on the underside which is similar to the old AMT model. The real E didn't have it -- the underside curved all the way to the edge.
> Mark Gagen


Forgive the confusion, but did the TOS Ent _not_ have a flat ring around the underside? The 3 footer had the flat ring. Did the 11 footer not have that, just the concave curve right up to the edge?

Are the drawings by Charles Casimiro http://home.earthlink.net/~casimiro/blueprints.html accurate? Are they of the 3 foot or 11 foot model?

Cheers!

Jim.


----------



## tripdeer

Jim NCC1701A said:


> Forgive the confusion, but did the TOS Ent _not_ have a flat ring around the underside? The 3 footer had the flat ring. Did the 11 footer not have that, just the concave curve right up to the edge?
> 
> Are the drawings by Charles Casimiro http://home.earthlink.net/~casimiro/blueprints.html accurate? Are they of the 3 foot or 11 foot model?
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> Jim.



They both have a somewhat flat ring, but it is much more pronounced on the 3-footer, and has a rather sharp transition that defines it. The 11-footer goes flat very gradually going from the inside to the outside edge. The Casimiro blueprints appear to be extremely accurate for the 11 foot model. Hope this helps! :wave: 

-Dan


----------



## MGagen

I must disagree with Tripdeer.

Only the "3-footer" had the flat ring. The "11-footer" has a continuous curve all the way to the edge and never goes completely flat on the underside. I am still trying to determine if this change was one of the things Roddenberry requested after seeing the small model, or if it was merely a difference in the construction of the large model.

As for Charles Casimiro's beautiful drawings: I'm pretty sure he was trying to reproduce the large model. There just isn't enough documentation available (yet) to do accurate plans of the small model. I have looked his drawings over, though, and I believe that Alan Sinclair's are the more accurate of the two. There are a few details that Alan still needs to update, but I'd give his plans a 9 out of 10 on the accuracy scale (IMHO).

Mark


----------



## Jim NCC1701A

So the old Book of General Plans by Franz Joesph - with a very distinct flat ring visible in the cross-section - would be based more on the 3 footer or the AMT model than the 11 foot?

Looking forward to seeing those Phase II drawings when Phil gets them posted...


----------



## Trek Ace

Yes, indeed.


----------



## Jim NCC1701A

Now if we could just get someone who is friendly with Andrew Probert to nicely ask him to cough up his fan-flick (between TOS and the movies) design for the _Yorktown_ I could die happy 

The hunt for all obscure things Trek goes on...


----------



## trekkist

Slowly I approach a definitive answer to the posted thread title.

Night by night, I've wrestled with the hangar deck. Cited dimensions of the miniature as built reveal an aft (hatch) end in proper proportion to a 24-ft shuttlecraft (the rest, as is known, "spreads" wider than it should, the miniature being forced-perspective).

However...the shuttle isn't 24 ft. My latest work-up of data from the Bob Villa shuttlecraft thread (Four Mad's ceiling height inserted into Phil's 42-inch paneled interior) suggests an overall length of 34 ft.

For the hangar entrance -- the shot with least, presumably no, perspective distortion -- to appear as proportionally shown to a 34-ft shuttle, the ship must be 1864 ft long.

I've tossed about a few "King Kong" figures before...but I think this one is definitive.

Nor am I at all sure a 34-ft shuttle can be serviced by a 947-ft ship's hangar.

David Winfrey


----------



## Warped9

In trying to reconcile things into being more believeable as far as scale goes than we're simply going to have to accept that things won't look exactly as they did onscreen. We know that the shuttlecraft should have looked appropriately bigger onscreen, but it didn't and we have to live with it--unless someone can find a way to convince Paramount to pony up the cash to go in and correct all the shuttlecraft shots with seamless cgi for the forthcoming DVD boxed sets. Otherwise, it ain't gonna happen. The more I think about the more I'm convinced that a 1080ft. ship (at least) makes more sense than the 947ft. one.


----------



## Warped9

In response to an earlier post upthread I, too, would love to see drawings of the original three footer with its distinctive lower saucer profile.


----------



## MGagen

David,

I don't think a rescale of the whole ship should be driven by the Shuttlecraft miniature. The ship itself make good sense the way Jefferies scaled it and divided it up into decks.

The Shuttlecraft is another matter. Developements over in the thread devoted to that issue really have me leaning towards the Shuttle being intentionally designed at the smaller size with a much lower ceiling. Jefferies' drawing with the crewman walking through the interior in a bent posture supports this. I strongly suspect that the interior set was altered to give more head room by stretching the top half of it up (from the side seam up). Many of the inconsistancies that have been brought to light between the interior and the exterior can be explained by this: Seats too low, difference in proportion between inside and out, no sight line through the front windows, wrong angle on front wall, side seam too low on inside...

I believe it's another example of the original design going out the window in the heat of production. Just like the rotated bridge, we either have to accept the contradiction, or alter either the interior or exterior. I fully support the effort to come up with a compromise "real" Shuttlecraft -- we did see Spock standing upright inside the thing after all -- but let's not change the whole Enterprise in the process. Lets find a way to make it work without starting to change everything else like a chain of dominoes falling. If we take that course, nothing will end up as intended. Much better to keep as much as possible the way it was meant to be and only alter what absolutely must change.

That's my take on it, anyway...  

Mark


----------



## pcumby

Jim NCC1701A said:


> Now if we could just get someone who is friendly with Andrew Probert to nicely ask him to cough up his fan-flick (between TOS and the movies) design for the _Yorktown_ I could die happy
> 
> The hunt for all obscure things Trek goes on...



Here's something obscure - early sternbach/probert design for the TMP refit. Note the TOS-style A/B/C deck and lower sensor array. Sternbach sold this blueprint on eBay a while back, this was a screen grab from the auction.


----------



## MGagen

pcumby said:


> Sternbach sold this blueprint on eBay a while back, this was a screen grab from the auction.


Are there any _more_ images from this auction? :freak: 

Mark


----------



## StarshipClass

^^Yeah! Any BIGGER images? I think that version of the refit is superior to what that wound up with.


----------



## pcumby

*No More images...*



MGagen said:


> Are there any _more_ images from this auction? :freak:
> 
> Mark


No more. I have slightly larger images (I had to reduce by 50% to attach to the post). Send me a PM w/email and I'll forward to you.

There were several other auctions that Rick had at the time. I bought a copy of the David Kimble cutaway TMP Enterprise poster from him (the original version of the poster). 

This blueprint was, if I recall, the only piece of original artwork that was auctioned. While I would have loved to bid on it, it went was way over my budget.

Patrick


----------



## Gorn

So if we increase the size of the Enterprise from 947ft. to 1080ft., does this mean we increase the size of the refit as well?


----------



## StarshipClass

I think it's already about 1080 ft.


----------



## uss_columbia

The refit is generally said to be 1000' long: the model 100" long at a scale of 1/120.


----------



## MGagen

Matt Jefferies' Phase II design, which became the TMP Refit, was actually going to be shorter than the original TOS configuration. The engines were shorter, being a more advanced and efficient design. The extra section he added to the primary hull around the edge and the new dorsal neck did not increase the length enough to make up for this.

I believe the whole design was arbitrarily scaled up (after he was no longer involved) because "we can't have a _smaller_ ship!" This leads us to some of the odd differences between the proportions of the two configurations that make it seem the ship was rebuilt from the ground up -- that there's almost nothing left of the original after the "refit." Clearly, this was not Jefferies' doing. His original take on it is a very plausible refit of the same ship from TOS.

I really wish he had continued to be involved in the production. Does anyone know why he didn't?

Mark


----------



## Gorn

MGagen said:


> I really wish he had continued to be involved in the production. Does anyone know why he didn't?
> 
> Mark


Actually, yes. He was busy doing work on "Little House on the Prairie" and Michael Landon only let him work on Trek when it didn't interfere with their production schedule.


----------



## MGagen

Gorn said:


> Actually, yes. He was busy doing work on "Little House on the Prairie" and Michael Landon only let him work on Trek when it didn't interfere with their production schedule.


Thanks, Gorn.

It figures, Hoss is never around when he's needed to keep his little brother in line.


----------



## jheilman

*Tos E*

And, of course, Pa Cartwright was off on the Galactica by then, so he was no help.


----------



## trevanian

Gorn said:


> Actually, yes. He was busy doing work on "Little House on the Prairie" and Michael Landon only let him work on Trek when it didn't interfere with their production schedule.


I've always had a huge issue with buying this notion, given the way TV seasons play out. The hiatus for most shows is a few months in length, and back then hiatus was usually during spring into early summer, with shooting for a new season starting in July, sometimes June. 

MJ SHOULD have been able to keep contributing to Trek during all of the hiatus, yet the stories in the PHASE II book (which I don't entirely buy off on, since the book has got errors, like continually crediting Magicam with the Phase II ENT built by Don Loos of BPMM) say he was doing this drafting off-hours from a location on LITTLE HOUSE. 

The Phase II development was happening in May/June, right after PLANET OF THE TITANS got cancelled and as SW came out, so there should have been a window when MJ was dedicated on TREK alone, before he had to go back to LITTLE HOUSE. 

Also, it sort of begs the question, what was the priority here? Paramount was willing to give Trek an open ended set budget even for the TV revival, so why couldn't they make MJ an offer he couldn't refuse? Paramount could lure Shatner back (and ultimately even lure Nimoy back), but they could not appease Michael Landon? 

A friend and I collaborated on a piece that is going to run in FILMFAX later this year, mainly focusing on Joe Jennings, but with a sidebar on PhaseII mutating into TMP. My collaborator (who did all the interviews, I just sort of primed his pump) contacted Jon Povill, Harold Livingston, Robert Collins, Robert Goodwin, Paul Rabwin, Bob Baker (who did the unused vger probes, marionettes that were going to invade the ship before Abel changed the sequence into a xenon energy probe), and several others. Not a whole lot of new info, but some that may be interesting. Oddly enough, nobody talked about the vfx filming end of things, which makes me wonder about how serious they were ... GR had talked about the magicam PROCESS being used a year or so before Phase II, but i don't think the magicam company could have photographed the models successfully given their existing setup at the time. Abel didn't come on till phase 2 was history, at the end of 77, so there is a huge window when there was no vfx vendor outside of the model suppliers.


----------



## Warped9

Well, if we did scale up the _Enterprise_ a bit then maybe she'd look more like this in relation to something really big...


----------



## StarCruiser

Nice one!


----------



## Warped9

^^ Thanks. And at least it doesn't look like an AMT kit on a string.

Actually, my initial idea for this shot was to show Decker's shuttlecraft hurtling into the machine's maw, but when I scaled the craft down to the more appropriate size it practically disappeared and became almost wholly indistinguishable from one of the background stars. To have the shuttlecraft distinguishably recognizable I would have had to scale the planet killer way way up.


----------



## StarCruiser

Starship - on a steeek...

Yeah - the shuttlecraft should have been a tiny speck on the screen when it was shown in relation to the planet killer.


----------



## aridas sofia

On the question of why the TMP refit got sized to 1000 ft -- I have discussed this with Probert both 20 years ago and as recently as last month, and both times the answers were the same. Taylor wanted to stick by the Jefferies/ Jennings size, and Probert wanted to size things up A LOT for an entirely new _Enterprise_ that would not be a refit in any sense of the word. This ship was drawn up, and believe it or not, with considerable modifications it became the 1701-D eight years later. (The drawing from 1978 had a circular saucer however, not an elliptical one.) Taylor and Probert compromised -- stick much closer to the MJ drawings but settle on an enlarged ship of 1000 feet in length. This ship was still to have been an entirely new _Enterprise_, with a new NCC number (1800), but Gene Roddenberry had a change of heart as the model was being built and had the number changed back to 1701, with the order that however much the ship was different, deep inside this new ship there had to be some shred of the old 1701 linking it back to the one from the TV show. 

Thus the line saying it is _almost_ entirely new ship.

I hope this clears a few things up. I'm a fan of the Matt Jefferies Phase II design -- that's why I brought it to the public's attention back in the 1980s as part of my "Enterprise Heavy Cruiser Evolution Blueprints". As a refit of 1701 it makes great sense. I also like Probert and Taylor's work on the TMP ship, but to me that ship works much better as an entirely new _Enterprise_, just as Probert intended.


----------



## Warped9

Doesn't matter how big and tough and advanced you are, just pray your ship never becomes like the cold, dark hulk of the once mighty _Constellation..._

Anyone care to try doing this to one of ther PL _E_ kits?


----------



## StarshipClass

^^Great looking effects! :thumbsup:


----------



## X15-A2

*2 Phase or not Phase 2?*

Hi Mark,

I had decided that I would layout plans of Captain Pike's 540-foot long Enterprise after I finished with the Shuttlecraft project. To that end, today I started comparing some of the reference material I have and the two images to follow are the result. I was disappointed to see that Mr Jefferies Phase II inboard profile drawing seems to bare little similarity to the Gary Kerr plans of the big filming miniature and I wanted to find out what your thoughts about it are. Some details match while others do not. It leads me to believe that this Phase II plan was drawn from scratch, not traced from the original E plans as we first thought. What do you think about it?

Phil


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

X15-A2 said:


> Hi Mark,
> 
> I had decided that I would layout plans of Captain Pike's 540-foot long Enterprise after I finished with the Shuttlecraft project. To that end, today I started comparing some of the reference material I have and the two images to follow are the result. I was disappointed to see that Mr Jefferies Phase II inboard profile drawing seems to bare little similarity to the Gary Kerr plans of the big filming miniature and I wanted to find out what your thoughts about it are. Some details match while others do not. It leads me to believe that this Phase II plan was drawn from scratch, not traced from the original E plans as we first thought. What do you think about it?
> 
> Phil


Not to but in on your question to Mark, Phil. But since it's known that there are significant contour differences between the small original filming miniature and the TOS big filming miniature, are you saying that the Phase II plans show yet a third deviation from the major contours?

They resemble neither the big filming miniature's contours(at least Gary Kerr's plans of them) nor the small one?

Are Gary Kerr's plans known to be accurate?
I think I remember Thomas Sasser or John P. (keep getting those two guys confused, think they might secretly be one in the same :tongue: ) taking issue with some of the specs in them. But I may be mistaken about that, my enfeebled memory isn't what it used to be.


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Chuck,

Everyone is invited to comment here, I just aimed the question at Mark because I know he has already researched the subject extensively. We both thought (hoped?) that the Phase II drawing outline was traced from the original plan and therefore provided a look at part of a drawing we would otherwise never see. To my mind, it now looks like that is not the case.

As to which version they resemble, look at my comparison views and judge for yourself. Yes, the Phase II drawing seems to show a "third" profile for the Primary Hull.

As for Gary's plans, I would imagine that they are quite accurate. I knew Gary personally (before he did these drawings) and I saw him tackle fairly complicated drafting projects. He was then a professional map maker for a government agency and was using CAD systems before I ever even thought about them. He had the big E parts in his hands and therefore had the chance to measure and photograph them. As far as I know, he is the only draftsmen who ever did that. All others have worked from photographs only. He may have made mistakes, we all do, but I'll place a heavy bet on his drawings being "right", in almost every detail.

I am still a "newbie" to this or any other BB and am not familiar with any discussions that Mr Sasser may have had regarding Gary's plans. I am curious to hear what his take on the subject was however.

Phil


----------



## Trek Ace

Hey, Phil.

Any chance of seeing those large Phase II drawings posted on your website?


----------



## MGagen

Hi Phil,

There are several issues here that I need to go into in detail. I'll try to at least touch on them briefly until I have time to do so at length.

First, Pike's ship wasn't 540 feet long -- at least by the time it was filmed. The smaller length was initially planned when the blueprints were drafted (and perhaps was still in effect when the models were a'building) but by the time the big model was delivered to the studio, the Enterprise was 947 feet. The ship was _planned_ to be 540 feet as represented by a 1:48 scale model of 135 inches -- and as such, MJ's choice of working scale for the project was quite logical. At what point in the process Roddenberry asked for an enlargement, and why such an odd scale factor was chosen for the mathematical "sleight of hand," I'm still investigating.

As for the Phase II blueprints, I need to clarify my position: I have only maintained that, when scaled properly, they are much more consistant with a true "refit" than the TMP version in that many of the major components match for size, proportion and detail. Also, the internal deck layout is too close to the MJ section view from TMOST to be a cooincidence. The interior of the hangar deck also depicts a very similar configuration to the TMOST section view and looks like Jefferies' own "undistorted" take on the forced perspective miniature. As such, I have posited the Phase II sectional view as a sort of "Rosetta Stone" for the TOS interior since it is a larger and more detailed drawing than what we have from TMOST.

Now to the comparisons: We must keep in mind that MJ didn't build the model. He probably never even took a tape measure to it to see if they had followed his blueprints closely. It is essential in this little game to compare Jefferies with Jefferies. Bringing the Kerr plans into the mix isn't really the point, although it really isn't that far off since the model builders did their job well. I contend that when MJ sat down to do the Phase II update, he probably had his original drawings (and better ones than we've seen) to work from. He seems to have taken his TOS design as a baseline for a real refit.

One of the crucial things to do before comparing anything is to scale the various plans properly. In your example, you show the Phase II section over your Kerr outline with both primary hulls scaled to the same diameter. This is a problem from the start, since the Phase II primary is bigger. When you do scale them to the scale, the flattened outer ring of the Phase II primary falls about where the TOS underside stops. This suggests MJ was adding the flattened part on as increased diameter. The decks above the rim level do have a different configuration. This area would have been largely rebuilt during the refit.

As for the construction blueprints: these were drafted for a 540 foot ship, then after the small model was made Roddenberry asked for some adjustments. One of these was most surely a sharper angle on the edge of the primary hull. This detail is seen marked in pencil over the drawing on a fragment I have seen. 

Now a few thoughts about your Kerr plans: I had noticed a few inconsistancies between what these show and my own researches. Wanting to know whether to abandon my own findings, I appealed to one of my correspondents who has an official copy of the latest Kerr plans (although he is not at liberty to share them -- ARRGH!). He knows the history of Gary Kerr's efforts to document the model. Now you had told me that your plans were the ones Kerr drew up for Jein's DS9 Tribbles reconstruction. If this is true, my source tells me that, while a good effort, they are not all that accurate. They date from an previous study Gary K had done, supplemented with photo surveys. This was before he had access to the model during the recent renovation and was able to exhastively go over it at first hand. I am told the Polar Lights blueprints (even with a few intentional inaccuracies) are closer to the current Kerr plans.

Finally, a blueprint of Pike's ship, since it really wasn't 540 feet anymore by the time it arrived onscreen, would really just be the same as the '11 footer' with the first pilot details. This is already available in the PL blueprints, and I believe Alan Sinclair has a reasonably good version of the production version with extra renderings of the differences in the pilot versions.

I'll try to post some more about this later. I'm currently playing catch-up from having moved houses yesterday.

Mark


----------



## RossW

Mark - what 'intentional inaccuracies' in particular are on the PL E blueprints? Why would they intentionally add something that isn't accurate?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Sorry to display my ignorance, Phil, Mark, but could you or someone else perhaps post a list of "standard" scales from one to say 1/96?

Are there any generally accepted scales between 1/24th and 1/32nd?

Guess there might be a difference whether we're talking models or other drafting, I'm most interested in generally accepted(even if now perhaps rarely produced) modeling scales.

Anybody who has info on the subject, like John P(who has tons of modeling experience) or anyone else, feel free to chime in.


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Mark,

I will wait for you to post more before writing an actual reply to your post above. Your posting makes a lot of assertions but offers no evidence, so I assume that is to come. Also, let us have a list of the errors in the Tribbles version of the Kerr drawings (or at least the important ones). This "Phase II" drawing is no "refit". If it were, at least some of the original lines would have survived (beyond the thickness of the rim). Everything has changed.

I would like to hear why you think the ships size was changed to 947 feet "during" the first pilot. Pike still states a crew size of 203 and the model still shows the "one row of windows per hump" on the Primary hull.

What were Mr Sasser's drawings based upon? And, as asked above, what and why "intentional errors"?

Just so everyone is clear, here is an image comparing the Phase II drawing to the early Kerr drawing (seen in blue), when scaled the same. Kerr has been scaled to a 417 foot diameter for the sake of this comparison. Unfortunately the only detail that actually matches is the thichkness of the saucer edge. So the Phase II drawing is really useless to those interested in TOS Enterprise (although the interior arrangement probably does shed light on the TOS version and is a useful comparison as Mark points out). To me, the outer proportions are more important, the interior configuration can only be addressed after the exterior is nailed down. That is why I thought this drawing would prove useful, it looked like it might have started out as a trace of the original drawing with changes added to it but clearly it was drawn from scratch. No wonder too, the original drawings were undoubtedly taken from the studio long before the Phase II project got under way.

Chuck,

Standard scales refer to segments of 1 foot. A foot being made up of 12 inches, therefore 1 inch = 1 foot is 1/12th scale. 1/96th scale is 1/8 inch = 1 foot. Half of that (half the number of segments) is 1/48th scale which is 1/4 inch to the foot. It is all based on the English measurement system. As the scale number decreases, the size of the model increase as it begins to approach full scale. 1/32nd scale is 3/8ths inch = 1 foot. 1/24th is 1/2 inch = 1 foot. 1/16th is 3/4 inch = 1 foot. 1/8th is 1.5 inch = 1 foot. Thats about it. Today a lot of things are done in the metric system but the '60s era draftsmen used the English system.

Phil


----------



## Warped9

Phil's approach that the TOS filming miniature is more likely 1/96 scale--doubled up from the original 1/48 scale--simply makes so much more sense. Otherwise you have a very cumbersome 1/84 scale that makes no sense whatsoever. Somewhere along the line MJ came up with his 947' figure, possibly from drawings very much like those seen in _TMoST_, but the 947' figure is very awkward and unworkable when applied to the 11' filming miniature. And since that precious 947' figure is _never ever_ stated onscreen anywhere at anytime then it really is left to conjecture as to the supposed "actual" size of the TOS _E._

This slight scaling up and gaining 133' (about 14%) actually serves to help rationalize things we saw onscreen such as some of the higher than realistic ceilings. It would also facilitate the pursuit of a more believeably sized shuttlecraft with appropriately sized Hangar Deck and Shuttlecraft Maintenance Bay. 

Man, it would be nice if it were ever possible to get a look at the original miniature construction drawings.


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Guys,

Ditto the chance to study the original drawings. Sigh...

The Phase II Enterprise drawings (2 sheets) are now up on my site under both the TOS & STMP Enterprise sections of the web site. Be forewarned, one is 874K in size while the other is 1.35mb. I tried to reduce the file size as much as possible but they are still large. Don't all you down load them at once, my web host might choke on the spike in bandwith utilization...  

Phil


----------



## Jim NCC1701A

Oh man, that's great. How many years have these been hiding from us?
Thanx Phil for hosting them.

Cheers!

Jim.


----------



## TheYoshinator!

Wow! Thank you Aridas Sofia, MGagen, and Phil for getting those up and out to us!

Mathematical info... This is really sweet!

It may not totally solve the problems everyone seeks... but it sure will for some in some respects.

I see now that the Cross-Section and the Exterior don't coincide.... Doh!

This will make for some fun analysis though, that's for sure!

:thumbsup:

Oh! NVM!... I now see that those exteriors Phil put up are the Phase II in development 2-3mo. before that cross-section was made. The cross-section matches the previously published Phase II exteriors though. Very nice!


----------



## Jim NCC1701A

Warped9 said:


> And since that precious 947' figure is _never ever_ stated onscreen anywhere at anytime then it really is left to conjecture as to the supposed "actual" size of the TOS _E._
> 
> This slight scaling up and gaining 133' (about 14%) actually serves to help rationalize things we saw onscreen such as some of the higher than realistic ceilings. It would also facilitate the pursuit of a more believeably sized shuttlecraft with appropriately sized Hangar Deck and Shuttlecraft Maintenance Bay.


IMHO the problem with scaling up TOS _Enterprise_ though, is the movies. I know the refit's length of 304.8 meters also wasn't stated on-screen (for that matter, neither was the ship's class ), but it is listed in the official David Kimble blueprints. As well as being generally accepted by the rest of us...

Why make the refit _smaller_, stronger, faster?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

True that would mean that you would probably need to upscale the refit as well.

Personally though I don't have a problem with that. As you say, the refit's length hasn't been stated onscreen either.

The principle of working inside out (I understand you need accurate external proportions, but don't need to nail down the size precisely) makes the most sense to me.

This doesn't mean the writer's guide and TMOST blueprints are inferior in any way.

It's just that they had no way to know everything that was going to be eventually included in every future episode, especially considering that for dramatic reasons, and sometimes for no reason whatsoever, filming directors and writers disregarded, or at least misunderstood, the restrictions imposed by a 947 foot ship.

Chances are none of us will ever see a 1/1 mockup of the Enterprise, whatever it's true length.

But I CAN forsee a time when someone will have completed a believable 3D model from stem to stern that we might one day might be able to walk through at will, "DOOM" style(am I dating myself?). 

Gentlemen, we have the technology.

However to make many of the "seen onscreen" features properly scaled, ceilings the same height as in TOS, big shuttlebay, believably thick decks, hulls and service access areas between them, that ship will have to be bigger then 947 feet.

I know that rubs some people the wrong way, and I wish it weren't so, but it looks unavoidable.

I'm ready to accept that, understanding that that will be necessary in order to allow the development of a completely believable "virtual" TOS Enterprise.

Heck, tons of people get hung up on "canon." Strictly defined it means to Paramount info that has appeared onscreen. Some like to widen the definition to include "official" tech manuals and the like. Personally I like to keep it narrower and restrict it to what's seen onscreen.

Even that cannot be trusted however.
In Star Trek V the notation "Deck 78" was painted on a deck in the 1701-A. 

So, in this narrow case I don't see a big problem with throwing the 947 thing out the window if it will one day allow us to see a believable, well-proportioned TOS virtual Enterprise, one that we could one day "virtually" walk through with ease, stem to stern.

Hey Phil, you could probably have one of those whipped up by Labor Day or so, don't you think? :devil:


----------



## X15-A2

I'm on it Chuck... :tongue:


----------



## MGagen

X15-A2 said:


> I will wait for you to post more before writing an actual reply to your post above. Your posting makes a lot of assertions but offers no evidence, so I assume that is to come.


Some of the evidence was addressed earlier in this thread. I merely summarized my findings to make my position clear. If you have specific questions, I'll try to answer them as you bring them up.




> Also, let us have a list of the errors in the Tribbles version of the Kerr drawings (or at least the important ones).


Just overlay the Polar Lights blueprints at the same scale. The differences will become obvious. All except for the underside contour of the primary hull. The earlier Kerr version has the inaccurate "flat lip" just like Jein's model.




> This "Phase II" drawing is no "refit". If it were, at least some of the original lines would have survived (beyond the thickness of the rim). Everything has changed.


I have never maintained that Jefferies traced out his original drawings. I believe he felt free to "touch it up a bit." What I am saying is that he was obviously consulting some drawings he still had of the original design. The interior cross section alone shows so many of the same features that he obviously had in mind a true refit. The basic turbolift layout; the division of large and small decks, even the hangar deck being slightly (a step or two?) elevated above the engineering deck; all these elements are the same between the designs. Add to this that the original primary and secondary hulls fit within the refit hulls with a little added circumference on each and I believe it is clear he was envisioning a true, although major, refit. No, the contours don't correspond exactly. But they are close -- and you're not looking at what you get when you compare the TMP version with the original (a ship of the same basic shape but totally unrelated size).




> I would like to hear why you think the ships size was changed to 947 feet "during" the first pilot. Pike still states a crew size of 203 and the model still shows the "one row of windows per hump" on the Primary hull.


The model as delivered and filmed in The Cage already had the closer window spacing on the dorsal and secondary hull. The bridge dome, while higher, is also too small in diameter to contain the bridge at 540' scale.




> What were Mr Sasser's drawings based upon? And, as asked above, what and why "intentional errors"?


He has been silent on his sources, but my correspondent tells me they agree very well with the latest Kerr plans. Sasser did state online that there are a few intentional inaccuracies to keep folks from just blowing them up and publishing them as definitive blueprints. I believe I know what the changes are based on my own studies, and they are minor -- they do not alter the basic proportions.




> --SNIP-- it looked like [the Phase II drawing] might have started out as a trace of the original drawing with changes added to it but clearly it was drawn from scratch. No wonder too, the original drawings were undoubtedly taken from the studio long before the Phase II project got under way.


Actually, Jefferies kept a ton of material himself, so he would have had no shortage of references. Most of this was auctioned for charity shortly before his death. He even still had one of the two Klingon miniatures from the series and sent it back to the studio to be reworked for the Phase II series.

I'm attaching a couple of images to show the TMOST and Phase II cross sections in the proper proportion to each other. The second image shows the two next to each other and is the best one to illustrate the similarity of internal layout.

Mark


----------



## Warped9

Once again I'm probably in the minority here, but I've never been fond of the Phase II version. It never looked anything like being derived from the original design to me. And for whatever little it's worth I think the _TMP_ refit was a huge improvement over the Phase II version. I simply accept/rationalize that the refit was so extensive that it markedly altered some of the familiar lines and contours.

Forgive my arrogance (and there are details I'd change if I were drawing this today rather than years ago), but a truer _refit_ might have or could have looked something more like this:


----------



## MGagen

One thing I would like to state for the record. While I have nothing against the concept of "canon" per se, my main interest in the Enterprise model is to discover what her _designer_ intended her to be. What I've discovered as I study this subject is that in most cases, Matt Jefferies' intentions don't conflict with what was seen onscreen. Where they do, it is nearly always attributable to compromises made in the heat of TV production.




Chuck_P.R. said:


> However to make many of the "seen onscreen" features properly scaled, ceilings the same height as in TOS, big shuttlebay, believably thick decks, hulls and service access areas between them, that ship will have to be bigger then 947 feet.


Most of these objections to a 947' ship disappear when you look a little closer at MJ's intentions:


MJ's primary doesn't have 11 decks -- there is plenty of overhead room.

MJ's Hangar Deck drawing depicts the forced perspective miniature set, not the actual hangar. Look to his cutaway for the actual size. The Shuttlecraft too was meant to be smaller. Note his "crouched over" drawing of the interior in TMOST. If you want to reconcile an interior large enough for Spock to stand up in, then you'll have to enlarge the Shuttle to about 29 feet in length. This will make things a little tight in the Hangar Deck, but I'm not convinced it can't be made to work.

For believable deck thickness, look to his Phase II drawing. No interdeck service crawlways here. That's a (less than feasable) TNG innovation.
The ship doesn't _need_ to be enlarged to make it believeable. Of course, there's no law against it, if you want too.... 

Mark


----------



## StarCruiser

On the "interdeck" service sillyness added in TNG - pointless complexity.

Removable panels on the deck surface would suffice quite nicely, and the result is a reasonable thickness for the deck - allowing for structural support and equipment space.


----------



## MGagen

^^ I agree completely.

It looks to me like what we see in the overhead detail of the TOS corridors is the open support structure for the deck above. 

If you were actually "on the ship" you could probably look up and see various equipment bolted between these braces and conduits and wiring piercing through the "shower curtain" material as it runs along under the deck above. The oblique angle we always see this at in the show prevents us from seeing between them. Around and through this detail you would see the underside of the actual deck plating above. Access could be gained either by reaching up from the deck below, or removing a deck plate from above -- whichever would be easier for the component you need to access.

This makes much more sense than interdeck service crawlways. And an open overhead support structure area allows for all that wiring and heating ductwork to fall in a shower of sparks whenever the ship is under attack.  

Mark


----------



## StarCruiser

Definitely what was intended - Doomsday Machine proves that point... All of the pipes and bits and peices hanging from the ceiling in the Constellation are solid evidence of MJ's intent.


----------



## Gorn

On the other hand, each deck was isolated enough from the next to be airtight, as seen when M5 cuts off life support to certain decks in "The Ultimate Computer". Makes sense from a survivability standpoint.

Awsome artwork from Jeffries. Any chance of any other goodies showing up one of these days? While I can understand why the owners of these things sometimes prefer to keep them under wraps, I hope they all realize that they are stewards of pieces of our cultural mythology. I'd like to think that ALL this "lost artwork" could be shared, but maybe I'm too much of an idealist.

Warped9, I''ve seen your stuff on TrekBBS and was always impressed. I hope we get to see some more from you too. By the way, what changes would you make to your conjectural refit if you were to do it again today?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Warped9 said:


> Once again I'm probably in the minority here, but I've never been fond of the Phase II version. It never looked anything like being derived from the original design to me. And for whatever little it's worth I think the _TMP_ refit was a huge improvement over the Phase II version. I simply accept/rationalize that the refit was so extensive that it markedly altered some of the familiar lines and contours.
> 
> Forgive my arrogance (and there are details I'd change if I were drawing this today rather than years ago), but a truer _refit_ might have or could have looked something more like this:


No law against wishing.

Nothing arrogant about it either.  

Great work!

The Phase II/TMP engines didn't bother me so much, other then they appeared to be much less interesting. It sort of made sense that they be replaced entirely. I sort of liked a variation I've seen a garage kit maker do though that blended the TOS nacelle caps and TMP nacelle bodies. I'll post a pic if I can find one.

The thing that threw me the most about the refit was the marketed difference in the secondary hull. Seemed far less feasible from a "refit" then the "extensions" on the primary saucer.


----------



## Warped9

^^ The main thing I would change is the nacelle design. I'd go for something a little more evolutionary between the familiar cylindrical design and the _TMP_ look while still leaning a little more to the cylindrical look overall. I'm not really happy with the nacelles that are currently on the drawing. Also I'd revamp the impulse area, particularly the impulse deflection crystal or whatever the hell it's supposed to be--I've never really liked that concept and all it entails and so I'd lean a bit more back to something like what was done originally.

We can toss numbers around, but here's a visual comparison of what rescaling the filming miniature would give us. The smaller image is the _E_ at 947' and the larger _E_ is the rescaled 1/96 coming out to 14% larger 1080'. You can easily see the significant gain in available interior space overall because it isn't just length that would be increased.


----------



## Warped9

Something is going on with my web host. Hope it clears up soon...


----------



## Jim NCC1701A

MGagen said:


> If you want to reconcile an interior large enough for Spock to stand up in, then you'll have to enlarge the Shuttle to about 29 feet in length. This will make things a little tight in the Hangar Deck, but I'm not convinced it can't be made to work.


This sounds like the old 'how'd they get the _Delta Flyer_ into _Voyager_'s hanger'
.
According to the old 'Famous Spaceships of Fact & Fiction' modeling book (now I'm showing my age - picked it up in 1978-79 ) when making the 2nd pilot "there was no money for an actual shuttle vehicle, so no hanger bay was necessary. In fact, publicity drawings made later that year (1965) showed flame and smoke blasting out of the lower aft end."
And Jefferies' original wish was to have a much more streamlined and aerodynamic shuttle than the box they finally settle on. Perhaps that shuttle - being Jefferies' 1st choice - would've been a more plausible fit in the 947' ship's hanger bay?


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Mark,

OK, first of all, I would have to argue that the 540-foot version of the Enterprise is far from irrelevant, particularly to anyone who is after Mr Jefferies "original intent". Even more so considering that it is the only version that appears on the technical readouts of the bridge instrumentation and Turbolift schematic (Last night I spotted a scene where that schematic is fairly clear and I plan to get a DVD for image capture purposes, more later). 540 feet is exactly what was "intended" by Mr Jefferies and it was in this guise that the ship was designed and developed. I don't think a person can know the designers "intent" for this ship without addressing that version first. Call it the "lost Enterprise". In this smaller version the exterior remains largely the same, except for a question of scale, but the interior is where things really change. True, the Bridge doesn't fit inside the blister, instead the exterior mold line nearly matches the theoretical curve of the interior consoles and overhead sofit. This is typical of hollywood set design of the day, the exterior line matching the interior one, essentially leaving zero wall thickness. It is obvious Mr Jefferies didn't intend that it should fit. That it did fit later on is only an accidental fact of the scale-up process, not of original "intent". All the pre-production thinking and design work on the ship is based on this 540-foot version, this is why I find it interesting. It has been overlooked by the fans too and this also makes it that much more interesting to explore. How the later 947 foot length was arrived at, we are likely to never know but it still makes no sense. Please don't bring up the scale relationship between the original TMOST drawings and that size, he didn't use those little drawings to determine the ships size. The TMOST drawings were drawn long after the scale-up of the ship occured. The size was determined based upon the large scale plans, like the ones that Mr Datin has. And considering the number he eventually came up with, the size seems totally arbitrary and not a "scale" at all, just a number picked at random. I would prefer that there be some logical explanation about how the new size was arrived at but so far, there seems to be none. 540 feet seems a bit arbitrary too but at least it matches the plans on the Bridge, the model as originally built and the verbal details in the pilot such as a stated crew size of 203 (as compared to the later 400+).

Not to mention the cool model building scale comparisons that become possible at the smaller size. At 540 feet the ship would be 140 feet longer that the Seaview and a WWII Japanese I-400 class sub, about 100 feet longer than Atragon, and perhaps 40 feet longer than the 2001 Discovery. I could see a nice big display case with all these models built to the same scale...

BTW, I never thought that you were saying that the Phase II drawing "was" traced from the original plans. Much, much earlier you seemed to think that it was "possible" that it was and so did I. I simply wanted to show that, after checking, it didn't seem to be the case. I had really hoped that it was but it isn't. Oh well, its our loss to be sure.

The interior layout of decks in the Phase II drawings is interesting and bares unmistakable similarities to TOS Enterprise but deck spacing and turbolift layout seems like a trivial detail to me when compared to the issues of determinig the ships exact size and shape. It is however interesting in general terms to see how Mr Jefferies approached such a drawing. That he even considered a deck spacing at all is highly commendable, considering what his contemporaries were up to "back in the day". So I'm not saying that these drawings are without value, they just don't seem to be very useful in terms of TOS Enterprise research. Sadly.

It is difficult from our current perspective to really "know" what was Mr Jefferies "intent" and what was someone elses influence. We can only really guess. Obviously his "intent" changed too, along with the scale of the ship, making it that much tougher for us to unravel what his true "intent" was. He seems to have had a cascade of changing intents, rather than one Unified Intent Theory... :freak: 

He also didn't seem to be able to draw his own ship correctly, as the TMOST plans clearly indicate. There are serious errors of detail in those drawings. Of course, they may not have been drawn by him at all, he wasn't the only one working in the Paramount Art Department at the time. But that assumption would really leave us with nothing to go on. The only really definitive piece of data we have is a big-ass, terribly abused, model now held in captivity behind glass at the Smithsonian. And even it doesn't really prove much, one way or the other.

Until we hear what Mr Sasser's sources of information were, how can we attach any importance to his drawings? Do they take priority over Gary Kerr's drawings? I was told that Gary's "Tribbles" drawings represented what he had time to finish before the deadline set by Greg Jein, not that they were drawn before he had seen the 11 foot model. Maybe that isn't true, I don't know. It would seem that only Gary can tell us that for sure. As you say, the Primary Hull flat lip is a minor error on his plans.

As far as our own TOS "E" studies are concerned, I suppose that you will be concentrating on working out Mr Jefferies intent after he changed his intent and I will be looking into his "original" intent. It is all very confusing. :freak: 

Warped9,

Very cool take on the refit and nicely drawn too. Tell us a little about that drawing, how and when it was prepared for example.

Phil


----------



## Warped9

^^ Phil, even way back when _TMP_ premiered I had some issues with the redesign. I liked it overall, but was bothered by details, most notably the "flat" nacelle design. I conjectured with reams of sketches way back then on how I might have done it myself because I was a little peeved that the refit did not echo any of the TOS' _E's_ familiar lines and contours. We know now that initially the ship was not supposed to be a refit _per se_ but actually an entorely new vessel with a new registry number. But apparently GR had a change of heart and was nervous about fans' obvious affection for the original ship and so the idea was changed to that of the ship we saw being a refit, albeit a rather extensive one.

Several years ago (7 or 8, I can't remember) I finally got off my ass and attempted to draft my idea of what a more approriate refit could have looked like. In the end and in retrospect I still like my overall concept as well as certain details, but I would modify the nacelle design as well as the "impulse deflection crystal" design. Perhaps I'll get motivated enough to actually redraw my concept, but then I have no real practical application for it other than of pure curiousity. I suppose one could say that if you accept the idea of a 5-year voyage between _TOS_ and _TMP_ then my idea could apply.


----------



## ssgt-cheese

_In the Star Trek Sketchbook (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671002198/103-2988696-7819823?v=glance)_
_I read about Matt Jefferies sketches for the E. where he states the overall size was based on the carrier Enterprise CVN-65. And the dimensions for the starship were 947' in lenght overall, primary hull 417'W, secondary hull 340'L, warp engines 340'L, and distance between engines 340'W. Now according to the author there were several revisions to the blueprints until he finally arrived to the above measurements and summited it to the model makers._

_Mike._


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

ssgt-cheese said:


> _In the Star Trek Sketchbook (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671002198/103-2988696-7819823?v=glance)_
> _I read about Matt Jefferies sketches for the E. where he states the overall size was based on the carrier Enterprise CVN-65. And the dimensions for the starship were 947' in lenght overall, primary hull 417'W, secondary hull 340'L, warp engines 340'L, and distance between engines 340'W. Now according to the author there were several revisions to the blueprints until he finally arrived to the above measurements and summited it to the model makers._
> 
> _Mike._


Great info Sargent!

Anybody have specs on the CVN-65?


----------



## ssgt-cheese

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Great info Sargent!
> 
> Anybody have specs on the CVN-65?



Designation:USS Enterprise (CVN-65) Keel: Laid:February 4, 1958. Launched:September 24, 1960. Commissioned:November 25, 1961. Overall Length:1,123', Width (at widest point):257', height (from keel to mast):250'


----------



## ssgt-cheese

This book is a great reference material. There are some info on the Klingon battlecruiser and Galileo shuttlecraft, and some of the sets used on the show, if anybody need me to post some of the specs, just let me know.

Mike


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Warped9 said:


> ^^ The main thing I would change is the nacelle design. I'd go for something a little more evolutionary between the familiar cylindrical design and the _TMP_ look while still leaning a little more to the cylindrical look overall.


Found that image I was talking about.

Do you mean something like this?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

ssgt-cheese said:


> This book is a great reference material. There are some info on the Klingon battlecruiser and Galileo shuttlecraft, and some of the sets used on the show, if anybody need me to post some of the specs, just let me know.
> 
> Mike


Thanks Sargent. Were there both a conventional and nuclear aircraft carrier Enterprise?


----------



## Warped9

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Found that image I was talking about.
> 
> Do you mean something like this?


Not bad, but that isn't what I had in mind and those are a little front heavy. I'll see if I can sketch something up and post it over the next couple of days.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

It is a little front heavy. You're definitely right about that. But I kind of like that considering how the conventional TOS nacelles are a little too back heavy considering the pillon positioning.

Don't know what's up with that connection point on the ship in my pic though...

Looking forward to see your take on it though.


----------



## TheYoshinator!

Mark,

I believe you said previously that you believed MJ's intent was to base the Phase II upon the TOS E's layout- on a component basis. This is aside from the contour issues of course. This seems plausible to me as well. At least so far. I think you said the lower part of the saucer basically stayed the same and some height was added to the top of the saucer.

We see in the Phase II illustration that the lower saucer is made up of 10ft decks while the top has some 2ft additions.

I was wondering... what if it were the other way around? What if he didn't add to the top, but took from the bottom. Since the refit was intended to be smaller and more refined.

My resulting question, out of curiosity, is:

What effect would it have on the scale of the TOS E... if it had 12ft decks?


----------



## Warped9

Not really on topic, but I wanted to share this with the rest of you. Nothing very dramatic, but rather a cleaned up shot of the indomitable _E_ in combat...


----------



## StarshipClass

Beautiful, Warped! :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9

And she can fire from her starboard phaser banks as well...


----------



## StarCruiser

My God - what have you done?!? REVISIONISM!! (for the better)


----------



## jheilman

*Tos E*

An even more cleaned up version.


----------



## Warped9

^^ It's very nicely done. And I love that you go the whole ship into the shot--somehing I'd have loved to do. But alas it doesn't look like the "real" thing, at least like how TOS would've tried to depict it. I'd love to get my hands on a program--and be profficient enough to use it--that would really let me depict things that could slide seamlessly into that distinctive TOS look in the episodes. In fact, critiquing my own work I feel the ship comes off a little too bright still. I also like your suggestion of phaser glow on the hull (nice detail)--this is something I skipped for the moment, but will go back to add.


----------



## jheilman

Warped9 said:


> ^^ It's very nicely done. But alas it doesn't look like the "real" thing, at least like how TOS would've tried to depict it.


If you mean it looks too pristine I agree. Accuracy on the ship was excellent per the available data in 2000. How's this?


----------



## Warped9

^^ Wow. Still, I don't think you needed to go quite that faded. For myself I try to go for something like a dvd digitally enhanced look rather than an old still photo. One of the things I also do in some shots is add varying degrees of motion blur as if you're catching the ship in action. The suggestion of blur helps hide flaws while also adding an extra dynamic dimension to the scene, IMO.

Lighting and shadow is also an aspect I wrestle with to find just the right balance. In reality the ship in deepspace away from any nearby star should be practically pitch black except for the lighted windows, sensor aways, running lights and warp engine nacelles. But that practical invisibility doesn't work for our Earth bound sensibilities and also defeats our desire to actually see something of that beautiful ship in action. I admit that I tend to go for more shadow and contrast than what we usually saw onscreen in TOS as I think it gives the ship an added dimension of "reality" as well as being more flattering to the ship's lines and contours. Also the idea that you cannot see everything clearly serves to intrigue us, rather akin to our imagination being stimulated by an alluringly dressed woman--a feast for the eyes and fuels a desire to see more.


----------



## SeoulWind

jheilman: Very nice! It's got just enough noise to make it look like an authentic shot from the '60s... Maybe that's the problem. We're so used to seeing her this way, by which I mean as shot and processed with 1960s era equipment, as opposed to today's cleaner and clearer FX, that seeing the old girl as she would look if filmed today makes her appear unrealistic. 

I could be wrong, but maybe that's why Greg Jein's Trial and Tribble-ations 1701 is shot so dark (at least, it appears to be. All I have to go on is a download of the episode but the live action scenes seem to be bright and normal, so...)

Mark Snyder
Seoul, Korea


----------



## MGagen

Hi, Phil,

I wouldn't say the original 540 foot configuration is irrelevant. I actually never used the word in reference to it. I was merely pointing out that Pike's ship (which you were proposing to blueprint) was not ultimately 540 feet long. I will say that the 540 foot ship represents MJ's intent for the vessel originally -- but's let's not forget the he didn't finish with it at that stage and leave it to others to complete. He carried it through the rescale and made it a very workable ship at 947 feet. It's kind of like DaVinci's Mona Lisa: There is evidence that he added details to this image many times throughout his life. Modern technology can probably recover some of the earlier versions of this famous painting. But while that would be very interesting and informative, no one would argue that DaVinci's intent was anything but the finished product.



X15-A2 said:


> The interior layout of decks in the Phase II drawings is interesting and bares unmistakable similarities to TOS Enterprise but deck spacing and turbolift layout seems like a trivial detail to me when compared to the issues of determinig the ships exact size and shape. It is however interesting in general terms to see how Mr Jefferies approached such a drawing. That he even considered a deck spacing at all is highly commendable, considering what his contemporaries were up to "back in the day". So I'm not saying that these drawings are without value, they just don't seem to be very useful in terms of TOS Enterprise research. Sadly.


I think this misses the point. The interior configuration alone shows Jefferies was working on a real refit, not a new ship. What was altered was the exterior. Inside, she's the same ol' girl (at least as he envisioned her). Why else would he take such pains to work out the interior to match his previous layout? 

An interesting point that also comes from a close observation of the Phase II section is the location of engineering: He gives "bulkhead coordinates" in the legend that places it exactly where some of us have said it was all along in TOS: Immediately forward of the hangar deck, right where the old pylon conduits would have intersected. Obviously the "top deck of the secondary hull" location was developed sometime later. 



> Obviously his "intent" changed too, along with the scale of the ship, making it that much tougher for us to unravel what his true "intent" was. He seems to have had a cascade of changing intents, rather than one Unified Intent Theory... :freak:


I would posit an evolutionary model of "intent" -- with the crowning achievement being the latest and greatest version he produced. Only that one is really "finished."



> He also didn't seem to be able to draw his own ship correctly, as the TMOST plans clearly indicate.


They indicate nothing of the sort. First off, we don't know the vintage of the illustration. Some details, like the shape of the primary hull, may still have been in flux. Other details, like the relative positions of the engines to the rest of the ship, may have been altered by the model builders in order to make construction easier. With so much to do in launching the show, would you go back and redraft a reasonably accurate image to include such details when it's just intended for the writers guide? Some of these changes wouldn't have even been apparent unless he arrived at the effects house with a tape measure and plumb bobs to go over the model. (How long did it take many of us students of this ship to realize that the intersection point of the pylons with the nacelles is lower than the centerline?) It seems an unjustified jump in logic to assume that on the basis of this drawing that Jefferies couldn't draw his own ship.



> Until we hear what Mr Sasser's sources of information were, how can we attach any importance to his drawings?


A source "in the know" has confirmed for me that Sasser's drawings are very close to Kerr's final version. Also, that the version produced for Jein was substantially revised after Kerr was able to go over the model in detail.

Mark


----------



## ssgt-cheese

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Thanks Sargent. Were there both a conventional and nuclear aircraft carrier Enterprise?


Sorry to the late reply, I take a break from the computer during the weekends.

To answer your question is based on the nuclear powered carrier. There was another carrier named Enterprise back in WWII but I think was sunk or scraped or refited like the NCC-1701.

Another interesting trivia in case you didn't know. According M.J. in the S.T. Sketchbook the designation 1701 meant the first starship of the seventeen class.

Mike


----------



## Warped9

^^ I strongly suspect that MJ's explanation of the significance of "1701" is something he came up with after the fact. No matter.

The _Enterprise_ CV-6 was the WW2 carrier and it was decommissioned and then scrapped in the late '50s. Travesty, IMO, and I'm not even American.

"The Cage" is quite evident that everything hadn't been worked out yet. That shot of the bridge through the ceiling dome and the reference to 203 crewmen argues that the ship was still thought of as relatively small. The fact that the 11' ffilming miniature was an upsize of 4X the original 33" miniature argues that things were meant to stay in scale with each other. The big mystery remains as to where MJ got his 947 ' figure. It not only throws the 11 footer out of whack but the 33 incher as well.

Discerning MJ's intents will be a bitch without tangible written or recorded evidence. The best we can do is try to make it all work and make sense, which is of course what we're all trying to do.


----------



## TheYoshinator!

I could of sworn someone mentioned that the distance between the centerlines of the TOS nacelles was known. But it doesn't help with scaling, right?

Does anyone have that distance information?

-James


----------



## ssgt-cheese

TheYoshinator! said:


> I could of sworn someone mentioned that the distance between the centerlines of the TOS nacelles was known. But it doesn't help with scaling, right?
> 
> Does anyone have that distance information?
> 
> -James


340'.


----------



## jheilman

*Tos E*

Apologies Mark and Phil. We seem to have several concurrent threads here and I'm partly responsible for this little tangent.

My last pic I promise.

This is what I was replicating. It's a slightly clearer, cleaner look than the original, but still distressed.


----------



## Gorn

Wow. Really well done. Just a nitpick or two - that doohicky above the impulse engines looks like it's a little too thick (or not rounded enough?). Maybe the secondary hull as well if you look at it's thickness around the hangar doors.

Sorry for keeping this thread off track.

Done now.


----------



## jheilman

*Tos E*

I would agree with those nits. They are on the long list of revisions needed to this model since its completion in 2000. So much more info has come to light in the last 4 years. I doubt I'll ever find the time to get to it though.


----------



## MGagen

Jon,

It's always a pleasure to see your excellent renders, strictly on topic or not.  

Gorn,

In defense of Jon's model -- notice how much he got right, even four years ago. How many modelers to this day even know about the slight flattening of the dorsal at the bottom of the trailing edge, as seen in this render?

Mark


----------



## TheYoshinator!

ssgt-cheese,

Thanks for the info. Is that 340' on a 947' version?

And if you don't mind where did everyone learn of the 340'?


Edit: NVM, ssgt-cheese, I found it in your previous post. I need to get that Sketchbook, was that the one with the red cover?



jheilman,

That does look very good.

You could consider this and it may lead to a better rendering.

Think of how film grain accumulates in a composite shot. Each element has grain of its own. Once combined the effect adds up. That and a touch of gaussian blur to soften the overall edges may do the trick.

Keep up the good work.


----------



## MGagen

TheYoshinator! said:


> And if you don't mind where did everyone learn of the 340'?


Actually, it's 540'. 

I'm the source of this figure. It had always bothered me that Jefferies, being so methodical on everything else, would have set out to design the miniature of the Enterprise at the odd scale of 1:84.75. Much digging and head banging eventually brought to light proof that the model was conceived and blueprinted as a 540 foot ship. This was "upscaled" to the current 947 foot figure during the production of The Cage -- resulting in the final, oddball scale.

The construction blueprint was drafted in 1:192 scale to produce the 33.75 inch "three-footer". This same blueprint was used to build the "11-footer" at 4X size. At the original 540 foot length, the large model was designed in a very sane 1:48 scale (or 1/4" = 1').

Mark


----------



## Jim NCC1701A

Warped9 said:


> The _Enterprise_ CV-6 was the WW2 carrier and it was decommissioned and then scrapped in the late '50s. Travesty, IMO, and I'm not even American.


Couldn't agree with you more - and I'm not even in the same continent (and if you say my flag is Australian I'll be on the next flight over  )

If memory serves (always a risky proposition) the _Enterprise_ CV-6 was the only US vessel in WW2 to be awarded 5 battle stars (I kid you not - that *is/was* the name of the award). And despite numerous calls for her to be preserved, she was scrapped sometime in the 50's.

Jim's encyclopedia of A to Z and back again...


----------



## Gorn

MGagen said:


> Jon,
> 
> In defense of Jon's model -- notice how much he got right, even four years ago. How many modelers to this day even know about the slight flattening of the dorsal at the bottom of the trailing edge, as seen in this render?
> 
> Mark


I didn't mean to sound negative. It's an absolutely incredible piece of work. Way beyond my abilities. It's just that so much clearly went into it that I thought Jon would like to know what still needed improvement. When I was more active in martial arts, no matter how well I did a technique, my sensei would always have something to say to make it better. My feedback was intended in that spirit.


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Guys,

The distance between the nacelle centerlines is 304 feet, not 340.



MGagen said:


> I wouldn't say the original 540 foot configuration is irrelevant. I actually never used the word in reference to it. I was merely pointing out that Pike's ship (which you were proposing to blueprint) was not ultimately 540 feet long.


I know you didn't use the word "irrelevant", it seemed to be implied. It is far from certain that Pike's ship was 947 feet in length by the time the pilot was completed. It might have been or it might not have been, I don't really see how it could be proved either way, unfortunately. It was 540 when the miniatures were built and when the sets were built. Both were built with the smaller scale ship details encorporated into them. I suppose it doesn't really matter, for my purposes it is enough that it was originally designed at the shorter length.



MGagen said:


> I will say that the 540 foot ship represents MJ's intent for the vessel originally -- but's let's not forget the he didn't finish with it at that stage and leave it to others to complete. He carried it through the rescale and made it a very workable ship at 947 feet.


This is true, of course.



MGagen said:


> The interior configuration alone shows Jefferies was working on a real refit, not a new ship. What was altered was the exterior. Inside, she's the same ol' girl (at least as he envisioned her). Why else would he take such pains to work out the interior to match his previous layout?


All this really shows is that he designed a ship with the same layout. This ship's structure (the original E) is carried in/on its exterior skin (reference the images where structure is visible, primary (heavy) structure is shown on the interior, attached to the skin, secondary (light) everywhere else). Remove that and you no longer have a viable ship. I doubt it could even be done in real life. It also doesn't pass the "reality test", no "refit" would remove all the ships primary structure and replace it with new. They might extend (add to) existing structure but not replace whole. If you don't understand why this is so, it boils down to strict economics. If they were going to go that far, they would simply build a whole new ship at only slightly greater cost because the proposed refit would entail huge costs in the effort to maintain the integrity of the ships internal structure and systems. The cost would be so great that the builders would say "why not build a whole new ship, encorporating the latest and greatest technological developments at only slightly greater cost?". Did Mr Jefferies intend that it be seen as a "refit"? Possibly, but if so, it was an idiotic idea (of course, the Enterprise is full of idiotic ideas so this should be no surprise...).



MGagen said:


> An interesting point that also comes from a close observation of the Phase II section is the location of engineering: He gives "bulkhead coordinates" in the legend that places it exactly where some of us have said it was all along in TOS: Immediately forward of the hangar deck, right where the old pylon conduits would have intersected. Obviously the "top deck of the secondary hull" location was developed sometime later.


Agreed. This location is the only one that make sense and is the conclusion I had arrived at too. 



MGagen said:


> I would posit an evolutionary model of "intent" -- with the crowning achievement being the latest and greatest version he produced. Only that one is really "finished."


True too. It is the only really "finished" version. I'm still interested in the original work-up of the ship however. The 540 foot ship is what all the pre-production meetings and research would have been centered on.



MGagen said:


> They indicate nothing of the sort. First off, we don't know the vintage of the illustration. Some details, like the shape of the primary hull, may still have been in flux. Other details, like the relative positions of the engines to the rest of the ship, may have been altered by the model builders in order to make construction easier.


Considering that this series of drawings includes the Klingon Battle Cruiser, I think we can safely assume that they were drawn well after they were into production of the first season, not earlier. The arguement that the model builders didn't follow the plans (to paraphrase your comments) can only be offered by someone who has never scratch built a model. I do not say this to imply insult, only that if you had, you would know that model builders "build to" the plan. Also I would hasten to point out that the Enterprise is a very simple model to build by comparison to other subjects that could be mentioned, subjects like the Flying Sub, Seaview, or Spindrift. These are much more complex shapes that could easily be slightly "off" from the blueprints. There is no excuse when building the Enterprise, unless the builders are totally incompetent (I know Mr Datin was not incompetent). By not following the plans, the job becomes more difficult, not easier. Try building it yourself (I plan to, about 4 feet long I think), you will readily see what I mean.



MGagen said:


> A source "in the know" has confirmed for me that Sasser's drawings are very close to Kerr's final version. Also, that the version produced for Jein was substantially revised after Kerr was able to go over the model in detail.


Thats an interesting claim.

Phil


----------



## StarshipClass

Re: refit vs. whole new ship -- there is a drawing of MJ's in 'The Art of Star Trek' showing the '1701A' being pretty much the Phase II design that I suspect was meant as an entirely new ship.


----------



## MGagen

Phil,

Glad to hear from you. This kind of give and take is one of the most enjoyable parts of a project like this.




X15-A2 said:


> It is far from certain that Pike's ship was 947 feet in length by the time the pilot was completed. It might have been or it might not have been, I don't really see how it could be proved either way, unfortunately.


This fact is easily established: The window spacing on the dorsal and secondary hull matches the 947 foot scale in a photo of the model outside Jensen's model shop awaiting delivery to the FX studio. This proves the rescale had happened while the model was being constructed and before any footage of it was filmed. Another detail that can serve as proof of the rescale is the "turbolift tube" incorporated into the bridge dome. This detail matches the bridge set, but only at the 947 foot scale.




> It was 540 when the miniatures were built and when the sets were built. Both were built with the smaller scale ship details encorporated into them.


Actually, we can't say that for sure. It was 540 when the plans were drafted. That much is sure. And it was 540 when the bridge set was built. But the models are a different story. The scale change may have happened at the same time that the other changes were requested after the "3-footer" was presented to Roddenberry. In that case, the "11-footer" would have been considered 947 from the start. The rescale might have happened after drafting, but before even the "3-footer" was built. This may be checkable as new data becomes available, but at present, we can't say. Either way, we can know that before the model was completed, it was already detailed to be a 947 foot ship.




> All this really shows is that he designed a ship with the same layout.


Why would he go to the trouble of sketching out an interior that matches the other to such a degree if he is indeed designing a new ship from scratch. It just doesn't make sense.




> It also doesn't pass the "reality test", no "refit" would remove all the ships primary structure and replace it with new. They might extend (add to) existing structure but not replace whole.


But this is exactly what I am saying he did. He extended the circumference of the primary hull (adding the flat lip and increasing its diameter), and he also added to the circumference of the secondary hull. In effect, in both areas the hull plating is removed, structural members are extended and a new hull surface is attached. The differences in exact detail in areas that are supposedly common with the original design are probably due to his being unconcerned about anyone like us making a nit picking comparison, or an artist's freedom in touching up his own work.




> Considering that this series of drawings includes the Klingon Battle Cruiser, I think we can safely assume that they were drawn well after they were into production of the first season, not earlier.


Can we not as easily assume that the Enterprise drawing came first and the Klingon drawing was executed in the same style to match?




> The arguement that the model builders didn't follow the plans (to paraphrase your comments) can only be offered by someone who has never scratch built a model. I do not say this to imply insult, only that if you had, you would know that model builders "build to" the plan.


Actually, I have built models from scratch.  Though never professionally. Of course, the model builder will follow what is provided for on the plan. But if a plan shows only the exterior of an object, and that in a very simplified form, he needs to provide for his own internal support structures. If the object being constucted is a fantasy that never has or will exist, what's the harm in making a small compromise if it will make construction easier. I'm not saying that was done, just that it might have been. I'll give a simpler example: Some of the MJ drawings seem to indicate that the hangar doors might not be spherical in shape. A side view shows an eliptical profile but a rear view shows a circular one. To model this would require the fabrication of an oblate spheroid. Such things are not easy to make, but plastic spheres are readily available in many sizes from companies like Plastruct. Would such a shortcut on a fast turn fantasy subject be justifiable? I think so.

Mark


----------



## jheilman

*Tos E*



Gorn said:


> I didn't mean to sound negative. It's an absolutely incredible piece of work. Way beyond my abilities. It's just that so much clearly went into it that I thought Jon would like to know what still needed improvement. When I was more active in martial arts, no matter how well I did a technique, my sensei would always have something to say to make it better. My feedback was intended in that spirit.


No offense taken.

Actually, considering the amount of time that has elapsed since I worked on this, I consider it done. The only thing I may do someday is rebuild it from scratch in a newer application. But I doubt it.


----------



## Trek Ace

Phil,

First off, I want to thank you very much for posting the Phase II drawings. They contain a lot of valuable (to me, anyway) information in some key areas that I have been missing.

Second,

As to whether the Enterprise was re-scaled before or after the 11' model was constructed: I would guess afterward. Reason being that the model was built with the "tall" bridge and had a single row of viewports around the circumference of the saucer edge. These details closely matched what was represented on the 3' model.

The crew compliment was never stated in the second pilot, so it may be possible (though I may be wrong) that the scale wasn't changed and the crew increased until the hiatus between the filming of the second pilot and the series, when the external modifications were incorporated into both miniatures suggesting a larger scale.

There may be a memo in The Making of Star Trek that is dated, stating when the modifications and scale changes were called for. I would have to look it up.


----------



## TheYoshinator!

MGagen said:


> But this is exactly what I am saying he did. He extended the circumference of the primary hull (adding the flat lip and increasing its diameter), and he also added to the circumference of the secondary hull.



I'm not so sure now, Here's what I see:

On the Phase II blueprint Phil posted, the older one of the non-cross section side view, you can see the outer secondary hull is at -77' and secondary hull center is at -125'. This means that R=48' and D=96'.

If you take this illustration and scale it to match the secondary hull of the Pocket Books' -Refit Blueprint-
*everything* lines up. Even the diameter of the saucer when you scoot the illustration over to get the saucer centerlines coincidental.

This is why I'm so happy you and Phil helped to bring these PII illustrations to us. It provides new possibilities to explore!

For instance, if you take the Phase II secondary hull's diameter (D=96') and divide that into what the Pocket Books blueprint say (D=32.9meters converted to 107.939blahblahblah feet which we know would/should be 108' since the ship was design in feet.) you get 108/96=1.125 Exactly. Of course that is if that PII illustration says the centerline is at -125'. It's very hard to tell some numbers.

So maybe it (the -Refit)was designed then scaled also? Maybe it was arbitrary to get it back up to the 1000' region?

But there has to be a reason why everything matches when the final -Refit's scaled to the same secondary hull diameter as the Phase II's at least.


----------



## MGagen

Trek Ace:

See my previous post. If the ship wasn't rescaled until the second pilot or series refit, then the engineering hull of Pike's ship must have been manned solely by midgets.  

Seriously, the single window row at the edge of the Primary Hull could mean only one deck, but it can just as well mean the lower of two decks just doesn't have any windows. I'm willing to concede that since the vertical window spacing at the edge of the hull is a little too close, the rescale might have happened after the large model was aready under construction; but the dorsal and Secondary Hull window spacing at the time the model was delivered pretty clearly proves the rescale had already happened by that time.

Mark


----------



## TheYoshinator!

Ooops, my mistake.

Mark, you are refering to edge length added to the TOS E saucer weren't you.
NOT the relationship between the Phase II and the TMP -Refit, right?


----------



## TheYoshinator!

Okay... now that I've pulled my head out of my keester :roll: 

Thanks to Phil's clarrification on the TOS E's nacelle centerline measurement- I've noticed for myself that the phase II's centerlines are also close to 304'

So, Mark seems to make sense again. :lol: It's been a long day...


----------



## MGagen

TheYoshinator! said:


> So, Mark seems to make sense again. :lol: It's been a long day...


No problem. Just "take two aspirator piles and call me in the morning."

Mark :hat:


----------



## aridas sofia

MGagen said:


> An interesting point that also comes from a close observation of the Phase II section is the location of engineering: He gives "bulkhead coordinates" in the legend that places it exactly where some of us have said it was all along in TOS: Immediately forward of the hangar deck, right where the old pylon conduits would have intersected. Obviously the "top deck of the secondary hull" location was developed sometime later.
> Mark


I disagree. The one thing that is clearly gutted in Jefferies' refit is the propulsion system. He _did_ have an engineering room in the secondary hull on TOS, as only makes sense for a ship that might need to have its two parts operate independently. But for the same reason there is also an engineering room in the primary hull. And as is made clear in "The Making of Star Trek" main engineering is in the saucer. That was followed by the writers when they wrote background chatter referring to engineering as being on decks three and five, as well as when a ship is noted as being hit near engineering in "The Ultimate Computer" and then it is immediately noted that the ship's impulse drive is what is out.

I no more think the engineering room Jefferies locates foreward of the hangar deck on his refit cross section is "main engineering" than I believe the intermix chamber designed by Mike Minor for the Jefferies refit was in fact also present on the TOS ship. All this would have been changed when the nacelles were changed. Those nacelles are too different to be the typical swap-out he envisioned, and the intermix arrangement with its implication that matter and antimatter are being combined in the secondary hull seems to confirm that. It is clearly not Jefferies' (or the writers') intention to have that kind of propulsion arrangement in the TOS ship, given the almost monolithic use of the plural "reactors" when referring to the matter antimatter system. In fact, on more than one occasion these "reactors' are stated as being in the nacelles.


----------



## StarshipClass

It is obvious IMHO, despite TMOS, that main engineering as shown canon on screen is in the secondary hull. The tall arching supports in the roof make that apparent. 

There was surely a duplicate engineering control center in the saucer section they may have originally intended to be main engineering but the representation of the ceiling and the connections of the piping from the nacelles makes it apparent that main engineering was in the secondary or, as TMOS also describes it, the engineering hull. 

I know, I know! :freak: It all comes down to what you assign more importance to: throwaway lines with references to deck numbers, technically non-canon TMOS, or what you see represented on screen. I choose the latter. :thumbsup:


----------



## aridas sofia

Well, a "deck three" reference could just as easily yield an engineering room that is under the strongback feature at the centerline aft of the saucer, just ahead of the impulse engines. I think the feature at the back of engineering, and those arches you mention, tie into that feature on the outer hull. The arches seem far too small in diameter to be reflective of the secondary hull geometry. 

This shows us that in the end, the same detective work should be used to determine Jefferies' intent on this and similar questions. I've never seen the connection between the lit end of the engineering set and anything leading to the pylons. Even if we fit the engineering set into a slice of the secondary hull arranged with decks according to the Jefferies TMOST cutaway, I doubt the fact that the thing at the back of engineering leads in the wrong direction to go up the pylons can be gotten around. And even if it can, is that likely the answer thought up by the same meticulous Matt Jefferies we have been discussing?


----------



## StarCruiser

You know - I thought 'I' was obsessive/compulsive about the TOS E - but you guys "burn out the dilithium crystals"!!!

Back and forth, back and forth, and back and...etc...etc...


----------



## Warped9

You know, not to be a shit disturber here, but if we accept that the TOS _E_ is 1080' as opposed to 947' than the PL kit isn't 1/1000 scale anymore but rather 1/1140.4435 scale.

Or maybe I shouldn't mention that? :lol:


----------



## StarCruiser

Warped9 said:


> You know, not to be a shit disturber here, but if we accept that the TOS _E_ is 1080' as opposed to 947' than the PL kit isn't 1/1000 scale anymore but rather 1/1140.4435 scale.
> 
> Or maybe I shouldn't mention that? :lol:


AAAAHHHHHH NO - NO,nonononononononono!!!

Not again... :freak:


----------



## MGagen

Aridas Sofia,

I wasn't saying that the Phase II cross section reflected the final TMP configuration. There was a lot of water under the bridge after MJ was no longer involved.

What I was pointing out was that at the time the drawing was made, Engineering was planned to be just forward of the Hangar Deck -- a place that many believe it was in TOS, too. 

As for the TMOST deck descriptions -- MJ's vision of the Enterprise conflicts with them in more ways than this. For instance, he didn't design 11 decks into the primary hull, either.

Now I don't want this thread to be pulled off topic into another "where's Engineering" thread. (And it was my fault for bringing it up  ) Perhaps we can take that debate to a new thread and I'll happily join you there... :roll: 

Mark


----------



## aridas sofia

I don't mean to derail the discussion into a "where's engineering" debate either. But I assume it's all part of trying to figure out the size and configuration of the ship as Jefferies envisioned it, so please bear with me for a moment.

I didn't think you were saying the Phase II cross section reflected the final TMP configuration, Mark. However, there are many conceptual similarities between the Phase II _Enterprise_ and the one developed from it for TMP, and those similarities are most noticable in the way the warp drive was re-imagined. Not only are the nacelles superficially similar, but the core/intermix shaft is there on both. That innovation, plus Probert's contention in my talks with him that the propulsion system was envisioned as being radically improved, leads me to guess that the change being made for dramatic reasons (centralize the reactors to one, easily reached spot) was being rationalized as a new kind of warp drive. This whole notion of bringing the reactor into the hull might or might not have been on Jefferies' mind when he did the new cutaway. If it was, he doesn't make it apparent. But we know it was planned and the design was executed by Minor, and we know Jefferies at least went so far as putting the photorps on the dorsal. 

My only contention in all this is to approach the question of where engineering is in the same way you guys are approaching everything else. Methodically piece together the evidence from the TOS and Phase II cutaways, the scripts, and the available sources like TMOST. In particular, trying to see if the engineering set designed for TOS will fit in the spot you envision it belongs in, ahead of the hangar deck, would be revealing. Jefferies tried to make the bridge fit on the cutaway, and I assume he wouldn't neglect the engineering set. 

I'm not saying it's not in the secondary hull, just that the only place it is shown to be there -- "The Day of the Dive" -- is a show that reflects a lot of ignorance of previously established information, and as such smells poorly researched to me. I suspect that is one of the ones that was rushed into production before getting the once over. 

But if his cutaway reflects an attempt to meld the engineering set into the secondary hull, I'll be open to the possibility that it was intended to be there all along. Of course, if it fits wher I suspect it belongs -- midway between the bridge and the impulse engines, under the strongback, straddling decks three through five -- then we would need to be open to the possibility he intended it to be there as well.

In all honesty I have tried to do this fitting exercise in the past and have failed to get it to fit in either place, but you have access to better material than I do. You have a scan of his original TOS cutaway, unaltered by much photographic distortion. Maybe it would reveal something I've missed.

If it turns out that he intended it to be back near the hangar, I would love to know why he had the lit area at the back of engineering configured as a trapezoid, opposite to the way it should be if it fed into the pylons as you describe. I'm not rejecting it, and there are some intriguing features on both cutaways that make me wonder what the heck wwas on his mind, but I don't see engineering as one of them.


----------



## KUROK

In "Court Martial" Kirk speculates where the best place to hide might be for Finney. He says, "... the lower levels... Engineering." To me that means secondary hull. Why wouldn't main engineering be in the secondary? It's directly connected to the nacelles...


----------



## Jim NCC1701A

Well, if TOS's Engineering was in the secondary hull, how in the heck did Franz Joseph's scout/destroyer and tug designs get around? They had no secondary hull, ergo they had no go?


----------



## MGagen

Jim NCC1701A said:


> Well, if TOS's Engineering was in the secondary hull, how in the heck did Franz Joseph's scout/destroyer and tug designs get around? They had no secondary hull, ergo they had no go?


That's not really an objection, since it is not the same ship. We have no way of knowing what the interior configuration of those vessels was. It would be a mistake to assume that just because the main hull is the same shape as a Constitution primary hull that it is configured the same on the inside.

After all, if that was the case they'd have no _bowling alley!_ :jest: 

Mark


----------



## Pygar

Weren't two different Engineerings shown? One with more stuff? "Main engineering" implies another...


----------



## KUROK

I think auxiliary control room was in the saucer. Perhaps this was for control after saucer sep?


----------



## X15-A2

There were two different Engineering sections shown on the show! I had totally forgotten about this fact until this last weekend when I was making frame grab images from an episode that I hadn't seen in a very long time.

In "Alternative Factor" they showed us a totally different Engineering section which very well could have been the auxillary one located in the area of the Impulse Engines on the Primary Hull. It was actually a redress of the Medical Lab and Office area of the sets. Check it out. Of course this is just more stuff for the "where is Engineering" thread...

Phil


----------



## TheYoshinator!

It's been such a long time since I've seen any TOS eps.

I don't mean to push this further OT, but...

What was that room Scotty was in- where there was a red filled non-symetrical ribbed area behind him? I always wondered if that was one side of the Impulse Engines? Anyone remember that?


----------



## heiki

TheYoshinator! said:


> It's been such a long time since I've seen any TOS eps.
> 
> I don't mean to push this further OT, but...
> 
> What was that room Scotty was in- where there was a red filled non-symetrical ribbed area behind him? I always wondered if that was one side of the Impulse Engines? Anyone remember that?


That was Scotty's office.


----------



## TheYoshinator!

heiki said:


> That was Scotty's office.



Heh... If that's a joke, it's a really good one.  

IIRC, he was standing infront of that area and there were sparks or flashes in there between ribs due to some overload.

*shrug*


----------



## MGagen

The big chamber with conduits behind the red mesh screen in Engineering was never officially identified on the show. Franz Joseph, in his Star Fleet Technical Manual, indentified it as part of the impulse engines. Of course, he followed the verbal description in The Making of Star Trek for his internal layout of the ship and thus placed the engineering room at the rear of the saucer.

There are many reasons why this is likely incorrect -- not the least of which is that it doesn't fit there. 

My own interpretation is that the engineering room is located in the Engineering Hull, immediately forward of the Hangar Deck. This is near the place where the conduits from the pylons would come together. I believe that is part of what is visible behind that screen. 

Of course, it has been pointed out that the triangle shape formed by these conduits is upsidedown from what one would expect. This can be accounted for in a couple of ways. 1) Either the engineering deck is lower in the hull and the conduits have already crossed each other; or, 2) the conduits visible in the chamber connect at right angles to the pylon conduits to form a diamond pattern that is bisected horizontally in the middle (only the top half of this arrangement being visible behind the mesh).

Mark Gagen


----------



## StarshipClass

MGagen said:


> . . . There are many reasons why this is likely incorrect -- not the least of which is that it doesn't fit there.
> 
> My own interpretation is that the engineering room is located in the Engineering Hull, immediately forward of the Hangar Deck. This is near the place where the conduits from the pylons would come together. I believe that is part of what is visible behind that screen.
> 
> Of course, it has been pointed out that the triangle shape formed by these conduits is upsidedown from what one would expect. This can be accounted for in a couple of ways. 1) Either the engineering deck is lower in the hull and the conduits have already crossed each other; or, 2) the conduits visible in the chamber connect at right angles to the pylon conduits to form a diamond pattern that is bisected horizontally in the middle (only the top half of this arrangement being visible behind the mesh).


VERY sound reasoning! Your logic is superb! :thumbsup:


----------



## MGagen

Thanks, Perfesser Coffee!

For a more thorough presentation of this idea (with graphics) check out my thread on the subject at TrekBBS:

TOS Engineering: A Modest Proposal 

Mark


----------



## TheYoshinator!

Ah... thanks Mark,

Interesting.

I guess it can be justified as redundancy maybe?


----------



## uss_columbia

I've tried to access trekbbs several times over the last few days to read the "engineering proposal" and always get "cannot find server." What's up?


----------



## StarshipClass

MGagen said:


> Thanks, Perfesser Coffee!
> 
> For a more thorough presentation of this idea (with graphics) check out my thread on the subject at TrekBBS:
> 
> TOS Engineering: A Modest Proposal
> 
> Mark


Beautiful work and great thinking!

There could be a conduit going forward underneath the deck to which the bulky thingies on the deck could be attached. That could be equivalent to the long horizontal glowing tube seen in ST:TMP.


----------



## MGagen

USS Griffin,

Don't know why you're having trouble. I just checked the link and got through fine. I hope you'll try again, because I'd love your feedback.


Perfesser Coffee,

Thanks! Yes, there must be some kind of connection to both the "Bulky Thingies" and the Double Triangular Doo-dad in the middle of the floor. I leave it to others to figure out how it might actually function. "I'm an artist, not a warp theorist." I do think it's kind of neat that the little round plant-on that the M-5 draws power from in Ultimate Computer is in line with one of the conduits behind the screen (at least in my modified layout).

Mark


----------



## Captain April

MGagen said:


> Perfesser Coffee,
> 
> Thanks! Yes, there must be some kind of connection to both the "Bulky Thingies" and the Double Triangular Doo-dad in the middle of the floor. I leave it to others to figure out how it might actually function. "I'm an artist, not a warp theorist." I do think it's kind of neat that the little round plant-on that the M-5 draws power from in Ultimate Computer is in line with one of the conduits behind the screen (at least in my modified layout).
> 
> Mark


Why d'ya think I flipped the whole works around and put the big triangular doo-dad _between_ the big glowing pipe assembly and where the pylons intersect with the hull? Bypassing the obvious, yet troublesome, assumption that those pipes lead directly to the nacelles nicely bypasses the rather aggravating process of figuring out how they criss-cross, or why they would do that in the first frelling place.

The key trick with Occam's Razor is picking out which is _really_ the simplest solution.


----------



## StarshipClass

Captain April said:


> The key trick with Occam's Razor is picking out which is _really_ the simplest solution.


In warp mechanics, there is no _simple_ solution. Every solution is full of technobabble.

Of course, one could put in the machinery of the engineering section in the _NEAS Protector_! :jest:


----------



## MGagen

Captain April said:


> Why d'ya think I flipped the whole works around and put the big triangular doo-dad _between_ the big glowing pipe assembly and where the pylons intersect with the hull? *Bypassing the obvious*, yet troublesome, assumption that those pipes lead directly to the nacelles nicely bypasses the rather aggravating process of figuring out how they criss-cross, or why they would do that in the first frelling place.
> 
> The key trick with Occam's Razor is picking out which is _really_ the simplest solution.


Capt. April,

It's amusing to me to hear you, of all people, citing William of Occam. Aren't you the same guy who went to extreme and complicated lengths to avoid identifying the turbo tube on the exterior of the bridge dome as a turbo tube? 

As you may recall, in my Engineering post I state my purpose as answering those who say the conduit chamber _can't_ have anything to do with the pylons. I'm merely showing the simplest way they _can_ link up -- given MJ's intended location of Engineering. Occam's Razor is perfectly satisfied.

The part of your post that I've highlighted in bold actually weakens your own claim. The simplest explanation must still be _an explanation_ after all. Assuming the conduits have nothing to do with the pylons may be a valid interpretation -- but it's truly beside the point of my argument.

Mark


----------



## Captain April

You missed my point. When the "simplest" explanation requires something nonsensical in order for it to work, then it's no longer the simplest explanation, now is it?

When the _obvious_ placement of the turboshaft requires the bridge to be pointed off in some nonsensical direction, the simplest explanation is that a certain feature might not be the turboshaft after all.

With regard to Engineering, the _obvious_ arrangement of the big red glowing tubes leading directly to the nacelles and being in the aft end of the room winds up requiring some rather odd routing for the PTC's, especially when you factor in the dilithium crystal whatamathingie being located in the middle of the room.

The power flow runs thus:

M/ARC --> dilithium crystals --> warp drive

Somehow, that dithium crystal thingie is _between_ the M/ARC and the nacelles.

Long story short, I think my arrangement is actually the simplest solution to the whole situation, even if it's not the most obvious.


----------



## Captain April

PerfesserCoffee said:


> In warp mechanics, there is no _simple_ solution. Every solution is full of technobabble.
> 
> Of course, one could put in the machinery of the engineering section in the _NEAS Protector_! :jest:


But what would you do with the beryllium sphere?


----------



## StarCruiser

Captain April said:


> You missed my point. When the "simplest" explanation requires something nonsensical in order for it to work, then it's no longer the simplest explanation, now is it?
> 
> When the _obvious_ placement of the turboshaft requires the bridge to be pointed off in some nonsensical direction, the simplest explanation is that a certain feature might not be the turboshaft after all.
> 
> With regard to Engineering, the _obvious_ arrangement of the big red glowing tubes leading directly to the nacelles and being in the aft end of the room winds up requiring some rather odd routing for the PTC's, especially when you factor in the dilithium crystal whatamathingie being located in the middle of the room.
> 
> The power flow runs thus:
> 
> M/ARC --> dilithium crystals --> warp drive
> 
> Somehow, that dithium crystal thingie is _between_ the M/ARC and the nacelles.
> 
> Long story short, I think my arrangement is actually the simplest solution to the whole situation, even if it's not the most obvious.


I pretty much agree entirely on the engineering arrangement - makes pretty solid sense.

However, I still disagree on the bridge issue. Matt Jefferies' work makes it clear that the bridge should be offset to port, even though that was obviously done for dramatic reasons. The only ways you can make the bridge face forward are both illogical in themselve - have the bridge off-centered forward or have the whole ship WAY bigger than it is... Can't support either. As to whether the bridge would fully fit in the dome, no - but Matt's drawings do indicate the bridge was partially in the superstructure, not just the bridge dome. Plus, I don't go for the Franz Joseph 'hallway' behind the consoles.

Just my opinion -


----------



## MGagen

Captain April said:


> You missed my point. When the "simplest" explanation requires something nonsensical in order for it to work, then it's no longer the simplest explanation, now is it?


You take it to be "nonsensical" because it doesn't fit with your preconcieved notions of how the warp drive works. Which makes less sense? Inquiring into a way the glowing conduits might link up with the pylons, given the intended location of Engineering? Or expecting Matt Jefferies, back in '66, to have anticipated your fanboy "power flow runs thus" pronouncement and incorporated it into his design.



> When the _obvious_ placement of the turboshaft requires the bridge to be pointed off in some nonsensical direction, the simplest explanation is that a certain feature might not be the turboshaft after all.


You _might_ think this...until you actually look at the details of both the studio model and the set. I point to the _fact_ that the exterior tube is at precisely the proper distance from center to contain the turbo car when it is at its station. The _fact_ is, if it isn't a turbo tube, then the dome isn't the bridge at all, since the turbolift would physically break through the hull at any point other than the tube. Which is the more common sense explanation? The bridge is rotated 36 degrees since the turbo tube is directly aft? Or, the bridge utilizes TARDIS technology in order to violate Euclidian geometry?



> The power flow runs thus:
> M/ARC --> dilithium crystals --> warp drive
> Somehow, that dithium crystal thingie is _between_ the M/ARC and the nacelles.


Or perhaps we (_you_) don't really know _how_ the dilithium crystal is used precisely. Or perhaps MJ and company were a little vague on how it works.

Mark


----------



## Captain April

Just like they were a little vague on how the bridge fit under that dome?

Can't have it both ways, Mark.


----------



## MGagen

Captain April said:


> Just like they were a little vague on how the bridge fit under that dome?
> 
> Can't have it both ways, Mark.


Actually, they weren't vague at all about that. You just don't like what they came up with and choose instead to pretend they were vague. 

Looking past the obvious explanation about the bridge, then appealing to Occam's Razor when it comes to Main Engineering -- _that's_ having it both ways.  

Keep in mind that I'm not claiming that the conduits behind the Scotty Retaining Mesh _do_, or were intended to, connect to the pylon conduits. I'm merely advancing an explanation as to _how_ it's possible for them to do so. I've also established pretty firmly that the curvature built into the set ceiling works out logically, since it is precisely concentric to the outer hull when engineering is placed where MJ intended it. It is also pretty compelling that when placed into the 540 foot original design the ceiling becomes the inner surface of the hull itself.

Unfortunately, it appears that the curvature of the ceiling is cylindrical, not conical -- so the ceiling itself does not provide a clue as to whether the conduit chamber is fore of aft. However, seeing that engineering is located nearly up against the hangar deck, doesn't it seem pretty likely that you'd enter it from the forward end? Otherwise, we must believe that the route into Engineering from the Bridge leads completely past it nearly to the end of the secondary hull, then doubles back forward to enter it from the aft (no doubt taking in the beryllium sphere chamber on the way :lol: ). Much simpler to orient it with the chamber at the aft and enter the room from the forward end (near where the turbolift from the primary hull would naturally drop you off). When you do that, viola!, the conduits are right in line to link up with the pylons. Cooincidence? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Mark


----------



## Captain April

You haven't accounted for the dilithium crystal converter assembly in the middle of the room. The power flow has to go through that _before_ being routed to the nacelles.

Flipping the works around not only puts the crystals between the M/ARC, without a lot of looping around, it also lines things up quite nicely with those mysterious markings on the bottom of the secondary hull.

Coincidence? Probably, but I'll take what I can get.

As for the bridge, I think it was one of those things that slipped by in the heat of getting the design ready for production and never got corrected (or, a slim possibility that the cylinder on the outer dome wasn't the turboshaft anyway and just some annonymous feature that was never officially identified; yeah, it's a reach worthy of Reed Richards, but the fact remains that no drawing of that period says just what that tube is). 

Plus, we've already heard that at least in Bob Justman's view (via Rick Sternbach) that their opinion at the time was that the bridge faced straight forward, so there goes the intent argument for pointing it off to port.

So, between the producers' view that the bridge faced forward, plus the fact that Jefferies never specifically identified what that thing was on the outer dome of the bridge (just folks connecting some very logical dots), and we wind up with very slim, yet just enough, rationalization to justify facing the bridge forward and figure out how the whole works fits under that itty-bitty dome, much like the current discussion regarding how to fit the shuttlecraft's interior into a much smaller hull.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Okay, so where are the engineering room(s) supposed to go.
Everybody chime in with their best reasoning and supporting arguments. Try to be as thorough as possible in one, single post.

Maybe that will help clarify and crystalize people's positions enough so we all understand one another, even if everyone doesn't agree.

Who will be first? Aridas, Capt. April, MGagen?


----------



## Captain April

Based on what we saw on screen? Somewhere in the secondary hull. Anything more than that is open to interpretation.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Sorry I've come late to the discussion of the engineering room(s).
I think there was more then one, I seem to remember seeing a secondary one in a couple of episodes.

Could you summarize the onscreen references to one of them being in the secondary hull?


----------



## Captain April

How much time have you got?


----------



## Captain April

Okay, seriously, from the very beginning, the engine room was referred to as "the lower levels", and the secondary hull is also identified in drawings made at the time as the engineering hull. And, as others have pointed out, despite the curved corridor right outside the doors, there is no way to fit the engine room as portrayed in the primary hull.

Now, as to exactly _where_ in the secondary hull, like I said, that's open to interpretation. It appears Matt Jefferies might have indicated an area right in front of the hangar deck as the location of Main Engineering, but since he didn't go into any kind of specifics, it's tough to make a solid claim on that one.


----------



## Captain April

Here's a sample of what I've been working on, just to make sure everyone's on the same page as those of us who've been hashing this out over on TrekBBS.










Let's not get started again on the bridge. Jury's still out on how that one's gonna come out.


----------



## Captain April

For comparison's sake, here's Jefferies' cross sectoin.


----------



## Pygar

Stupid question, but could that cylinder outside the bridge, hold the next car? There always seemed to be another one *right there* for some reason... It also occurs to me that if the TOS-E cars were like the enclosed capsules they showed on TNG (the one where Picard is trapped in one with some kids) that they might very well seal well enough to be a very last-ditch escape pod... which would have to launch from somewhere very close to the bridge.


----------



## MGagen

Captain April said:


> You haven't accounted for the dilithium crystal converter assembly in the middle of the room. The power flow has to go through that _before_ being routed to the nacelles.


This is just a gratuitous assertion based on your personal idea of how the warp drive works. As such it is meaningless as an objection to my proposal.



> As for the bridge, I think it was one of those things that slipped by in the heat of getting the design ready for production and never got corrected (or, a slim possibility that the cylinder on the outer dome wasn't the turboshaft anyway and just some annonymous feature that was never officially identified


Once again, you fail to take into account that when the bridge set and the model are scaled the same, the turbo lift fits precisely into the position of the tube. In fact, it MUST be in the tube, or the dome can't be the bridge at all. Otherwise, if you rotate the bridge to face forward, the naked turbolift would erupt from the dome 36 degrees around to port from the current tube. This isn't a matter of opinion. It is plain and simple geometry -- as unassailable as any mathematical law. Besides, it is just plain nonsense to claim it wasn't intended to be the turbo tube. Jefferies' design for the Phase II bridge put two of them on the bridge dome when he designed the dual turbolift bridge layout.

As for Bob Justman's assumption that the bridge faced forward: Of course it was intended to face forward in the beginning; but after the pie sections of the set were shuffled to get a more dramatic angle on the lift door over the Captain's shoulder, they should have altered the exterior of the model to place the tube around to port. Since they didn't, we're left with a rotated bridge, since that's obviously the only way it fits. Pretending that it "just fits" won't hold water if you're going to blueprint the ship -- unless accuracy and precision count for nothing.

Mark


----------



## StarshipClass

I think there was (or should have been located) a secondary engineering section on the impulse deck where FJ put the main engineering. Main engineering had to be in the secondary hull where MJ's designs obviously put it.

The bridge has to be offset to make sense. There's just not enough room otherwise.


----------



## StarCruiser

MGagen said:


> This is just a gratuitous assertion based on your personal idea of how the warp drive works. As such it is meaningless as an objection to my proposal.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you fail to take into account that when the bridge set and the model are scaled the same, the turbo lift fits precisely into the position of the tube. In fact, it MUST be in the tube, or the dome can't be the bridge at all. Otherwise, if you rotate the bridge to face forward, the naked turbolift would erupt from the dome 36 degrees around to port from the current tube. This isn't a matter of opinion. It is plain and simple geometry -- as unassailable as any mathematical law. Besides, it is just plain nonsense to claim it wasn't intended to be the turbo tube. Jefferies' design for the Phase II bridge put two of them on the bridge dome when he designed the dual turbolift bridge layout.
> 
> As for Bob Justman's assumption that the bridge faced forward: Of course it was intended to face forward in the beginning; but after the pie sections of the set were shuffled to get a more dramatic angle on the lift door over the Captain's shoulder, they should have altered the exterior of the model to place the tube around to port. Since they didn't, we're left with a rotated bridge, since that's obviously the only way it fits. Pretending that it "just fits" won't hold water if you're going to blueprint the ship -- unless accuracy and precision count for nothing.
> 
> Mark


Exactly - it may not make sense to us now, but that's how it is and revisionism for the sake of revisionism is pointless. The bridge faces off to the port side by 36° - that's the way it's always been seen...


----------



## aridas sofia

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Okay, so where are the engineering room(s) supposed to go.
> Everybody chime in with their best reasoning and supporting arguments. Try to be as thorough as possible in one, single post.
> 
> Maybe that will help clarify and crystalize people's positions enough so we all understand one another, even if everyone doesn't agree.
> 
> Who will be first? Aridas, Capt. April, MGagen?


Everyone knows I was an advocate of "engineering" being somewhere along the centerline aft of the bridge, straddling decks three through five, as per TMoST and dialog. However, since I requested *Mark* to use his model of the ship to compare the curve of the engineering set ceiling to the curvature of the secondary hull and to see how they correlated... and seeing how he has gracioiusly done this and the two fit very nicely... well... I have to admit I am convinced that my big ol' Phase II cutaway is indeed reflective of Matt Jefferies' thoughts for the TOS ship on this question. This is even less bothersome since Mark has pointed out that the set needn't be "main" engineering. We might never have seen "main" engineering on the TOS ship. 

I agree with what I think I understand *Mark's* position to be, namely that the engineering set from TOS fits into the slot assigned to it on the Phase II cutaway, just foreward of the hangar deck. I am not sure whether Jefferies intended there to be any correlation between the conduits behind the grill and anything going up the pylons into the nacelles. I feel fairly sure he intended the nacelles to contain the only reactors on the ship, and that the situation became muddied by the episodes and the mixed references to nacelles and secondary hull having reactors. So by the midway point in the series, the decision was made to just account for both and say the ship had three reactors.

I think it might be just as likely that the "conduits" were intended to be a main power transfer point between the ship and the nacelles. OR, if some photographic basis for that design linking it to some conception of a reactor during the early 60s can be found, then I will accept that Jefferies intended three reactors all along. If this is the case, his grasp of the technical underpinnings of how the ship might function was probably even more firmly founded that even I have thought. 

Once again, as with his work on the bridge question, I think *Mark* has added immeasurably to our understanding of what Jefferies might have intended. I am impressed.

However, not to end on a down note, but I don't feel the case for the conduit connections is very compelling. I'm inclined to label the thing as the reactor itself, and to accept the fact that there were multiple installations for dilithium crystals on the ship (fitting well with the "canon" references to three reactors). The one foreward of this "reactor" (or "engineering core" to use tha language of TAS) might be used for focusing plasma en route to the primary hull and the impulse engines, if one insists on retconning the role of dilithium envisioned in the later shows as holding on TOS. This would make sense if the fusion reactors powering the impulse engines are seen as wholly for the purpose of powering the primary hull when it is separated from the rest of the ship. 

The fact that this "core" was a forced perspective set has always made me suspicious. I know this sounds crazy, but I've said it before and I might as well repeat it here: it might well have been the original intention that the engine room was in the nacelle. That would account for that elongated design and the fact that it was forced perspective, had a rounded ceiling, and that a very similar room was shown in cross section in the nacelle on the original TOS cutaway. I do however believe any thought of it being in the nacelle, _if it ever existed_, was dropped before the set even appeared.


----------



## aridas sofia

Captain April said:


> Plus, we've already heard that at least in Bob Justman's view (via Rick Sternbach) that their opinion at the time was that the bridge faced straight forward, so there goes the intent argument for pointing it off to port.
> 
> So, between the producers' view that the bridge faced forward, plus the fact that Jefferies never specifically identified what that thing was on the outer dome of the bridge (just folks connecting some very logical dots), and we wind up with very slim, yet just enough, rationalization to justify facing the bridge forward and figure out how the whole works fits under that itty-bitty dome, much like the current discussion regarding how to fit the shuttlecraft's interior into a much smaller hull.


This is not my recollection of the reply from Justman that you posted on the Trek BBS. His response was much more non-committal and tongue-in-cheek. I don't think you can take anything away from what he said.

As *Mark* knows from our correspondence, when pressed to make the bridge face forward, my solution was to sink the thing almost completely into what we'd call Deck Two. If that is the case however, there must be something above the bridge to explain the emergence of the turboshaft. I envision a small navigation suite, associated with the upper sensor dome and perhaps allowing a grand view through that dome into space. This would only work for the regular series and TAS, of course. "The Cage" clearly showed that dome looking into the bridge. Of course, it also showed a completely different bridge. :roll:


----------



## Captain April

MGagen said:


> This is just a gratuitous assertion based on your personal idea of how the warp drive works. As such it is meaningless as an objection to my proposal.


Go back and watch "Elaan of Troyius" and it becomes exceedingly clear what role the dilithium crystals play in the process.



> Once again, you fail to take into account that when the bridge set and the model are scaled the same, the turbo lift fits precisely into the position of the tube. In fact, it MUST be in the tube, or the dome can't be the bridge at all.


You're not taking into account that when the bridge set and the ship were being designed, they were still trying to decide just how big the ship was. That plays a big factor in scaling the exterior hull to an interior set, doncha think?



> Otherwise, if you rotate the bridge to face forward, the naked turbolift would erupt from the dome 36 degrees around to port from the current tube. This isn't a matter of opinion. It is plain and simple geometry -- as unassailable as any mathematical law. Besides, it is just plain nonsense to claim it wasn't intended to be the turbo tube. Jefferies' design for the Phase II bridge put two of them on the bridge dome when he designed the dual turbolift bridge layout.


When they designed the original ship and the sets, they didn't think folks would be examining the things to this degree of precision some forty years later. When they were gearing up for Phase II, however, they DID know folks were going over every frame with a micrometer, and did a much better job of nailing things down.

You can't take away the "close enough, move on to the next bit" factor when evaluating the original designs.



> As for Bob Justman's assumption that the bridge faced forward: Of course it was intended to face forward in the beginning; but after the pie sections of the set were shuffled to get a more dramatic angle on the lift door over the Captain's shoulder, they should have altered the exterior of the model to place the tube around to port.


The bridge originally didn't have that many wild sections, just the ones to the right of the helm. They didn't make them all wild until the production moved from the Culver City facility to the Melrose Avenue lot (a big fat clue is in those red railings, particularly the one by the turbolift and in front of the engineering station: In the pilots, they're solid, whereas in the regular episodes, there are clearly separation seams).

In the absence of any development sketches showing the design process, there's no indication that the turbolift was _ever_ intended to open up on the bridge directly behind the Captain's chair.

However, what Sternbach passed on to us wasn't that the the producers' view was that the bridge faced forward in the beginning, but that it *ALWAYS* faced forward.

They just had more pressing issues to deal with than making sure that their big cumbersome bridge set precisely matched their thrice modified effects model. Things like making sure this week's episode got finished on time, that sort of time.



> Since they didn't, we're left with a rotated bridge, since that's obviously the only way it fits. Pretending that it "just fits" won't hold water if you're going to blueprint the ship -- unless accuracy and precision count for nothing.


I point you to the discussion regarding the shuttlecraft and making the interior fit the exterior.

Same thing. Same producers, too.


----------



## TheYoshinator!

Allow me to throw fuel on a fire by just throwing this out there. You can shoot it down if you want. As I've said I don't know as much about the design as you guys do.

Since there's so little proof as to how exactly the Bridge fits.

How about this:

What if the whole outer shell of the Bridge dome rotates. That would account for more than one near-by tube. What if we have always only seen (external view) it in a stand-by mode of sorts. Where we've always seen it at could be where the extra turbolifts come from. And where it moves to (that we've never seen it at externally) is where the main shaft leading into the bridge is.

*shrug*

-James


----------



## Captain April

Interesting concept, but I wouldn't want to be the guy who tries to sell it.


----------



## Captain April

In an ongoing attempt to get info from as close to the horse's mouth as possible, I have begun trying to contact as many folks involved with the production of TOS as I can lay my hands on and resolve at least the issue of "what were they thinking?" when some of this stuff was first laid out.

First up, David Gerrold:

*1) When the show was being produced, which direction did the writers and producers imagine the bridge to face, directly forward or thirty-something degrees to port?*



> *David Gerrold responded:*
> The bridge faced forward.


*2) When the bridge was laid out, was the exterior design of the model taken into account?*



> The bridge is supposedly in the center of the disk on the top level. See the opening shot of The Cage. (I think that’s the one.) It’s also specified that way in the blueprints that were published in the early 70’s. (Those are very rare and very valuable these days.)


*3) Where was Main Engineering?*



> Main Engineering was in the lower module, not in the disk, not in the nacelles.


*4) What were those big red glowing tubes?*



> Those big red glowing tubes were big red glowing tubes. Never explained.


*5) Where were those angled "Jefferies Tubes" supposed to be?*



> The Jefferies tubes were probably in the struts leading to the nacelles. I say probably because we were never given any other specification. But that’s the only sensible place.


*6) What was the producers' thoughts behind how the warp drive operated?*



> Not being a mind-reader, I can’t tell you what Gene R.’s precise thoughts were. But the sense of the show was that impulse power was for slower-than-light, and warp drive was for faster-than-light. Some writers used nautical terms, and not always to the best effect. “All stop” is fine in water. In space, there’s no such thing. There is no such thing as stop. You’re always moving relative to something. A more appropriate command would have been “match orbit” or “match course.” Few of the writers understood the distance and speed problems involved in space travel, and that’s still true today. The laws of physics apparently work differently in the Trek universe.


*7) How closely does the engineering concepts portrayed in TNG resemble the concepts used in the original series (i.e., is the way the Enterprise-D is laid out the same general way the original Enterprise was laid out, or was Kirk's ship set up completely differently?)*



> Despite Mike Okuda’s and Rich Sternbach’s efforts to keep TNG scientifically accurate…TNG’s science is mostly doubletalk, gobble-de-****, and gibberish. I stopped watching it very early.


Next on my target list are Bob Justman and Dorothy Fontana. Probably have to resort to snail mail for them.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Guys, it seems obvious that however they got around to placing the bridge to be off by 36 degrees, it simply isn't a logical design.

Then again, as Franz Joseph once correctly pointed out, neither does putting the turbolift to the rear of the bridge.

No military designer would would place the captain and bridge personell's backs to a main entrance to the bridge.

Just not a smart idea if anyone is ever trying defend against a boarding party while also continuing to pilot and command the ship.

The turbolift being behind and slightly to the port of the crew is only slightly better, strategically, then having it completely behind them.

It's obvious that the filming director simply screwed the pooch on this one.

He made a change to the set that makes no sense in order to get the most dramatic angle.

It seems the best compromise might be to attempt to design a bridge similar to the one described by Aridas Sofia

"my solution was to sink the thing almost completely into what we'd call Deck Two. If that is the case however, there must be something above the bridge to explain the emergence of the turboshaft. I envision a small navigation suite, associated with the upper sensor dome and perhaps allowing a grand view through that dome into space. This would only work for the regular series and TAS, of course. "

This seems to be the only logical compromise.
True, it might require us to disregard the Cage footage, but as Aridas has also pointed out, that wasn't the same bridge.

To Aridas' comment that it wasn't the same bridge I would also add that the exterior of decks 1 and 2 were different on the pre-production 3 footer as well.

Who is to say that the obvious refit that occurred between Pike and Kirk's day didn't include a whole new bridge? External proportions and internal arrangement(a.k.a. Aridas' proposed sinking of the bridge.).

Her astrometrics room seems logical as well.
Plus I never bought the idea that there was only a powered turbolift for bridge access, there HAD to have been some sort of staircase for emergency exits/entrance.

What about a spiral starcase between an astrometrics lab or observatory, the bridge below(perhaps with a "pass-through second dome) and at least one or more decks below that?

A spiral emergency staircase where the outer cylinder is that ends up going down to the bridge - where the wall to the starboard aft of the elevator would swing open in an emergency to get to the emergency staircase, and then down at least one more level?

Do you have any drawings you'd be willing to post of your "sunken bridge" idea, Aridas?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Captain April said:


> Next on my target list are Bob Justman and Dorothy Fontana. Probably have to resort to snail mail for them.


Ah, good 'ole snail mail!

Four Mad Men keeps ripping me via email about using dial-up internet access...

You kids!(apparently, for my last birthday, my 39th, I've officially turned into my father  )

I remember during the Golden or Dark Ages(depending on how you look at it) of Trek fandom when everything was done via snailmail and newsletters/catalogues/flyers.

Conversations and information sharing in this detail with lots of us chiming in like we enjoy today was impossible. If two people wanted to have a dialogue as involved as this one, or the Galileo Project, 

_it literally would have taken years!_

And that's assuming just those two people would have had the ability to bring up all the points and examples we are able to collectively.

So I have to say, thank God we no longer depend solely on snail mail!!!

I'd love to hear what everyone we can find statements on the subject have to say, especially Dorothy Fontana(God could Enterprise use her right now! Though I can't imagine her wanting to take direction from the Undynamic Duo).

But I must respectfully point out that while he might have interviewed the original staff of TOS for his "World of Star Trek" book, I wouldn't look to David Gerrold as an authority on minute technical questions related to tech unless he had directly asked those same tech questions of MJ or others who were there in the beginning.

As David Gerrold points out in the beggining of his book "The Trouble With Tribbles," he wasn't there at the beginning of the series. He first saw Star Trek on TV while a college student. He might imagine to be able to place himself in the mind of MJ farely well. It's hard to imagine though that he had this specific discussion with MJ and/or a filming director and never discussed the conversation anywhere.

But unless he specifically asked those questions of MJ and is quoting an answer given to him, he wasn't there. He's just guessing.

Perhaps it's an educated guess, but unless he discussed the question directly with MJ and is quoting him it's just his supposition.

However, Dorothy Fontana was around much earlier then he was. When you ask her about this, please ask her if she ever discussed these issues or directly heard them being discussed directly, with MJ or the filming directors.

Her views would be a little more authoritive(assuming she's privy to a discussion about them). David Gerrold wasn't around when these decisions were made.

Also, the scene from "The Cage" cannot be taken literally.
Even on a 20 inch TV it's obvious that the video of the bridge is a choppy 2D matte projection that is out of wack spatially. Plus, just because you can see through the top dome doesn't mean that there can't be a second dome lower down, as in Aridas' solution(The Cage scene's perspective is way off anyway).

All this being said, I still agree that the bridge should face forward.

Except on starships with female Captains.

In those cases, female Captains should be required to fly side-saddle.

For reasons of decorum, of course. :lol:


----------



## Captain April

A bit of a follow-up regarding the bridge.



> A brief recap:
> 
> The bridge is supposedly in the center of the disk on the top level. See the opening shot of The Cage. (I think that’s the one.) It’s also specified that way in the blueprints that were published in the early 70’s. (Those are very rare and very valuable these days.)



*Q: Would that be the set Franz Joseph Designs put out in '75? Because they have the bridge pointing about 35 degrees to port, thanks to that cylinder on the outside of the dome on the model, and thus, why the thirty year argument over this sniggling detail.*



> Joseph was wrong about a lot of things. That was one of them. Those blueprints were given after-the-fact authorization from Paramount and Roddenberry.


----------



## Trek Ace

I think that the bridge was always represented on the series as being 36 degrees rotated port. Whenever the ship is hit by an enemy weapon, the camera was rotated in-line with the elevator doors and the panel to the right of the viewscreen and people on the set "fell" in that direction. Which, in the case of the bridge facing directly forward, the camera would have been from the viewpoint of the viewscreen looking aft in-line with the Communications station.

Like the plans suggest, the bridge is correct in being rotated 36 degrees.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Captain April said:


> A bit of a follow-up regarding the bridge.
> 
> Quote:
> A brief recap:
> 
> The bridge is supposedly in the center of the disk on the top level. See the opening shot of The Cage. (I think that’s the one.) It’s also specified that way in the blueprints that were published in the early 70’s. (Those are very rare and very valuable these days.)
> 
> 
> 
> Q: Would that be the set Franz Joseph Designs put out in '75? Because they have the bridge pointing about 35 degrees to port, thanks to that cylinder on the outside of the dome on the model, and thus, why the thirty year argument over this sniggling detail.
> 
> Quote:
> Joseph was wrong about a lot of things. That was one of them. Those blueprints were given after-the-fact authorization from Paramount and Roddenberry.


Okay, that pretty much destroys Gerrold as an authority on the matter. 

Even though strangely enough I wholely agree with him and you that the bridge should face forward.

Gerrold is just plain wrong.
Roddenberry was given pre-release copies of both the Starfleet Technical Manual and the Constitution Class blueprints. Also it's certainly absurd to say that both of those legally copyrighted publications received approval from Paramount _after the fact_! 

Franz Joseph was even meticulously legally minded enough to get a licensing agreement from Paramount for the first batch he sold of the blueprints at a Trek convention in '74! He did everything by the book and above board. I wonder how many of the other fan items sold at that convention were legally licensed?

None of the approvals by Roddenberry or Paramount came after the fact. That's backed up by tons of documents now owned by Franz Joseph's daughter.

There are quite a few extensive interviews of her and her father that can be found at www.trekplace.com. See especially her well-documented chronology of her father's interactions with both Gene and Paramount that start before he talked to either entities and extend throughout his entire association with them and past TMP.

Gerrold just doesn't know what he is talking about if he is saying Roddenberry gave his approval to either the SFTManual or blueprints "after the fact."

It just plain is not true!

Not only that, but Roddenberry was the one to encourage him to do the projects in the first place. Roddenberry planned to publish and sell them through his wife's company, Lincoln Enterprises.

He had nothing but praise for what Franz Joseph sent him.
Perhaps Roddenberry was just glancing at the drawings and thinking little about their technical accuracy.

However he had ample opportunity to check both publications and suggest changes. If he did not then he's to blame almost as much as Franz Joseph. Roddenberry had, in the case of the blueprints, almost TWO YEARS to pipe up! FJ sent Gene a copy of his blueprints on December 19, 1973. The blueprints were released May 24, 1975! The two of them had several meetings and countless discussions in which any qualms Roddenberry had about the bridge design or anything else could have been discussed.

The point is if this was a mistake that FJ made, it wasn't a mistake that Roddenberry had no chance to correct. If this was a snafu then it got by Roddenberry because he was too lazy to catch it.

The plans and TM were NOT approved by either Roddenberry or Paramount "after the fact."


What was worse was that Roddenberry seemed to hold a grudge against Franz Joseph even after Roddenberry left FJ twisting in the wind.

As I mentioned earlier, it was Gene who encouraged FJ to do both publications to begin with, and promised to have them printed and marketed by his wife's company - Lincoln Enterprises.

He failed to mention to Franz Joseph that he did NOT have legal property rights to Star Trek any more, and if his works were printed and published by Majel Roddenberry's company they would be unauthorized fan publications. Many fans who have sold fanzines, fan blueprints, slides and photos at conventions and via mail have expressed thanks for Gene Roddenberrys often public defense of them and his requests that Paramount not go after them, requests which were respected up until about TMP period.

Of course he didn't want Paramont to go after them! His wife had one of the biggest fan operations!!!

After about a year of asking Gene questions about property rights to Star Trek and not getting any response, FJoseph was FORCED by Gene's non-response to contact Paramount - the people who really owned the Trek rights.

Franz Joseph had to hear from Paramount that Gene had sold away all his Trek property rights.

Not only weren't Gene's approvals of the publications after the fact, he strung along FJ for quite awhile letting him believe that he was talking to the owner of the property.

While I'm truly sorry that Gene Roddenberry sold away his creative and property rights to Trek long ago, that wasn't Franz Joseph's fault!!!

Franz Joseph's work was fully approved beforehand by both Gene and Paramount. Gene met with him many times before they were published and had ample oppurtunities to suggest changes.

Nothing was approved after the fact!

Attempts that have been made by old TOS staffers as well as Roddenberry to make him look like some kook whose work was approved sight unseen are reprehensible.



http://www.trekplace.com/interviews/fj-timeline.shtml


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

By the way, if I wasn't clear. I STILL believe that the bridge should face forward, and am hoping Aridas will share some views/pics of his solution.

I'm just not a big fan of the Revisionist history served up in Mr. Gerrold's answer.

If Franz Joseph was wrong about a lot of things Roddenberry was apparently willing to let him be wrong, and shares the blame.

If Roddenberry had been as sharp a negotiator with Paramount as Franz Joseph was when FJ negotiated full rights to his StarFleet Technical Manual, a Roddenberry family member would own Star Trek to this day!

His work may not have been perfect in every respect, but he was a brilliant man, a talented artist, and the only person who has gone toe-to-toe with Paramount and got everything he wanted from them.


----------



## aridas sofia

^ Not only that, but he said up front that he was changing things in order to make it all fit. Roddenberry (and Jefferies too, because FJ met with him as well at least once) had no problem with that strategy. 

Its sad to see this Franz Joseph bashing being dragged over here from the TrekBBS. *Captain April* has been shown all the documents over the course of the last two years in that much-bloodied forum, and yet, as we can begin to see here, he is unwilling to accept *any* evidence that is contrary to his preconceived notions of how the _Enterprise_ was laid out. Any evidence, even from the shows themselves, that is contrary to what he wants to see is explained away as being from overworked staffers, murky, unclear plots, or demented and obsessed fans. And any evidence that fits his plan is embraced regardless of the level of sophistry it requires to make it fly.

I'm a big fan of David Gerrold's writing, and believe him to be better versed than most writers in the technical side of what he's creating. But to go to him, or Bob Justman, or even DC Fontana, to get the minute details on how the ship was laid out will only get you a loose understanding at best. That accurately reflects the loose understanding that they had at the time. DC Fontana might be the best of the bunch, because she seemed to be the one that was keeping track of things and advocating continuity, but even with her we have to wonder how well she will remember the small details. And how well she knew what was on Jefferies mind.

Let's get real. Sure the bridge faced forward. Of course it did. And yet it didn't. It was altered in such a way that it no longer accorded with the model, and instead of changing the model they pretended the problem didn't exist. As soon as Jefferies had the chance -- with the Phase II miniature -- he fixed it.

My fix -- lowering the bridge into deck two -- is not wholly satisfactory because of the shape of the bridge set, and the way it so neatly reflects the shape of the area on the top of the saucer. I have yet to illustrate what's in my mind, but I think it might be possible to have the shell echo the bridge down below in a way that makes sense structurally. The one slam against the exposed bridge has been the way it is... _exposed_. Recessing it a bit, and having structural supports separating the shell from the bridge bulkhead, and that in turn protrude through the upper navigation suite, is what I see. This also seems to be somewhat similar to what Matt Jefferies was thinking, because on his cutaway from TOS he had the bridge pretty far down, very close to where I see it as having to go in order to make the turbolift avoid breaking out of the saucer.

Not to mix discussions here, but thinking about the old cutaway reminds me of one of my old objections to having Engineering under the pylons. Where would that set fit on Jefferies' TOS cutaway? There are interesting spaces on that cutaway of the secondary hull to be sure, but none of them seems to accord with anything like the engineering set. Can any of those spaces be massaged a little to make the set fit, *Mark*?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

To be fair, I don't know if there was any overt bashing of FJ being attempted by Captain April in his quoting David Gerrold.

I don't think quoting him amounts to bashing necessarily.

I see the untrue and dismissive comment about Franz Joseph by David Gerrold as part of a long tradition of the type of treatment FJ's received by longtime TOS staffers.

It's become an almost reflex reaction on their part to dismiss FJ's work.

Until the last year or so I hadn't learned why. It's become obvious that Roddenberry seriously screwed up in his contract negotiations with Paramount long before FJ ever met him. Causing him to lose control of Star Trek to the studio.

He became a hired hand on a ranch he once owned.

The guy had to be bitter. On top of that his wife was bringing in income on memorabelia from a show he had lost.

He let FJ think he still owned the property for about a year and strung him along with promises that his wife's Lincoln Enterprises would print and publish the stuff - something they had zero rights to be able to promise. Only Paramount could have legally decided on who could and could not publish Trek related material.

Then FJ finds out that Roddenberry DIDN'T have the rights and takes the high road and publishes everything legitimately, rather then illegally publishing through Lincoln Enterprises.

Also, at the same time Franz Joseph was supposedly turning out these inferior blueprints and pages for the Tech Manual, Gene Roddenberry hired him to design props for the Phase II series, and balked when Franz Joseph refused to sign away all of his artist rights to them.

If FJ's work was so inferior, why did Gene hire him to design Phase II props?


So after Franz Joseph found out who really owned Trek and negotiated to publish the blueprints, here was FJ, making money legally on a property that Roddenberry had managed to loose.

Then it gets even more embarassing for Roddenberry, when shortly after FJ sells his blueprints, that he is able to successfully negotiate the FULL copyrights to EVERY PAGE AND DESIGN in the Star Fleet Technical Manual.

To this day, his daughter still owns those rights.

Neither Roddenberry nor anyone working on TOS had ever been able to negotiate that sweet a deal.

BUT THAT WAS NOT FRANZ JOSEPH'S FAULT!

Franz Joseph at one point even apologized to Gene Roddenberry after having been told by Paramount that he had to deal with them, right before his first run of the blueprints.

Considering how he had been strung along with promises of being published via Lincoln Enterprises that was a pretty sensitive, understanding, stand up kind of thing to do. As he negated Gene having to be embarassed about the incident. FJ should have been been apologized to by Gene for being strung along.

But being very old school FJ did the honorable thing and apologized for "going over Gene's head" even though Gene didn't own Star Trek any more, and had led him to believe he was dealing with someone authorized to publish his works.

After that Gene went through the further humiliation of being hired to make a movie in 1975, the same year as the successfull plans and Tech Manual, and going through many rejected ideas before The Motion Picture script was approved.

At one point in December of 1976 FJ was even asked by Paramount head Lou Mindling to act as a consultant on the movie work. FJ declined.

I doubt that Paramount considered him to be a sloppy designer whose work they were somehow forced to approve the publishing of, and then ask him to be involved with the movie.

Knowing Franz Joseph was even invited to work on the film also must have stuck in Gene's craw. Star Trek was Gene's creation and here was someone else cutting profitable deals with the people he had lost his creation to.

Again, here was FJ, making money legally on a property that Roddenberry had managed to loose.

FJ had gotten a decent deal for a first time publisher on his blueprints. Then almost immediately after that he is able to successfully negotiate the FULL copyrights to EVERY PAGE AND DESIGN in the Star Fleet Technical Manual.

Neither Roddenberry nor anyone working on TOS had ever been able to negotiate that sweet a deal.

BUT THAT WAS NOT FRANZ JOSEPH'S FAULT!

If Roddenberry and his original TOS staff is to be embarrassed, or bitter, they should be bitter and dismissive of the way Gene signed his rights away.

I've never seen any evidence that FJ was anything but above board and honest in his dealings with both Gene and Paramount.

Any errors in FJ's work that Roddenberry or Paramount may have missed they can't claim to not having the opportunity to correct before they were ever published.

It's sour grapes in my opinion.

Franz Joseph's works have been a longtime nostalgic favorite in my collection ever since my early teens. They may not be perfectly penned but they still mean a lot to many TOS fans.


----------



## TheYoshinator!

Hmmm... how about I try a second time.  



Chuck_P.R. said:


> Then again, as Franz Joseph once correctly pointed out, neither does putting the turbolift to the rear of the bridge.
> 
> No military designer would would place the captain and bridge personell's backs to a main entrance to the bridge.
> 
> Just not a smart idea if anyone is ever trying defend against a boarding party while also continuing to pilot and command the ship.
> 
> The turbolift being behind and slightly to the port of the crew is only slightly better, strategically, then having it completely behind them.


That's what my rotation idea could address. But if making adjustments to the exterior is so taboo... then why not simply state the Bridge itself rotates internally while the shaft and outershell remain stationary. It as a result would physically lock off the Bridge's turboshaft access and address that security issue.

Also, that gimble it would be on would sort of account for the swinging of the bridge personel too. No matter what direction the ship is hit from.

AND!!!

I think this solution would make *BOTH* parties right in this very old argument since the Bridge could be depicted in both directions and remain accurate depictions.

-James


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

It WOULD solve the issue, that's true Yoshinator.

But it seems a little dangerous to be dependent on such a huge mechanical mechanism. Plus it would be hard to explain the turbolift seemingly always being ready to go.

That could be explained as well, I guess. Just seems a little more complicated then Aridas' sunken bridge idea.

Any way we could convince you to get an outline from MGagen and break out the mechanical pencil, Aridas?


----------



## StarCruiser

^^ Yep - overtinking the plumbing Yoshinator...

Remember Scotty's line "The more they overtink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain!"...


----------



## aridas sofia

Chuck_P.R. said:


> It WOULD solve the issue, that's true Yoshinator.
> 
> But it seems a little dangerous to be dependent on such a huge mechanical mechanism. Plus it would be hard to explain the turbolift seemingly always being ready to go.
> 
> That could be explained as well, I guess. Just seems a little more complicated then Aridas' sunken bridge idea.
> 
> Any way we could convince you to get an outline from MGagen and break out the mechanical pencil, Aridas?


My Apple was destroyed in an accident that also took two months of back ups with it, so I'm waiting on the next generation PowerMac to be released and then I'll be back up to full operating speed. As it stands, my wife's awful Thinkpad is nearly useless for anything beyond typing these posts. 

But I WILL draw the idea as soon as I can. And of course, I will then share it with you good folks. 

Unfortunately, I fear it is just too much of a departure for most fans to buy into it as a solution. Not only does it run contrary to what they have thought over the years, but it runs contrary to what the other shows have shown. 

No matter. If it looks good, it will be entertaining for a few open-minded souls.

On the idea of rotating the bridge, perhaps *Yoshinator* can explain why it would ever need to be rotated? Its a fine idea, but there has to be a compelling reason why it would need to be done, and why it has not been done since TOS. At least for the idea to gain widespread acceptance.


----------



## StarshipClass

If there were only phasers or photon tubes located on the bridge portion of the hull, it could be justified as a rotating turret!


----------



## MGagen

WOW! I go out of town on business for a couple of days and _I miss all the action!_ 

Thanks, everyone, for the thought provoking posts. I'm thinking we should rename this rambling thread "The Ultimate Answer to Life, The Universe and Everything Enterprise."

I'll try to get around to responding to many of the points raised later today.

Mark "Ahm back innnn thuuuuh saaaadle uhhhh-giiiinnnnn" Gagen


----------



## MGagen

This is going to be a combined reply. As such I'll try to label everyone's quote each time.



aridas sofia said:


> ....since I requested *Mark* to use his model of the ship to compare the curve of the engineering set ceiling to the curvature of the secondary hull and to see how they correlated... and seeing how he has gracioiusly done this and the two fit very nicely... well... I have to admit I am convinced that my big ol' Phase II cutaway is indeed reflective of Matt Jefferies' thoughts for the TOS ship on this question. This is even less bothersome since Mark has pointed out that the set needn't be "main" engineering. We might never have seen "main" engineering on the TOS ship.


It means a lot to me to think that my analysis has convinced you of this. I really respect the work you've done in this area over the years. Let me also give you credit for changing my mind about something. Your three reactor theory is an inspired stroke that does the best job yet of untangling the mare's nest of dialog about the power generation of the TOS E. We've all seen the episodes and heard the dialog, but I believe you're the first person to have grasped this insight. Like many of these little thought experiments, I don't know if it's what they had in mind (if they clearly had anything in mind) but, as Sherlock Holmes was fond of saying "I dare say it fits the facts..."



aridas sofia said:


> I am not sure whether Jefferies intended there to be any correlation between the conduits behind the grill and anything going up the pylons into the nacelles.... I think it might be just as likely that the "conduits" were intended to be a main power transfer point between the ship and the nacelles.


I am not sure it's what he intended, either. However, even if they were "intended to be a main power transfer point between the ship and the nacelles" as you say, they'd still need to link up with the nacelles somehow. I'm merely demonstrating a way that connection could work.

As the discussion of my theory is happening here -- rather than over at TrekBBS's Tech forum, where I planned it to -- perhaps it would be just as well if I actually posted my diagram. No one who hasn't visited the other forum would have seen it.










The back wall of engineering is based on photo analysis of the set. The scale is determined from soundstage blueprints. If my theory is correct, since there were spaces between the conduits, you would have been able to see this structure by walking up to the mesh and looking down between the piping. Would have made a pretty cool scene. Once again, this is a "might have been" not a firmly established "how it was intended."



Captain April said:


> Go back and watch "Elaan of Troyius" and it becomes exceedingly clear what role the dilithium crystals play in the process.


I'll give it a look-see when I get the chance. But I doubt the dialog explicitly maps it all out in the detail you're representing. Do any of our other readers know what is and isn't explicitly nailed down in this episode? 



Captain April said:


> You're not taking into account that when the bridge set and the ship were being designed, they were still trying to decide just how big the ship was. That plays a big factor in scaling the exterior hull to an interior set, doncha think?


Not in the least -- considering that the scale was firmly established before the model was delivered, and that they went to the trouble of putting a tube on the exterior of the bridge dome that precisely matches the position called for by the set. 



Captain April said:


> You can't take away the "close enough, move on to the next bit" factor when evaluating the original designs.


You most certainly can when the evidence points out they made an effort and got it right. You're casting about looking for sloppiness to justify your theory when they weren't being sloppy. Yes, there are things that "didn't matter" to them -- but here we have a case where they made an effort to match the scale.



Captain April said:


> The bridge originally didn't have that many wild sections, just the ones to the right of the helm. They didn't make them all wild until the production moved from the Culver City facility to the Melrose Avenue lot (a big fat clue is in those red railings, particularly the one by the turbolift and in front of the engineering station: In the pilots, they're solid, whereas in the regular episodes, there are clearly separation seams).


This doesn't speak to the issue at all. The non-wild sections may have been shuffled before they were nailed down. It's the kind of thing that might have happened when the director was inspecting the sets under construction and intervened.



Captain April said:


> They just had more pressing issues to deal with than making sure that their big cumbersome bridge set precisely matched their thrice modified effects model.


Yet two of those three changes you mention definitely happened after they would have noticed the discrepency, and they didn't choose to fix it. The last modification actually required them to remove the tube from the dome in order lower it. They could very easily put the dome and tube back on rotated 36 degrees.



Captain April said:


> MGagen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretending that it "just fits" won't hold water if you're going to blueprint the ship -- unless accuracy and precision count for nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> I point you to the discussion regarding the shuttlecraft and making the interior fit the exterior.
> 
> Same thing. Same producers, too.
Click to expand...

My point stands. The project you mentioned is making adjustments _because_ they are blueprinting the shuttle. They are not just pretending that it "just fits." Furthermore, the bridge already fits. It's only when you attempt to rotate it that you get problems.



TheYoshinator! said:


> How about this: What if the whole outer shell of the Bridge dome rotates.


You get a commendation for original thinking. 

However, that would mean that the whole bridge would have to rotate every time Kirk dashes for the lift. Doesn't sound very efficient. And remember, the inertial dampening isn't all that good on the TOS E. I would suspect everytime Kirk would run to the lift, Uhura, who is usually perched daintily on the edge of her chair, would pitch out of it only to land with a thump on her lovely Engineering Hull. :jest: 

I have exceeded the allowable post length. Here ends part one. 

Mark


----------



## MGagen

And now we continue with part two.




Chuck_P.R. said:


> No military designer would would place the captain and bridge personell's backs to a main entrance to the bridge.
> 
> Just not a smart idea if anyone is ever trying defend against a boarding party while also continuing to pilot and command the ship.


I've heard this argument before, but I don't buy it any more. I believe MJ was thinking more like an aeronautical engineer than a naval one. I can't think of a single cockpit where you don't enter from the rear. The captain, pilot and crew all have their backs to you. This is not to say that it's a good idea to have the turbolift behind the Captain, just that I'm not sure that objection would have occurred to Matt Jefferies.

I agree with your assessment of David Gerrold's answers. Not that I am not interested in what he has to say. I love hearing from everyone who was there! And DG has a definite place among the earliest chroniclers of the show. It's just that I don't thing any of the production people or writers would have had this level of knowlege about all the little details Jefferies would have worked out. Your are likely going to get vague impressions from all the people Capt April claims he's going to contact. And I'd bet they'll be looking a little askance at the "fanboy" nature of the questions in the first place.  



Chuck_P.R. said:


> By the way, if I wasn't clear. I STILL believe that the bridge should face forward, and am hoping Aridas will share some views/pics of his solution.


I share this opinion. It's not that I WANT a rotated bridge -- I'm simply not willing to discard the evidence that says it doesn't work. I have done a lot of work with 3d models to test how far the bridge needs to be lowered in order to rotate it. The answer I came up with is almost all the way into deck 2. The starting point, where it fits with the tube on the exterior and is consistant with the model, is aligning it with the edges of the consoles even with the bottom of the bridge dome. If you put it any higher, the turbo tube isn't tall enough. Interestingly, this is about how far sunk MJ shows it on his section view.



aridas sofia said:


> Let's get real. Sure the bridge faced forward. Of course it did. And yet it didn't. It was altered in such a way that it no longer accorded with the model, and instead of changing the model they pretended the problem didn't exist. As soon as Jefferies had the chance -- with the Phase II miniature -- he fixed it.


Well put.



aridas sofia said:


> This also seems to be somewhat similar to what Matt Jefferies was thinking, because on his cutaway from TOS he had the bridge pretty far down, very close to where I see it as having to go in order to make the turbolift avoid breaking out of the saucer.


I think you'll find that the top of the turbolift will break out unless it is completely dropped below the level of the dome. To rotate the bridge, only the overhead interior dome can be in the deck one area. This is far lower that MJ has it.



aridas sofia said:


> Not to mix discussions here, but thinking about the old cutaway reminds me of one of my old objections to having Engineering under the pylons. Where would that set fit on Jefferies' TOS cutaway? There are interesting spaces on that cutaway of the secondary hull to be sure, but none of them seems to accord with anything like the engineering set. Can any of those spaces be massaged a little to make the set fit, *Mark*?


That's an interesting question. I'll try to address it and see where it leads.

Mark


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

MGagen said:


> I agree with your assessment of David Gerrold's answers. Not that I am not interested in what he has to say. I love hearing from everyone who was there! And DG has a definite place among the earliest chroniclers of the show. It's just that I don't think any of the production people or writers would have had this level of knowlege about all the little details Jefferies would have worked out.
> 
> Mark


I too think he has valuable memories to share, I just don't believe he would have ever had the chance to, or any reason to, have asked Jefferies about this.

Also I don't think he necessarily has any active malice towards Franz Joseph's work. He probably has just bought into the general malaise and resentment that was felt towards FJ for having profited from Trek after Gene had lost his rights to it.

It's time for the original TOS staffers come to grips with the fact that Gene Roddenberry is the one responsible for Gene Roddenberry losing control and ownership of Trek.

Also for them to realize that FJ was the one misled and abused in the relationship he had with Gene. And that Gene had every opportunity to change anything he didn't like about FJ's work, both before and after Franz Joseph found out he was being strung along by a guy who had no right to make the promises that he was making.

If I had been misled by someone the way that Gene misled Franz Joseph I probably wouldn't have been anywhere near as gracious and understanding as Franz Joseph was.

He understood that Gene had lost his creation and rather then balk at have been promised to have his work published by Gene - who had no legal right to promise to publish anything - he APOLOGIZED to an embarassed man who had LIED TO HIM!

Franz Joseph, was honest, above-board, and a gentlemen. The only disagreement he ever had with Gene was when Gene tried to pressure him into signing away artist rights that FJ didn't want to sign away.

The only thing that Franz Joseph was ever guilty of was standing up for his legal artistic rights.

Fans of Trek everywhere should come to realize this and stop participating in the bitter derision and dismissiveness of his work that has been encouraged over the years by Gene Roddenberry's entourage.

I understand that Roddenberry's professional pride was involved, but it's time that people stop dismissing FJ's work, or trying to pretend that the criticism of it didn't begin until AFTER Gene realized he and his wife wasn't going to be able to find a way to capitalize on it.

FJ's artwork may not have been perfect, but to pretend Gene Roddenberry didn't encourage the work and didn't have every opportunity to help make it more accurate is simply not true.

It's just sour grapes.


----------



## TheYoshinator!

Chuck_P.R. said:


> It WOULD solve the issue, that's true Yoshinator.
> 
> But it seems a little dangerous to be dependent on such a huge mechanical mechanism. Plus it would be hard to explain the turbolift seemingly always being ready to go.
> 
> That could be explained as well, I guess. Just seems a little more complicated then Aridas' sunken bridge idea.


Well, not necessarily. The mechanism I'm sort of invisioning would be not unlike the joints on a robotic arm- like in the autmotive industry. They don't look like much... but if you try and arm wrestle one... you won't arm wrestle ever again. Unless you learn to use the only arm you have left.  

This right here might even suggest where the self-sufficient swapable Bridge Module concept originated. The Bridges have slowly progressed in their self-sufficiency. Voyager's Bridge has been said to actually be seperable and that the notches at its edges are actually RCS thrusters.




StarCruiser said:


> ^^ Yep - overtinking the plumbing Yoshinator... Remember Scotty's line "The more they overtink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain!"...


Maybe that's why we never saw that Space John! :lol:




aridas sofia said:


> On the idea of rotating the bridge, perhaps Yoshinator can explain why it would ever need to be rotated? Its a fine idea, but there has to be a compelling reason why it would need to be done, and why it has not been done since TOS. At least for the idea to gain widespread acceptance.


As I stated above there is lineage to a self-sufficient Bridge. It had to begin somewhere.

I was thinking the obvious issue of security too. To physically lock off the bridge from a boarding party.

As to why it hasn't been done since. Because maybe there were never any major instances where it proved necessary and was abandoned. Purhaps the improved TMP turboshaft pod was good enough to be the block itself. In how it was made of more impenetrable materials or that after TOS is when they implemented its ability to turning away from the bridge opening. Hence the new area behind the bridge in the TMP Bridge design.

The issues of SIF (Structural Integrity Field) are still beyond our comprehension. I think there's enough grey area to make that a possibility.

It could even be justified as a means of having the ship's external shape as symmetrical as possible to improve warp dynamics.... who knows. There are a lot of avenues to take I think. But now that I think about it... the security/turboshaft improvements and internal shift seem to be a good way to go.

Btw, sinking the Bridge does work too. It too is a fine idea. But it kind of goes against your proposed question as well. Why would the TOS Bridge be sunken so far when all other known ships (including immediate derivative designs- Phase II and the TMP Refit) for a hundred years, have it on top with only the auxilary Bridge being deep within the ship. Why has that deck two Bridge placement never been seen before or since?




MGagen said:


> You get a commendation for original thinking.


Thanks Mark! :roll:

It has to be either an internal or external change. No one ever seems to mention the external change without making it sound like perminantly repositioning that turboshaft housing so...thats where I got the idea of it not being perminant. I do prefer it to be an internal change/shift though.




MGagen said:


> However, that would mean that the whole bridge would have to rotate every time Kirk dashes for the lift. Doesn't sound very efficient. And remember, the inertial dampening isn't all that good on the TOS E. I would suspect everytime Kirk would run to the lift, Uhura, who is usually perched daintily on the edge of her chair, would pitch out of it only to land with a thump on her lovely Engineering Hull.


Well that would be true if any hit on the ship caused it to shake. But I always though that a shake happened after a threshold had been surpassed. I mean they never ended up as jelly on a wall when jumping to high speeds right? So a 36 degree internal shift in the Bridge in under a second would vastly pale in comparison to going from 0 to .99 warp, let alone warp itself, in a few seconds.

You know guys... this isn't a 30yr. old arguement... It's a 30yr. old game and a highly enjoyable one too!

-James


----------



## MasaoOkazaki

Man, seeing this argument/discussion go from board to board is just like "The Alternative Factor"! Aridas and April are like Lazarus A and B, fighting eternally across the cosmos. No minds were changed at Trek BBS, and I don't forsee it being any different here.

Carry on!


----------



## Warped9

Back on the TBBS I'd likely be labeled a old bitter grouch for saying this, but at least having this discussion here you seem to be able to generally avoid someone dragging in ridiculous retconning crap from the later drek series. You're able to focus more upon what was originally intended and how it should more likely work.

Carry on indeed! :thumbsup:


----------



## Captain April

Ironically, my solution to the bridge issue is essentially the same as Aridas', sink the bridge low enough so that the turbolift can shift around to the back.

Of course, what I've got in mind will require some serious readjustments in folks' thinking. Basically, "deck 1" will now be the upper sensor array, the bridge will be not quite all the way down to deck 2, but damn close, while deck 2 itself will consist of a service/maintenance access corridor around the lower part of the bridge.

On a side note, I think Mr. Gagen is putting a bit too much stock in the dome being such a close match to the bridge set, especially in light of a model that has so many inconsistencies in the first place (saucer not perfectly circular, nacelles not parallel and of different lengths, etc.). The dome and tube on the production version is the same dome and tube on the pilot versions, just sawed in half and stuck back on. Why? Because it looked better. On a ship where the size was still an open question while initial production was still going on, that's the only logical answer.

That the dome and the set seem to match up amounts to a coincidence, in light of all the other fluctuations in the design of this ship.


----------



## MGagen

Captain April said:


> I think Mr. Gagen is putting a bit too much stock in the dome being such a close match to the bridge set, especially in light of a model that has so many inconsistencies in the first place (saucer not perfectly circular, nacelles not parallel and of different lengths, etc.).


I think Mr. April is once again espousing the "baby with the bath water" theory. Because the model has some minor variations due to its being a hand made artifact, any deliberately accurate details are not to be trusted. Sorta like saying, "because this car has a flat tire and a dent in the fender, we can't be sure that it's a 1977 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme."




> The dome and tube on the production version is the same dome and tube on the pilot versions, just sawed in half and stuck back on. Why? Because it looked better.


In other words, "because they took care to improve the model along the way, it can't be trusted."




> On a ship where the size was still an open question while initial production was still going on, that's the only logical answer.


Even though he fails to acknowledge it, the size issue was settled before a single frame of film was shot of the model. So much for the "only logical answer"...




> That the dome and the set seem to match up amounts to a coincidence, in light of all the other fluctuations in the design of this ship.


They don't _seem_ to match up, they _do_ match up. It requires an act of will to ignore what is patently obvious in order to call it a coincidence.

One last comment. I was tickled to read the following in a post by Capt. April on this very board in the "Phase II Enterprise" thread. He is proposing a method to create a model that resembles the original Jefferies Phase II design. After advocating the use of a TOS "cutaway" version primary hull, he has this to say about modifying the bridge area:




Captain April said:


> Also, the turboshafts on the bridge will have to be reworked (best bet will be to just remove the one that's there and discard it, since the process of removing the bit will pretty much destroy it). A couple of pieces of leftover sprue of the same diameter, placed at about five and seven o'clock (twelve o'clock being directly foreward).


So it _is_ a turboshaft after all.... 

Mark


----------



## StarCruiser

MGagen said:


> I think Mr. April is once again espousing the "baby with the bath water" theory. Because the model has some minor variations due to its being a hand made artifact, any deliberately accurate details are not to be trusted. Sorta like saying, "because this car has a flat tire and a dent in the fender, we can't be sure that it's a 1977 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, "because they took care to improve the model along the way, it can't be trusted."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even though he fails to acknowledge it, the size issue was settled before a single frame of film was shot of the model. So much for the "only logical answer"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't _seem_ to match up, they _do_ match up. It requires an act of will to ignore what is patently obvious in order to call it a coincidence.
> 
> One last comment. I was tickled to read the following in a post by Capt. April on this very board in the "Phase II Enterprise" thread. He is proposing a method to create a model that resembles the original Jefferies Phase II design. After advocating the use of a TOS "cutaway" version primary hull, he has this to say about modifying the bridge area:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it _is_ a turboshaft after all....
> 
> Mark


I don't understand why it's so hard to figure out... It does all fit fine so long as you DON'T try to rotate the bridge. Just lower it a bit into deck 2 and voilá - fits.


----------



## TheYoshinator!

StarCruiser said:


> I don't understand why it's so hard to figure out... It does all fit fine so long as you DON'T try to rotate the bridge. Just lower it a bit into deck 2 and voilá - fits.


That's because its extremely obvious what MJ's intent was when you look at all his designs. Pre-TOS Production, TOS Production, and Post-TOS Production designs show his intent. The Phase II and the TMP-Refit show his intent as well. The upper-most deck high bulge contains the Bridge. Anyone can just re-arrange decks and make it work. But I think where we are at odds over this subject is a matter of disregarding MJ's intent to achieve a sensible goal. I think that's where the divide lays.


----------



## StarCruiser

Yeah - you know that, MGagen knows that - I think Capt.April actually does understand but seems to want to do it differently...

Well, so long as we all remember to be civil about this - not as in Civil War though


----------



## Captain April

TheYoshinator! said:


> That's because its extremely obvious what MJ's intent was when you look at all his designs. Pre-TOS Production, TOS Production, and Post-TOS Production designs show his intent. The Phase II and the TMP-Refit show his intent as well. The upper-most deck high bulge contains the Bridge. Anyone can just re-arrange decks and make it work. But I think where we are at odds over this subject is a matter of disregarding MJ's intent to achieve a sensible goal. I think that's where the divide lays.


We also have it on good authority that the bridge was considered to have faced forward, not 36 degrees to port. How the turboshaft was theorized to have functioned within that layout and the external hull as shown may well be a mystery lost to the ages. Frankly, the more I deal with this issue, the more I'm convinced that we're dealing with a major "oopsie" that, for whatever reason, never got dealt with during the run of the series.


----------



## Captain April

MGagen said:


> So it _is_ a turboshaft after all....
> 
> Mark


I was giving a quick-and-dirty procedure for kitbashing a TOS Cutaway E and a E-A into a Phase II Enterprise. I wasn't about to digress into a disertation about the theoretical functioning of turboshafts and what forms they may take that would be externally visible.


----------



## Captain April

Some hints of things to come...










This is from a pic Mark did a while back, the last time this firestorm erupted. After a little tweaking, to get everything lined up, I think we're on the road to a workable solution.


----------



## TheYoshinator!

Captain April said:


> We also have it on good authority that the bridge was considered to have faced forward, not 36 degrees to port. How the turboshaft was theorized to have functioned within that layout and the external hull as shown may well be a mystery lost to the ages. Frankly, the more I deal with this issue, the more I'm convinced that we're dealing with a major "oopsie" that, for whatever reason, never got dealt with during the run of the series.



I certainly agree with you there. It was just a TV show that was never though of highly by the studio while it was aired. It was in syndication when they realized how popular it was anyways. So I'm not surprised. Also, it really was Star Trek that kicked off fandoms ravanous need to make perfect sense in 'this and that'.

Again, to me I think that Internal Bridge shift idea is the only way to meet all ends with fans. you don't have to change the exterior, you don't have to permanently change the interior either, you don't have to re-arrange deck placements, and you can justify it well enough with that security issue/independant bridge module lineage or let the explanation rest in the area of "Enertial Dampening" which will most likely never be fully explaned in our lifetimes anyhow.

I would also add the shift mechanism wouldn't necessarily cause any deck thickness change either. A magnetic system of that time period could be extremely thin.

Anywho, I doubt anything else I could add would be any more helpful in this discussion. I'm not so dumb that I think *I* could solve the problem. But I think it was a decent stab at the subject. Take the suggestions for what they are worth. Run with'm or don't, everyone.

How well did I grade?

:wave:


----------



## MGagen

Captain April said:



> We also have it on good authority that the bridge was considered to have faced forward, not 36 degrees to port.


As Aridas Sofia pointed out earlier when you first raised this, you're reading too much into what Justman was quoted as saying.

If you want to ignore the evidence and make your version of the ship different, that's just fine. But please stop claiming there _is_ no evidence; or no way of knowing; or that they didn't notice or they would have fixed it.

Mark


----------



## Captain April

To bring this thread back to the stated topic:

How big is the TOS Enterprise?

134 inches.

Anything beyond that is up for debate.


----------



## MGagen

Captain April said:


> To bring this thread back to the stated topic:
> 
> How big is the TOS Enterprise?
> 
> 134 inches.
> 
> Anything beyond that is up for debate.


Actually, the best figure we have comes from Gary Kerr's Autocad reconstruction, which comes to 134.08161" (yeah, I know, it's only a little bit over). However, the figure that is far more relevant in determining what the ship was meant to be is 135". This is the length called for by the construction blueprints and is therefore Matt Jefferies intended size. I submit that all his calculations were based on this number, since it is unlikely he ever knew the model had come up almost an inch shorter than planned.

Mark


----------



## Trek Ace

That's less than 1% off in length, if Mr. Jefferies' plans called for an intended length of 135 inches. That is pretty damn good. If the folks at Production Models got the model over 99% correct in dimensional size to the plan, believe me, NO ONE would have cared - and, most certainly, no one would have complained.

I'm sure that everyone was overjoyed with the results.


----------



## uss_columbia

I think it's time to bring this thread back to the top. 

First a comment, then a question...

Some have said that the ship in its final general form (i.e., saucer, secondary hull, nacelles) was scaled at about 200' before being increased to the 540' ship and then to 947'. However, I was just looking at some of Jefferies' "ball" ships (sphere rather than saucer), and the windows on them indicate a diameter of around 200' for a ship size of around 550-600'. (This is based on the vertical window spacing, assuming only one row of windows per deck.)
This suggests to me that the saucer ships would have been at least 500' long from the start, assuming that the saucer designs came after the ball ships. (Or did he go back and forth between saucer and sphere ships? The s-curve at the back of the nacelles would support this back-and-forth idea: the early saucer sketches have flat nacelle ends whereas the later ball ship has the s-curve. But this could just be that he sometimes felt like filling in that detail and sometimes didn't.) (I wonder if Jefferies ever imagined how much might be read into his sketches?  )

Now the question: why 947'? Why not double? I've heard the suggestion that the size needn't double to give twice the interior space (in each dimension) because the hull thickness doesn't need to double. But this would not even come close to accounting for a 100' loss! (Keep in mind that it's only the exterior hulls surfaces that you'd not need to double. Interior floors and such would effectively double--not each, but there would be twice as many floors.)

If a 540' ship holds 203 crew (conjecture based on that line in The Cage script being written before the rescale) and you want a crew of 430, you certainly wouldn't need to double the ship size in all three dimensions. A ship twice as high, twice as long, and twice as wide would support on the order 2^3 times the original: as many as 1600 crew! (Of course, I'm not considering whether a 540' Enterprise could actually support a crew of 203, which is questionable. Indeed, a 947' ship supporting a crew of 430 is a tight squeeze, as evidenced in Franz Joseph's deck plans. (By the same argument applied in reverse, a 540' ship should only support a crew of 50.) I guess this disproves my assumption about the "203 lives" being for a 540' ship.

Why not quite a bit larger than 947'? That would give room for a reasonable shuttle bay, two real decks in the saucer rim, etc. (even a forward-facing bridge)

Note: I'm not asking "what size IS it"; it IS 947' long. I'm asking WHY it might have been decided to make it 947' long.


----------



## uss_columbia

I'd forgotten about this form earlier in the thread:



Richard Compton said:


> MGagen said:
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting side note: If the ship was intended to be 945' in length, the scale would have worked out to exactly 1:84.
> 
> 
> 
> That difference of 2 feet which would make the scale exactly 1:84 is interesting. I wonder if this could be explained somehow.
Click to expand...




MGagen said:


> ...All we are left with is the assumption that someone mistook a "5" for a "7" on a drawing somewhere and the error was never caught.


Though it seems hard to mistake a 5 for a 7, I like this theory a lot! If they wanted a size almost but not quite double for some reason, someone known to like model trains might decide to rescale it to HO: a 945' ship. Maybe then Gene said he preferred 947. Or maybe MJ preferred it. 947 is a prime number! Much more interesting than 945 .

Anyway that still leaves the mystery of why they wanted a size near double but not double. (Maybe they had some resistance to crossing the 1000' mark (that Probert wanted to exactly reach in his "refit" (which was a totally new ship)  ).)

Paul


----------



## ken072359

uss_columbia said:


> Though it seems hard to mistake a 5 for a 7, I like this theory a lot! . . . Maybe then Gene said he preferred 947. Or maybe MJ preferred it. 947 is a prime number! Much more interesting than 945
> Paul



Is this the first occurrence of the famous Trek fixation with the number 47? :tongue:


----------



## uss_columbia

Actually, 945 is kind of fun, too: divisible by 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9. Still not as cool as 947, though. 

Ken: what other 47's are there in Trek?


----------



## MGagen

Someone has resurrected my old thread from the dead!

While I have been able to clear up that the current oddball scale is not the scale she was designed in, I am still working on why the final scale was chosen.

I do think the 945 foot theory is worth considering, although I can offer no evidence other than a comparison of how MJ wrote 5's and 7's. This is not conclusive and I wouldn't ask anyone to buy this as anything other than a vague possibility.

But I haven't given up the quest. Months of head-banging lead me to the breakthrough about the original scale. Perhaps some similar flash of inspiration will suggest the reason for 947.

If anyone else has an idea, I'm all ears...

Mark


----------



## TheYoshinator!

I'm certainly perplexed. From study of the recently posted Phase II blueprints with MJ's method of datum coming to light, it seems to me that he preferred to work in 2's. He would more often than not make a key point an even number rather than odd. But it isn't a strict rule he adhered to.

I'm sure, Mark, that you tried to put yourself in his shoes and did this... even though it fails with all we know so far:

Lets say you have a 540' ship that the 'suits' want doubled. You double its length and you then double the number of decks. But as an artist.. you look at it and say... "Crap! But to keep deck placements, I've been forced to make my deck thickness 2' instead of my preferred 1' ". So lets say you remake your decks 1' thick again. But then a new delema... he now had 11' deck height where he wanted 10' and says "Crap!" again. So he arbitrarily scales the ship by a certain percent and we get our 947'. BUT that would offset his deck thickness again... so that method is very unlikely.

But then there's the questions of: WAS it 540' or something else? Also... would he compromise on deck placement or deck height? Or would he set out to just re-draft it to the nearest 1' marks after said arbitrary rescale?

*shrug*

Honestly, I don't think we will ever know. There are too many possiblities at the moment. Not until some piece of paper comes to light that has at least SOME numbers to deduce from, will we have, literaly, a clue as to his intent.

BUT, here's an idea.

You are right about his numbers being hard to tell apart from time to time. It makes me wonder too. I mean 540' x 1.75 = 945' exactly. That would allow a simple compromise in readjusting deck placements AND thickness. For instance: A 10' deck would become 17' 6", a 12' deck would become 21'. All easy measurements from that scaling factor would be far easier to deal with than what I illustrated farther above with the what could be called the "Crap!" method. :lol:

On top of that, if you study his methodology between the two Phase II blueprints, you'll see that he liked to add 2 to things when he readjusted something. Purhaps he made an adjustement AFTER the 945' was reached. Which is why he was so adamant about it being 947' in the end.

Anywho, that's my take on it.


----------



## Captain April

I think it shows there was a lot of "close enough for television" type of work going on, i.e., they were working on a mid-60's science fiction tellevision show, not designing the follow-up to the Apollo missions. They got a lot of details worked out, but they also glossed over a lot of details along the way, and how the interior fit inside the exterior appears to have been one of them (especially since the size of the bloody ship kept changing on them!)


----------



## MGagen

Captain April said:


> I think it shows there was a lot of "close enough for television" type of work going on...


That's the same hot air I kept hearing from everyone when I was originally wondering about the scale. 

And if I had listened to it I never would have kept looking until I found proof that he WAS working in a definite, logical scale.

But it doesn't square with what we have seen of Matt Jefferies' methods. Go ahead and think he was just an average working slob. I'll put my money on a different interpretation. 

I haven't gone wrong yet overestimating Matt Jefferies.

Mark


----------



## Captain April

No, the average working slob of the time would've just done another variation on either a V-2 rocket or a flying saucer. I'm not saying they didn't do extensive work on the design, but they didn't have the time or the budget to work things out to the nth degree. Especially when you've got someone like Gene Roddenberry changing his mind and deciding that the ship needs to be twice as large as has already been planned out and at least partially built.

Keeping things a little on the loose side wouldn't be laziness, it'd be a necessity.


----------



## MGagen

Regardless of how _you'd_ do it, evidence points to Jefferies being pretty careful about scale. He did not work like many of his contemporaries would have. He took GR at his word when he said "If the audience doesn't believe it's a real space ship..." and gave him a very carefully planned ship. I'll use that as my guide and continue looking for the reason.

It's the same method that uncovered the original design scale when all the naysayers said there wasn't one, and it may well yield the re-scale rationale too.

Mark


----------



## ken072359

uss_columbia said:


> Ken: what other 47's are there in Trek?



USS, For info on the "47 conspiracy", check out this website, 
www.audiograffiti.com.au/47/


I don't put much stock in their 47 theory, I think its just a coincidence. But then again, who knows? :freak:


----------



## uss_columbia

Might as well resurrect the Engineering section discussion, too. (I was about to resurrect it on trekbbs instead, but it seems the most interesting discussion was done here.)


MGagen said:


> We must remember that when the sets were designed, the ship was something on the order of 540 feet in length. The "11-footer" was intended to be a 1:48 scale model. Because of this, you have to factor in a smaller ship when you try to descern the intents of the set designer. As a matter of fact, when placed in the kind of position I'm advocating, the visible ceiling of Engineering is 3'-3" inside the actual outer hull at this point on a 540 foot ship. If my measurements are a little off, this figure could be a little more or less -- but it's quite close.


Having just reread some of The Making of Star Trek (for other reasons), I've been thinking about the Engineering set. (I still need to go back and read the sections in there about the Engineering set design.)

What I do know is that of the sets prepared for The Cage, only the bridge was done by Jefferies (though Matt no doubt was involved in many discussions on them). But Engineering was not seen until the regular series.

Since the rescale to 947' had happened before the series (indeed before the first pilot was finished, most likely), the ship would not have been 540' at the time of the creation of the set. That doesn't mean the preliminary drawings weren't made back when it was 540', though.

Based on Jefferies' Phase II work, I think he definitely placed the set where MGagen describes. However, this was not necessarily his original intent; he had three seasons of episodes to consider.


I'm with Aridas on the idea that the engine room(s) may have been originally conceived as being in the nacelles, the forced-perspective thing behind the mesh being a view down the nacelle (either toward the domes on the front or the warp coils toward the rear).

What's the radius of the curved ceiling of the set? It looks to be only about 15'. In a 65' diameter nacelle, that would place it over fifteen feet from the surface, but that doesn't bother me.

Aridas: why do you think the concept of engine-room-in-the-nacelle was abandoned (if it ever existed) *before* the set was built?

Also, people often refer to the "three reactor" theory. Can someone point me to a good writeup on it?

Thanks


Paul


----------



## aridas sofia

^I think putting engineering in the nacelle, if it ever was considered, was dropped because of the mandate that the engines must be very dangerous to be around. That was the reason MJ gave for putting the nacelles far away from the inahabited parts of the ship, on many of his design proposals. The cutaway he developed for TOS shows a room in the nacelle that has a very similar section to the engineering set however. And the curved ceiling of the engineering set (until *Mark* indicated its strong correlation to the secondary hull curve) seemed to indicate a possible placement in the nacelle. Checking closer, however, you'll find out the room in the nacelle on that Jefferies cutaway drawing is too small by a good percentage to be the engineering set on a 947' ship. Either the shape is mere coincidence and there is a smaller room up there that just happens to have a similar section, or it was put in there as a placeholder and was later put elsewhere. Furthermore, the placement of a room labeled "engineering" in the secondary hull on the Phase II cross section tells me *that* was where Jefferies understood the thing went. And that's good enough for me, though I do believe there must be other engine rooms in the primary hull, associated with the impulse drive.

As for the "three reactor theory", it was something I came up with after very carefully going over every script from the three seasons of TOS, and the two of TAS. Whenever the word "reactor" was mentioned, it was plural -- "reactors." And in several episodes we are told the _Enterprise_ is run by "M/AM reactors". Finally, in at least two episodes a character comes right out and tells us there are three, and names them "reactors one, two and three". 

My belief is that the original plan was for the reactors to be in the nacelles. But confusion and/or story necessity put a reactor right there in engineering by the late second season. It also clearly put matter and antimatter in the nacelles, along with reactors. So I think the "three reactors" mentioned in several episodes are DC Fontana's attempt to patch this discontinuity up. Following what I believe is her lead, and what is stated in the dialog, one of the reactors is near engineering, and the other two are in the nacelles.


----------



## MGagen

uss_columbia said:


> Since the rescale to 947' had happened before the series (indeed before the first pilot was finished, most likely), the ship would not have been 540' at the time of the creation of the set. That doesn't mean the preliminary drawings weren't made back when it was 540', though.


This is a very good point. I would love to know if the Engine Room was designed for the pilot, but not built until the series was going into production. If not, it is only a cooincidence that the ceiling matches the hull so closely at the 540 foot size. What remains, however, is the fact that it is concentric with the hull even at the 947 foot size (given MJ's location specified on his Phase II plans).



> What's the radius of the curved ceiling of the set? It looks to be only about 15'.


I make it out to be a 17 foot radius, based on photo analysis. The centerpoint of the arc is the bottom edge of the "Scotty Retaining Mesh" right in the center. This places the deck a little lower than the centerline of the hull, just like MJ's cross sections from both TMOST and Phase II. Of course there is a fair margin for error -- your mileage may vary. :roll: 

In my opinion, the rooms in the nacelles have never been seen. They couldn't be accessed unless the engines were cold. Main Engineering is in the secondary hull, just forward of the engine pylons. There is some kind of engineering facility in the primary hull associated with the impulse engines. Scotty's office is most likely there. 

Aridas Sofia had done an admirable job of documenting the dialog reasons for most of the above. And his three reactor theory harmonizes with the dialog evidence better than any other explanation.

Mark


----------



## Captain April

aridas sofia said:


> As for the "three reactor theory", it was something I came up with after very carefully going over every script from the three seasons of TOS, and the two of TAS. Whenever the word "reactor" was mentioned, it was plural -- "reactors." And in several episodes we are told the _Enterprise_ is run by "M/AM reactors". Finally, in at least two episodes a character comes right out and tells us there are three, and names them "reactors one, two and three".
> 
> My belief is that the original plan was for the reactors to be in the nacelles. But confusion and/or story necessity put a reactor right there in engineering by the late second season. It also clearly put matter and antimatter in the nacelles, along with reactors. So I think the "three reactors" mentioned in several episodes are DC Fontana's attempt to patch this discontinuity up. Following what I believe is her lead, and what is stated in the dialog, one of the reactors is near engineering, and the other two are in the nacelles.


The problem with this theory is that it requires any mention of the generic term "reactor" to automatically mean "matter/antimatter reactor", which is, quite frankly, a leap. The Federation, as presented, would seem to be primarily a fusion-powered society, with M/AM used for high-power applications like warp drives. It's perfectly within the realm of reasonabileness, as well as estabished canon, that the references to multiple reactors are references to fusion reactors on board the ship that serve as supplemental power sources.


----------



## Captain April

MGagen said:


> This is a very good point. I would love to know if the Engine Room was designed for the pilot, but not built until the series was going into production. If not, it is only a cooincidence that the ceiling matches the hull so closely at the 540 foot size. What remains, however, is the fact that it is concentric with the hull even at the 947 foot size (given MJ's location specified on his Phase II plans).


Television production being the beast that it is, particularly in the mid 60's, and especially with regard to a collossally expensive show like Star Trek (as much as we all bitch about the low budget, at the time, it was one of, if not _the_, most expensive show on television, with the equivilent of around a million bucks an episode to play with), the hard and fast rule is that you don't build a set unless you have a specific need for it (which was the reason Roddenberry gave for making damn sure that the engine room was shown *somewhere* in "Encounter at Farpoint" so he wouldn't have to argue about building it later).

So, while I don't doubt that there were some preliminary sketches floating around early on (doesn't take a doctorate in quantum mechanics to figure out that it might be fun to see the engine room of this big ship at some point), until the contracts were signed and money paid out for "The Enemy Within", the first episode to show us the engine room, it's a pretty safe bet that nothing was physically put down until then. There simply wouldn't have been any money for it. Going by the standard rules of television production, that is.

_However,_ seeing as that was the third episode, and they probably had the first thirteen episodes bought and in various stages of planning before actual production finally began, it's also a pretty good bet that it was at least under construction while they were filming "The Corbomite Maneuver", if not a little sooner.


----------



## aridas sofia

Captain April said:


> The problem with this theory is that it requires any mention of the generic term "reactor" to automatically mean "matter/antimatter reactor", which is, quite frankly, a leap. The Federation, as presented, would seem to be primarily a fusion-powered society, with M/AM used for high-power applications like warp drives. It's perfectly within the realm of reasonabileness, as well as estabished canon, that the references to multiple reactors are references to fusion reactors on board the ship that serve as supplemental power sources.


This would be an acceptable criticism but for the fact that twice the reactors are lumped together as "reactors one, two, and three". Stated as such there is a strong implication that they are reactors of the same kind, since there are no modifying adjectives to differentiate them. For example, if there is only one matter/antimatter reactor, there is no need to include it in the numbering scheme at all. It is *the only* m/am reactor, and an order dealing with it would be along the lines of "shut down reactors one and two and the m/am reactor." But they are all lumped together -- an inefficient naming scheme to say the least, and a scheme that fails to account for the convoluted dialog on the show. 

Allowing "reactors one, two and three" to mean m/am reactors in the nacelles and engineering hull accounts for other dialog that places reactors or parts of reactors in those places. You are free to use it, or not use it as you see fit. But ignoring it requires you to ignore or reconstruct significant portions of dialog that deal with this subject.


----------



## Captain April

I've seen stronger evidence from the Flat Earth Society.


----------



## uss_columbia

^ Hmm. It's surprising they'd take any interest in the internal arrangement of a vessel from a TV show that so blatantly displays round worlds.


----------



## aridas sofia

Captain April said:


> I've seen stronger evidence from the Flat Earth Society.


Of course! Dialog is worthless, particularly when it conflicts with your preconceived determination on how to lay out the ship. I really can't imagine why it's taken you so long to finish your deck plans, since the research involved in determining preconceived notions amounts to no more than talking to yourself. :jest: 

Measurements of the model and construction drawings are fine for certain aspects of this design, but particularly with the internal layout, dialog plays a part in determining what the intended layout was supposed to be (when such a thing existed). The design intentions of Jefferies are on record as far as why he put those nacelles so far away from the rest of the ship. On multiple occasions the dialog supports his notion -- namely, that the massively powerful reactors had to be kept far away from the people. The reactors, the matter and antimatter, the coming explosion when the two meet -- these are in the nacelles according to some instances of dialog.

But on other occasions it is less clear, and in fact a pretty strong inference is made than a reactor is near engineering. 

Then there is a third layout that is mentioned -- three reactors. Either three reactors were the plan all along, or this was a case of making sense from the confusion. Or, as you would have us believe, the makers of the show were hopped up, over-tired, and/or careless. The plain evidence of quality that pervades all aspects of the show's design thoroughly contradicts this last assertion.

The one thing that is certainly not supported by the dialog is one reactor. That would require reconstructing the "three reactor" mentions, AND the dialog placing reactants or reactors in the nacelles. 

I know this doesn't make a dime's worth of difference to you, because you are determined to have it your own way. But this isn't like the case of the forward facing bridge, where you have almost no evidence to contradict dropping it to deck two, and a lot of people sympathetic to your desire to have it face forward. In this case there is a LOT of evidence against one reactor, a lot of people wedded to reactors in the nacelles, and very few people that seem to care if the thing ends up with just one in engineering. In this case your hell-bent for leather notion is a loser, all around.


----------



## trekkist

"Where No Man Has Gone Before" includes a line of Scotty's (to Kelso, I think his name is, just before he's strangled to death), "Fission chamber three checks out." Thus, there were at least 3 fission "chambers" (reactors) aboard at that time.

Without exception, reference was made to "THE (emphasis added) matter/antimatter reactor."

Spock's order to Chekov ("Who Mourns for Adonais?" if memory serves) to apply the output of "reactors one, two and three" I take as implying the existence of MORE than 3 "reactors" (if there were but 3, why not say "all reactors?").

Thus, it seems to me the ship had (at least) 3 "fission chambers" -- which may or may not have been the latter references' "reactors." More likely, there were (at least) 3 "fission chambers," and more than 3 (fusion) reactors.

David Winfrey


----------



## Trek Ace

Maybe Scotty meant _fishin'_ chambers?


----------



## aridas sofia

trekkist said:


> Without exception, reference was made to "THE (emphasis added) matter/antimatter reactor."


This is untrue. In my study of the all the dialog, I found only a few instances where one single reactor was mentioned. The vast majority of references were to an unspecified number of multiple, plural "reactors".

And in the one or two places where a single reactor was mentioned, there was nothing to indicate it was the _only_ one.


----------



## ThomasModels

We ran a simulation on our Atari 2600 and THIS is what happens when all you engineers cannot figure how many and what type of reactors there are on a Constitution Class Starship:

http://www.thomasmodels.com/exeter/EXPLOSION.wmv


----------



## trekkist

"This is untrue. In my study of the all the dialog, I found only a few instances where one single reactor was mentioned. The vast majority of references were to an unspecified number of multiple, plural "reactors"."

I think you'll find that all references to multiple reactors omit the phrase "matter/antimatter," whereas all matter/antimatter reactor references are preceded by the word "the" -- and never occur in the plural.

If this is not the case, please specify exception(s).

David Winfrey


----------



## heiki

ThomasModels said:


> We ran a simulation on our Atari 2600 and THIS is what happens when all you engineers cannot figure how many and what type of reactors there are on a Constitution Class Starship:
> 
> http://www.thomasmodels.com/exeter/EXPLOSION.wmv


So how does that space-junk still have reisual energy? Is it like, dieseling?


----------



## aridas sofia

trekkist said:


> If this is not the case, please specify exception(s)


If you put the question that way, twice the reference is to the "matter antimatter reactor". And once Spock tells us:

"The Enterprise is propelled by matter-anti-matter reactors" 
Spock, in "By Any Other Name"

Since this idea that the other reactors aren't M/AM is a new one that deserves further checking I'm not really able to adequately comment. But here are a few of the references that seem to conclusively state there are multiple places where the matter and antimatter are together, and several of the places where it's stated this combination is in the nacelles:

Same episode as above:
"Scott, I have opened the control valves to the matter-anti-matter nacelles." 

"That Which Survives"
"That would explain the high radiation readings, if the matter/ antimatter engines--"

"I, Mudd"
"I've connected the matter-antimatter pods to the main navigational bank."

"The Doomsday Machine"
"Somehow the antimatter in the warp drive pods has been deactivated."

"The Savage Curtain"
Scott: "We have a complete power failure. We're on emergency battery power.
Kirk: - What happened? - 
Scott: I can't explain it, sir, but the matter and antimatter are in red zone proximity.
Kirk: - What caused that? - 
Scott: There's no knowing... and there's no stopping it either. The shielding is breaking down, and I estimate four hours before it goes completely.
Four hours before the ship blows up.

Kirk: Scotty, inform Starfleet Command. Disengage nacelles, Jettison if possible."

"Obsession"
"Antimatter seems our only possibility. An ounce should be sufficient. We can drain it from the ship's engines, transport it to the planet surface in a magnetic vacuum field."


----------



## trekkist

I sit corrected -- to some degree. Consultation of the verbatim TOS transcripts found at

voyager.cz/tos/transcripts.htm

confirms the references to "matter/antimatter pods" in "I, Mudd" and "matter/antimatter engines" in "That Which Survives." In "By Any Other Name," it is Scott (not Spock) who says, "I've opened the control valves to the matter/antimatter nacelles. On your signal, I'll flood them with positive energy." The cited line of Spock's

"The Enterprise is propelled by matter-anti-matter reactors" 

does NOT appear (Spock's reference is to the barrier's being composed of negative energy).

However...I think a distinction needs to be made between dialogue references to the (singular) matter/antimatter reactor, and those to M/AM "pods," "nacelles," or "engines." Why? Simply because the TOS staff did not define things technologically to the degree we fans have tried to...or, for that matter, as was attempted in Next Gen. The latter, after all, completely did away with the idea of the nacelles even containing antimatter, and relegated the M/AM reactor to the engineering hull. Are we therefore to conclude the Enterprise-D's nacelles functioned on a different principle than those of Kirk's ship? Or shall we throw out all TOS references to the "pods/nacelles" containing antimatter?

The best compromise, in my estimation, is one I reached in co-authoring an (unpublished) "tech manual" back in the '80s (which book extrapolated upon aired data to theorize how the ship "really" worked). Aboard ship -- presumably in the secondary hull -- exists the M/AM reactor (presumably teh same as what "That Which Survives" calls the "integrator"). Within the nacelles are paired, self-contained matter/antimatter "engines" which may (or may not) draw upon the reactor for operating power, but whose M/AM annihilation process does not supply energy to the ship (save of course we presume diversion from the ship's slowing in "The Changeling" when "warp power" -- the "power" generated in the warp "engines" -- is diverted to the shields). As further support, I offer Scott's interrupting of the -- singular -- flow of antimatter in "That Which Survives," and the (single) M/AM reactor being sabotaged in "Elaan of Troyius."

One might further theorize that the nacelles' M/AM reactions are somehow related to Franz Joseph's "space energy/matter warp principle" of operation (whose terminology is presumably canon given its incorporation into bridge intercom callouts in the pre-orbital-departure sequence of the Motion Picture). 

If this sounds like a cop-out, bear in mind that as late as "Metamorphosis," Zefram Cochrance was called "the discoverer of the space warp" -- NOT the inventor of warp drive. 

David Winfrey


----------



## MGagen

Now this is more like it. Polite, intellectual debate, with evidence cited.

Aridas Sofia and Trekkist are two of my favorite posters; both of whom have affected my opinions about various and sundry trek issues.

Now I can sit back and watch you hash out an issue you have both studied in greater depth than I ever will -- and learn something I didn't know before.

That's what I love about this place.

Mark :hat:


----------



## Trek Ace

My favorite poster is the large, six-foot cutaway of the Enterprise from ST:TMP. It has affected me, too!


----------



## aridas sofia

trekkist said:


> The cited line of Spock's
> 
> "The Enterprise is propelled by matter-anti-matter reactors"
> 
> does NOT appear (Spock's reference is to the barrier's being composed of negative energy).


Check again. It appears in the transcript for that episode here:

http://www.voyager.cz/tos/epizody/51byanyothernametrans.htm

as part of the statement by Spock that appears halfway down the page:



> There is one other possibility, Mr. Scott. The final decision, of course, must be the captain's, but i believe we must have it ready for him. The Enterprise is propelled by matter-anti-matter reactors. The barrier we must traverse is negative energy.





> The best compromise, in my estimation, is one I reached in co-authoring an (unpublished) "tech manual" back in the '80s (which book extrapolated upon aired data to theorize how the ship "really" worked). Aboard ship -- presumably in the secondary hull -- exists the M/AM reactor (presumably teh same as what "That Which Survives" calls the "integrator"). Within the nacelles are paired, self-contained matter/antimatter "engines" which may (or may not) draw upon the reactor for operating power, but whose M/AM annihilation process does not supply energy to the ship (save of course we presume diversion from the ship's slowing in "The Changeling" when "warp power" -- the "power" generated in the warp "engines" -- is diverted to the shields). As further support, I offer Scott's interrupting of the -- singular -- flow of antimatter in "That Which Survives," and the (single) M/AM reactor being sabotaged in "Elaan of Troyius."


This is very similar to the solution I proposed, explained in detail, and argued to death in a thread on the TrekBBS here:

http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/show...98&page=10&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=93&fpart=all

If I correctly understand what you are proposing, I think we are on the same page. I also speculated that the reactor in the secondary hull was for all the ship's functions, including the creation of a safe "picoverse" or warp bubble -- in other words a mini-universe -- necessary to maintaining life in the warped spacetime wherein the ship was traveling. The reactors in the nacelles, presumably factors of magnitude more powerful, were for the actual distortion of spacetime. That would equate with what Franz Joseph was proposing for the function of the nacelles, I believe. This arrangement is the only one that accounts for ALL the dialogue in ALL the TOS episodes, and even relates well to both what FJ showed and the later, enhanced role for the "linear intermix chamber" in TMP. FJ showed the propulsion system within the nacelles, as did Geoff Mandel later, and this explanation does not take away from that. Good thing, because Mandel's is based on the the interior of the nacelle shown in the TAS episode "One of Our Planets is Missing". TAS also shows us an "engineering core" near main engineering. What they show us in the nacelles and near engineering together accounts nicely for the three reactors mentioned in TOS, for the plural M/AM reactor reference, and the other M/AM "pod", "engine". and "nacelle" references. As I pointed out in that TrekBBS thread, it's also a redundant layout like that of modern nuclear naval vessels and actual and proposed missions of exploration over the centuries.

Under normal circumstances all three reactors were necessary for normal function of the warp drive, because the bubble and other ship's functions were just as essential as the space warping. Under certain conditions, as we debate in the TrekBBS thread, one or two could do a diminished job, but under other circumstances that would be impossible (namely when sabotage prevented one or two of them taking over the three reactor job).




> I think a distinction needs to be made between dialogue references to the (singular) matter/antimatter reactor, and those to M/AM "pods," "nacelles," or "engines." Why? Simply because the TOS staff did not define things technologically to the degree we fans have tried to...or, for that matter, as was attempted in Next Gen.


Interviews with Matt Jefferies, both in the years before his death and back in the 60s, have him calling the nacelles "pods". Always. I was surprised to never find him even call the things nacelles, though he must have also given the writers that term. I am convinced "pods" was his shorthand word for the things, and that it was adopted by the writers. If so, it considerably increases the (already multiple) references to M/AM in the nacelles. And if matter and antimatter are in the nacelles, there must be also be reactors in the things. Otherwise we have the crazy system of reactants being pumped down into the inhabited areas to be combined in a dangerous reaction, only to be pumped back up to where they started to begin with. Oh, that and find a place for "reactor*s*" in the secondary hull. And explain why Kirk and Scott are taking antimatter into the nacelle in that TAS episode, why Kirk wants to get rid of the nacelles and not a hull-bound reactor when the matter and antimatter get in "red zone proximity", etc. etc.


----------



## TheYoshinator!

Yet another interesting debate that's a bit beyond my knowledge.

So pardon me if my comments miss the mark.

I'm not going to say yay or nay here. But some things should be considered here. At least from my limited perspective.

Sometimes things are pluralized when being referred to in a general manner. Say like you meet some rude oddball on the street and say "where do THESE crazy people come from?" Even though there's only one standing there. When refering to the nacelles, it can be interpreted as a reference to the technology... and not neccessarily the ones they are currently dealing with.

That's a bit of a stretch I admit, but not an impossiblilty.

Also, I'm not sure the presence of "antimatter" in the engines is that conclusive since as I was made to understand, when I was younger and way before TNG trek-nology, that it wasn't plasma that was going to the engines. It was dumbed down anti-matter- a mixture of Dilithium and Antimatter. Am I wrong on that one?

*shrug*


----------



## trekkist

Aridas,

Great comments on the trekbbs thread! I agree.

Please check your inbox for a private message. 

David Winfrey


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

trekkist said:


> Aridas,
> 
> Great comments on the trekbbs thread! I agree.
> 
> Please check your inbox for a private message.
> 
> David Winfrey


Did you ever read my question about the McMasters Klingon blueprints, Trekkist?


----------



## trekkist

Chuck,

Belatedly read your PM...you've a response PM as of, oh, yesteray I think.

David Winfrey


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

trekkist said:


> Chuck,
> 
> Belatedly read your PM...you've a response PM as of, oh, yesteray I think.
> 
> David Winfrey


Nope. No PM.
Click on my username and email me if necessary.


----------



## trekkist

Will do -- eh, did. Thanks!

David Winfrey


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Anybody made any progress on their CGI Enterprises?


----------



## Captain America

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Anybody made any progress on their CGI Enterprises?


I am. SLOWLY. Working on the Secondary hull again. Those flat side inserts will drive me nuts YET.

This is what I got so far:

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/gregorylissandrello/my_photos

She's being 'tooled' in Lightwave 8...in Subpatches.

I'm not quite at Vektor's( TrekBBS) level yet...but I'm workin' at it... :roll:

Please bear in mind I'm not trying to replicate her exactly. I'm likely to refine (to my eyes) the contours/proportions a bit. When done, I want to make her look 100 years more modern than the NX-01, rather than the other way 'round...


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

MGagen said:


> I am reluctant to share the cross section without the permission of my source. I have emailed him about it and will let you know if I can (or he will ).
> 
> Mark


 




I understand if you cannot share the cross section(of the TMP Refit and the later A version) with us.

But would everyone please give their opinions of the best Refit interior cross sections available.

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 in relation to the rest of the ship.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can help,
Chuck


----------



## uss_columbia

I was interested to see who had dredged up this fun old thread and why ... but was disappointed to see the new post relates to the refit rather than original series Enterprise.
(I like both, but it was the discussion about the original and when it must have been rescaled from 540' to 947' and why 947' etc. that made the thread so interesting.)


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

That's still an interesting question.

Really the way it came about was originally as part of a thread about the TOS shuttlecraft.

To make everything fit in the shuttlecraft's interior exactly as seen onscreen you would have to construct the shuttle to be 32 feet long. To make her fit without noticable trimming of the shuttle interior would still take a little less then 30 feet.

The issue then became how big the TOS shuttlebay would have to be to hold them.

Then by extension, how big the TOS E would have to be to hold such a shuttlebay.

It's already been acknowledged that the shuttlebay as filmed originally in TOS just won't fit as seen onscreen in a 947 foot ship.

That having to do with the use of a forced perspective shuttlebay in original TOS' filming.

No matter how big one finally decides to make either the ship or the shuttlebay, the shuttlebay will look very different then originally seen onscreen in TOS when not shown in a forced perspective manner.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

BTWay, if one were to try to explain away the forced perspective set as simply a scene filmed with a too-wide lense, to try and make a shuttlebay as wide(put aside the height problem for a second and just consider width - a simpler thing to adjust for) the TOS E would probably have to be closer to 1400 feet then 947 feet.

Which personally I have no problem with.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

I believe the reason people debate this is best explained by Phil Broad in a quote early in the thread:



X15-A2 said:


> Hi Mark,
> 
> 
> 
> You may be right with your aurguments here but I do like having that extra bit of space...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad you like my design efforts too. It is a fun challenge for a designer.
> 
> 
> 
> The "actual size" of the ship only really matters if one is interested in studying the relationship between the interior and the exterior.
> 
> Of course for most model builders "true scale" issues go right to the heart of their hobby.
> 
> Since many people are interested in further detailing the ship by working out deck plans and such, the "true size" then becomes primary.
> 
> For me the search is to discover the true intent of the original designers and therefore learn a little more about the design.
> 
> 
> 
> But in the big scheme of things it is of no real importance.
> 
> 
> 
> Phil Broad
> 
> Model Builders Reference Vault
> 
> http://www.cloudster.com


To that I would add that there are those who are now working on thorough 2D and 3D versions of an eventually complete(every deck and passageway if not every room) TOS Enterprise Interior - most notably Aridas, Todd Guenther and Tallguy's efforts here: 

http://www.federationreference.com/forum/viewforum.asp?forum_id=9&cat_id=25&topic_id=307&cat_name=Special+Project%3A+NCC%2D1701+Cross+Section&topic_name=The+Place+to+Start%2E%2E%2E&mode=iVRjLgbcVP&c_status=sNYfR&t_status=sNYfR

I'm not in on their planning, but I'm sure they want to display as much as they can as consistent as possible with what was seen onscreen in TOS(or remastered TOS?).

So for me, if everything can be displayed 100% consistent with what we saw onscreen(or the Remastered version in some cases) then I don't care if they have to make the ship 1400 feet long to do that.

Again, if they can fit it in 947 feet without ridiculously thin decks and hull then fine. If they can't and have to make the exterior larger I don't see how that is a big deal. 

But that's just me. I'd rather it look right then try to fit a ten pound ham in a five pound bag.


----------



## MGagen

I am as surprised as anyone that my long dormant Scale thread has been brought to life yet again.

To any newcomers I say: give it a read from the beginning. It's an interesting discussion where a lot of new information was documented.

Also, this thread was _occasioned_ by the Shuttlecraft thread, but was not _inspired_ by it. Making the hangar "fit" is not what drove my investigation into the scale of the ship. It was instead a desire to understand the original intent of Matt Jefferies and to account for the seemingly odd-ball scale the model was built in. The subject merely came up in the Shuttle thread and I split it off before it could derail that discussion.

M.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Sorry, didn't mean to explain your inspiration. I should have used a different term I guess. I was simply trying to explain how the conversation came up originally.

My apologies.

The new thread start was appreciated at the time and still is.

Great thread, MGagen! :thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

BTWay, did you ever get permission from your friend to post his cutaway?


----------



## uss_columbia

It was fun scanning back through this thread. It covers the interesting engineering debate, for instance. A lot of the most interesting size discussions were in an earlier thread, though; unfortunately, I couldn't find it. I couldn't find the old bridge orientation threads, either. I guess the search function doesn't go "all the way" back.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

One trick to finding some older threads in the search engine is to use the "Advanced" feature and then when go to the bottom of the form and choose "Ascending Order" instead of the default descending order. 

The reason the search engine will often appear to go back as far as it can is that it will only display a max of 100 results. If you choose "Ascending Order" the search will start with the oldest dated hits instead of the newest. You might still max out the 100, but they should be the oldest 100 instead of the most recent 100 results.

Hope this helps. :thumbsup:


----------



## MGagen

uss_columbia said:


> I couldn't find the old bridge orientation threads, either. I guess the search function doesn't go "all the way" back.


Some things are best left shrouded by the mists of time...

M.


----------



## Griffworks

They might have been deleted at some point in the past. The only stuff I've deleted was two threads that got waaaay out of hand and would've required more work on deleting individual posts than I was willing to put in to it. Plus, there would have been like maybe 1/4 of the posts left.... 

Anyhow, I'll see if I can dig back a bit and see what I can find. Do you recall what the dates were for the threads? Or the Titles?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

If the thread was locked and the last post was over two years old... 

isn't any post over two years without an update auto-deleted?


----------



## Griffworks

I have no idea, tho guess it's possible.


----------



## uss_columbia

MGagen said:


> Some things are best left shrouded by the mists of time...


 At least it was tamer here than the similar discussions over at trekbbs.


----------



## uss_columbia

Chuck_P.R. said:


> isn't any post over two years without an update auto-deleted?


It would appear not, as this thread went some 29 months without a post before you revived it.


----------



## uss_columbia

Griffworks said:


> They might have been deleted at some point in the past. The only stuff I've deleted was two threads that got waaaay out of hand and would've required more work on deleting individual posts than I was willing to put in to it. Plus, there would have been like maybe 1/4 of the posts left....
> 
> Anyhow, I'll see if I can dig back a bit and see what I can find. Do you recall what the dates were for the threads? Or the Titles?


While there were strong opinions expressed and a little bad-mouthing by and of a certain CRA, these discussions were overall civil and interesting. I especially like the one that details the reasoning on the 540' arguments (with the little numbered markers on the model and such). Mark had shared lots of great information, and several others had interesting bits of evidence to add. The bridge discussion also had bits of interesting old set drawings with profiles, estimated dimensions, etc. It would be a shame if all that was lost.
I recall there were at least two different threads that had parts of the Enterprise size discussions and at least two others about bridge size and orientation. I sure don't remember the titles or dates, only that they were a long time ago. (Some were in the old culttvman forum, some in Dave's CGI forum; I thought all those threads got moved into this forum, though.)

I tried Chuck's suggestion about ordering the results but still didn't find them. I also tried more specific keywords, e.g., "bridge orientation" to no avail. Oh, well. I probably remember it as being more fun that it really was anyway.  I did save the most interesting images with reference marks and such.

(Many of the arguments were crossposted on trekbbs; I could go search there, but I doubt they retain old threads as long as hobbytalk. (And the discussions were less civil there.))


----------



## uss_columbia

I did find one of the later bridge discussion threads.
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=85083 
I was LOL after reading posts 7-9! Good one, Chuck!

Edit: #15's a knee-slapper, too!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

It was way funnier before a post was deleted(not the one I was quoting, but another one) in which somebody was almost assuredly making up info and name dropping at the same time in quite a snipping manner.

Some people are afraid to say things like "I don't have any evidence, but __X___ makes the most sense to me."


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Yep. Watching those little slap fights often were entertaining.

But you had to keep opening new copies of the pages as they unfortunately ended up having to be "sanitized for our protection" quite often.

Many of the most hilariously enjoyable entries are gone. 

It's a shame because between the lines of snipes the two sides did impart a tremendous amount of technical info that was interesting no matter which side you were on.

The whole exchange used to remind me of that Saturday Night Live skit Dan Akroyd and Jane Curtain used to do - Point/Counterpoint...

or as I used to call it the "Jane, you ignorant slut!" skit. :lol:

*(^notice no technically profane language used!^)*


----------



## X15-A2

Hey Chuck, I'm still around but have mostly been a "lurker".

Phil


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Glad to hear you are still kicking.

Now if only the Blender afficianado would check in.

Plus, where the heck is Trekkist?


----------



## uss_columbia

uss_columbia said:


> I did find one of the later bridge discussion threads.
> http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=85083


I found a link to Ziz's original Ultimate Bridge thread, but it appears the thread has been deleted. 
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=85998


----------



## uss_columbia

The engineering section discussion is still around, though: part of it is in the remaining bridge thread and more (and better) such discussion is in Engine Room, Report!

Now, if I could just find the original Enterprise size thread with all the 540' evidence...


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Yep. I cried when I saw that one and it didn't work.

Ziz and MGagen are pretty much the authorities on the TOS E bridge.
Maybe two or three other people are in the same class on the subject, like maybe Aridas Sofia and one or two of the people who have done 3D models of the subject.


----------



## MGagen

All my old threads seem to be springing back to life. 

This link will take you directly to the post on TrekBBS where I detailed my findings on the bridge geometry.

This link takes you to the post where I elaborated on why I believe the set was drafted this way.

As for why I believe the soundstage drawing is accurate when it depicts this odd geometry: It would take a lot more effort to draft the bridge with this arrangement than to merely divide it into equal 36 degree sections. 

Cheers!

M.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

That does make a ton of sense.

Why go to the trouble of drawing the piece with one slightly oddball section,
when it would have been a lot easier to draw it in 10 equal sections?

Simple and to the point explaination. Quite scientific.

BTWay, when are you going to loosen your grip on those detail drawings of the *non*-preliminary bridge construction drawings?


----------



## MGagen

I'm afraid you've got the wrong guy. I've never seen "non-preliminary" construction drawings of the bridge. Rumor was that New Voyages had some, but after making inquiries many moons ago and reading what those folks have written in various places I'm a little skeptical.

M.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

MGagen said:


> I'm afraid you've got the wrong guy. I've never seen "non-preliminary" construction drawings of the bridge. Rumor was that New Voyages had some, but after making inquiries many moons ago and reading what those folks have written in various places I'm a little skeptical.
> 
> M.


If your skeptical then they probably don't have a set. 

If they aren't displaying any knowledge that's superior to what is already known about the set then they probably have no such knowledge. Why would you have such plans and not display them by building a more accurate set?

You wouldn't fail to display such info.
It would be evident in the sets, which it isn't.

Their bridge looks spectactular, but no moreso then a few others who have only used fan produced and Stage blueprints as their general guide.

I guess it's more likely perhaps that some Stage detail sheets that Lincoln Enterprise sold might show up.

Were those sheets one of a kind, or copied? 

Either way, it seems that Gene and Majel are more likely to have completely raided any plans etc that weren't nailed down then it is likely that anyone from New Voyages got there before Gene and Majel snatched them up.

On top of that, the plans had to have been taken decades ago, long long before the New Voyages Project was in the works.

I doubt that someone taking the plans decades ago would have said to themselves "Hey, maybe a couple of decades from now a fan production will want to have the most accurate bridge ever produced. I'll just keep these plans totally secret for decades instead of sharing them."

If they got'em someone would have copied them by now and distributed them in some limited fashion.

I think we are more likely to have success with some fan who bought a set of Stage blueprints from Lincoln Enterprises that happened to have bridge construction details on one of his sheets; and just has forgotten about them and stuffed them away in his attic somewhere.

Here's to hoping someone's spring cleaning will turn up a Trek treasure or two.


----------



## X15-A2

Things stay private for very long periods of time. I've never 'fessed up to a few of the original Trek bits that are in my collection either.

All it would take is for one of the "New Voyages" folks to have contact with the person who has the drawings today for them to have access and they seem to have a wide list of contacts. The reason the plans have been kept under wraps seems fairly obvious to me, the Paramount legal Dept would fall all over themselves in an effort to prosecute the current owners. Afterall, "Star Trek" is the biggest cash-cow Paramount owns and they have no drawings from which to base future products on!

The people at "New Voyages" may not have access to such drawings but two things are true; the drawings exist in private hands and "New Voyages" has influential friends amongst the fan/collector community.

There are still many pieces of TOS Trek hardware which have never gone public but are known to be in private hands. The plans are no different.

I think the "New Voyages" folks are just good at keeping their mouths shut. They wouldn't want to risk alienating themselves from future sources, would they?


----------



## uss_columbia

A question for MGagen (or anyone else that knows the answer):

One of the key clues about the original scaling of 540' is the "inch" markers on the ship. Were these marks on the 3-foot model, too? Or is it just that he'd already designed the decal sheet for the 4X model before it was rescaled? (And is it Datin or Jefferies that designed the decals? Whom should we thank for the humorous little signs on the ship? (tailpipe socket adjustment and such))


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

X15-A2 said:


> Things stay private for very long periods of time. I've never 'fessed up to a few of the original Trek bits that are in my collection either.
> 
> All it would take is for one of the "New Voyages" folks to have contact with the person who has the drawings today for them to have access and they seem to have a wide list of contacts. The reason the plans have been kept under wraps seems fairly obvious to me, the Paramount legal Dept would fall all over themselves in an effort to prosecute the current owners. Afterall, "Star Trek" is the biggest cash-cow Paramount owns and they have no drawings from which to base future products on!
> 
> The people at "New Voyages" may not have access to such drawings but two things are true; the drawings exist in private hands and "New Voyages" has influential friends amongst the fan/collector community.
> 
> There are still many pieces of TOS Trek hardware which have never gone public but are known to be in private hands. The plans are no different.
> 
> I think the "New Voyages" folks are just good at keeping their mouths shut. They wouldn't want to risk alienating themselves from future sources, would they?


Makes sense.

Is there anything in their bridge construction that stands out from other more readily available sources of info?


----------



## uss_columbia

I tried to find a picture of the decal sheet, but couldn't find it. Wasn't there such a pic at IDIC? The IDIC decal page now has no photo, just descriptions.
Also, is it my imagination, or are the IDIC pages now lower resolution than in years past? (It might just be that my monitor is higher resolution.)

The text description does say that the decal sheet included markings for the 3-footer, but it doesn't say which markings.


----------



## aridas sofia

The small signs were printed in a different font, or a different form of the same font -- I can't recall which, but they are different enough to make me strongly suspect they were not part of the manufactured "NCC-1701" decals, and may have been stock model airplane signage. The photos I've seen of the original decal sheets clearly show the large numbers and letters on backing paper that hasn't yellowed, but the sheet with the little signs is quite aged and discolored.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Aren't these "in-joke" signs visible on the 11 foot model hanging in the Smithsonian?
(I believe they were, at least before the "Mr. Ed" "restoration". Did he paint over them???).


----------



## uss_columbia

They used to be. They were removed in '92 if I remember right. A replacement "DO NOT READ THIS SIGN!" was put in for one of them, then it, too, was removed in 2000. You can find details at the IDIC Page. (No link handy, but Google can be your friend.)


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Another reason to LOVE the "restoration"!


----------



## uss_columbia

aridas sofia said:


> The small signs were printed in a different font, or a different form of the same font -- I can't recall which, but they are different enough to make me strongly suspect they were not part of the manufactured "NCC-1701" decals, and may have been stock model airplane signage. The photos I've seen of the original decal sheets clearly show the large numbers and letters on backing paper that hasn't yellowed, but the sheet with the little signs is quite aged and discolored.


I was just looking at some pictures of the "replacement" decal sheet, and it looks kind of like the yellowed one are attached to the same sheet. (Well, it actually looks like the backing of the main sheet goes between the other decals and their backing, which seems strange if they are waterslide decals.)


----------



## MGagen

I've seen the decals in person and I believe what you're looking at is an area where other decals have been cut out of the sheet. The signs had a definite background color printed around them.

M.


----------



## MGagen

Phil (X15-A2) raises some good points. Many folks have access to things that they are obligated to keep quiet about. And the NV folks certainly have excellent connections.

I guess the reason I am a little skeptical about them having access to construction drawings is that they've gone on the record as having based the set on the McMaster blueprints, but fixing some errors in them. If you had a set of actual construction blues, would you work from a less accurate, fan produced drawing?

Of course it's always possible they have a _portion_ of the construction BPs, but not enough to wholly base their set on them. In that case it would make sense to correct the McMaster drawings in light of the plans you do have and proceed from there.

M.


----------



## Griffworks

Or to go totally conspiracy theory here - perhaps they do indeed have accurate set construction plans, but are playing a game of misinformation by saying they're using the McMaster set with corrections. :freak:


----------



## uss_columbia

I was thinking the same thing as Griff.
Maybe they need to protect the owner of the construction prints, and therefore had to officially "base" on the McMaster but corrected all of the differences according to the construction blues, plus changes that may have come after the construction blues (during construction for the pilot / reconstruction for the series).

Have they stated exactly what corrections they made?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

The Truth is Out There!

(cue X-Files music...)


----------



## uss_columbia

MGagen said:


> I've seen the decals in person and I believe what you're looking at is an area where other decals have been cut out of the sheet. The signs had a definite background color printed around them.


Thanks for the confirmation.
Can you confirm that the decal sheet had decals for the 3-footer, too? And which ones? (It seems unlikely that it would have the stations numbers for the little 3-footer. Do you think Jefferies or Datin had just already designed the decal sheet while the ship was scaled at 540'? (And was it Jefferies or Datin?))


----------



## MGagen

I do not recall whether the smaller scale drawings were on the decal sheet auctioned. I can say that the 3-footer did have the station numbers. You can see them on both the pilot version and on the later series revised version. The pre-production shot of Spock holding the model in front of the red "radar screen" background shows them quite clearly on the spiked pilot version.

M.


----------



## uss_columbia

Thanks. (I've seen so few images of the 3-footer, mostly low-resolution.) I'll go look at the once on the IDIC Page again.

Edit: I can't really see them, nor can I say they aren't there from the images I've found online. Maybe some of the images I have in magazines will be clearer. Anyway, I'll take your word on it.


----------



## uss_columbia

BTW, on the IDIC Page about the replacement decals, McCullars says, "In addition to decals for the original 11-foot studio model, the sheets also include decals for the "three-footer." He doesn't describe them in detail, though.

(And I could have sworn there used to be a nice picture of the decal sheet on that page. Alas, it isn't there anymore.)


----------



## MGagen

Here you go: An image from _The Cage_ showing the station numbers visible on the "three-footer."

Click Here

These markings are even visible in the photo taken in front of the Rigel Fortress location on the day Richard Datin presented the model to Roddenberry.

M.


----------



## uss_columbia

Cool! I can't quite read the numbers on them, though. You sure they're the same as on the big one? :lol:


----------



## Rick Sternbach

The following is attributed to Phil Broad:

"The scale of the Enterprise miniature is not 1/84 or 1/85th, period. Rick [Sternbach] is mistaken if he believes that the studio art departments drew plans in odd scales like that, they don't. They draw plans in scales that they can measure with rulers, such as; 1/8, 1/12, 1/16, 1/32, 1/48, 1/96th, etc. If the model to be built is larger than they can comfortably draw on a given sheet of paper then it is drawn at a smaller scale and a note is placed on the face of the drawing such as "build twice size" "

I'd like to see the original posting or published material where I talk about "odd" scales. I don't recall having said anytihng of the sort.

Rick


----------



## uss_columbia

^ I think what we have here is a little misunderstanding about who said what or thought what, which was brought over from another thread. At the start of this thread, Mark was quoting what Phil had said in this thread, which was in reply to what Richard said in post #63, which was referring to what Mark said you said Gary Kerr said about the as-built size of the 11-footer. Confusing enough? 

Anyway, I think pretty much everyone now accepts that the "3 footer" was originally intended to be built to 1/192 scale (which would make the "4x" 11-footer 1/48 scale and the "real" ship 540'); and then the "real" ship was rescaled to 947' (though some prefer 1080' or larger).

What kinds of scales _do_ you tend to use? traditional English (e.g., '1/4" scale' (i.e., 1/4" = 1': 1/48), arbitrary fraction (e.g., 1/500), metric/English hybrid (e.g., 1mm = 1foot), or something else?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

That is how I remember it ...

The guy was quoting emails that had supposedly come from you at one point.
Obviously contrived quotes to back up some lame suppositions on his point.

These alleged emails the guy had been making up as he went along were so lamely contrived and transparent that a ton of people flamed back and forth between him and those who didn't like what he was doing.

It got so bad that the quotes and the entire exchange was deleted from the Bridge Blueprints thread.

The only evidence of the name-dropping and nasty exchanges that took place over it that is left is my tongue in cheek post in which I did basically what the guy had been doing in using you as a reference.

It was post #9 here:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=85083&page=1



Chuck_P.R. said:


> I talked to Majel Roddenberry the other day over coffee.
> 
> She says she was standing next to Jefferies while he drew it that way.
> 
> 
> 
> She had a copy of those plans, but they were stapled to that 3 foot Enterprise model Gene loaned out...


 
I don't believe that Phil ever supposed that you had said that, he was simply responding to what everyone knew at the time was one of many ridiculous statements being made.

He was simply challenging the guy who said it without going as far as to flame him or outright accuse the guy of lying.

Phil was incredulous about the statement, I doubt he had ever believed you had made it.

If the flame war over the guy using alleged emails from had not been deleted, I believe this would be very obvious. 

It was clear at the time nobody including Phil believed the guy, but I can see how, with his claims and the flame war that followed being deleted, what is left can be misunderstood.


----------



## uss_columbia

Chuck_P.R. said:


> The guy was quoting emails that had supposedly come from you at one point.
> Obviously contrived quotes to back up some lame suppositions on his point.
> 
> These alleged emails the guy had been making up as he went along were so lamely contrived and transparent that a ton of people flamed back and forth between him and those who didn't like what he was doing.


I'm not sure who/what you're referring to here. I think it's very unlikely you intend this to refer to MGagen, who is by all accounts perfectly reliable, but just in case anyone gets the wrong idea...

What Richard said Mark said Rick said Gary said (  ) is all documented and reliable. IIRR, it was originally posted on trekbbs (and too long ago to still be available there), but here's Mark's repeat of it here on hobbytalk (http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=1685331&postcount=12):


MGagen said:


> OK, here it is straight from the horse's mouth. Back in '03 I was asking about the size of the model on TrekBBS. To get an answer for me, Rick Sternbach contacted Gary Kerr about the actual length he came up with and he posted the following bit of email between himself and Gary:Rick: "I've been hangin' with some of the folks on TrekTech/TrekBBS, and there's talk about the "exact" scale of the 11-footer shooting miniature. Greg Jein said -you'd- know for sure, so here I am, asking away. I hear noise about 1:84, 1:86, 1:87, and 1:96 and a few numbers in between. Personally, I subscribe to 1:86, but I haven't done much in the way of calcs and photoanalysis."
> 
> Gary: "You're close, but no cigar.  First, the caveats:
> 
> I never had the time/resources to build a jig to make an overall measurement of the 11-footer. It would have been pointless, since the saucer is out-of-round, and the nacelles are neither parallel to each other, nor are they the exact same length (hey, it was just a TV prop!). Instead, I measured the individual components of the model & their attachment points, and made numerous templates & tracings. I measured the diameter of the saucer in several locations, then assigned it a best-fit diameter. Finally, I fed all the templates, tracings, and other measurements into my computer.
> 
> When I put all the pieces of the model together in AutoCAD, I arrived at an overall length of 134.08161" (to be Spock-like about it). Dividing that value into the theoretical length of 947ft gives you a scale of 1:84.75. Whew - a long story for a short answer!
> 
> BTW, the nav lights, lighted panels, and other features are not arrayed symmetrically about the upper surface of the saucer, so the builders had to fudge on the orientations of the radial grid lines to disguise the inaccuracies. (Similarly, John Goodson had to fudge on the locations of the radial strips on the bottom of the Enterprise-E's saucer because somebody had put the windows in the wrong location.) Anyhow, when I drew my plans, I made everything nice and symmetrical, so there are minute differences between the features on 11-footer's saucer and those in my plans. Yes, I'm a blaspheming heretic - so sue me!"​So there you have the best figure of 134.08161" and how it was arrived at. Not bad for a hand made model of this scale to come up less than an inch shorter than intended. And as I mentioned, most of the deviation comes from the smaller saucer. Was this due to a limitation of vacuumforming materials or tools? Probably. Another detail that undoubtedly contributed was the change to the angle of the edge of the saucer. The original plans were drawn with a flatter profile, more like the AMT model. This was likely changed by Roddenberry, but the portion of the plans I've been able to see show the change crudely drawn in by hand. No account was seemingly taken for how this would affect the attachment point for the dorsal pylon. Either the hull would have to be shifted back a little, or the pylon would run into the bottom of the impulse housing. Richard Datin, as a master model builder, would have taken all these things in stride and made what adjustments to the model were necessary to make it work.
> 
> Another interesting deviation is the angle of the engine pylons. The plan calls them out at 45 degrees, intersecting the centerline of the engines. The model as built has them at a more shallow angle and intersecting the engines a little lower than their centerlines. Once again we are left to guess as to why this was done, but I'd lay money on the change being a necessary compromise for buildability.
> 
> 
> M.


(It's also cited here: http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=1136052&postcount=10.)


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

No this exchange that I am talking about did not have MGagen as a poster. 

I don't remember the guy's name as the posts were deleted.

I know it was not MGagen.

The guy was not a regular poster here.

I do remember that he posted the comments about overall length in both threads. He flamed and was flamed back and forth all over the place and apparently has had his posts in both threads removed.

The only reason I even remembered it was the tongue and cheek joke I made emulating him escaped being deleted.

Since I could not remember the writer of the deleted posts, I DELIBERATELY DID NOT USE ANYONE'S NAME.

I would appreciate it if you would refrain from guessing and naming and implicating people out of a clear blue sky.

If I didn't mention a name, don't insert one for me.


----------



## uss_columbia

As I said:


uss_columbia said:


> just in case anyone gets the wrong idea...


Clearly, I didn't think you meant Mark, but it did seem to read that way, easy for someone to misunderstand. Anyone who's a regular here wouldn't think that's what you meant. But everyone isn't a regular.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

If somehow something I was talking about is directly related to something MGagen said, I am not aware of the connection.

Again, the posts have been sanitized for our protection, so I could not refer directly to the posts I recall stirring up the flame war. 

Some of CRA and MGagens posts were edited, even deleted(some of the best, in my view :tongue: ) 

but the posts I'm talking about were by a guy who seemed to be interested in that particular issue and the offset of the bridge elevator. 

He is the guy I remember outright saying that Rick had told him that the TOS art people built the ship in a weird scale because Roddenberry wanted it that way.

I believe that the guy had been trying to support the angle that the ship was intentionally and correctly drawn in the weird 1/86th scale.

He was really hung up on the "canon" length of the Enterprise, if I remember correctly.

I don't think that the post of Richard's was the only statement Phil was responding to in the one post. 

But again, so much has been cut out of both individual posts and both the length thread and bridge thread that it is hard to tell for sure.

Prior to all the moderator editing, it was apparent to most of us that no one believed the guy who claimed that the art department had drawn plans in the weird scale because Roddenberry told Jefferies to draw them that way to make the ship 947 feet.

I believe that claim was part of what Phil was originally responding to, not just Richard's posting.

It seemed to me(again, prior to all the editing and posts deletions) that Phil neither believed that Jefferies ever actually intentionally used the oddball scale - nor did it seem that Phil believed Rick Sternbach ever told the guy that the art department deliberately used an odd scale. 

After those two issues the guy either disappeared or has changed his monicker.


----------



## uss_columbia

Well, Rick's question came down to what Mark had said he said. And your old post you quoted above (#9 in the bridge thread) started off by quoting MGagen. These two things could certainly leave one who doesn't know better with the impression that you were talking about Mark.

Anyway, Phil was not referring to "the guy" in the bridge thread -- he couldn't have been, because Phil's post came about five months before the bridge thread started!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

I thought it was obvious that it was a tongue in cheek joke being shared between two people about a third party.

Now that I think about it, given everything that has been removed from that thread, I can see how someone who hadn't known about the other removed/edited exchanges might not have realized we were joking about a third party.

If anyone didn't understand that due to all the removed info, I apologize.

I was making fun of a third party by addressing the comment to MGagen,

sort of like when a guy brags about having tons of money, and you turn to your friend and say, "Hey Frank, did you hear I just bought the Queen Mary last week?"

It was clear that's what I was doing before all the post deletions and editing, but I can see how that might not be clear now.

Sorry about that.


----------



## uss_columbia

See above (which I may have edited after you last read it).
Check the dates:

Phil's original post: http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=969783&postcount=67
The bridge thread: http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=85083&page=1

It's as I said above in my answer to Rick's question, and your followup about the bridge thread is not directly related.


----------



## uss_columbia

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I thought it was obvious that it was a tongue in cheek joke being shared between two people about a third party.


I thought is was quite funny back then, but I thought it was meant to tease CRA.



> It was clear that's what I was doing before all the post deletions and editing, but I can see how that might not be clear now.
> 
> Sorry about that.


No prob. It was still clear to me, but I remember these threads well. I was just trying to make sure nobody else misunderstood. (I meant well, honest.)

Well, bed time. We'll argue again later.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

uss_columbia said:


> Anyway, Phil was not referring to "the guy" in the bridge thread -- he couldn't have been, because Phil's post came about five months before the bridge thread started!


I don't mean that he was referring to bridge thread posts.

I mean that he was reffering to the same guy who had made posts in both threads not that he was reffering to anything outside the thread.

The same guy started flaming exchanges in both threads.

I remember him posting and coming up with seemingly instant emails supposedly from TOS insiders in both threads.


----------



## Rick Sternbach

I suppose I was reacting to Phil's textual tone (if there even is such a thing) about what my perception would have been about scale drawings. I've done enough of them to know how it all works. In re-reading over the bits about me and Gary Kerr, I come away confident that I didn't push a belief that an "odd" scale was actually used by the studio, more just passing on some talk, even if I gave a lightweight personal opinion of what the scale of the ship might be "now" after gobs of modeler analysis.

Rick


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

So what scale is it probable that it was originally likely drawn at?

1/96th seems to the the logical, most likely choice as to the blues.


----------



## MGagen

Chuck_P.R. said:


> So what scale is it probable that it was originally likely drawn at?
> 
> 1/96th seems to the the logical, most likely choice as to the blues.


 From the first post in this thread:



MGagen said:


> The ship was originally drafted to yield a 33.75" model (the "3-footer") in 1:192 (1/16" = 1'). These same plans were used to build a 4X model (the "11-footer) in 1:48 (1/4" = 1'). The bizarre 1:84.75 scale is the result of an after-the-fact size change that happened after the blueprints were drawn and probably after at least the small model was built.


 The original scale was intended to depict a 540 foot ship. 

Why did they decide to go with 947 feet (and 1:84.75) instead of just doubling the length to 1080 feet (and a more reasonable scale of 1:96 or 1/8" = 1') when they wanted to enlarge the ship? My guess is that MJ decided it made more sense to double the number of decks in his plan _without also_ doubling the thickness of the decks and bulkheads. After all, the floors in a 20 story building aren't twice as thick as the ones in a 10 story building. But if you took a plan for a ten story building, doubled its height, and divided each floor into two equal floors that's exactly what you'd end up with. 

In any case, when Jefferies sat down to draft the thing originally, he was working at a very reasonable, easily converted scale. Only later, after the hard part was done and he was ordered to "just make it bigger" did he resort to the oddball scale we have now. It's a typical Hollywood production compromise.

M.


----------



## Rick Sternbach

MGagen said:


> In any case, when Jefferies sat down to draft the thing originally, he was working at a very reasonable, easily converted scale. Only later, after the hard part was done and he was ordered to "just make it bigger" did he resort to the oddball scale we have now. It's a typical Hollywood production compromise.
> 
> M.


And I can tell you first hand that oddball-ness has accompanied Star Trek over the years despite the efforts of some of us to keep it logical and precise. The VFX folks on DS9, for some wacky reason known to this day only to them, internally called for the space station diameter to be _exactly_ 5280.0 feet. Not that they ever kept a firm lock on relative visual size of stations and ships anyhow, but they did write this one down on a diagram of the FX models. Thanks goodness I didn't have to believe that number or ever have to work with it.

Rick


----------



## Griffworks

So, that puts the diameter of DS9/Terok Nor as being 1,609.34m. Interesting, as I seem to recall reading it being smaller, closer to 1,400m - tho that's likely fan-related recollection on my part. I'm curious to know how that makes the ERTL kit scale out. I suck at the whole math thing, so will have to wait 'til I get home for lunch or this evening after work to use the Modeling Scales program so that I don't screw it up. 

Not that I'm at all doubting you, Mr. Sternbach. I defintely appreciate such information from someone as reliable as you. Thank you, sir.  


Sorry for the side-track, folks. I now return you to your regularly scheduled topic.


----------



## Darth Humorous

Rick Sternbach said:


> …The VFX folks on DS9, for some wacky reason known to this day only to them, internally called for the space station diameter to be _exactly_ 5280.0 feet. …


 Very interesting, since 5280 feet is exactly one statute mile.

Mark


----------



## uss_columbia

Rick Sternbach said:


> The VFX folks on DS9, for some wacky reason known to this day only to them, internally called for the space station diameter to be _exactly_ 5280.0 feet. Not that they ever kept a firm lock on relative visual size of stations and ships anyhow, but they did write this one down on a diagram of the FX models. Thanks goodness I didn't have to believe that number or ever have to work with it.


*Exactly* that size is hard to swallow, indeed. But is that "about" the right size?

From Ex Astris Scientia :


> The original design size of Deep Space Nine was 3600 feet or 1097m, as the window heights and the diameter of the promenade deck and especially the diameter of the Ops easily prove. One reason for scaling the station up was probably to make it simply more "important". The other reason may have been to allow a Galaxy- or Nebula-class ship to dock underneath the upper pylon which would be easier at a total diameter of significantly more than 1000m. In some shots with a Nebula-class ship (and in the opening credits since the 4th season) the station seems to be even more than 2km wide. The 1451m diameter in the DS9TM is actually a compromise between these two extremes. Nevertheless, I tend to ignore the rather few shots with the Nebula and go with the design size, in order to match the interior and exterior sets. It would also help to keep the Defiant consistently at 120m instead of 170m, considering that 120m/170m for the Defiant is roughly the same as 1097m/1451m for Deep Space Nine.


Is it correct that originally intended size was 1097m? Is the final intended size 1451m? Are they both wrong?
Does anyone really care? 
(If features on the thing as seen can indeed "easily prove" the size was 1097m, I'm inclined to prefer that.)


----------



## MGagen

What's amazing is that despite all the rushing, hashing, pushing, pulling, slicing, dicing and julienne french-frying that goes on in the weekly battle to make a show like Star Trek, the original intent of the designers is sometimes still discoverable. And when you do find it, it usually makes good sense. 

You'd be surprised how many comments like "it could never work like that" go away when you get back to the original idea. A good example: "The primary hull of the Enterprise isn't big enough to fit all eleven decks in it."

Why do we think we need to? Because someone came along and wrote a description in the writers' guide without ever noticing that Jefferies had only designed the saucer with 8-1/2 decks. Today, folks who don't know better fault Jefferies for being sloppy. In reality, it's not his fault -- nor is it really the "fault" of the writers' guide editor. It's just an example of the mad rush that is TV production.

M.


----------



## Gary K

Rick Sternbach said:


> I suppose I was reacting to Phil's textual tone (if there even is such a thing) about what my perception would have been about scale drawings. I've done enough of them to know how it all works. In re-reading over the bits about me and Gary Kerr, I come away confident that I didn't push a belief that an "odd" scale was actually used by the studio, more just passing on some talk, even if I gave a lightweight personal opinion of what the scale of the ship might be "now" after gobs of modeler analysis.
> 
> Rick


Just to add to the confusion, I've revised the "official" length of the 11-footer in my plans. A few years ago, I had written this to Rick Sternbach:

"I never had the time/resources to build a jig to make an overall measurement of the 11-footer.... I measured the individual components of the model & their attachment points.... Finally, I fed all the templates, tracings, and other measurements into my computer. When I put all the pieces of the model together in AutoCAD, I arrived at an overall length of 134.08161" (to be Spock-like about it). Dividing that value into the theoretical length of 947ft gives you a scale of 1:84.75."

Thanks to the amazing 3D modeling skills of a friend plus some hi-res photos of the ship taken in the 60s, I was able to precisely determine the spatial orientation of the saucer, sec hull, and nacelles, relative to one another. The revised length of the model in my plans has increased by (drumroll, please) a whole 1/16" over the original. Dividing the new length into 947' gives you a revised scale of 1:84.72.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

Gary


----------



## uss_columbia

Crap! That extra 1/16" is going to make my carefully scaled scratch-built E completely unrecognizable! Back to the parts pile! :lol:
Thanks for the update, though. "Spock like about it" indeed!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Gary K said:


> Discuss amongst yourselves.
> 
> Gary


The info...

The detail...

it's just like butta!

I'm _ver-clempft_! :freak:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

BTWay Gary, is there any chance someone at Paramount might allow you or someone else to use your measurements of the Refit to do some blueprints of TMP and/or A Refit that are actually accurate to the filming miniature?

Could you tell us a bit about how you made your Refit CAD drawings?

Did yourself or anyone else get to make accurate drawings of everything that was auctioned at Christies before the miniatures were sold to the private collectors?

Sorry to bug you, but I wasn't anticipating being able to get your attention in a thread, and I don't like to bug people I don't know by emailing them. Board PM'ing is one thing, but unless I know from reliable sources that the person enjoys receiving fan questions, I like to treat everyone's email address as if it were their residence.


----------



## Gary K

Chuck_P.R. said:


> BTWay Gary, is there any chance someone at Paramount might allow you or someone else to use your measurements of the Refit to do some blueprints of TMP and/or A Refit that are actually accurate to the filming miniature?


I doubt it. Sorry to say, but I didn't have the same degree of access to the Refit model that I had with the TOS E. I watched the Refit being filmed at ILM for Star Trek VI, but I never got to make my own set of measurements. When I started blueprinting the model in 1999, even the Okudas had trouble getting access to the model. If the new owner of the Refit would say, "C'mon down," I'd be there in a heartbeat.



Chuck_P.R. said:


> Could you tell us a bit about how you made your Refit CAD drawings?


Well, THAT'S a truly hellish story! There were 3 main iterations of Refit plans: the original plans for Mike Okuda's aborted book on all the Enterprises (later published in a Pocket Books calendar), the Art Asylum plans, and the Polar Lights plans. I incorporated the latest reference materials into each iteration, and unfortunately, I had to virtually start from scratch each time. 

At first, I thought that all I had to do was to trace & add more detail to Dave Kimble's plans, which were published in conjunction with ST-TMP; however, after examining the plans in detail, I decided that it would be better to draw the plans from scratch. I had reliable data on certain key measurements, such as the length of the nacelles, diameter of the saucer, etc., so started by scaling some hi-res ortho photos in AutoCAD and tracing the outline of the ship. When I tried aligning the views, say the top view with the side view, I quickly learned the horrors of photo parallax. I had to make multiple copies of each ortho photo and scaled each one individually to a particular component of the ship. 

Getting the geometry of the nacelles correct was the worst part of the job. Bill George told me that one of his first jobs at the ILM model shop was building a pair of smaller-scale nacelles for the Reliant. He had a difficult time building the nacelles, even with the Enterprise model sitting there as a reference. Eventually, after many long, frustrating weeks at the computer, I was able to reconcile the views of the ship's components, and I combined them into one ship.

I used a slew of sources to detail the drawings: some studio plans, hundreds of reference photos, Trek DVDs, invaluable info from friends at the ILM model shop, reference material from a number of other individuals (Wm McCullars, Andrew Probert, Lee Stringer, Paul Newitt, Paul Olsen, Mark Dickson, the gang at Paramount, and many others), my set of leftover decals from ST-TMP, etc. Complicating matters was the fact that there were some subtle differences between the TMP and A versions of the model, plus both versions of the ship had evolved over the years. As my friends at ILM revealed, every time they uncrated the model for another movie, they had to replace missing/broken parts & decals, repaint nicks in the paint scheme, etc. Reference photos were in short supply at the time, and I would have given my eye teeth to have had the detailed photos that have surfaced following the Christie's auction.



Chuck_P.R. said:


> Did yourself or anyone else get to make accurate drawings of everything that was auctioned at Christie's before the miniatures were sold to the private collectors?


Don't I wish! If you saw The History Channel's special on the Christie's auction, you'd realize that Paramount's Trek warehouse bore an uncanny resemblance to the warehouse shown at the end of "Raiders of the Lost Ark". A team of blueprinters could have spent the 10 years documenting the props.



Chuck_P.R. said:


> Sorry to bug you, but I wasn't anticipating being able to get your attention in a thread, and I don't like to bug people I don't know by emailing them. Board PM'ing is one thing, but unless I know from reliable sources that the person enjoys receiving fan questions, I like to treat everyone's email address as if it were their residence.


I've been building a new house and *trying* to finish The Move from Hell, so I don't read the Hobby Talk postings regularly. However, if something's really bugging you, feel free to email me.

Gary


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Thanks a million for the detailed response Gary!

I do have a couple of questions about the Refit that I'll email you via the hobbytalk email feature, assuming the connected email address is right you should have gotten the email.

Thanks again for your time, not to mention your assistance in all things Trek!


----------



## MGagen

Gary,

Thanks so much for the new info. Input from folks like you who've had hands on access is priceless!

Any chance you could give us a similar run down on the various stages your plans for the TOS-E went through? 

Also, were your plans the basis of the Polar Lights TOS kit? And was that before or after your latest adjustment?

M.


----------



## Nova Designs

Thanks for your insight Gary! Its much appreciated. :thumbsup: 



Gary K said:


> If the new owner of the Refit would say, "C'mon down," I'd be there in a heartbeat.


Sounds like you need to write a very polite letter... stuffed with _fifties!_  



Gary K said:


> Getting the geometry of the nacelles correct was the worst part of the job. Bill George told me that one of his first jobs at the ILM model shop was building a pair of smaller-scale nacelles for the Reliant. He had a difficult time building the nacelles, even with the Enterprise model sitting there as a reference. Eventually, after many long, frustrating weeks at the computer, I was able to reconcile the views of the ship's components, and I combined them into one ship.


I would have to agree, the nacelles are probably the hardest part of the ship to get right in any format, drawings, models or 3D.



Gary K said:


> Don't I wish! If you saw The History Channel's special on the Christie's auction, you'd realize that Paramount's Trek warehouse bore an uncanny resemblance to the warehouse shown at the end of "Raiders of the Lost Ark". A team of blueprinters could have spent the 10 years documenting the props.


Hahaha, more like 10 _lifetimes!_ But yeah, I've heard that analogy made at least a dozen times.


----------



## starseeker

Gary K:
Thank you for your post. I just came across it quite by accident and for me, it's been the most valuable info I've read on bb's in the last year.


----------



## uss_columbia

Gary: just had to add my thanks for the information to what the others have said ... and echo MGagen's request for a similar rundown on the original 1701 blueprinting.



Nova Designs said:


> Gary K said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the new owner of the Refit would say, "C'mon down," I'd be there in a heartbeat.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you need to write a very polite letter... stuffed with _fifties!_
Click to expand...

I'll volunteer a couple of those fifites myself, if I could just get a copy of the resulting blueprints!


----------



## Guest

uss_columbia said:


> I'll volunteer a couple of those fifites myself, if I could just get a copy of the resulting blueprints!


I'll go along with that on the fifties donation and a decent set of blues !


----------



## Gary K

MGagen said:


> Gary,
> 
> Thanks so much for the new info. Input from folks like you who've had hands on access is priceless!
> 
> M.


Aw shucks! Thanks for the kind words.



MGagen said:


> Any chance you could give us a similar run down on the various stages your plans for the TOS-E went through?
> 
> M.


Sure - just give me a few days 'cause I'm busy with a non-Trek modeling project at the moment.

Gary


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Any chance you got my email from a few days ago, Gary?


----------



## MGagen

That grinding sound you hear is me possessing my soul in patience...
:jest:
M.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

I did get a quick email response yesterday. I'm sure Gary will come through for us both, he's just real busy right now. Darn that "real world" stuff! 

Other then eating, drinking, procreating and sleeping, I just don't see much use for it! :tongue:


----------



## X15-A2

Wow, I go through the "Stargate" for a one-week vacation off-world and come back to find myself the subject of debate!

Rick; I was replying to someone who was quite definite about giving your opinion for you, which is to say, I was arguing with someone else. Obviously they cannot speak for you and I knew that then. They were simply using your name in an attempt to add weight to their argument, that's all.

Mgagen; I agree with your take on the scale issue regarding scaling the ship without doubling the deck spacing. This hits my "logic spot" dead center. I had never considered that aspect before, good call.

For anyone who is wondering (or who cares), I just got back from a tour of the "Stargate" & "Stargate Atlantis" sets. Much fun was had by all and many pictures taken. They are currently shooting two direct-to-DVD "Stargate" movies and yes, there are rumors around the studio of another "Stargate" spin-off but so far, no one is admitting to knowing any details so we'll just have to wait and see what they have in mind. Got pics of myself on the bridge of the "Odyssey", among other locations.


----------



## Griffworks

Oooh! Lucky you, man! I'd _love_ to be able to hang out on the _Stargate_ sets for a couple days, even if it's just as a fly on the wall. and to have my pic taken on the "bridge" of one of the ships? Wow....


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

So are these digital pictures?

I remember all the problems you have had with your film disappearing at certain development places. 

You could do what I did with some ... eh... very "interesting" pics I took at Mardi Gras here in New Orleans one year. You could go to a 1 hour place and stand there while they develop them.

After your processing place apparently inadvertently activated the cloaking device on your roll of D-7 pics( I think it was D-7 pics ) you've probably switched over to a high megapixel digital?

Anyhow, whatever process you used, you know we peons are eagerly waiting to see them, you lucky stiff!


----------



## MGagen

X15-A2 said:


> Mgagen; I agree with your take on the scale issue regarding scaling the ship without doubling the deck spacing. This hits my "logic spot" dead center. I had never considered that aspect before, good call.


 Thanks! I'm still trying to find that magic conversion factor he used to come up with 947 from 540, though. There's some method, logic or device to explain that particular number and _one_ of these days _I'll find it..._

Now, everyone join hands as we sing a rousing chorus of _The Unreachable Star_ [Trek].

M.


----------



## Carson Dyle

Someone could make a documentary.


----------



## X15-A2

Ok, I posted a thread in the "Movies for Modelers" section of the BB with links to a few of the pictures we took on the "Stargate" sets for those who wish to see them. Enjoy.

Phil


----------



## Trek Ace

Carson Dyle said:


> Someone could make a documentary.


I understand there is one in development.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Those are fantastic! Liked the puddle-jumper pics the best. :thumbsup:

Have you switched to digital yet?


----------



## Rick Sternbach

X15-A2 said:


> Rick; I was replying to someone who was quite definite about giving your opinion for you, which is to say, I was arguing with someone else. Obviously they cannot speak for you and I knew that then. They were simply using your name in an attempt to add weight to their argument, that's all.


No problem. I'm going to push the magic reset button and refer all questions about the TOS Enterprise to Gary K. My opinion about what might or might not have happened 40+ years ago is featherweight, so I will quietly go back to cleaning out my garage. 

Rick


----------



## John P

My imagination reels at what you might have in your garage!


----------



## Gary K

MGagen said:


> Gary,
> 
> Thanks so much for the new info. Input from folks like you who've had hands on access is priceless!
> 
> Any chance you could give us a similar run down on the various stages your plans for the TOS-E went through?
> 
> 
> M.


Several people have expressed an interest in the history of my TOS Enterprise plans, so here's the story: 

It was a dark and stormy night.... Wait - wrong story. To continue.....

I became acquainted with Ed Miarecki through a mutual friend, and we conversed occasionally via phone and email. When I learned that NASM was going to ship the 11-foot TOS Enterprise model to Ed's shop for a restoration, I decided it was time for a road trip. The folks at NASM dragged their heels in shipping the model, although the restoration deadline remained the same. Eventually, in December 1991, the model arrived at Ed's shop, so I set off to Massachusetts with a friend from work, Richard Shafer. 

After arriving at Ed's house, he took us to his shop - and there sat the Enterprise, supported on a lead pipe stand . In addition, the Klingon cruiser and Tholian/Aurora models were there, too. After lots of oo's and ah's, we spent 3 days at Ed's shop - taking photos and making measurements, tracings & rubbings. Ed said not to knock ourselves out because one of his friends would measure the model later, and he'd share the info with me. At the time, I didn't know Ed all that well and I didn't want to abuse his hospitality, so I restrained my urge to geek out and measure every inch of the ship; however, in retrospect, I could kick myself that I didn't spend all 3 days & nights measuring all 3 models.

Ed's restoration team hadn't arrived yet, so he decided to save time by disassembling the Enterprise before they got there. Richard & I held the saucer while Ed unscrewed the bolts that held it to the connecting dorsal, then we performed a saucer separation maneuver. Too cool! After the nacelles were removed, I was able to wrap heavy mylar around the aft 2/3 of the secondary hull and trace the location of all features and markings. After 3 days, I figured that Ed had had enough of us, so Richard & I said our good-byes and headed home.

In the spring of 1996, I got a call from another friend, famed model maker Greg Jein. Out of the blue, Greg asked who had a good set of Enterprise plans, and I naively replied, "Nobody - but I could draw some." Greg said that the folks at Deep Space Nine were considering a time travel episode that would involve the original Enterprise. Since the original studio model was not available for filming, Greg was thinking about building a replica, so I suggested a half-scale model. A 5.5 ft model was somewhat larger than normal, but that scale would make construction easier.

I dragged out my references from 1991 and sat down at the drafting table to start on some plans. Then I realized that I didn't have near enough data to draw a set of accurate blueprints. I got on the phone with Ed Miarecki, and a short time later, I was on a plane to Massachusetts. Ed was kind enough to share his data with me, then I flew back home and resumed drawing. I still didn't have as much data as I needed, so I had to use my reference photos, plus those supplied by William McCulllars, to fill in the gaps. 

I sat at the drafting table all summer, then I finally shipped the plans to Greg. That fall, I flew out to LA with another friend from work, Phil Lundgren. We visited Greg Jein's shop, where he was trying to finish the model of the Klingon cruiser. At Paramount, we were searching for the Star Trek offices and were almost run down by Kate Mulgrew, who was in a big hurry to get somewhere fast. We met Mike & Denise Okuda, Herman Zimmerman and Doug Drexler, then Mike gave us a personal tour of the Star Trek sets (which appear much larger onscreen). We also visited Image G, where we met Gary Hutzel and got to watch Greg's Enterprise model being filmed. As it turned out, the T&T plans turned out to be fairly accurate, and the model looked great onscreen.

In early 1999, I got a call from Mike Okuda at Paramount. Mike explained that he was writing a book on all the starships named Enterprise, and asked if I'd be interested in blueprinting all the Enterprises (including the Pilot versions of the original ship, but not the Next Gen ship, for which they already had plans). I said, "Sure," and also recommended that Petri Blomqvist, a 3D artist and Star Trek fan in Finland, could produce some 3D renderings of the TOS ship. 

After I assembled my references, I once again realized that I didn't have as much data as I'd like for the TOS ship. Mike started making some inquiries at NASM to see if I could get access to the 11-foot model, which was then in storage at the Garber Facility in Suitland, MD. We got permission to spend 3 days documenting the model, and by mid-April, I was on the road to DC with two assistants, Richard Shafer and Phil Lundgren. 

At the Garber Facility, we were greeted by Frank H. Winter, curator of the Rocketry & Space History Division of the Smithsonian. After the Enterprise was uncrated, we spent the next 3 days furiously measuring the model in the shadow of the B-29 Enola Gay. In order to fill the gaps in my data, I prioritized the job to ensure that we could obtain the most critical missing measurements. We could have used another day or two at Garber, but I got most of the measurements I needed.

Back home, I sat down at the computer, instead of the drafting table, and got a crash course in drawing with AutoCAD. Recreating the Pilot versions required additional reference photos and other info, which William McCullars supplied in abundance. The market for Star Trek books was drying up, and Mike's book was canceled shortly after I finished the blueprints. Later on, though, Pocket Books recycled some of the plans as centerfolds of their Star Trek calendars.

Starting in 2001, the plans underwent further refinements when I provided references to Jim Key at Custom Replicas. Jim used the plans to build a fully-lighted, half-scale model of the Enterprise, which he documented in an article in Modeler’s Resource magazine.

In the spring of 2002, I was asked to provide blueprints of the Enterprise to help create a 1/1000 model of the ship (all 3 versions) for Polar Lights. This required a thorough reexamination and revision of my plans. Fortunately, by this time, I'd been given limited access to scans of hi-res photos of the 11-footer taken in the 60s. They revealed details on the 11-footer that had been altered or eliminated from the model before it was originally put on display. William McCullars continued supplying reference photos from his bottomless hard drive, and I received assistance from others, including Richard Datin, who had built the original 3-footer and had supervised construction of the 11-footer.

Following the Polar Lights revisions to my plans, I continued my collaboration with Petri Blomqvist. Previously, I had supplied Petri with the hard data I had gathered, and he used this data to refine his Lightwave 3D models of the various versions of the Enterprise. In turn, Petri used his Lightwave wireframes of the Enterprise to help me refine my plans and detect drafting errors. How, you may ask? After duplicating the camera angle and focal length of any reference photo in Lightwave, Petri could superimpose his wireframe model over the ship in the ref photo. Any discrepancies between the two would require an examination to resolve the problem. Sounds easy, but it requires a lot of hard work and patience. 

Petri's wireframes were also useful in other ways, such as deriving accurate ortho views of objects from oblique views - e.g., the black arcs on the upper saucer of the 2nd Pilot version of the ship. They can also help arrive at a symmetrical "best fit" for irregular features, like the out-of-round engraved grid lines on the underside of the saucer. In addition, the wireframes helped me establish the correct spatial orientation of the saucer, connecting dorsal, nacelles, and secondary hull, relative to one another. This would have been impossible to do without building a jig around the 11-footer, which was something I never had the chance to do.

Today, Petri and I have worked together so much that his 3D Lightwave plans and my 2D AutoCAD plans are essentially identical. Our plans have been used various projects, and most recently, the plans were used by Master Replicas to create their 1/350 model of the Enterprise.

Gary


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

That's an incredible story.

I don't know what to say, other then there's probably no other professional I've read about who is more dedicated to Trek.

Your work is greatly appreciated.

Keep on Trekkin! :thumbsup:


----------



## JT1

Gary,

Thank you for sharing.

That answers a lot of questions.

I always wondered how the DS9 and the Custom Replicas Enterprises both ended up to be 66".


I am curious about the differences between the restored 11 footer and what the old pictures revealed?


----------



## uss_columbia

Thanks for the detailed run-down, Gary. Very intersting!


----------



## Gary K

JT1 said:


> I am curious about the differences between the restored 11 footer and what the old pictures revealed?


A couple examples:

The "lightbulb on a stick" that was on the nipple of the lower sensor dome. By the time the 11-footer arrived at NASM, all that was left was a red grain-of-wheat bulb hanging by a wire. 

The ridged spine on the "bolt cover" on the upper rear saucer was changed. Originally, it extended further forward and had a squared-off end. When the 11-footer arrived at NASM, the left front corner of the spine was broken off, so instead of fixing it, some genius "restorer" cut off the unbroken end of the spine and rounded off what was left.

Gary


----------



## Griffworks

Yes, thanks for the info you've shared with us, Mr. Kerr. It's greatly appreciated.


----------



## jheilman

Hi Gary,

I knew bits and pieces of that history from various sources, but it's great to have a concise, accurate version as a reference. 

How did you link up with Petri? I corresponded with him prior to the Okuda project when his model was built in POV-RAY and he provided many a useful critique of my 3D Enterprise way back. I'm guessing it was from William McCullar's IDIC Page? Petri's models are beautiful.


----------



## Gary K

jheilman said:


> How did you link up with Petri? I corresponded with him prior to the Okuda project when his model was built in POV-RAY and he provided many a useful critique of my 3D Enterprise way back. I'm guessing it was from William McCullar's IDIC Page? Petri's models are beautiful.


I met Petri through William McCullars, who seems to know everybody. As payment for the aborted Enterprise book, Mike Okuda bought Lightwave 3D for Petri, and he's going gung-ho with it ever since. Petri has been a pleasure to work with: not only is he extremely talented, helpful, and trustworthy, but he's also very modest. Definitely not a prima donna with an inflated ego. Somebody in Hollywood needs to give this boy a job!


----------



## KUROK

Thanks for the history, Gary, an interesting read for sure.

For my money, the Jim Key model is the closest anyone has ever come to perfection. The little polar lights version is a good one too.


----------



## jheilman

Gary K said:


> Petri has been a pleasure to work with: not only is he extremely talented, helpful, and trustworthy, but he's also very modest. Definitely not a prima donna with an inflated ego. Somebody in Hollywood needs to give this boy a job!


I wholeheartedly agree with all of the above.


----------



## MGagen

Thank you so much for that exhaustive account. I had no idea that you had measured the model _twice_.

Here's hoping that Paramount and Pocket Books get their heads out of their metaphorical hangar decks and start publishing Trek Tech again. With the remastered series and a new classic-era movie in the works, the time has never been better for a definitive set of blueprints of our favorite ship. Maybe we can have that "Ships Called Enterprise" volume with your plans as a series of large, tipped in sheets.

Well, I can _dream_, can't I?

M.


----------



## wpthomas

Heh. Think we'll go through the same Cranium -> "Hangar Deck" process we did in 1979 where they're all up on the NEW Star Trek, but they don't really want to admit the old one happened? I recall as a wee lad that Paramount struck all of the classic images from all the TMP publicity material. (Don't know if they got it all. I know they tried.) And that was with the same cast!

Gary, thanks for the story. Petri's "Last Flight of the Galileo" hung on my wall for a lot longer than a month, let me tell you.


----------



## Gary K

wpthomas said:


> Heh. Think we'll go through the same Cranium -> "Hangar Deck" process we did in 1979 where they're all up on the NEW Star Trek, but they don't really want to admit the old one happened? I recall as a wee lad that Paramount struck all of the classic images from all the TMP publicity material. (Don't know if they got it all. I know they tried.) And that was with the same cast!


Somewhere I heard that they don't have a large model of the TOS Enterprise at the ST Experience in Vegas because The Powers That Be wanted to promote their newer Trek series - not that "old" stuff.

Gary


----------



## jheilman

Ah, yes...the "old" stuff. Without which there would be no new series or films. Lets be sure to sweep that under the rug before the guests arrive.


----------



## X15-A2

Well, lets see, which of the "Trek" series was a world-wide pop icon, quoted, satirized and loved around the world?

None of the so-called "new" products.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Trek, All the other generations...

To carefully and hesitantly go where our kinder, gentler, politically correct whimpish Federation superiors and beaurocrats allow us to go! 

To seek out new life and new civilizations so we can bore the viewers with a new soliliquy about the Prime Directive every other episode... 

To get into a complicated plot line only to have all our problems solved by some technobable in the last five minutes of each episode!

These are the continuing voyages of the pablum Trek fans have no choice but to swallow!


----------



## uss_columbia

Gary K (if you're listening) or anyone else in the know:

What's the best figure for the saucer diameter of the 134" model?

(I seem to recall seeing an average diameter posted some time back and stated as coming from Gary K, but I didn't find it in a quick search.)

Mark said some time back that most of the nearly 1" short the model is compared to the designed length of 135" was due to the saucer being undersized. If it's 1" undersized, that accounts to a reduction in diameter of 7' at 1:84.7 scale. (But no change if you prefer the 1:84.2 scale (option 1 below).)

Two main choices I see:

1) The real ship is 947' x 417' and the model is slightly inaccurate (almost an inch off in each direction); or

2) The real ship is 947' x ~410' (pending the "exact" diameter figure for the model per Gary)

I favor choice 1, but I'd like to get the accurate figure for choice 2 anyway.
(Of course, with choice 2, we also have a "real" ship with slightly mismatched nacelles, slightly out of round saucer, dramatically different detail on the starboard side, etc.  )


----------



## Gary K

uss_columbia said:


> Gary K (if you're listening) or anyone else in the know:
> 
> What's the best figure for the saucer diameter of the 134" model?


I measured the saucer's diameter in a couple different areas, and went with 59.25" on my plans. Petri came up with a 59.3" best-fit diameter for his digital model.

Gary


----------



## razorwyre1

Gary K said:


> Somewhere I heard that they don't have a large model of the TOS Enterprise at the ST Experience in Vegas because The Powers That Be wanted to promote their newer Trek series - not that "old" stuff.
> 
> Gary


in the late 80's just as tng was kicking in, i contacted paramounts licensing dept about producing tos uniforms for the halloween market. i was told that they had "no interest in pursuing licenses for that property at this time" because they wanted to focus attention on the current product. kind of understandable.


----------



## uss_columbia

Gary K said:


> I measured the saucer's diameter in a couple different areas, and went with 59.25" on my plans. Petri came up with a 59.3" best-fit diameter for his digital model.


That scales close enough to 417' for my comfort, with either "option 1" or "option 2" scales (1:84.2 or 1:84.7). The 134" model's length/width ratio is only 0.5% different from the standard 947/417 ratio.


----------



## MGagen

The construction blueprint would indicate an intended diameter of 60" (15" x 4). But keep in mind that the saucer being about 3/4" short is not the only known modification that altered the length. Another key one seems to have been the change in the angle of the saucer bevel. The plans show the blunter edge (like the AMT model); with the sharper desired angle marked on crudely by hand.

While this would not appear to have much to do with the overall length of the model, it does change where the dorsal pylon intersects the saucer under the impulse engine. Unless an adjustment were made, the pylon would now run into the body of the impulse housing. If the model builder wanted to keep the aft connection point at the same level beneath the impulse engine as shown on the plans, he would have to move the saucer back a little further on the dorsal pylon to compensate for the sharper bevel.

M.


----------



## uss_columbia

^ Yup, I recall that from earlier discussion. Since about 3/4" is due to the diameter and the miniature is about 1" short, either the slope change accounts for the other 1/4" or it accounts for a different amount and something else, such as angle/position of main pylon accounts for some. The nacelle length (or average nacelle length, since they differ slightly) and the position of the nacelle pylon mounting points (front-to-rear) on the nacelles and/or secondary hull can be other length error factors.
(It sure would be nice to get some clean orthos from Gary or Petri on all these things.)

Anyway, I'm happy knowing that the model and our understanding of the design intent both agree quite closely on the length/width ratio.

What about the length/height ratio?


----------



## Captain April

Jeez, you guys have been busy without widdle ol' me.

I'll have to dig through this later when I have time.


----------



## Captain April

I still say the best way to determine the "true" size of the ship is as follows:

Given that the official stance is that the bridge faces forward (just ask Mike Okuda; tell him I said "hi"), and that in that (in)famous shot in "The Cage" we see the bridge more or less sitting at the base of the upper dome at the Deck 1 position, and that the diameter of the bridge interior is about thirty feet (give or take a foot or so, depending on which plans you're using), simply determine how big the pilot version dome has to be to accomodate a forward facing bridge, and adjust your figures for the rest of the ship accordingly.

Have at it.


----------



## uss_columbia

^ Please, let's not start that again!
(I thought you'd finally come around and lowered your bridge all the way into the teardrop accordingly. Changed your mind? Never mind -- forget I asked. I really don't want to go through it again.)

Anyone interested can still find one version of the discussion in this thread.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

I told you not to say it three times...

Now look what 'ya did! :tongue:


----------



## uss_columbia

^ :lol: :lol:


----------



## jheilman

Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice.


----------



## uss_columbia

CRA: I hope you didn't read my comment as rude. It was intended as good-natured teasing. If it came across as rude, I apologize. I welcome _new_ discussion with you. I just don't want to repeat old debates (unless of course, there's relevant new information).


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

If you want to accept non-canon material, uss columbia, in the original pilot the TOP (The Original Pilot) Enterprise was originally supposed to be about 540 feet long before the ship was upscaled, I believe.

However, you don't need to believe it was that size as that was never stated or shown to be the case in the pilot. 

It might be an interesting exercise to take a set of fairly accurate drawings of the ship with the bridge as built in TOP and try and do exactly what CRA suggests.


----------



## Griffworks

Yes, there's definitely no need to rehash old arguments, as well as rehash old grudges. That's not what this thread is about, folks. Any insults will earn someone a Time Out with the duration to be at the discretion of the Moderator who happens upon the post. 

Now, please carry on with the discussion at hand. I love following this sort of stuff, but generally don't have a whole lot to add.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Eggshells... Ouch!

Eggshells... Ouch!

Eggshells... Ouch!

Eggshells... Ouch!

... you guys carry on without me for awhile.

I've got to pull these things out of the bottom of my feet...


----------



## uss_columbia

Chuck_P.R. said:


> If you want to accept non-canon material, uss columbia, in the original pilot the TOP (The Original Pilot) Enterprise was originally supposed to be about 540 feet long before the ship was upscaled, I believe.
> 
> It might be an interesting exercise to take a set of fairly accurate drawings of the ship with the bridge as built in TOP and try and do exactly what CRA suggests.


Yup, we've discussed this in the bridge thread I linked above. I presented some hypothetical timelines (based on the real dates we know) for bridge set design vs. rescale sequence. Basically, either the bridge as built was to be in the teardrop on a 540' ship and was moved up with the rescale, or a smaller bridge was to be in the tall dome and was sized up along with rescaling the ship. As far as I know, we still don't have anything to pin down which came first, the rescale of the ship or the sizing of the bridge. It's all in that other thread. If you have additional clues about which happened first, please tell. (It would be more on-topic in the bridge thread than here.)

And of course, the 540' original size evidence is summarized in this thread. Evidence indicates the rescale had happened before the 11-footer was delivered (based on the added windows).


----------



## MGagen

A clearer scan of the "3-footer" being delivered at the Rigel Fortress location shows that the ship had already been scaled up by the time that photo was taken. The giveaway is the window patterns on the dorsal. My chronological research of the first pilot production schedule shows how this fits in with the set designs and when the "rescale" actually happened. Some day, the complete chronology (and all references) will be on a website JHeilman and I have been working on...

=====

The set designs were completed and ready for construction sometime in November 1964. 

Datin was contracted to build the "3-footer" on November 4. He appears to have quoted the job from a preliminary blueprint which calls out a "real world scale" for the ship that indicates the 4X model would be in 1:48 scale.

The final blueprint was completed by Jefferies on November 7. This blueprint has no "real world" scale information on it. The window patterns were not initially marked on the drawing either, but were added some time later at Datin's shop.

Datin completed the small model on November 15 and presented it to Roddenberry -- who asked for various changes.

Principle photography began on November 27. 

On or around December 8, Datin began construction on the "11-footer." 

Datin completed the revisions to the "3-footer" on December 14 and presented it to Roddenberry at the Rigel Fortress location. Photos of this event show a ship model consistent with the 947 foot size.

=====

As you can see from the above, the decision to enlarge the ship must have happened some time between November 4 (when Datin was given a blueprint to quote from that depicts the smaller ship) and December 14 (when he delivered the revised "3-footer"). The most likely point for it to have occurred is November 15, when GR specified the other changes to the model. In that case, it would have preceeded even the first frame of live action being filmed. In any case, the issue was certainly settled before principle photography ended; before any footage of the "3-footer" was filmed or the "11-footer" was completed.

M.


----------



## uss_columbia

With the above dates in mind, and those I posted back in 2004 in the other thread...



uss_columbia said:


> I read through relevant Making of Star Trek portions and the McCullars article (Datin interview) in Star Trek Communicator, and recorded all dates I could find related to when the construction prints for the ship and the bridge set might have been finished.
> 
> Sources:
> Poe The Making of Star Trek (primary sources GR, MJ, etc.)
> McCullars Star Trek Communicator article (primary sources Datin etc.)
> 
> 1964-08-25 Gene asking Kellam De Forest Research for SciFi ship artwork "several weeks" before Jefferies started scale drawings, which was after the study model and color artwork was approved by Gene (Poe)
> 
> 1964-09-30 Harvey Lynn, in followup on revised Cage script, asks Gene how the set is going (Poe)
> 
> 1964-10-14 "the mean time": after Jefferies started designing bridge and before its six-week construction has completed (Poe)
> 
> 1964-11-01 "by the time November rolled around" "sets were ready to be constructed" (Poe)
> 
> 1964-11-04 Datins begins construction of "3 footer" (drawings were delivered for bid before this time with enough margin for Datin to have prepared a bid, sent it to Anderson, and Desilu to approve it) (McCullars)
> 
> 1964-11-15 "3 footer" is finished by this date and delivered to Gene (at Rigel fortress?) on or shortly after this date (McCullars)
> 
> 1964-12-08 11' model construction started approximately this date or earlier (but sometime in December) (McCullars)
> 
> 1964-12-10 Gene tells Franz how to modify Rigel setup (implying that the Rigel fortress exists (and Gene's been there) but that it isn't yet quite ready for filming) (Poe)
> 
> 1964-12-12 The Cage shooting begins (Poe)
> 
> 1964-12-14 initial modifications to "3 footer" completed (used in Cage effects shots on or after this date) (McCullars)
> 
> 1964-12-24 The Cage shooting ends (Poe) (Actually, Poe just says filming was 12 days. I assume they were consecutive days, but I could be wrong.)
> 
> 1964-12-29 11' model delivered (on or about this date) (used in Cage effects shots on or after this date) (McCullars) (And evidence strongly suggests that rescale to 947' had already taken place by this time. (MGagen))
> 
> 
> 
> Implications:
> 
> The earliest possible date the ship prints could have been completed is several weeks after Aug. 25.
> 
> The latest possible date the ship prints could have been completed is sometime before Nov. 04 (with later revisions still possible). [now pegged at Nov. 7 per MGagen]
> 
> The earliest possible date the bridge prints could have been completed is at least six weeks before Oct. 14.
> 
> The latest possible date the bridge prints could have been completed is Nov. 01 (with later revisions still possible).
> 
> 
> 
> Conjecture:
> 
> Scale ship drawings were completed around the middle of September. (Poe portrays this as being the biggest art issue for Gene. Thus, it would take precedence over the bridge design (as long as it's still feasible to get the bridge set completed in time for shooting, which it is). Indeed, it may have been the intention for Franz to do the bridge if Jefferies wasn't done with the ship in time. We know that ultimately Franz and Matt together planned how many people would be on the bridge and their functions, then Franz worked on other sets and left Matt to design the bridge.)
> 
> Scale bridge drawings were completed early October. (Matt would have jumped right into the bridge design as soon as the ship prints were done (also working on them in parallel some, I would think, but giving precedence to the ship until it was done).)
> 
> Bridge ergonomics dictated larger diameter than 540' as-designed ship's bridge dome will contain. (Poe quotes Jefferies describing how he worked out the size, pasted up full-size screens and such to check ergonimics, etc.)
> 
> Construction of bridge set began mid October, finishing first of December.
> 
> Model is not yet under construction when bridge design is final. Jefferies could now adjust the bridge dome feature to contain his larger bridge in the dome on the 540' ship, but he didn't. Why not? Two possibilities: 1) the ship had already been rescaled to 947' before construction began making the bridge fit issue moot, or 2) the bridge would be in the teardrop, and he didn't mind the very-high vaulted ceiling from the dome above it. I think it was the former.
> 
> Model is scaled to 947' either during or before construction (I suspect before); bridge is in the dome (I suspect it was always so, but if not, it is moved to the dome before construction is finished); turbolift tube is added/adjusted to the correct distance from dome center to match the bridge dimensions.
> 
> 
> 
> It would be very nice to see a better quality picture of Datin holding the 3-footer out for Gene on initial delivery. If the turbolift tube is present at the back of the dome, we can conclude that the rescale happened before that date (which is approximately Nov. 15). If it isn't and the dome is the normal pilot dome size, we can conclude that the bridge will not fit in the dome (suggesting a teardrop location). (The bridge design would certainly be final by this time; bridge set construction took six weeks and filming *ended* Dec. 24 or shortly thereafter.)


Note that there is disagreement on the date shooting began (and thus question on when it ended). MGagen has said before that Poe's date is suspect. What's the source for the better date?

It seems MGagen has seen just the clearer picture I wanted. (Holding out on me!  ) It may or may not show the lift tube I wanted to see, but its windows confirm the upscale regardless.

Still, the dating suggested for the rescale indicates that the bridge size was finalized before the rescale was. Thus, the bridge must have been intended for the tear-drop at that time.

This does not explain why the 540' ship had a full-deck-height bubble above the bridge, though. As I've said before, I think a smaller bridge was originally intended for that location, but it was determined it would be just too small, and so a larger bridge was placed in the teardrop below. (I previously mentioned this image as Pato's concept for a smaller bridge.)


----------



## uss_columbia

MGagen said:


> A clearer scan of the "3-footer" being delivered at the Rigel Fortress location shows that the ship had already been scaled up by the time that photo was taken.


That refers to the second delivery, right?
I've seen two pictures of the 1701 at Rigel (I think they're both at Rigel anyway): one with Datin holding it out for Gene and the other with Gene and Hunter. (Both are on McCullars' site.) It seems likely these were both taken the same day and represent the delivery of the modified 1701. I don't think we've seen a picture of the initial delivery. (At least I don't think I have.)
Just the other day, I saw a larger version of one of these images, but I can't find it now, darn it!


----------



## uss_columbia

I found the better scan I was thinking of. It's the first image here: http://startrekhistory.com/restoration/bluescreen.html. It's only a little clearer than the one I'd seen before, not clear enough to see any dome detail.


----------



## MGagen

uss_columbia said:


> Note that there is disagreement on the date shooting began (and thus question on when it ended). MGagen has said before that Poe's date is suspect. What's the source for the better date?


 The source for my date is _Inside Star Trek_, by Solow and Justman, pp. 41, 43-44. I would think S & J are more reliable than Whitfield here if for no other reason than the amount of detail in their account in relation to the Thanksgiving holiday. They claim the last of three days of cast rehersal was the Wednesday before, with a day off for the holiday and "magic day" when the film began rolling that Friday. This is an odd detail to remember if it isn't true. However, the one troubling detail that I had to wrestle with when I was compiling my chronology was the memo from GR to Bachelin on December 10. In it, he gives instructions for redressing an old backlot location as the Rigel Fortress (TMOST p. 110). This is an odd thing if S & J's dates are to be believed because that would mean this detail was left until the day before the originally scheduled last day of shooting. Now stranger things have happened in Hollywood, but this does make me wonder if Whitfield is correct. However, in the contra-Whitfield column, we have to note that the day_ he_ claims for the first day of shooting (December 12) was a _Saturday_ that year. Are Hollywood union types usually scheduled to work on Saturdays? Maybe, if a shoot is running long and coming up against a firm deadline...but the FIRST DAY of shooting? Whitfield also differs from Solow and Justman in the number of shooting days. TMOST, 12 days; IST, 11 days plus 5 extra days for a total of 16. This whole issue deserves further attention.

Be that as it may, two dates are settled pretty firmly: The original construction blueprint for the model (the drawing itself is dated November 7) and the day Datin completed the revisions to the "3-footer" (December 14). We also know this was the day they filmed the Rigel exteriors. The two photos show both Datin and Hunter (in costume) with GR looking at the model in front of the fortress. 

M.


----------



## Treadwell

I don't know if any of this will help anything, but here goes:



> (Actually, Poe just says filming was 12 days. I assume they were consecutive days, but I could be wrong.)


No, he'd certainly be referring to actual working days.

As for working on Saturday, I have heard of that happening.

A day to redress an existing set is plenty of time in the fast-paced TV production world.


----------



## uss_columbia

Of course he meant working days. With filming starting so late, though, I was assuming every consecutive day was a working day for those 12 days, no days off. I don't know if that's realistic or not. Anyway, the date Mark cited from Justman and Solow seems more reasonable, and does allow for weekends off.


----------



## uss_columbia

uss_columbia said:


> I found the better scan I was thinking of. It's the first image here: http://startrekhistory.com/restoration/bluescreen.html. It's only a little clearer than the one I'd seen before, not clear enough to see any dome detail.


Interestingly, this image shows a low "bridge" dome on the 3-footer, not the high dome seen on the 11-footer in the first two pilots. PerfessorCoffee tells me that the 3-footer never had the tall dome, and I wasn't able to find any pictures that contradict this. Makes me wonder why the 11-footer got the tall dome.


----------



## Captain April

uss_columbia said:


> ^ Please, let's not start that again!
> 
> (I thought you'd finally come around and lowered your bridge all the way into the teardrop accordingly. Changed your mind? Never mind -- forget I asked. I really don't want to go through it again.)
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone interested can still find one version of the discussion in this thread.


"Pilot version". That's the only point in the timeline where it is firmly established that the bridge faces forward under that big honkin' dome. After that point, with the altered production version dome, the exact location of the bridge is fair game, but with "The Cage", we have a touchstone.


----------



## uss_columbia

^ "Firmly" established is a bit strong. It drifts all over the place, and the lift doors clearly lead into space. 
I understand the CBS remastered version is better (though I haven't seen it, other than stills). Of course, their version is not of the "real" Enterprise, but rather an illusion created by the Talosians. (And it's been demonstrated in the other thread that it won't fit facing forward even under the "big honkin" pilot dome.)

BTW, it looks like the 3 footer never had a big dome. Come join the 3 footer discussion thread, if you like!


----------



## RonH

Captain April said:


> "Pilot version". That's the only point in the timeline where it is firmly established that the bridge faces forward under that big honkin' dome. After that point, with the altered production version dome, the exact location of the bridge is fair game, but with "The Cage", we have a touchstone.












If this is what you mean, the bridge certainly is not facing forward.


----------



## Captain April

^Hey, they tried. Give them some credit.


----------



## aridas sofia

They tried...

and succeeded, to *exactly split the difference* between a forward facing bridge and one canted 37 degrees to align with the exterior tube.


----------



## uss_columbia

It has a nice, level floor, too.  (among other problems) Not so bad for early 1965, though!


----------



## Captain April

So much for "creator's intent", then, eh, Aridas?


----------



## uss_columbia

^ More likely than "they tried," they really didn't try to specify the direction as forward or 35.5 degrees rotated but rather just stuck the shot in at the angle they had it in a miniature shot at whatever angle they had it (both angles being "close enough for TV").
I don't think the shot shows any intent other than to establish that the bridge is in the dome at the top of the (big!) saucer.


----------



## Four Mad Men

Please, let's not do this shall we people?


----------



## uss_columbia

^ Indeed. We've been through it all before over in the bridge thread (back in '04).


----------



## aridas sofia

Captain April said:


> So much for "creator's intent", then, eh, Aridas?


I think that is a fair question. His intent was that it face forward. The reality was that it looked odd facing off center. So they split the difference.

It looks less odd with the smaller dome when you sink the bridge to the near-deck 2 position Jefferies specifies in his TMoST cross section and look through the dome.


----------



## Shaw

Okay, so without addressing the angled bridge argument (which seems to have passionate supporters on both sides)...

I think that opening scene was most likely one that was envisioned from the earliest days of production. The odds are that given a very limited budget for special effects (consider the amount of time we see exterior shots of the Enterprise in _The Cage_) I would think that having a shot that helped the audience visualize the size of the Enterprise would have been given highest priority. In fact, the larger bridge dome may have been added to the 11 foot model specifically to help aid in creating this one shot.

As for getting everything (live action with model effects) to line up perfectly, I highly doubt it is an easy task... specially considering that the elements would have been shot months apart from each other. And this task hasn't gotten any easier with the advent of time and technology, as can be illustrated by this shot from _Starship Exeter_...


----------



## uss_columbia

^ It's possible that the Exeter guys deliberately matched the look from The Cage as an homage to the original.


----------



## uss_columbia

aridas sofia said:


> I think that is a fair question. His intent was that it face forward.


We don't _know_ that. It's been speculated that he had the lift behind the captain's chair and it was moved for dramatic reasons or that he intended a teardrop location in the 540' ship, but these are just speculations. (It seems the "change" of lift position, if there was one, took place before construction was completed -- the fully-wild configuration of the set came later.) See the bridge thread for lengthy discussion on exactly this topic.

As MGagen posted, Mr. Jefferies had ample opportunity to change the exterior features to accommodate a forward facing bridge but chose symmetry of the exterior over this. (He had three opportunities: after the 3-footer was seen (and modifications requested), before the 11-footer was built; when the 11-footer dome was updated between the pilots; and between the second pilot and the series.) Trek Ace pointed out that the symmetry may have been important due to the reversing of film of the starboard side to appear as the port side (although this was never actually done after the pilots, it would have made sense to plan for it).

We must conclude that his _final_ intent was that it was more important to have external symmetry than for the bridge to face foward. (This is evidenced by his careful placement of the lift tube on the outside to correlate with the lift on the bridge set with the bridge not facing forward.) We can only guess at his original intent (albeit qualified by some evidence).

Of course, he remedied this situation on his Phase II design.

Anyway, we've had this discussion before. I'll stop repeating it now. 
(It's here, an oldie but a goodie. Trek Ace's comment is #156; you should find the most relevant discussion near to it.)


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Cool shot irregardless of the centerline debate....


----------



## wpthomas

^ I believe Dennis has said as much. And I still adore that shot.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I would like to see an alternate view of the same shot with the turbolift in the centerline just for comparision. From this outside view it would look way off with the bridge looking almost sideways. From the other side it wouldn't look as bad. 

But no use debating which is right without Jefferies alive to ask; or a TOS special effects guy privy to discusions on the intent. Today it is down to an issue of our own personal preference. 

If you think about it as general Starship design, the turbolift could have been behind the captains chair, moving the communications or science position to the engineering side. Maybe it was simply a set design override to work better with actors camera angles. 

All my toughts are simple conjecture though. I'm open to all possibilities. It is just that that exterior bridge nub makes me want to place the turbolift there to match up with it. 

That doesn't bother me either way, since in space there is no up or down or left or right. Plus since a Starship has inertial dampers (or warp acceleration would crush the crew) and has a an electronic viewscreen instead of an actual window, the crew wouldn't notice if they were off center. Then again the actors were always thrown off balance during an attack. The live action always conflicts with practical design!


----------



## Shaw

uss_columbia said:


> ^ It's possible that the Exeter guys deliberately matched the look from The Cage as an homage to the original.


Yeah, could be... I'll ask to see what the reason actually was. I had assumed that the main issue comes from the perspective differences between the virtual camera and the camera on the crane for that shot (making it very hard to match up vanishing points when combining them).


----------



## Captain April

Bob Justman said that their opinion was that it faced forward. The impression I got was that the issue of the location of the turbolift doors in relation to the surface details of the miniature wasn't even considered.

After all, they had a very tough schedule to meet. They didn't have time for trivia like this.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

We need some unpublished Matt Jefferies bridge concept drawings to surface to figure out what was in his mind. Until then it is all speculation subject to our personal preference bias.


----------



## toyroy

Steve Mavronis said:


> ...Then again the actors were always thrown off balance during an attack. The live action always conflicts with practical design!


Also: when the ship sharply accelerated and decelerated in the forward direction, the crew leaned directly forward or back, with respect to the line-of-site to the main view screen. Perhaps, the turbolift was fully contained inside the main exterior hull contour, and the vertical cylindrical projection represented something else? Like a really big Dixie cup dispenser?


----------



## Steve Mavronis

The leaning was just for dramatic effect I think to help the audience know what was happening. If the fictional ship's inertial dampers were working as they should it would cancel out all acceleration so the crew wouldn't be crushed to death. Doesn't matter really either way. After all its just a science fiction show and not reality. We try to pretend its real and come up with all these alternate explanations! Just fun to imagine which Star Trek inspires us to do!


----------



## uss_columbia

You know, there is a thread where this discussion is actually on-topic:
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=85083.
Please read it before posting, though; all of these arguments have been fairly thoroughly covered before.

Let's please not rehash that debate here in this thread.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Sorry,I thought this thread started as an off-topic discussion by the original poster saying this is an "offshoot of an off-topic digression" in the first post. I thought it was fair game therefore but no matter, I will try to search every thread throughtout the years to make sure as you suggested. I was mistaken I suppose so accept my appology.


----------



## Griffworks

uss_columbia said:


> You know, there is a thread where this discussion is actually on-topic:
> http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=85083.
> Please read it before posting, though; all of these arguments have been fairly thoroughly covered before.
> 
> Let's please not rehash that debate here in this thread.


Occasional off-topic drift is acceptable, as you know. I don't see any reason for cross-topic drift to be a big deal, either. It's going to happen, so let's just be patient with folks coming in to a thread. 

While it can be frustrating to the Old Timer Folks who've been involved in various threads here for New Folks to come across a thread and interject something that was covered in another thread weeks/months/years ago you can't really expect everyone to take the time to read thru the oft-times tens of pages in a thread just to see a specific point brought up. After all, that new person might not have been here during that time, thus not privy to every niggling aspect. 

Plus, some of us tend to be overly verbose in our responses, causing others to have to interpret what was said after reading multiple times. That doesn't lend well to someone trying to do research if they're on limited time for their online activities. 

So, having said all that, the gist is: off-topic and even cross-topic drift isn't a big deal. Please also remember that not everyone has read every thread in these forums, so might not be aware that their point was made in a thread that hasn't been active for some days/weeks/months/years.


----------



## uss_columbia

Steve Mavronis said:


> Sorry,I thought this thread started as an off-topic discussion by the original poster saying this is an "offshoot of an off-topic digression" in the first post. I thought it was fair game therefore but no matter, I will try to search every thread throughtout the years to make sure as you suggested. I was mistaken I suppose so accept my appology.


Sorry, Steve. I wasn't trying to be rude. It's just that this particular debate has a long history, and it nearly always gets somewhat heated when it comes up. I just don't want it getting this thread closed.

BTW, at the top of this page (assuming my post doesn't split to the next page), is a link to perhaps the most relevant part of that old thread. If you have new evidence or theories that fit the existing evidence, please do bring it up in that other thread. Assuming CRA doesn't "get into it" with MGagen, we can have an enjoyable continuation of the discussion without getting the thread locked. 

Again, sorry I gave offense. BTW, the comment was not directed squarely at you by any means. It was Capt. April's comment citing Bob Justman that prompted it. And Capt. April is very well aware of the discussions we had in the other thread.


----------



## uss_columbia

Griffworks said:


> Occasional off-topic drift is acceptable, as you know. I don't see any reason for cross-topic drift to be a big deal, either. It's going to happen, so let's just be patient with folks coming in to a thread.
> 
> While it can be frustrating to the Old Timer Folks who've been involved in various threads here for New Folks to come across a thread and interject something that was covered in another thread weeks/months/years ago you can't really expect everyone to take the time to read thru the oft-times tens of pages in a thread just to see a specific point brought up.


True enough. I did provide a more specific link to a particular part of that thread just a few posts back. Still, your point is well taken.

I just need to step back and not get pulled into the debate if I don't want to repeat it. Those who do, please carry on. 

However (from a couple of pages back):


Griffworks said:


> Yes, there's definitely no need to rehash old arguments, as well as rehash old grudges. That's not what this thread is about, folks. Any insults will earn someone a Time Out with the duration to be at the discretion of the Moderator who happens upon the post.
> 
> Now, please carry on with the discussion at hand.




BTW, I hold no grudges and was never offended by anything in the other thread. I found parts of it a bit frustrating, but never personal. I'd be very happy to continue it, if there are unexplored aspects.


----------



## Griffworks

I think you know what I meant by arguments, as well as old grudges and insults.


----------



## uss_columbia

^ Yes, I think so, too. My clarification was just so nobody else would get the wrong idea. (Don't want anyone thinking that other thread is (or even was) a war zone.)


----------



## Griffworks

Ah, OK. I took it as meaning something else entirely. My apologies on that.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

^^^ No offense taken. I agree with most of the comments here. Off-topic drifting here and there is hard to control, even for myself. Sometimes I start going that way without realizing until afterwards (somehow in my mind I'll be thinking it relates to someone else's reply at the time) and how it may be interpreted by others. No problem here with you all. This is the greatest sci-fi related modeling forum that I regularly follow. I don't want anything to happen to ruin that.


----------



## uss_columbia

^ I went and looked up a couple of things in the other thread this morning, and I noticed you were a frequent poster there. I guess you are actually one of us "old timers" in the bridge debates after all.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I just turned 48 so I guess that qualifies as old timer.


----------



## uss_columbia

Captain April said:


> I still say the best way to determine the "true" size of the ship is as follows:
> 
> Given that the official stance is that the bridge faces forward (just ask Mike Okuda; tell him I said "hi"), and that in that (in)famous shot in "The Cage" we see the bridge more or less sitting at the base of the upper dome at the Deck 1 position, and that the diameter of the bridge interior is about thirty feet (give or take a foot or so, depending on which plans you're using), simply determine how big the pilot version dome has to be to accomodate a forward facing bridge, and adjust your figures for the rest of the ship accordingly.


Just for fun, let's do so.

Here's how the bridge fits with the pilot dome approximated as a hemisphere.
Two domes are show, one at the level of the lower floor of the bridge, the other at the level of the upper floor.










The smaller dome is 1.68 * bridge-diameter while the larger is 1.72 * bridge-diameter. My bridge model is cylinders fit to an image of the McMaster prints, the outer diameter corresponding to the largest inner diameter on the bridge.

Based on 31.5' inner diameter of bridge as MGagen calculated from Jefferies drawings...
We have dome diameters of 53.0' and 54.25'. Unfortunately, we don't know the exact diameter of the pilot dome on the model.

If we go with this one (based on 947' ship size)...


Captain April said:


> Base of production version dome - 44.5 feet
> Base of pilot version dome - 50 feet


We have an increase in scale of 6% or 8.5% for a ship length of 1004' or 1027'.

This doesn't seem right, though. I think the 50' pilot dome figure is too high. Does someone have a better one? (I'll measure the pilot dome on my PL when I get home; but at 1/1000 scale, it may not be the most accurate. (I'll use calipers, don't have micrometers.))


----------



## uss_columbia

The problem, of course, is this:









The bridge (much less the turbolift) obviously doesn't fit in the dome in this position and orientation.









And the bridge and dome floors are not aligned.

That dome scaled to the Bridge, BTW, is only 47.7' in diameter. (Not that the relative scales of the exterior and interior are reliable in this shot, of course.)


----------



## uss_columbia

On the other hand, if I fit a 50' diameter dome to the picture and see where the bridge and turbolift end up, it looks like this:
















(This is with no change to the bridge/lift model. I rotated the view to align the lift with the tube. The dome was trimmed to be a bit less than a hemisphere (i.e., cut above centerline). The diameter at the cut point is 50'.)

Here's the side view. Note: this is the highest the bridge can be (lift top level with top of external tube feature). It can be lowered as desired.









It can't be a coincidence that the lift aligns so well with the tube!

This tends to validate that the pilot dome is 50' diameter for a 947' ship and that the ship is 947' long to fit the bridge set.


----------



## Shaw

I was curious if there was a way to get that shot, matching up camera moves on the model with the live action craneshot of the bridge. Even though this is all done pretty quick and dirty (I'm not attempting accurate scaling of the bridge as my models are based on _eyeballing_ most of their dimensions anyways), but it seems that you really have to almost drop in straight down to even see the command module of the bridge from the dome opening. I don't think that the model shots in either _The Cage_ or _TTI_ would have given a best match for the live action shots.



Of course we could just chalk the whole thing up to image distortion from the dome itself. 


_Click to view clip_​


----------



## uss_columbia

To see how this shot might look with a series dome, I did a five-minute model of the mcmasters inside surface (as a simple cylinder) inside a series dome (using the PL model decal placement outline, which is not perfectly accurate in shape).
(I used drawings scaled by MGagen.)
(The pole in the middle is just to show the centerline; its shadow is helpful for visualizing the bridge floor/console/display surfaces, too.)

It looks like this:









(If you wanted to do a shot like in The Cage and show the helm/nav and captain chair, you'd need to view more from the top.)

Edit: I just noticed that bridge dome is a little small (about 8%). I used the center of the lines from the PL diagram. I guess I should have used the outside edge of the lines.


----------



## uss_columbia

Shaw: cool animation! I'm wondering why you scaled the bridge so large, though. I guess it was just the orientation and "openness" to allow a view inside you were interested in, not the size.


----------



## Shaw

uss_columbia said:


> Shaw: cool animation! I'm wondering why you scaled the bridge so large, though. I guess it was just the orientation and "openness" to allow a view inside you were interested in, not the size.


The original bridge model sections had a lot of extra volume on the out side. I wasn't originally going to scale the bridge down to match a ship (that was an after thought), plus my model of the Exeter isn't all that accurate to begin with... but the relative size of the opening on top to the interior contours was roughly based on some bridge blueprints I had on hand.

Like I said... quick and dirty.

I'm sick right now, so I threw this together really fast and went back to bed while it was rendering. What you see there is pretty much what I ended up with when I woke up.



I guess the scale would have been better if I hadn't removed the original bridge from the model before dropping this one in and scaling it.


----------



## uss_columbia

Shaw said:


> Of course we could just chalk the whole thing up to image distortion from the dome itself.


At least in the second pilot configuration, the dome's not really transparent to the bridge anyway. We see an opaque ceiling. I don't think we see the ceiling in the first pilot or the series, though; it could be transparent.


----------



## uss_columbia

Shaw said:


> Like I said... quick and dirty.
> 
> I'm sick right now, so I threw this together really fast and went back to bed while it was rendering. What you see there is pretty much what I ended up with when I woke up.


Well, it gets the point across just fine.
I hope you get feeling better soon.


----------



## Captain April

uss_columbia said:


> At least in the second pilot configuration, the dome's not really transparent to the bridge anyway. We see an opaque ceiling. I don't think we see the ceiling in the first pilot or the series, though; it could be transparent.


Or we're dealing with a serious case of dramatic license and the dome was never really meant to be considered transparent in the first place.

After all, we saw plenty of close zoom-ins on the bridge in other shots and that dome wasn't any more transparent in those shots than it is in the above photo.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

uss_columbia said:


> I don't think we see the ceiling in the first pilot or the series, though; it could be transparent.












You mean something like this? I should have added some glass glare or reflections but this was quickly done...


----------



## uss_columbia

Captain April said:


> Or we're dealing with a serious case of dramatic license and the dome was never really meant to be considered transparent in the first place.


Did you miss the smiley before? I don't really think it was meant to be transparent.


----------



## uss_columbia

Steve: you forgot the telescoping base on the captain's chair that raises him up into the dome for a good look. Oh, and the joystick with fire-buttons.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Haha, if I were captian that would be standard equipment!

I like the pilot bridge color scheme though (with the black upper panels) in some ways better than the production series decor.


----------



## Captain April

uss_columbia said:


> Did you miss the smiley before? I don't really think it was meant to be transparent.


The point being that it's fielder's choice as to how accurate the shot is.

Doesn't change the fact that everyone on the show assumed the bridge faced forward, regardless of the detail on the model, and if pressed on the subject, most likely would've said that the turbolift car just slid behind Uhura's station before going down, but they never did the math on it because they had far more important matters to tend to, like dealing with between five and seven scripts in various stages of production at any given time.

I'm far more interested in making the creators' intent work than sticking to an outsider's doctrine of how it wouldn't. An offset bridge is a non-starter with me, because it was never the creators' intent, was never assumed during the time of production, and still, after all these years, fails the giggle test.

And it's at _this_ point where I usually got into screaming matches with Mark, because I wasn't interested in all the mathematic details of how it _wouldn't_ work, I was only interested in how it could be made _to_ work. As such, he provided half of the solution, lower the darn thing a deck level, but didn't provide a rationale for that move that wouldn't violate what was, more or less, established in "The Cage" and assumed throughout, that the bridge was at the tippy top of the primary hull. It wasn't until Aridas mentioned something about the differences in the domes that it clicked, I had my rationale for lowering the bridge while still staying true to the pilots and fleshing out the history of the ship a bit in the process.

So now it's down to some serious tweaking, i.e., how big does that pilot dome have to be to accomodate the bridge interior and turbolift in a forward facing orientation, and can it be fudged to keep the overall dimensions of the ship in the ballpark of 947 feet in length?


----------



## Griffworks

Why can't the "Cage" dome just hold more, larger equipment? I don't think you'd need to change it's height w/in the upper decks area, if you've already got a workable solution. 

Besides, if you change the height for that particular bridge, don't you sort of get away from part of the rationale of having a sunken bridge? In that it's meant to be a "plug and play" piece that could be fairly easily swapped out. Sort of does away with the thinking of modular starship components, IMNSHO.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Captain April said:


> The point being that it's fielder's choice as to how accurate the shot is.


True. 

But if that is a matter of fielder's choice, that to me argues that other interior shots from the Cage set that suggest the dome is much higher above the bridge proper should be given greater weight; and therefore suggest to me that at least in the Cage the bridge was intended to be sunk into the B deck.

I think Aridas and others who sink the bridge of the Production TOS E almost as far have come to the most logical and believable positioning in the TOS E, whatever their reasons for doing so.

You can also, if you accept that positioning, face the bridge and elevator/alcove forward if you so choose. 

Regardless of lectures I've heard from others about the possible strength of 23rd(or is it 24th?) century hulls, putting it any higher then Aridas does doesn't make sense to me from a strategic standpoint. Bridges shouldn't be that vulnerably placed.

Even if they were able to create thin hulls capable of withstanding space travel at warp speeds they still had to contend with concentrated enemy fire.

I'm pretty sure hull breaches were attributed to enemy fire a couple of times in the series, so I don't buy the magic-super-strong-thin-hull arguments. 

Even if you could fit both the bridge and elevator/alcove area in the top dome, doing so would be dumb and fail what you refer to as the giggle test for me.

Rotated or not, fitting entirely or not, it just doesn't make sense to me for strategic combat reasons.

Yep, you could extend that argument further and say if that's the case maybe it shouldn't even be in the B deck, that's another issue for another day.

But I personally don't feel it makes sense to place the bridge any higher then Aridas does in his TOS E cross section for many different reasons.

Plus again, at that level anyone who wants to face the bridge in any direction they want can do so with a decent amount of room to be believable.

It really is a solution that everybody can live with, forward facing bridge or not.

Here's a link to his cross sections:

http://www.federationreference.com/forum/viewforum.asp?forum_id=9&cat_id=25&topic_id=307&cat_name=Special+Project%3A+NCC%2D1701+Cross+Section&topic_name=The+Place+to+Start%2E%2E%2E&mode=iVRjLgbcVP&c_status=sNYfR&t_status=sNYfR


----------



## Steve Mavronis

They are really nice cross-sections. Thanks for the link!

His interior interpretation looks logical. If you notice he favors the offset bridge, although it appears mirror image. I like the engineering section. I guess what most of us took to be warp drive is impulse engines behind the wall grating. Plus they did show the same effect in the auxilary engine rooms. But it makes sense from a set point of view. I think the hallway that went to engineering was curved so you could place it in the saucer section.


----------



## aridas sofia

Funny thing is, my layout is closely based on the arrangement Jefferies set out in his TMoST cross section. That layout is only adjusted here and there to better fit with various sets from *TOS* and *TAS*. 

In my mind, *that* is what is meant by respecting the creator's intent. Jefferies had his say on this subject, and he dealt with the bridge issue by dropping it almost down to deck 2. And yet, as the turbolift tube rising to bridge level shows us, he still has the bridge offset so that the lift sits along the centerline.

So that is what the designer of the ship intended -- to drop the bridge down a bit, but to retain the offset alignment. He was having it both ways, probably so the people that might need to use his work could decide for themselves what they wanted. if you want to have the bridge face forward, just move it down a bit more, and rotate the lift. It won't match his cross section, but it won't be off by that much. No size adjustment needed -- it will fit fine.

BTW, my illustrations linked above are reversed from what the intended portrayal would be -- I was just being contrary there. Sorry. :wave:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

aridas sofia said:


> ...
> 
> BTW, my illustrations linked above are reversed from what the intended portrayal would be -- I was just being contrary there. Sorry. :wave:


Could you clarify? I have no idea what you mean.


----------



## aridas sofia

They are backwards -- as if you were seeing them in a mirror.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

I don't mean to disagree with you over your own drawings, but the labeling on all the interior craft are not mirrored, 

they are facing in the proper direction. So it can't be backwards.

I'm guessing you mean you meant to show the cutaway from the port side instead of the starboard side.


----------



## aridas sofia

No... I purposely created a version of the cross section for display that was reversed, but that still had the graphics in their proper orientation. I didn't want the thing to look entirely bass ackwards, but I didn't want to post the finished thing in all its high resolution, proper orientation glory until I knew what I was doing with it. So, the problem is very subtle, but enough for me to know if someone starts stealing the images and posting them without credit. (Remember -- the first time I posted any of this was on the TrekBBS, and the images were at a higher resolution and very large in order to permit critique).


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Understood. I won't ask for more details of what sections were and were not flipped then for the same reasons you stated above. Although even if someone reposted the images elsewhere your cutaway does have other unique attributes compared to a literal translation of Jefferies' cross section - so I don't see that you will have anything to fear from anyone else trying to claim them as theirs and steal credit from you. It's been out there for a good time now so I doubt anyone would be able to convince others that they created it before you did. Plus there is all that documentation and discussion you had while creating it.

But I understand what you are worried about.

Even if I don't think there's much chance of anyone successfully stealing credit for the work, you have every right to try and protect that credit. I believe you deserve every bit of recognition for the work even if you aren't able to copyright it.

You did an excellent job. I just wish you'd recruit a dozen or so more people to help you with the 3D version.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Well they look great none the less. And I appreciate your insight into Jefferies and his set layout and ship design. I could tell your drawing was mirrored from the view shown in the offset bridge. If it wasn't mirrored, we would see the viewscreen on the bridge from that side. One comment about the hangar deck. You have the ceiling level instead of arched like the Jefferies drawing as published in the Making of Star Trek?


----------



## Griffworks

aridas sofia said:


> They are backwards -- as if you were seeing them in a mirror.


So, you created a Terran Empire set of drawings? Won't they have you spend several hours in the Agony Booth for showing those _publicly_???


----------



## uss_columbia

Captain April said:


> Doesn't change the fact that everyone on the show assumed the bridge faced forward, regardless of the detail on the model...


What you mean is _you_ assume that everyone on the show assumed the bridge faced forward. This is despite ample evidence that Mr. Jefferies -- the man who designed both the bridge and the Enterprise -- knew full well that the bridge did not face forward. We can lead Captain April to the water, but we cannot make him drink. So, enjoy your thirst.





aridas sofia said:


> Funny thing is, my layout is closely based on the arrangement Jefferies set out in his TMoST cross section. ...
> 
> In my mind, *that* is what is meant by respecting the creator's intent. Jefferies had his say on this subject, and he dealt with the bridge issue by dropping it almost down to deck 2. And yet, as the turbolift tube rising to bridge level shows us, he still has the bridge offset so that the lift sits along the centerline.


Amen!


----------



## Griffworks

Alright, *no more of the jabs at others*. Challenge the validity of anothers statement if you want, but do so without the attitude.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

That's because the captain and navigators face a viewscreen. That alone gives the "illusion" of forward direction. It would also be natural for the actors and set crew to think the same thing because that's the way any human brain would perceive it. For functional purposes to a real Starship crew it wouldn't matter which way it actually faced. They could still get their mission done and no one would be the wiser. Ah, that Jefferies is a magician! I think it makes sense to use the turbolift tube to align the elevator with. Yet I respect others wish to keep the viewscreen true forward. I wish we could talk to Jefferies today. Half of us would like his answer and the other half would be dis-illusioned. The only thing that bugs me is the ceiling dome. The show represented it as transparent from the exterior bridge zoom effect. The set ceiling was just an opening for stage lighting, etc. I wonder if Jeffries envisioned it as a skylight?


----------



## aridas sofia

The hangar drawing in TMoST is for a significantly distorted miniature, built to accomodate a camera in its open end. The "right" hangar deck per Jefferies is seen in his Phase II cross section, which draws heavily from the TMoST illustration, but was drawn much larger. A scan of the original from my collection can be seen can be seen on Phil Broad's web site.

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STEnterprise/Phase2Drawings.htm

THAT'S Jefferies' hangar deck, and I've only adjusted it the slightest bit to accomodate the different position of the *TOS* pylons.

As for the bridge dome, think electrochromic windows: 

http://home.howstuffworks.com/smart-window4.htm


----------



## Steve Mavronis

aridas sofia said:


> The hangar drawing in TMoST is for a significantly distorted miniature, built to accomodate a camera in its open end.


Yes that could be. It is a common practice to distort miniature sets to get a dramatic camera view. To illustrate what you mean there are 2 behind the scenes pics found on the StarTrekMan site.

[EDIT] I had linked the pics here but removed them. I had an afterthought that it might not be alright to do that?


----------



## uss_columbia

Steve Mavronis said:


> The only thing that bugs me is the ceiling dome. The show represented it as transparent from the exterior bridge zoom effect. The set ceiling was just an opening for stage lighting, etc. I wonder is Jeffries envisioned it as a skylight?


I really don't think it was envisioned as a skylight. I think the shot was just artistic license intended to quickly establish that the bridge is atop the saucer, and the ship is BIG.

It certainly seems that it was established in the second pilot that it is not a skylight: the opaque dome is clearly seen in WNMHGB. However, if you prefer to think of it as a skylight, you can think of the dome as made of a material that can change from opaque to transparent.

I doubt we'll be able to know for sure whether Jefferies thought of it as transparent for a time.

Earlier, Pato Guzman's sketch of the bridge concept does not seem to show a transparent part of the dome. (Sorry for the poor quality picture; I didn't want to force the pages of _The Art of Star Trek_ too far open.)









Aridas has suggested that the bridge was inspired by one in an earlier sci-fi film (I forget what it's called, I believe its US title is First Spaceship on Venus). It bears a striking resemblance. Does anyone recall if that bridge had a transparent dome?
(BTW, CRA reported that the Okudas asked Jefferies about this influence, who replied that he'd never seen the film. Pato may have, though. The resemblance is _very_ strong. But it could be a case of "great minds think alike.")


----------



## CessnaDriver

Here is a little clip, interesting....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AEvVeNd26w


----------



## uss_columbia

Steve Mavronis said:


> It is a common practice to distort miniature sets to get a dramatic camera view. To illustrate what you mean there are 2 behind the scenes pics found on the StarTrekMan site.
> 
> [EDIT] I had linked the pics here but removed them. I had an afterthought that it might not be alright to do that?


You mean the two images of the hangar on this page at startrekman, I assume. There are more pictures of the miniature in the William McCullars Trek Communicator article (part 2).

The drawing in TMOST is of this miniature -- distortion and all -- rather than of the real hangar. The hangar in the cross section of the Enterprise, also shown in TMOST, however, has the expected proportions (and is consistent with the Phase II cross section Aridas mentioned).

p.s. It is frowned upon to hotlink to images on other people's web sites. My personal view is that it's not too bad as long as you also provide a link to the site where you hotlink them. Servers that don't want hotlinking can (and frequently do) block them.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

uss_columbia said:


> I really don't think it was envisioned as a skylight. I think the shot was just artistic license intended to quickly establish that the bridge is atop the saucer, and the ship is BIG.
> 
> It certainly seems that it was established in the second pilot that it is not a skylight: the opaque dome is clearly seen in WNMHGB. However, if you prefer to think of it as a skylight, you can think of the dome as made of a material that can change from opaque to transparent.


I think that's a major revisionism and assumption to call that shot purely artistic license.

Also I believe we are confusing what we know of the filming miniature and what was seen onscreen when you say the dome was opaque in WNMHGB.

I've gone through a ton of screencaps and the dome is definitely lighted.

We can never see it at an angle onscreen that can be said that it is definitely intended to represent a non-transparent dome.

Prior to the Remastered TOS episodes, the window ports were also represented by what we know to have been translucent lighted panels.

To assume that the lighted dome over the bridge was never meant to be a transparent dome because the filming miniature's dome was not fully transparent would be an error, IMHO.

If we apply that logic consistently we would also believe that the window ports also were never meant to represent transparent windows.

We might know that the filming miniature's windows and domes were translucent and not transparent, but it does not follow that since the model's windows and dome were translucent they necessarilly were meant to represent a non-transparent dome and windows.

I don't understand the sudden need to try and say that the dome wasn't intended to be transparent, or at least more transparent then translucent.

We're asked to simply ignore that opening Cage shot.

Why?

Because it was filmed as well as could be done at the time; and it's become apparent that the view doesn't look realistic to us when you stop and analyse it, 

is not a good enough reason to claim that that scene never happened or didn't intend to show a transparent dome.


----------



## uss_columbia

aridas sofia said:


> Funny thing is, my layout is closely based on the arrangement Jefferies set out in his TMoST cross section. ... So that is what the designer of the ship intended -- to drop the bridge down a bit, but to retain the offset alignment.


It's interesting that the bridge is dropped down less in the Phase II cross section than in the TMOST one. It appears he was forced to drop it that much in the TMOST one so that the lift wouldn't be too high for the tube (and the tube was lowered along with the pilot dome). It seems likely, as has been suggested before, that the bridge position relative to the top of the dome remained fixed when the dome was lowered after the pilots -- the dome was lowered and the bridge with it. (IIRR, CRA suggested that the full dome is still there around the lowered bridge, the lower part of the dome inside the teardrop. Interesting thought.) Anyway, with the Phase II sporting higher lift tube features, it wasn't necessary to lower the bridge so much. (Also, he faced the viewscreen forward this time, of course.)

I suspect Jefferies may have preferred that the tube stick up higher in the production version, but the 11-footer model dome modification lowered the tube the same amount as the dome, forcing him to lower the bridge more than would otherwise be necessary. (On the 3-footer, the lift tube looks higher than on the 11-footer, BTW. Of course, the 3-footer's dome was the same in the pilot and series versions.)

Edit: never mind about the height of the tube relative to the 11-footer dome. Even if he raised the tube, the opening between the dome and the tube would remain in the same position. The highest the original bridge can be would be limited by that opening, probably placing exactly as low as Jefferies drew in TMOST. (The Phase II dome-tube interface is different.)


----------



## uss_columbia

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Also I believe we are confusing what we know of the filming miniature and what was seen onscreen when you say the dome was opaque in WNMHGB.
> 
> I've gone through a ton of screencaps and the dome is definitely lighted.
> 
> We can never see it at an angle onscreen that can be said that it is definitely intended to represent a non-transparent dome.


We're talking opaque from the inside. You may have been away when this image was posted a couple of days ago. (Griff said I have to be patient with the new arrivals, so I won't tease you about not paying attention. )


----------



## Steve Mavronis

On TV that zoom in though the bridge dome from space was used twice. Originally in the Cage pilot, and reused to incorporate it in the Menagerie 2 part episode during the production run of Star Trek.

That is why I agree with Chuck_P.R. that it can't be ignored. We all saw it. So now we must take that scene into account and make sense of it to be consistent. 

(Too bad they didn't show a view to space when filiming bridge set action for dramatic effect. A simple bluescreen effect over the actors heads could have shown star patterns.)

Then again in Menagerie, Commodore Mendez stopped the playback to question Spock about that scene because they didn't have the technology to make a historical log of events with that much visual detail. Spock revealed that the Talosians were transmitting the recording and that it was made by them.

On the bridge set shot in uss_columbia's post above, I'm not convinced that there is an actual enclosed dome built into the set. Above the upper rim (looks like a thin seam line) of the curved ceiling trim, it could just be a flat grey backdrop or wall back there like you see in a lot of interior set filming disguised to look like a horizonal ceiling above the trim instead of a vertical wall from the right angles; to make room for stage lights and mic booms, etc.


----------



## scotthm

Chuck_P.R. said:


> To assume that the lighted dome over the bridge was never meant to be a transparent dome because the filming miniature's dome was not fully transparent would be an error, IMHO.


During all the episodes of _Star Trek_ I don't ever remember seeing any lighting or shadow effects implying that external lighting was entering the bridge from above. If the production crew would have wanted to imply that the dome was transparent to outside lighting effects, I think it would have been trivial to indicate that onscreen via simple lighting effects.

Though it's just my opinion, I believe the shot of the bridge through the dome was just an orientation shot to give the audience a clue as to its location, and shouldn't be taken as anything more than that. If I'm not mistaken, _The Cage_ was never intended to be televised when it was produced.

---------------


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

A couple of issues.

One, it still conflicts with the Cage scene.

Secondly, if we take this shot literally we still don't know how high that area goes up before meeting the dome.

I've seen overhead shots that show a rim and opening above the area seen in that shot.

Also, consider the fact that we have seen scenes with shots in them with objects never intended to be seen, like the missing ceiling sections and microphones projecting down into the shot. There was even a shot in Doomsday Machine in which a non-removed wall jutted out into space. 

Again, there is an opening higher then seen in that shot anyway.

I still have yet to hear a convincing reason why we should act as if that Cage shot never happened. That would take some compelling reason and I just haven't heard a good reason to do that yet.


----------



## uss_columbia

^ And if you believe CRA:



Captain April said:


> After all, we saw plenty of close zoom-ins on the bridge in other shots and that dome wasn't any more transparent in those shots than it is in the above photo.


I don't recall seeing any other shots of the ceiling, but I'm certainly not going to say they aren't there. I'll watch for them as I re-watch TOS next time.


----------



## uss_columbia

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I've seen overhead shots that show a rim and opening above the area seen in that shot.


I'm pretty sure _I_ haven't. Please post a picture, if you can.




> Also, consider the fact that we have seen scenes with shots in them with objects never intended to be seen, like the missing ceiling sections and microphones projecting down into the shot. There was even a shot in Doomsday Machine in which a non-removed wall jutted out into space.


Yes, but it definitely would have been easier to film _without_ this high ceiling. Because it is there, we have to accept that it depicts what's intended.

If you look back, you'll find that I said it was opaque in WNMHGB but allowed that it may indeed have been transparent in The Cage (and even in the series). A bit later, I even allowed that it could be made of a material that can change between transparent and non-transparent, allowing WNMHGB to still have a transparent dome. Steve posted a modified image that illustrates what it might look like when set to "transparent." You could probably subscribe to that theory, which fits all of the evidence seen. (I'll stick with the theory that the Cage shot was figurative (and that the Menagerie shot was an illusion / special effect created by the Talosians).)




> Again, there is an opening higher then seen in that shot anyway.


Let's see it!


scotthm: good point! Adding a splash of color to the bridge from environmental light sources would have been a neat and easy effect.


----------



## scotthm

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I still have yet to hear a convincing reason why we should act as if that Cage shot never happened. That would take some compelling reason and I just haven't heard a good reason to do that yet.


IMO, _The Cage_ can't really be considered an episode of _Star Trek_ because it wasn't produced for television broadcast.

As stated a few messages back, the scene through the dome we see in _The Menagerie_ was an illusion produced by the Talosians, and wasn't a photographic (or equivalent) record.

---------------


----------



## uss_columbia

Steve Mavronis said:


> On TV that zoom in though the bridge dome from space was used twice. Originally in the Cage pilot, and reused to incorporate it in the Menagerie 2 part episode during the production run of Star Trek.


Only once that counts. The Menagerie is part of the original series. The Cage is not.  Of course, in Menagerie, it's a Talosian recreation; so I guess we've never seen it "that counts." 
(Edit: as scotthm just posted above.)



> That is why I agree with Chuck_P.R. that it can't be ignored. We all saw it. So now we must take that scene into account and make sense of it to be consistent.


We all heard music in the background, aliens speaking English, sound and shockwaves in space, etc. Dramatic license. (We even saw the action freeze while we saw a word from sponsors.) 



> Then again in Menagerie, Commodore Mendez stopped the playback to question Spock about that scene because they didn't have the technology to make a historical log of events with that much visual detail. Spock revealed that the Talosians were transmitting the recording and that it was made by them.


Interesting that an illusion commodore commented on the illusion movie. It must have been for Kirk's benefit, perhaps to explain why the opaque bridge ceiling appeared transparent, which would have looked odd to Kirk. 



> On the bridge set shot in uss_columbia's post above, I'm not convinced that there is an actual enclosed dome built into the set. Above the upper rim (looks like a thin seam line) of the curved ceiling trim, it could just be a flat grey backdrop or wall back there like you see in a lot of interior set filming disguised to look like a horizonal ceiling above the trim instead of a vertical wall from the right angles; to make room for stage lights and mic booms, etc.


It's most likely not a full dome, just enough of it to let them film the suggestion of a full dome. That parting line is where the dome proper would begin. The straight part below it suggests the thickness of the outer hull.
(I don't think that dome was seen again, probably too inconvenient having it in the way of camera and light work.)


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

scotthm said:


> During all the episodes of _Star Trek_ I don't ever remember seeing any lighting or shadow effects implying that external lighting was entering the bridge from above. If the production crew would have wanted to imply that the dome was transparent to outside lighting effects, I think it would have been trivial to indicate that onscreen via simple lighting effects.
> 
> Though it's just my opinion, I believe the shot of the bridge through the dome was just an orientation shot to give the audience a clue as to its location, and shouldn't be taken as anything more than that. If I'm not mistaken, _The Cage_ was never intended to be televised when it was produced.
> 
> ---------------


To believe that that shot was not intended to convey a transparent dome would require us to not only ignore that shot,

but also believe that it is just a coincidence that that specific point was, I guess "cut out" is the only way I can explain the contention.

I just don't see a need for that kind of revisionist idea.

That shot would not make sense whether the dome was transparent or if it were indeed somehow "cut out."

The bridge still juts out the port side of the A/B deck.

So I don't see where claiming the dome wasn't transparent solves anything.

It doesn't make the scene better, it's still as inaccurate whether you believe the dome has been cut out or if you believe it's meant to show the bridge through a transparent dome.

Personally since the shot's angle puts the bridge outside the portside of the A/B decks I don't see any reason to believe anything different then the fact that they did the best they could with the technology they had.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Leave it to the Talosians to ruin a good debate 

After all, they can make you see anything they want.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

scotthm said:


> During all the episodes of _Star Trek_ I don't ever remember seeing any lighting or shadow effects implying that external lighting was entering the bridge from above. If the production crew would have wanted to imply that the dome was transparent to outside lighting effects, I think it would have been trivial to indicate that onscreen via simple lighting effects.
> 
> Though it's just my opinion, I believe the shot of the bridge through the dome was just an orientation shot to give the audience a clue as to its location, and shouldn't be taken as anything more than that. If I'm not mistaken, _The Cage_ was never intended to be televised when it was produced.
> 
> ---------------


To believe that that shot was not intended to convey a transparent dome would require us to not only ignore that shot,

but also believe that it is just a coincidence that that specific point was, I guess "cut out" is the only way I can explain the contention.

I just don't see a need for that kind of revisionist idea.

Whether one believes the dome is transparent or thinks it was "cut away"

neither theory solves anything that is wrong about the angle of the shot.

That shot would not make sense whether the dome was transparent or if it were indeed somehow "cut out."

The bridge still juts out the port side of the A/B deck.

So I don't see where claiming the dome wasn't transparent solves anything.

It doesn't explain or solve any question. It's just a new contention that doesn't solve any of the problems with the shot.

It doesn't make the scene better, it's still as inaccurate whether you believe the dome has been cut out or if you believe it's meant to show the bridge through a transparent dome.

Personally since the shot's angle puts the bridge outside the portside of the A/B decks I don't see any reason to believe anything different then that they did the best they could with the technology they had.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Steve Mavronis said:


> Leave it to the Talosians to ruin a good debate
> 
> After all, they can make you see anything they want.


:lol:


----------



## uss_columbia

Chuck_P.R. said:


> That shot would not make sense whether the dome was transparent or if it were indeed somehow "cut out."
> 
> The bridge still juts out the port side of the A/B deck.
> 
> So I don't see where claiming the dome wasn't transparent solves anything.


You're reinforcing my point for me. The shot is not to be taken literally, can't be. It is a 1965 special effect meant to tell the viewing executives that the ship is BIG and that the bridge is atop the saucer. It's pretty cool, too.


----------



## uss_columbia

Steve: your point about a backdrop got me looking at the image again. It sure looks like one part of it (a third from the left) doesn't make the crease-and-curve that most of the rest does. It looks like gray paper that went a little flat in that one area. No wonder we didn't see that again: the crew probably cussed it during filming and destroyed it.

Here's the image again, for convenience.


----------



## uss_columbia

^ Chuck: we heard you the first time.  (double post)


(Might as well post something useful rather than just teasing Chuck. 
Since it seems you missed the discussion a few pages back (BTW, welcome back!), I thought I'd point out the illustration back in post 547 of just how far away the bridge is from actually fitting in the dome in that shot. (It fits within the dome and lift tube fine, just not where it's shown in that shot. See the next post (548) for where it would really be -- lower, centered, and rotated to align lift with tube.))


----------



## scotthm

Chuck_P.R. said:


> So I don't see where claiming the dome wasn't transparent solves anything.


I'm not trying to 'solve' anything, I'm just stating why I personally don't believe that (after _The Cage_) the Enterprise was intended to have a transparent dome over the bridge.

The only time (after _The Cage_) where we see a transparent dome is in _The Menagerie_, where it's clearly implied that we're seeing an artificially produced _recreation_ of a past event, and not a photographic record.

We never saw any indication via lighting effects that the bridge was being illuminated by exterior lighting other than through the viewscreen.

That's about all I have to contribute to this particular issue.

---------------


----------



## Steve Mavronis

uss_columbia said:


> Steve: your point about a backdrop got me looking at the image again. It sure looks like one part of it (a third from the left) doesn't make the crease-and-curve that most of the rest does. It looks like gray paper that went a little flat in that one area. No wonder we didn't see that again: the crew probably cussed it during filming and destroyed it.


There is one more low angle shot in Where No Man Has Gone Before with Kirk in the elevator entering the bridge right before your shot above. There is a fant line on the gray bridge ceiling seen past the corner of the door opening.

Hard to judge what the intent of the creators of Star Trek had in mind. I did read that Roddenberry wanted big ceiling windows in the engine room so you could see the warp nacelles hanging overhead. If he wanted that then why not the bridge too? I think it came down to cutting special effects production expenses that these interior effects were not done.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

scotthm said:


> I'm not trying to 'solve' anything, I'm just stating why I personally don't believe that (after _The Cage_) the Enterprise was intended to have a transparent dome over the bridge.
> 
> The only time (after _The Cage_) where we see a transparent dome is in _The Menagerie_, where it's clearly implied that we're seeing an artificially produced _recreation_ of a past event, and not a photographic record.
> 
> We never saw any indication via lighting effects that the bridge was being illuminated by exterior lighting other than through the viewscreen.
> 
> That's about all I have to contribute to this particular issue.
> 
> ---------------


I just don't see the need for the revisionism.

I understand what you are saying about the outside light, but that would not be surprising as any dome would have to have filters to block not just overly intense exterior light but also radiation.

Think of it coated with a material like what is used on mirrored window insulation film. 

When it is daylight, or the light outside is more intense then the light inside, it is blocked and the more intense light can't get in. 

But when the light inside is stronger, such as during the night, the windows are virtually transparent and the interior light can be seen.

Anything is possible, I just don't think it has been shown to have been changed from what we saw in The Cage.


----------



## uss_columbia

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I just don't see the need for the revisionism.


On the other hand, it seems you really do:



Chuck_P.R. said:


> That shot would not make sense whether the dome was transparent or if it were indeed somehow "cut out."
> The bridge still juts out the port side of the A/B deck.
> ...
> 
> Personally since the shot's angle puts the bridge outside the portside of the A/B decks I don't see any reason to believe anything different then that they did the best they could with the technology they had.


To believe the shot is inaccurate and does not depict the "real" scene is to believe in revisionism. The non-revisionist view is that there was only a portion of the bridge there (the part that fit in the dome); the lift doors opened to space, etc.) . You're just quibbling over the *amount* of revisionism. :lol:
Without a certain amount of revisionism (preferably on-the-fly as we watch), we can't suspend disbelief, letting ourselves enter the "real" Trek universe. It would just be an old TV show.  (I often have to keep reminding myself to leave my brain in neutral when I watch TV or movies. -- I just don't like it when I have to put it in full reverse.  )





> Think of it coated with a material like what is used on mirrored window insulation film.
> 
> When it is daylight, or the light outside is more intense then the light inside, it is blocked and the more intense light can't get in.


Something like Aridas said a bit earlier, perhaps 



aridas sofia said:


> As for the bridge dome, think electrochromic windows:
> 
> http://home.howstuffworks.com/smart-window4.htm


----------



## uss_columbia

CessnaDriver said:


> Here is a little clip, interesting....
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AEvVeNd26w


For what it's worth, that thing definitely has a clear dome. Of course, MJ not having seen it, it doesn't amount to much.

On the other hand, in Requiem for Methuselah, Kirk does seem to look into the bridge dome to see what's up with this tiny little Enterprise. (The viewscreen shows him, too, oddly; the view must have been set to the up-through-the-dome angle.) Of course, I don't take the scene too literally -- I can accept that the 33.75" Enterprise is symbolic of the real ship being imprisoned by Flint much easier than that he somehow instantly reduced its size by 99.7%, presumably reducing its mass proportionally as well.

Symbolic or not, Kirk seemed to look into it. (Or was it just closely _at_ it?)


----------



## Griffworks

First off, I've been pretty much in the middle of the road for this discussion about how "real" a "sunroof" on the bridge of the TOS ships might be or not. Or what might or might not have been intended by Mr. Jeffries, Mr. Roddenberry or anyone else.

Anyhow, after thinking on it some and re-watching "The Menagerie", I'm of a mind that you can't accept that scene from "The Cage"/"The Menagerie" as anything other than artistic license. I really don't think it was meant to be so literal. I don't mean to insult anyone here, but to think otherwise just seems like grasping at straws to reinforce their own viewpoint. IMO, it's what others have stated - it's meant to show the viewer where the bridge is on the ship. 

Back to TNG, tho... There's definitely a "sunroof" on the E-D, just to point that out. Obviously, that doesn't mean that was the original intent of Mr. Jeffries or anyone else in TOS for Pike or Kirk's _Enterprise_. For a long time when I was a kid I was sort of under the impression that the area immediately above the bridge was a series of sensor arrays.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

uss_columbia said:


> On the other hand, it seems you really do:
> 
> 
> 
> To believe the shot is inaccurate and does not depict the "real" scene is to believe in revisionism. The non-revisionist view is that there was only a portion of the bridge there (the part that fit in the dome); the lift doors opened to space, etc.) . You're just quibbling over the *amount* of revisionism. :lol:
> Without a certain amount of revisionism (preferably on-the-fly as we watch), we can't suspend disbelief, letting ourselves enter the "real" Trek universe. It would just be an old TV show.  (I often have to keep reminding myself to leave my brain in neutral when I watch TV or movies. -- I just don't like it when I have to put it in full reverse.  )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something like Aridas said a bit earlier, perhaps


 
I don't believe an electrochromatic system would be necessary, but it could work. Personally though I like the idea of static filtering rather something more complicated.

I don't believe that revisionism is necessary either if one simply accepts that they got across the idea as well as they could with what was available to them at the time.

I'm open to someone showing that there is a reason to consider the dome to be opague.

I'm just not hearing any. Don't even know why you're grasping for them. If you have no further new info, I think I'll join scotthm in saying there is little more that I can think of to say on the issue.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Griffworks said:


> First off, I've been pretty much in the middle of the road for this discussion about how "real" a "sunroof" on the bridge of the TOS ships might be or not. Or what might or might not have been intended by Mr. Jeffries, Mr. Roddenberry or anyone else.
> 
> Anyhow, after thinking on it some and re-watching "The Menagerie", I'm of a mind that you can't accept that scene from "The Cage"/"The Menagerie" as anything other than artistic license. I really don't think it was meant to be so literal. I don't mean to insult anyone here, but to think otherwise just seems like grasping at straws to reinforce their own viewpoint. IMO, it's what others have stated - it's meant to show the viewer where the bridge is on the ship.
> 
> Back to TNG, tho... There's definitely a "sunroof" on the E-D, just to point that out. Obviously, that doesn't mean that was the original intent of Mr. Jeffries or anyone else in TOS for Pike or Kirk's _Enterprise_. For a long time when I was a kid I was sort of under the impression that the area immediately above the bridge was a series of sensor arrays.


I don't believe that one has to take the Cage scene literally 
in order to think they were suggesting the dome was transparent. 

Again, I don't think they showed the bridge as being visible at that point out of total coincidence.

Artistic license means you fudge a little on the details, not that you are suggesting something totally the opposite of what is being shown.





Notwithstanding the don't-believe-your-lying-eyes interpretation of the Cage scene,


we have examples of the first pilot showing a transparent dome,

we have the scene that uss columbia mentioned in Requiem(I thought it was Catspaw but I could be wrong)

and the fact that at least some later designs had them...


One has to pretend away, ignore and attribute quite a lot to the term "artistic license" to explain all that away.


And since there doesn't seem to be any contrary evidence that it wasn't transparent,

why anyone would want to think it might have been opague honestly stumps me.


----------



## scotpens

Chuck_P.R. said:


> . . . why anyone would want to think it might have been opague honestly stumps me.


How about because it simply makes a whole lot more sense?

When I first saw the "through-the bridge-dome" shot in "The Menagerie," I assumed even then, at age 13, that it wasn't meant literally — it was simply an establishing shot to show the size and placement of the bridge relative to the ship. After all, if the bridge was covered by a transparent dome, how could the camera go _through_ the dome? Besides, what would be the purpose of a clear roof on a starship? To be able to see the stars overhead for a romantic evening on the bridge?

Having sensor platforms protected by the top and bottom saucer domes, as shown in the Franz Joseph plans (canon or not), always made a heckuva lot more sense to me.

As for that bridge shot from "WNMHGB," neither the bridge nor any of the other standing _Enterprise_ sets ever had a ceiling, according to TMOST. It was standard practice at that time to build interior sets open at the top for lighting. The gray area filling in the space above the bridge set in that photo must be a simple wooden or paper backdrop.

And that, FWIW, is my contribution to this debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Chuck_P.R. said:


> why anyone would want to think it might have been opague honestly stumps me.


 


scotpens said:


> How about because it simply makes a whole lot more sense?


How so?

Even if one assumes the bridge is opague, 

that doesn't change the fact that the video taken at that angle
places a good deal of the bridge sticking out into space in the port side.

Not to mention that making the dome opague doesn't allow the camera to go through it either.

How does making the dome opague make more sense?


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Chuck_P.R. said:


> How so? Even if one assumes the bridge is opague, that doesn't change the fact that the video taken at that angle places a good deal of the bridge sticking out into space in the port side. Not to mention that making the dome opague doesn't allow the camera to go through it either. How does making the dome opague make more sense?


Good points and observations. If the bridge were placed lower in true position, we wouldn't see much of it through the dome from that angle. You would just see the rim overe the bridge and maybe some of the perimeter station console surfaces. ...unless you want to attribute the position being shifted due to a convex lens distortion effect like someones eye socket sides distorted through glasses.


----------



## scotthm

Chuck_P.R. said:


> And since there doesn't seem to be any contrary evidence that it wasn't transparent


That's not true, as I've pointed out that there's been no indication of exterior lighting entering the bridge from above in any episode. Your excuse is that such light is being blocked (see post #599) by a dome of variable opacity.



> why anyone would want to think it might have been opague honestly stumps me.


If you think about it a bit more perhaps it will become _clearer_ to you.  

One last thought. Not only was the bridge not affected by outside lighting, but it was evenly lit, as if the light were coming from a diffuse light source above the entire bridge. If the dome were transparent, as you insist, the lighting would all have come from the perimeter and left a dark hole in the middle. We saw no indication of this either.

I believe the way the bridge was lit during the entire run of the series is the best evidence that the dome was not transparent.

---------------


----------



## aridas sofia

I'm not sure what I can contribute to this debate, mainly because I'm not able to show the 3D renderings my little group of artists are developing yet. But I can describe them to you, and you can refer to my cross section to see what I mean. 

When Jefferies dropped the bridge in his cross section, he created a situation where the dome inside is not in the position where the dome outside is located. One is much lower. So, if you go with the dropped bridge, and accept the scene from WNMHGB showing a dome right above the upper row of screens, then the dome in the bridge is different from the dome on the exterior of the ship. It just has to be.

You can still have a transparent dome outside, and an opaque dome inside. If you want the shot from "The Cage" to be "real" then just assume the interior dome has some advanced electrochromic-like tech allowing an opaque dome (WNMHGB) become transparent (Cage) to let you see through the real, exterior clear dome. The exterior dome is transparent perhaps to allow EM sensors an unobrstructed view.

This also lets you account for *TAS* and its solid dome and "disco" security device.

I hope that was "clear" enough.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I think that cross-section above is close to reality if it were a real ship. Anything between the top ceiling trim of the set and outside dome is imaginative conjecture by us fans though. But as far as what is depicted in Menagerie and Cage, I take it literally that they wanted to represent the dome as a see-thru design feature of the ship, which is a cool special effects shot to establish scale and show live action to help you believe people are actually inside controlling a space ship. The movie 2001 did this a lot with rear projected crew action inserted through cockpit windows, etc. It made it feel real. It all adds realism and believability. Don't know why the aliens would bother creating a special effects shot. Why didn't they just show a complete cutaway Enterprise?! They could have easily just zoomed into the side wall of the bridge dome and faded the shot into the inside live action bridge set! Why would they go through the trouble of slicing of the top of the bridge to peer inside like opening the lid from a jar?


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw

Steve Mavronis said:


> But as far as what is depicted in Menagerie and Cage, I take it literally that they wanted to represent the dome as a see-thru design feature of the ship, which is a cool special effects shot to establish scale and show live action to help you believe people are actually inside controlling a space ship.


I have to disagree. I think the shot was done soley as a gee-whiz special effect to enhance the feel of visually 'flying' in to the ship. Since there is no dome shape apparent in the oustside shot, merely the flat interior view of the bridge, it is and was evident to me from the first time I saw it, that they had merely removed the dome from the shot. Had the dome been intended to be transparent I think Rodenberry and the production crew would have made more obvious use of it. If you have a transparent dome, why do you need a forward viewscreen? Just put in another transparent piece and have done with it.


----------



## Griffworks

Because they could see thru walls and it looked much cooler to their genetically enhanced producer genes? 

Kidding aside, _some_ of the arguments either way make sense, tho I still have to say that the one that best passes the logic test for me, personally, is that the interior dome was opaque. We get one scene where we see this (from "The Cage", originally) - a scene re-used in a later two-part episode ("The Menagerie") - and it never shows up again. 

Ever. 

We even have evidence of the bridge being opaque in the image linked above that shows the ceiling/interior bridge dome. So, upon further thinking, I'd have to say that I'm firmly in the camp of an opaque bridge dome interior. 

To dismiss the scene as artistic license on the part of the production staff for the reasons given without offering up a defeating argument simply smacks of arbitrary reasoning - i.e. "I don't like it, so will state that it makes no sense". Especially when followed up with Chucks comment of: 



> Even if one assumes the bridge is opague, that doesn't change the fact that the video taken at that angle places a good deal of the bridge sticking out into space in the port side.


How does the bridge dome being clear make this any less true for that particular argument? To my thinking that just _reinforces_ the "artistic license" argument. Not to insult the production staff, 'cause they were doing the best with what they had at the time. 

Also, the argument of lense distortion being a possible cause for the "bridge hanging in space" because of a clear bridge makes no sense either, 'cause there'd be even more lense distortion the closer we get to _Enterprise_ in that shot - and there isn't any. 

Again, this is nothing personal, just debating the merits of either argument. Some of the arguments for the bridge dome being clear seem like arbitrary opinions to me. The one scene we get which shows that honestly comes across as a visual reference point only, not a literal view in to the bridge. 

Lets also - all of us - remember that we've all got opinions on the issue and to not be insulting to those who disagree w/our own opinion. Until we see something which 100% corroborates one side or the other - seeing as we've got arguments and potential supporting data both ways - either side might be right.


----------



## uss_columbia

Griffworks said:


> Back to TNG, tho... There's definitely a "sunroof" on the E-D, just to point that out.


On the other hand, the refit dome was clearly solid (and pretty cool looking with all the radial ribs).




> For a long time when I was a kid I was sort of under the impression that the area immediately above the bridge was a series of sensor arrays.


I always thought this, too. I was thinking it was called out as such in the TMOST diagram, but I checked last night and found that it wasn't. Perhaps it was called out by FJ. My SFTM is in a box somewhere, so I can't easily check. I'm sure we got that idea from _somewhere_, though.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

scotthm said:


> I believe the way the bridge was lit during the entire run of the series is the best evidence that the dome was not transparent.
> 
> ---------------


If that's the case the same could be said of the window ports, which is obviously not the case.



scotthm said:


> That's not true, as I've pointed out that there's been no indication of exterior lighting entering the bridge from above in any episode. Your excuse is that such light is being blocked (see post #599) by a dome of variable opacity.


It really has nothing to do with variable opacity. Just standard safety filtering that can be done with simple construction techniques in existence today.

Window ports on today's space stations use similar techniques that allow one to see out of them without allowing dangerous radiation or blinding glare unfiltered by an atmosphere.

They use multiple but conventional techniques that don't require the opacity to change at all, but blocks certain light levels, angles and wavelengths.

One advantage and use of one such type of filtering that many may be familiar with would be the polarizing filter for a camera.


Whether discussing the dome or even window ports for that matter, it would not make sense from an engineering standpoint, to not apply such filtering technology, which is already in existence.

To not use that technology would leave those underneath the dome at the mercy of possibly blinding light from whatever source.




There are other reasons that variable light from above was never seen that are matters of practicality.

I didn't mention or go into them because I believe that it's illogical that the dome would ever be constructed without built in filtering capabilities.

Since I don't believe a transparent filtered dome would be built in a way that would allow an overpowering amount of light, I didn't bother going into those other reasons.



scotthm said:


> If you think about it a bit more perhaps it will become _clearer_ to you.
> 
> ---------------


:lol:

I'm still open to having my mind changed. I just haven't heard any convincing arguments yet.


----------



## uss_columbia

Chuck_P.R. said:


> One has to pretend away, ignore and attribute quite a lot to the term "artistic license" to explain all that away.


Yes, either way you like it, you have to explain away something: either the transparent dome or the opaque ceiling. We've seen both. Take your pick. I've taken mine.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

One thing for sure: the bridge ceiling had stage lights and mic booms installed, and a crane mounted camera from time to time. Kidding aside, we will never have a definitive answer without MJ himself telling us what was his design thoughts on it. It remains in the eye of the beholder. We all want to make it what we want to believe. What we should be asking ourselves is why does the top of the dome glow?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Steve Mavronis said:


> Good points and observations. If the bridge were placed lower in true position, we wouldn't see much of it through the dome from that angle. You would just see the rim overe the bridge and maybe some of the perimeter station console surfaces. ...unless you want to attribute the position being shifted due to a convex lens distortion effect like someones eye socket sides distorted through glasses.


It also occurs to me that if they only wanted to show a sense of scale to the ship, and where the bridge was located...

They could have accomplished both of those objectives in a manner used quite often in cinematography...

A type of shot that would have allowed them to not only show a sense of scale, the location of the bridge, and also ended up showing the bridge interior from an angle that didn't conflict with the exterior.

It would have been much more accurate and accomplished everything in terms of establishing the positioning of the bridge and the relative scale of the ship without the arkward shot of the bridge as seen through the dome.


----------



## Griffworks

'Cause it looks kewel? I like to think it glows 'cause of it the sensor apparatus underneath it. As always, YMMV.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Steve Mavronis said:


> One thing for sure: the bridge ceiling had stage lights and mic booms installed, and a crane mounted camera from time to time. Kidding aside, we will never have a definitive answer without MJ himself telling us what was his design thoughts on it. It remains in the eye of the beholder. We all want to make it what we want to believe. What we should be asking ourselves is why does the top of the dome glow?


Agreed.

We can all imagine a lot of different things about a lot of different issues, but without MJ around to answer our questions we'll never really know.


----------



## uss_columbia

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I'm open to someone showing that there is a reason to consider the dome to be opague.
> 
> I'm just not hearing any. Don't even know why you're grasping for them. If you have no further new info, I think I'll join scotthm in saying there is little more that I can think of to say on the issue.


One more time, please pay attention:










This scene very clearly suggests that the ceiling is opaque not transparent. You can ignore it if you please, but to say you honestly don't understand other people's view seems disingenuous.


----------



## uss_columbia

scotpens said:


> When I first saw the "through-the bridge-dome" shot in "The Menagerie," I assumed even then, at age 13, that it wasn't meant literally — it was simply an establishing shot to show the size and placement of the bridge relative to the ship.


That's how I viewed it at age 7, too. Of course, I'd seen the whole series before ever seeing The Cage (at a con in 1976 -- the same con where Gene announced to us that the Big E was "getting a facelift". We were horrified at the thought! Turned out fine, though.  )



> Having sensor platforms protected by the top and bottom saucer domes, as shown in the Franz Joseph plans (canon or not), always made a heckuva lot more sense to me.


Thanks for verifying that it was FJ that identified them as sensor domes.



> The gray area filling in the space above the bridge set in that photo must be a simple wooden or paper backdrop.


It looks like paper to me (as mentioned before). "Backdrop" isn't quite the right word -- it looks evident it's not behind the set but rather placed right there to form a dome.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Too bad they didn't just hang some cool Star Trek type light fixtures up there. They could have dressed it with the ceiling lights from the pilot style briefing room (and Pike's quarters) since it was round. It would have looked rather cool over the bridge. If you are going to put something there go with that since it was common to re-dress sets with pieces of each other.

The Cage/Menagarie: 









Where No Man Has Gone Before:









There is a lot of light illuminating the middle navigation section on the bridge. They didn't even have the trapezoid rim lighting fixtures installed yet above the outter consoles.


----------



## uss_columbia

aridas sofia said:


>


Love the ladder up to the "sensor dome" space! I imagine you have the second bridge exit from TAS, too. In your reversed cross-section, it would be in the side we can't see. Do you have a ladderway there? (And a head?)


----------



## Griffworks

Steve Mavronis said:


> Kidding aside, we will never have a definitive answer without MJ himself telling us what was his design thoughts on it. It remains in the eye of the beholder. We all want to make it what we want to believe. What we should be asking ourselves is why does the top of the dome glow?


Hey, that sounds a lot like what I said.


----------



## uss_columbia

scotthm said:


> One last thought. Not only was the bridge not affected by outside lighting, but it was evenly lit, as if the light were coming from a diffuse light source above the entire bridge. If the dome were transparent, as you insist, the lighting would all have come from the perimeter and left a dark hole in the middle. We saw no indication of this either.
> 
> I believe the way the bridge was lit during the entire run of the series is the best evidence that the dome was not transparent.


There's not usually much light out in space (a little starlight -- insignificant compared to the bridge light fixtures around the ring). But it would look very cool when a shining planet is in view, or a galactic barrier, explosion, etc.


----------



## uss_columbia

Chuck_P.R. said:


> It really has nothing to do with variable opacity. Just standard safety filtering that can be done with simple construction techniques in existence today.
> 
> Window ports on today's space stations use similar techniques that allow one to see out of them without allowing dangerous radiation or blinding glare unfiltered by an atmosphere.


The idea here is that the dome is opaque to light going from the outside in but transparent to light going from the inside out. Then you can have your cake and eat it, too.

This means you can't look out into space from the bridge, but someone outside can look in on you. It's more than a bit odd, but not infeasible.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Steve Mavronis said:


> I think that cross-section above is close to reality if it were a real ship. Anything between the top ceiling trim of the set and outside dome is imaginative conjecture by us fans though. But as far as what is depicted in Menagerie and Cage, I take it literally that they wanted to represent the dome as a see-thru design feature of the ship, which is a cool special effects shot to establish scale and show live action to help you believe people are actually inside controlling a space ship. The movie 2001 did this a lot with rear projected crew action inserted through cockpit windows, etc. It made it feel real. It all adds realism and believability. Don't know why the aliens would bother creating a special effects shot. Why didn't they just show a complete cutaway Enterprise?! They could have easily just zoomed into the side wall of the bridge dome and faded the shot into the inside live action bridge set! Why would they go through the trouble of slicing of the top of the bridge to peer inside like opening the lid from a jar?


Exactly!



Steve Mavronis said:


> They could have easily just zoomed into the side wall of the bridge dome and faded the shot into the inside live action bridge set! Why would they go through the trouble of slicing of the top of the bridge to peer inside like opening the lid from a jar?


That's the exact type of shot I was referring to above in another one of my responses to your post.

Unfortunately I have a bad habit of responding to post one at a time instead of reading them all before responding to the first one. 



Whether taken literally from the Cage, or taken as an alien-created image in The Menagerie, either way they could have zoomed into the side wall of the bridge at a point identical to the interior bridge filming camera and then faded the shot.

That was a very common method that would have accomplished everthing in terms of bridge positioning and scale 

*plus* it would not have required the use of the imperfect camera angle seen at the point where the dome was.

The fact that they went through the trouble to film the interior as being visible through the dome says to me that they were using artistic license in order to suggest that the bridge could ordinarily be seen through the dome.

No, I don't think the angles were meant to be taken literally, but I believe that if anything artistic license was exercised in order to suggest a visible bridge through the dome.

As you said



Steve Mavronis said:


> They could have easily just zoomed into the side wall of the bridge dome and faded the shot into the inside live action bridge set! Why would they go through the trouble of slicing of the top of the bridge to peer inside like opening the lid from a jar?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

uss_columbia said:


> One more time, please pay attention:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This scene very clearly suggests that the ceiling is opaque not transparent. You can ignore it if you please, but to say you honestly don't understand other people's view seems disingenuous.


You missed the post where I pointed out that the top of the ceiling is not visible.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Griffworks said:


> To dismiss the scene as artistic license on the part of the production staff for the reasons given without offering up a defeating argument simply smacks of arbitrary reasoning - i.e. "I don't like it, so will state that it makes no sense". Especially when followed up with Chucks comment of:
> 
> _Quote:_
> _Even if one assumes the bridge is opague, that doesn't change the fact that the video taken at that angle places a good deal of the bridge sticking out into space in the port side._
> 
> How does the bridge dome being clear make this any less true for that particular argument?


You are mixing points I was making and accidentally taking them out of context.

My point was simply this:

Why the revisionist view of the dome if the revisionism doesn't solve any issues?

I could perhaps accept the view if it solved some technical issue.


----------



## Griffworks

Chuck_P.R. said:


> You missed the post where I pointed out that the top of the ceiling is not visible.


Actually, w/the view given, you can indeed see to nearly the center of the dome.


----------



## Griffworks

Chuck_P.R. said:


> You are mixing points I was making and accidentally taking them out of context.


No, I was taking what you said literally, just as you are taking the view from "The Cage" literally to mean that the top of the bridge is clear. 


> My point was simply this:
> 
> Why the revisionist view of the dome if the revisionism doesn't solve any issues?
> 
> I could perhaps accept the view if it solved some technical issue.


It solves the issue quite well for me - it was a stylistic choice by the director and/or cinematographer to show us exactly where the bridge on the ship is.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Griffworks said:


> Actually, w/the view given, you can indeed see to nearly the center of the dome.


You see a good deal of the dome, true.

But you don't see the top red-trimmed opening.


----------



## Griffworks

What "opening" would that be? Looking at the pic below, I see a red trimmed area above the head of the actors that shows up the open - i.e. spacious - overhead dome. Said dome is quite opaque.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

All I see is a round hole in the middle of the ceiling with a matching gray background. Above the red line is curved ceiling molding trim. It stops at the edge of a big inner hole (you can see vertical sides there) to where no man has gone before above.


----------



## scotthm

uss_columbia said:


> The idea here is that the dome is opaque to light going from the outside in but transparent to light going from the inside out. Then you can have your cake and eat it, too.
> 
> This means you can't look out into space from the bridge, but someone outside can look in on you. It's more than a bit odd, but not infeasible.


Quite odd. The captain can't see out through the dome, but an enemy can see him sitting in his command chair. Not a very good tactical situation.

---------------


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Griffworks said:


> What "opening" would that be? Looking at the pic below, I see a red trimmed area above the head of the actors that shows up the open - i.e. spacious - overhead dome. Said dome is quite opaque.


I'll see if I can find a screencap of it that I've seen before and post it for you.


----------



## uss_columbia

Steve Mavronis said:


> All I see is a round hole in the middle of the ceiling with a matching gray background. Above the red line is curved ceiling molding trim. It stops at the edge of a big inner hole (you can see vertical sides there) to where no man has gone before above.


Your "background" overlaps the set! It's not behind it; it's part of it. (Makeshift, maybe, but still part of it.)


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Here 'ya go!

Found it.

Checkout the first picture on this page:

www.startrekhistory.com/restoration/bridge.html


----------



## uss_columbia

I think there are a few things we can all agree on:

- The outer dome is at least translucent (we see it emit light on several occasions)
- The bridge would be lower than shown in The Cage; the Cage shot can't be taken entirely at face value

There seem to be two plausible views beyond that, neither of which can be proved.

1. At least a very small part of the bridge ceiling is or can be made to be open or transparent at least from the outside, which would allow a shot not completely unlike the one in the cage (but viewed from much more directly above the bridge) to see the bridge from outside the ship.

2. The Cage shot is figurative; the bridge ceiling is opaque.

It's unlikely that any amount of arguing will move those firmly in camp 1 to camp 2 or vice-versa. Those on the fence can pick the one they prefer. (I must point out that camp 2 has the much simpler solution. Occam's razor would point to camp 2. But if you can't accept it, you can, like Sherlock Holmes, exclude it and conclude that the remaining possibility, however improbable, must be the solution.)

I'm curious to know if Jefferies (or others in the production), at the time of The Cage actually thought of the dome as transparent. I doubt we'll be able to find out, though.


----------



## Griffworks

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Here 'ya go!
> 
> Found it.
> 
> Checkout the first picture on this page:
> 
> www.startrekhistory.com/restoration/bridge.html


Ah, OK. I see what you're on about now, thanks. 

That dark "line" in the pic that *uss_columbia* posted previously is likely the red line you're referring to that is in those pics. It's definitely some sort of line, but you can't make out a color, likely due to it's being in shadow, as well as the lense probably being a "long shot" lense (I forget the proper term right now) to make the bridge appear largere than it is - something we see in a number of shots in TOS.


----------



## uss_columbia

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Here 'ya go!
> 
> Found it.
> 
> Checkout the first picture on this page:
> 
> www.startrekhistory.com/restoration/bridge.html


Cool shot! They removed the dome to film from above. They also very often removed certain stations on the bridge set to film from various angles. So what?


----------



## Griffworks

OK, at this point, I predict things are going to get a bit heated, so I'm going to lock this thread for 24 hours so that everyone - myself included - can have a cooling off period. I'll re-open it at noon - Central - tomorrow.


----------



## Griffworks

OK I'm unlocking this a bit early. 

Play nice or the thread gets Perma-LOCKED.


----------



## Griffworks

My bad on saying I was unlocking the thread, then not unlocking it. I got a telephone call just as I finished typing the above, then forgot that I'd not hit "Open Thread" before replying....


----------



## uss_columbia

Griffworks said:


> Ah, OK. I see what you're on about now, thanks.
> 
> That dark "line" in the pic that *uss_columbia* posted previously is likely the red line you're referring to that is in those pics. It's definitely some sort of line, but you can't make out a color, likely due to it's being in shadow, as well as the lense probably being a "long shot" lense (I forget the proper term right now) to make the bridge appear largere than it is - something we see in a number of shots in TOS.


The red line in the picture posted by Chuck is the very same red line as shown in the picture I posted.

Here's a comparison picture.










The blue and green lines show the corresponding features in the three pictures.

The red X shows the part not present for the shot in the upper picture. (It looks to me like it was made of paper; it was probably discarded after it was used in WNMHGB and never replaced.)

The vertical intermediate part, labeled with yellow circle, may have just been part of the paper dome (red X) or may have been attached to the curved outer ceiling part (green lines), separate from the domed part. The vertical part might have remained for a time after the domed part was removed, but I haven't seen it post-WNMHGB. While the pictures on the site Chuck linked aren't conclusive about its absence, the bridge set picture in TMOST shows clearly that the vertical part was not present.
(Looking around where the small yellow circle is marked, it's clear that the paper dome was on the inside surface of and covered the vertical intermediate part; but when you take off the paper, that vertical feature might or might not remain as a separate part. The white circles show where it _might_ be on the other pictures (but probably isn't).)


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Griffworks said:


> Ah, OK. I see what you're on about now, thanks.
> 
> That dark "line" in the pic that *uss_columbia* posted previously is likely the red line you're referring to that is in those pics. It's definitely some sort of line, but you can't make out a color, likely due to it's being in shadow, as well as the lense probably being a "long shot" lense (I forget the proper term right now) to make the bridge appear largere than it is - something we see in a number of shots in TOS.


I didn't think so. But to be sure I went ahead and photoshoped the heck out of the photo in question, adjusting lighting and contrast as well as changing the color level.

As I suspected from eyeballing the shot, the photo in question doesn't show the upper rim of the bridge set seen in the shot I linked to. 

If you checkout the photo I linked to again, while it does indeed look very high(you may be right that it could be partially affected by the depth of field of the lense) it's undoubtedly taken from a higher point then is visible in the photo uss columbia posted, that can be primarily verified by how little of the aft end of the bridge is visible.

I think it appears at about the same point Aridas inserts the TAS style ceiling with the "disco ball defense system" in his cross section.

I can understand why someone looking at that shot might suggest that it is opague grey all the way up. One reason for it is the shot is taken at an lower then usual angle. But it doesn't show as much of the ceiling as one might think it does at first glance.

Totally understandible.


----------



## Griffworks

I wholly disagree w/you on your opinion that the dome isn't visible in the shot you link to. I'll leave it at that, tho.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

uss_columbia said:


>


You contend those two red lines are the same.
Even though tremendously more of the outer perimeter would be visible.

That contention really requires no response.

Have a great day!


----------



## uss_columbia

^ Whatever 

You see what you want to see, apparently.


----------



## uss_columbia

Griffworks said:


> I wholly disagree w/you on your opinion that the dome isn't visible in the shot you link to. I'll leave it at that, tho.


... I'm with Griff. And I'll leave it at that, too.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Griffworks said:


> I wholly disagree w/you on your opinion that the dome isn't visible in the shot you link to. I'll leave it at that, tho.


On the chance you misunderstood what I said, what I said was not that there is no dome shaped partial ceiling visible.

What I said was that that upper rim and hole in the bridge set was at a higher level then what was seen in the sideview photo.

The bridge set was never built with a closed ceiling. That much is known beyond question.


The opening, part of which is visible in the shot I linked to, usually had extremely strong stage lighting protruding through it.

Trek Ace can give a lot more info on the lighting and other feeds then I ever could, but suffice it to say the bridge had an opening at the top which is not visible in that photo.

I never said that photo didn't show part of a curved ceiling. 

Whether or not those surfaces even directly correspond to an exterior dome is another question.

According to Jefferies' cross section, _those curved parts of the bridge ceiling are unrelated to the dome,_

as best seen here in Phil's recent cross-section:



X15-A2 said:


>


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

uss_columbia said:


> ^ Whatever
> 
> You see what you want to see, apparently.


 
If we saw about 30% more of the perimeter, you would be right.

But since we can't...


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

uss_columbia said:


> ... I'm with Griff. And I'll leave it at that, too.


Actually griff doesn't say he thinks the red lines are the same, he felt a shadow line much much higher to be the point the camera angle may have been taken from.

It's just not possible that the two lines you point to as being the same are the same.


----------



## Griffworks

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Actually griff doesn't say he thinks the red lines are the same, he felt a shadow line much much higher to be the point the camera angle may have been taken from.


I didn't get a chance to state it earlier and then sort of forgot about it, but I've changed my position on that. After seeing the pics that *uss_columbia* gives us above pointing out specific areas and thinking on it some more, I believe he's right and I was wrong with regards to that other line and where I thought it was on the previous pic. 


> It's just not possible that the two lines you point to as being the same are the same.


Again, I disagree, but will leave it at that. Neither side is going to convince the other, it would appear.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Fair enough.

It still cannot be explained by any manner of lense distortion that so little of the bridge perimeter is visible, the only explanation is that the red line seen in the linked photo is at a point way higher then the other.

But I see no point in continuing to state the obvious.


But there is one more point to consider.

According to Jefferies' cross section, that dome-shaped part of the bridge ceiling has absolutely nothing to do with the exterior dome.

Again, as can be seen here:



X15-A2 said:


>


So that part of the bridge set can be opaque, it can be green, it can be tie-dye or whatever, 

It has nothing to do with whether there is a transparent dome over it.

Unless one contends that the entire bridge set had totally closed ceiling.

I don't think anyone is contending that, is anyone?


----------



## uss_columbia

I don't think anyone is contending that the bridge _set_ has a closed ceiling. I contend that the "real" bridge depicted by the set has a closed ceiling. And we've seen that it's for the most part an opaque gray, at least at the time of WNMHGB.

And as I've stated before, I think all are in agreement that the _external_ dome is at least translucent -- we've seen it emitting light. I subscribe to the notion that the upper and lower translucent domes contain sensor equipment that benefits from this translucency.


----------



## Griffworks

I'm inclined to do so, but don't see the point. As such, I'm done with the discussion as it pertains to the bridge, the dome or any aspect thereof for this current discussion.........


----------



## Captain April

This is getting pointless even for me...


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

uss_columbia said:


> I don't think anyone is contending that the bridge _set_ has a closed ceiling. I contend that the "real" bridge depicted by the set has a closed ceiling.


Since the set didn't have a closed ceiling, I don't see exactly how you come up with this attempted hair splitting.




Since maybe we've forgotten how and why the discussion was started,

it was started because you offered your pic as proof the dome(not the bridge set - but the dome) was opague on the inside.

I pointed out that your picture does not show the entire bridge ceiling where there is an opening.

More importantly, according to Jefferies' cross section that part of the bridge's interior set that you point to _has absolutely nothing to do with the exterior dome_.

It's way lower then the dome. 

So your pic showing part of a curved bridge set ceiling in no way supports the idea that the dome wasn't transparent.



That's the reader's digest version.


----------



## aridas sofia

Did you guys get the bit about the electrochromic windows? The tech exists now -- indeed has existed for years -- to have a window that with the application of an electric current to a layer sandwiched in it, will turn clear to opaque, and back to clear again. Its entirely possible for the domed ceiling in WNMHGB to be gray one minute, for the captain to push a button and a minute later, that ceiling to be clear. If there is a clear dome on the exterior of the bubble, then you'd be able to see in or out, from inside or outside.

None of this is hard to imagine -- you can have a dropped bridge and the shot from "The Cage" and the shot of the gray dome from "WNMHGB". It can all coexist fine, without any problems, with window technology that exists _today_.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

aridas sofia said:


> Did you guys get the bit about the electrochromic windows? The tech exists now -- indeed has existed for years -- to have a window that with the application of an electric current to a layer sandwiched in it, will turn clear to opaque, and back to clear again. Its entirely possible for the domed ceiling in WNMHGB to be gray one minute, for the captain to push a button and a minute later, that ceiling to be clear. If there is a clear dome on the exterior of the bubble, then you'd be able to see in or out, from inside or outside.
> 
> None of this is hard to imagine -- you can have a dropped bridge and the shot from "The Cage" and the shot of the gray dome from "WNMHGB". It can all coexist fine, without any problems, with window technology that exists _today_.


Agreed, but that part of the ceiling doesn't extend up to the dome, it doesn't even show the opening that existed in the bridge set.

So just because that part of the ceiling leading up to the opening in the ceiling was grey - or electrochromatic even,

would have nothing to do with proving that the dome wasn't transparent.

That's my main point.

The photo in question was offered as proof that the dome was opaque, when according to Jeffries' cross section that part of the bridge set falls much lower then the lowest part of the dome.


----------



## toyroy

Are you guys even talking about the same part of the inner dome?


----------



## Shaw

While this conversation has progressed quite a bit in the last few days, I thought I might interject a few thoughts on the matter...

First... when I suggested the lens distortion idea, it was not to say that that was the reason for _The Cage_ effects oddities, simply an explanation that could fit... that fact that it doesn't fit perfectly (even if it *was* the intended effect, though I doubt it) makes little difference as few things in 1960's television special effects worked perfectly. Sometimes I am amazed that people of today have lost the capacity to suspend disbelief long enough to enjoy the most important part of these productions (or at least _should_ be the most important part), the story.

Second, why does it seem that people of the 21st century seem to also have a diminished capacity (compared to people of the mid 20th century at least) to imagine the wonders that might await people of the 23rd century? So the dome is grey in some shots of the bridge interior... why does that mean that it can only be opaque? I would guess that a surface like that could be set to a number of different levels of transparency, much like we can today using two sheets of polarized glass (set to one angle, you can see through it, off set one of them by 90 degrees and it blocks all light).

Still, I do believe that the bridge dome transition was done for dramatic effect... and that in the case of _The Cage_, the producers felt that that was the money shot for selling the size of the Enterprise to the networks (which is most likely why other effects shots of the Enterprise are oddly absent from the body of _The Cage_). But that wasn't the only way to go for that type of shot. I've watched enough _Twilight Zone_ and _Superman_ to know that the same type of idea could have been conveyed without using the dome.

And with that, I thought I would give such a concept a try...

Below is a (_quick and dirty_) video of a zoom in that moves through the bridge wall rather than assuming that the dome has some transparency feature. After the main sequence I compare it with the shots from _The Cage_ and _The Tressaurian Intersection_. 


_Click to play clip_
_Duration:_ 30 seconds​

Personally, I think that the transition in _TTI_ is by far the best. :thumbsup:


----------



## uss_columbia

Very cool, Shaw!
I do agree the effect in TTI is the most spiffy. A smooth dissolve of the dome rather than the side of the wall takes good advantage of a natural shape on the model for a very nice effect.
(I haven't seen the remastered Menagerie shot, I'll have to see if I can find a clip of its version. (I'd be surprised if I don't find one on youtube.))


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Shaw said:


> Still, I do believe that the bridge dome transition was done for dramatic effect... and that in the case of _The Cage_, the producers felt that that was the money shot for selling the size of the Enterprise to the networks (which is most likely why other effects shots of the Enterprise are oddly absent from the body of _The Cage_). But that wasn't the only way to go for that type of shot. I've watched enough _Twilight Zone_ and _Superman_ to know that the same type of idea could have been conveyed without using the dome.
> 
> And with that, I thought I would give such a concept a try...
> 
> Below is a (_quick and dirty_) video of a zoom in that moves through the bridge wall rather than assuming that the dome has some transparency feature.


I keep getting an "invalid menu handle" error message from the file.​​

But based on your description, I was thinking they could well have used that exact type of shot myself, but they intentionally decided to show a transparent dome for a more dramatic effect instead.​
Actually Steve mentioned it before I did.​


Shaw said:


> While this conversation has progressed quite a bit in the last few days, I thought I might interject a few thoughts on the matter...
> 
> First... when I suggested the lens distortion idea, it was not to say that that was the reason for _The Cage_ effects oddities, simply an explanation that could fit... that fact that it doesn't fit perfectly (even if it *was* the intended effect, though I doubt it) makes little difference as few things in 1960's television special effects worked perfectly. Sometimes I am amazed that people of today have lost the capacity to suspend disbelief long enough to enjoy the most important part of these productions (or at least _should_ be the most important part), the story.
> 
> Second, why does it seem that people of the 21st century seem to also have a diminished capacity (compared to people of the mid 20th century at least) to imagine the wonders that might await people of the 23rd century? So the dome is grey in some shots of the bridge interior... why does that mean that it can only be opaque? I would guess that a surface like that could be set to a number of different levels of transparency, much like we can today using two sheets of polarized glass (set to one angle, you can see through it, off set one of them by 90 degrees and it blocks all light).


Any and all of those transparency capabilities are plausible. You are right about that. 




There is, in addition, a hole at the top of the bridge set that is not seen from any of the normal interior set shots. According to the Jefferies cross-section even that hole is still below what we call the dome.

So even if the section seen in the interior sets as grey never transitioned to transparent, 

if the dome were transparent you could still see down into the bridge via the fact that there is an opening above those grey curves, and the fact that the bridge was sunken into the B deck by Jefferies so that those curves don't correspond to the outer dome.




You're right that with even today's technology those grey sections could be made in a manner that they could electrically be switched to transparent - 

which would then make even more of the bridge visible through the dome.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Okay, I finally got the file to work. I can play it in my browser fine, but it wouldn't open properly as a downloaded file. Go figure!

Great video! You've established the effect beautifully!

Fantastic work!:thumbsup:


----------



## Shaw

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Okay, I finally got the file to work. I can play it in my browser fine, but it wouldn't open properly as a downloaded file. Go figure!


Odd... I do try to use older codecs to make sure that it is viewable on older systems. I guess I should make sure that that codec is still included with newer versions Quicktime.



> Great video! You've established the effect beautifully!
> 
> Fantastic work!:thumbsup:


Yeah, what I was thinking about was the effect used in the old _Superman_ series for his x-ray vision. And to a degree, it might have been a better choice for the shot in _The Cage_ when the live action footage was given to them (which obviously wasn't shot from above).

I still have a huge amount of respect for the work they did back then. It is so easy to forget how hard all that was when, in a handful of hours, I can (at a whim) throw together an idea I read posted by someone else... the cost of film alone back then would have discouraged any experimentation like that.



And thanks for the praise guys!


----------



## Captain April

I emailed Mike Okuda about this a couple of days ago, and presently await his response.

In the meantime, just to nudge this thread back on topic, how big would that dome have to be (remember, think "pilot version") to accomodate a 31.5' diameter bridge interior, what would that do to the rest of the ship, and could the whole thing be finagled to at least come close to the "official" length of 947'? (I won't say "canon" since it was never stated explicitly on screen, but it's still considered valid until proven otherwise). What if the bridge was reduced to 30' in diameter? Would that cause any apparent problems with what we saw on screen? What if the dome was widened slightly? Or some combination of the two?

I've seen folks bend over backwards to accomdate the discrepancies in the shuttlecraft interior and exterior, so why not the bridge and the ship herself?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Different people have different interests.

You seem to have spent a little time considering issues relating to the bridge, at least I have a vague impression that you have. 

So please save us some time and give us your opinions on the questions you pose.

Personally I'm a little burned out on the bridge/ship size issues.


----------



## BEBruns

There seems to be one important point everyone is missing in the transparent/opaque dome debate. Where are the lighting fixtures on the bridge?

The only visible lights are those little colored panels around the perimeter of the bridge. Obviously, they are not providing most of the light. They certainly aren't lighting the Captain's chair or the helm. There must be something generating the light and it must be coming from the ceiling.


----------



## uss_columbia

Captain April said:


> In the meantime, just to nudge this thread back on topic, how big would that dome have to be (remember, think "pilot version") to accomodate a 31.5' diameter bridge interior, what would that do to the rest of the ship, and could the whole thing be finagled to at least come close to the "official" length of 947'?


I posted a render of just such a dome not long after you asked the question.
It's now way back on this page: http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=74430&page=37&pp=15, post 546.

With the lower floor level of the bridge recessed, you can get by with a 53' diameter dome. Whether you can fudge that onto a 947' ship, that depends how much you like your fudge. I think the pilot dome is very close to 50' diameter, based on fitting a model to photos. If you don't mind a 6% oversized dome, there you go. Or keep the proportions and fudge the ship up over 1000' (Whatever floats your starship!  )


----------



## Steve Mavronis

BEBruns: Stage lights for filming.... 

Also, the 2 pilot episodes (Cage and WNMHGB) don't have any rim lighting panels.


----------



## uss_columbia

That diagram posted a few pages back by Aridas of his bridge cross-section shows a nice-looking dome with central light fixture that's consistent with what was seen in TAS. (Even has a place for the "disco security device.")


----------



## Steve Mavronis

uss_columbia said:


> That diagram posted a few pages back by Aridas of his bridge cross-section shows a nice-looking dome with central light fixture that's consistent with what was seen in TAS.


I never thought of the animated series as reliable reference material. BTW, just figured out what TAS stands for! That was bugging me and I was too embarrassed to ask


----------



## scotthm

BEBruns said:


> There seems to be one important point everyone is missing in the transparent/opaque dome debate. Where are the lighting fixtures on the bridge?


I mentioned it back in post #608 but I don't believe anyone addressed it.

I think it's a good indication that there were some sort of lighting panels above the central portion of the bridge, and not just a window.

---------------


----------



## Steve Mavronis

scotthm said:


> I mentioned it back in post #608 ("I believe the way the bridge was lit during the entire run of the series is the best evidence that the dome was not transparent") but I don't believe anyone addressed it. I think it's a good indication that there were some sort of lighting panels above the central portion of the bridge, and not just a window.


I went to your referenced post #608 where you offered the above quote. I don't understand how you can prove anything either way from that. The lighting is obviously due to the film set crew stage lighting. They weren't thinking lets simulate diffuse or transparent dome light. The actual set had no dome on it other than the foot or two high curved ceiling ring trim. It is not a bridge from a real starship. It is just a prop set with a hole in the top for stage lights, mic booms, and high camera angles. This reminds me of that episode from UFO where Commander Straker is walking around in SHADOW headquarters but it is just a fake movie studio set. He sort of had a reality check! Too bad they didn't go that far in the TOS episode The Mark of Gideon. We might have seen more of the actual sets behind the scenes.


----------



## scotpens

Except that, to convince Kirk he was on the real _Enterprise_, the Gideons would have had to build their fake _Enterprise_ with ceilings!


----------



## BEBruns

Steve Mavronis said:


> I went to your referenced post #608 where you offered the above quote. I don't understand how you can prove anything either way from that. The lighting is obviously due to the film set crew stage lighting. They weren't thinking lets simulate diffuse or transparent dome light. The actual set had no dome on it other than the foot or two high curved ceiling ring trim. It is not a bridge from a real starship. It is just a prop set with a hole in the top for stage lights, mic booms, and high camera angles. This reminds me of that episode from UFO where Commander Straker is walking around in SHADOW headquarters but it is just a fake movie studio set. He sort of had a reality check! Too bad they didn't go that far in the TOS episode The Mark of Gideon. We might have seen more of the actual sets behind the scenes.


By this logic, are we to assume that Spock had fake rubber tips glued onto his ears? Yes, the set had stage lighting in the "dome", but the set is only playing the role of the bridge. The "real" bridge, obviously doesn't have stage lighting, but it has to have some sort of light source. Unless, of course the Enterprise was composed of some sort of glowing metal that created an overall ambient glow. 

Wait a second. That would explain why the ship was always so evenly and brightly lit, even when traveling in deep space. I may be on to something here.


----------



## scotthm

Steve Mavronis said:


> The lighting is obviously due to the film set crew stage lighting. They weren't thinking lets simulate diffuse or transparent dome light. The actual set had no dome on it other than the foot or two high curved ceiling ring trim. It is not a bridge from a real starship. It is just a prop set with a hole in the top for stage lights, mic booms, and high camera angles.


Thank you for ruining my life. I hadn't realized...

Now that I know better it's clear to me that the dome of the Enterprise consists of the roof of a soundstage. Mystery solved. :thumbsup: 

But... let's *pretend* for a moment that the bridge _was in a real starship traveling in space_. Wouldn't the even lighting imply a non-transparent dome?

---------------


----------



## Steve Mavronis

scotthm said:


> let's *pretend* for a moment that the bridge _was in a real starship traveling in space_. Wouldn't the even lighting imply a non-transparent dome?


(Sorry, didn't mean to sound sarcastic if it came across that way, just thought provoking. )

Maybe, I'd have to check for double shadows to see if it was coming from different places or not. Not sure if you could tell from even lighting if it were caused by a translucent dome or flat diffuse lighting panels. If you go with a lit ceiling of some type, I would assume it was in the style of ceiling lights they did show like the pilot version briefing room's since it was circular. It should be in the Federation style I would think. All this is conjecture and creative imagining though. We know there wasn't an actual set ceiling so we want to imagine what would have it been like if it were real. Too bad there isn't any MJ concept sketches of the bridge interior shown from a crew member's viewpoint.


----------



## aridas sofia

I don't mean to be pompous here, but why in the world should we feel the need to explain the magic of a 23rd century FTL starship having light with no apparent source? How do we know that in the 22nd century the descendent of Thomas Edison won't discover a means to tap light from the ether? Then you will be able to have corridors like those in *TOS* where there are no apparent lights, but nevertheless plenty of light.

Sometimes it's better to just let it stay magic, lest the thing seem too tame and contemporary.


----------



## Griffworks

_Thank_ you, *aridas*! :thumbsup:


----------



## scotthm

Steve Mavronis said:


> (Sorry, didn't mean to sound sarcastic if it came across that way, just thought provoking. )


No problem at all. Unfortunately, I can get a little sarcastic at times.



aridas sofia said:


> Sometimes it's better to just let it stay magic, lest the thing seem too tame and contemporary.


Very often true.

---------------


----------



## toyroy

I'm surprised no one mentioned the light panels from "Return of the Archons". Kirk's recognition made them seem ordinary, as if they were known technology.


----------



## uss_columbia

BEBruns said:


> Wait a second. That would explain why the ship was always so evenly and brightly lit, even when traveling in deep space. I may be on to something here.


Nice! They lost the technology by the time of TMP, though.


----------



## uss_columbia

uss_columbia said:


> Captain April said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the meantime, just to nudge this thread back on topic, how big would that dome have to be (remember, think "pilot version") to accomodate a 31.5' diameter bridge interior, what would that do to the rest of the ship, and could the whole thing be finagled to at least come close to the "official" length of 947'?
> 
> 
> 
> I posted a render of just such a dome not long after you asked the question.
> It's now way back on this page: http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=74430&page=37&pp=15, post 546.
> 
> With the lower floor level of the bridge recessed, you can get by with a 53' diameter dome. Whether you can fudge that onto a 947' ship, that depends how much you like your fudge. I think the pilot dome is very close to 50' diameter, based on fitting a model to photos. If you don't mind a 6% oversized dome, there you go. Or keep the proportions and fudge the ship up over 1000' (Whatever floats your starship!  )
Click to expand...

I was curious to see the scaling needed to fit in the _series_ dome as well as the pilot.
The pilot dome illustrated is 53.75' O.D. -- just 7.5% over my best estimate for its actual size.
The production dome, though, must be scaled 1/3 oversize! (Or the bridge must be sunk down a lot more.)
The pilot bridge has only the lower level sunk below the dome. The series version is sunk approximately to where illustrated by MJ.
























As to whether you can finagle it to fit a 947' ship... Here's a 53.75' dome on my work-in-progress "3-footer" enterprise (which we've never seen with a so-called "pilot" dome). I don't think it fits on a 947' ship very well.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

The upper left render looks like the best fit. How does the bridge and production dome scale out to each other in that one?



uss_columbia said:


>


----------



## uss_columbia

^ That's a 31.5' diameter bridge scaled to match the production dome of a 947' ship.

The bridge model represents the _interior_ surfaces of the bridge. (I traced the outline of the inner surfaces from the McMasters blueprint and gave it a spin.) The turbolift car diameter and distance from bridge are also per McMaster. The dome and lift-tube part is from the PL decal placement diagram.


----------



## Griffworks

Interesting. So, it looks like it should fit just fine like that.


----------



## uss_columbia

^ It's not apparent from that render, but the exterior lift tube feature is a little futher away from center than the lift car. The lift kind of fits along the inner edge of the tube with extra space on the outside edge. It's not perfect, but it's certainly close enough to see that it's no accident it works out that way.

For another data point, I put the McMaster in the Sinclair dome/tube. Again based on 31.5' bridge interior diameter and 947' E. This lift/tube distance is a little more off than the other. I did more carefully create and scale these, and line thickness was not an issue like it was with the PL diagram I used before.


----------



## BEBruns

uss_columbia said:


> ^ It's not apparent from that render, but the exterior lift tube feature is a little futher away from center than the lift car. The lift kind of fits along the inner edge of the tube with extra space on the outside edge. It's not perfect, but it's certainly close enough to see that it's no accident it works out that way.
> 
> For another data point, I put the McMaster in the Sinclair dome/tube. Again based on 31.5' bridge interior diameter and 947' E. This lift/tube distance is a little more off than the other. I did more carefully create and scale these, and line thickness was not an issue like it was with the PL diagram I used before.


What if you shift the bridge aft a few feet? Whoever said the bridge needs to be in the center of the dome?


----------



## uss_columbia

^ That's been suggested before (usually sliding it forward and to one side to try to make room for th lift to be positioned under the dome from a postion 35.5 degrees to port). I don't like it, personally.

BTW, X15-A2 has done photo analysis and concluded that McMaster's lift alcove is too shallow (and that the walls at its beginning, adjacent to the consoles, have the wrong shape). With tha alcove deeper, the lift may line up with the tube just fine.

There may be enough uncertaintly in McMaster and Sinclair to account for the minor discrepancy, or it may just be that the set and the model aren't _perfectly_ aligned. It's close enough for my comfort. On a "real" ship, the tube and/or lift are positioned just slightly differently so they are concentric.

Edit: also the 31.5' interior diameter is not a measurement; it's the best determination (by MGagen) based on Jefferies pre-construction drawing and Stage 9 blueprint. (McMaster's own scale puts the largest inner diameter at 31.1') If the actual bridge inner diameter were found to be a little larger, the lift could end up right in the tube.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Anyone have exact measurements of the 11' model's exterior bridge dome diameter/height, top lit part diameter/height, elevator housing diameter/height, etc?

Would be cool to make a scale exterior/interior model similar to uss_columbia's production Enterprise graphic above.


----------



## uss_columbia

Unless Gary Kerr speaks up, the best figures we have are from Alan Sinclair's blueprint. He said his dome is within a line width of matching Gary's. (Gary actually measured the model, twice!)

You can read Alan's email, quoted by CRA, here.


----------



## irishtrek

If you measure the bridge dome on the PL TOS E it is 1/2 inche in diameter and at a scale of 1/1000 the measures out to roughly 41-42 feet across. if that helps you all any.
That's the production bridge not the pilot version and also the 1/5 inch is at the outer bottom.


----------



## Captain April

^Well, the PL model comes with a pilot dome, why not measure that?


----------



## Captain April

uss_columbia said:


> ^ That's been suggested before (usually sliding it forward and to one side to try to make room for th lift to be positioned under the dome from a postion 35.5 degrees to port). I don't like it, personally.


I'm not fond of it, either, but it does have the advantage of working. It was also suggested to me by Andrew Probert, after it had already been hashed out on TrekBBS, and then put aside for looking just a little too goofy. Not a permanent disqualifier, but it does have a strike or two against it.



> BTW, X15-A2 has done photo analysis and concluded that McMaster's lift alcove is too shallow (and that the walls at its beginning, adjacent to the consoles, have the wrong shape). With tha alcove deeper, the lift may line up with the tube just fine.
> 
> There may be enough uncertaintly in McMaster and Sinclair to account for the minor discrepancy, or it may just be that the set and the model aren't _perfectly_ aligned. It's close enough for my comfort. On a "real" ship, the tube and/or lift are positioned just slightly differently so they are concentric.
> 
> Edit: also the 31.5' interior diameter is not a measurement; it's the best determination (by MGagen) based on Jefferies pre-construction drawing and Stage 9 blueprint. (McMaster's own scale puts the largest inner diameter at 31.1') If the actual bridge inner diameter were found to be a little larger, the lift could end up right in the tube.


Mark also discovered that McMaster used the wrong angle for the station segments, i.e., Jefferies set the angle at 35 degrees, whereas McMaster had something like 33.


----------



## Captain April

uss_columbia said:


> Just for fun, let's do so.
> 
> Here's how the bridge fits with the pilot dome approximated as a hemisphere.
> Two domes are show, one at the level of the lower floor of the bridge, the other at the level of the upper floor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The smaller dome is 1.68 * bridge-diameter while the larger is 1.72 * bridge-diameter. My bridge model is cylinders fit to an image of the McMaster prints, the outer diameter corresponding to the largest inner diameter on the bridge.
> 
> Based on 31.5' inner diameter of bridge as MGagen calculated from Jefferies drawings...
> We have dome diameters of 53.0' and 54.25'. Unfortunately, we don't know the exact diameter of the pilot dome on the model.
> 
> If we go with this one (based on 947' ship size)...
> 
> 
> We have an increase in scale of 6% or 8.5% for a ship length of 1004' or 1027'.
> 
> This doesn't seem right, though. I think the 50' pilot dome figure is too high. Does someone have a better one? (I'll measure the pilot dome on my PL when I get home; but at 1/1000 scale, it may not be the most accurate. (I'll use calipers, don't have micrometers.))


Howzabout if the sides of the dome are made just a bit steeper? That way the dome wouldn't have to as big around to fit the interior, and therefore wouldn't throw off the overall size of the ship.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Just to indulge myself or someone else who may have forgotten, what again is the point of this inquiry?


----------



## Griffworks

See previous posts within the last week by *uss_columbia* and *Captain_April* for the answer to that question....


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

I have, but maybe I missed something along the way.

As I understand it, we already know that the bridge will fit depending on how much or little you lower it into the A/B deck.

Now I read a comment about these renderings suggesting the ship would have to be 1004 or 1027 feet long. 

Where that statement is coming from is what I honestly don't understand. 

A properly scaled and sunken bridge shouldn't require any increase in size.

I don't see anything in these posts that substantiates any need to grow the ship in size to 1004 or 1027 feet.

If it's in the last week's posts I'm missing it.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Just scale the bridge to fit both the pilot and production domes so that it fits from the overhead center of dome/bridge to the overhead center of elevator/nub. It can't be that far off percentage-wise based on the overall length in feet of the Enterprise. Then have it vertically as high as common sense would allow for hull thickness with the elevator inside the external nub. It doesn't have to be too over thick since the Enterpise has a shielding system to protect it. That's my simple is better take on it.


----------



## uss_columbia

^ April wanted to know how we could force the bridge to fit into a pilot dome while facing forward. Options: increase ship size, oversize the dome, change shape of dome, slide bridge off center, etc.
The point? It's kind of a fun what if. (Not "what was" just "what if")

Growing the ship is based on this:
pilot dome was apparently 50' but needs to be at least 54' to fit an un-sunk bridge and 53' to fit one with sunken lower floor part. Size from 50 up to 53 or 54.25 gives those larger sizes.
I don't condone growing the ship based on this reasoning, but that's one of the "what ifs."


----------



## uss_columbia

Captain April said:


> ^Well, the PL model comes with a pilot dome, why not measure that?


I've been meaning to but haven't gotten around to it. However, the PL pilot dome is not based on actual measurements, unlike its production dome. Thus, it may not be as accurate.





Captain April said:


> I'm not fond of it, either, but it does have the advantage of working.


I think it would indeed work for the pilot dome. For the production dome, you need to lower the bridge just as much as the dome was lowered, as you've suggested before in the other thread. (I point this out for the benefit of readers here who weren't in that discussion back in '04.)





> Mark also discovered that McMaster used the wrong angle for the station segments, i.e., Jefferies set the angle at 35 degrees, whereas McMaster had something like 33.


McMaster uses 36 degrees, I believe. I'm convinced by Mark's argument and accompanying evidence that the normal stations and turbolift were 35.5 degrees each with the viewscreen getting the extra space.


----------



## uss_columbia

Steve Mavronis said:


> Just scale the bridge to fit both the pilot and production domes so that it fits from the overhead center of dome/bridge to the overhead center of elevator/nub. It can't be that far off percentage-wise based on the overall length in feet of the Enterprise. Then have it vertically as high as common sense would allow for hull thickness with the elevator inside the external nub. It doesn't have to be too over thick since the Enterpise has a shielding system to protect it. That's my simple is better take on it.


For a perfect fit with the bridge offset, it may be that nothing needs to be done. Based on irishtrek's 1/2" PL measurement, the production dome may be only 41.67' diameter. The fit I illustrated in Sinclair's dome uses 44.8'. With the dome diameter uncertain, the distance from centerline to the tube is also uncertain. It may well be that the lift fits perfectly in the tube if we know the accurate distances.

Based on what we do know, we aren't sure whether the dome is too big, the bridge is too small, the lift is too close to the centerline, the tube is too far from centerline, or some combination of these. One thing's for sure, it's all very close; we just aren't sure exactly which dimensions should be corrected. (I think a lot of careful and tedious photo analysis could narrow the uncertainties, if someone wanted to do so.)


----------



## Captain April

Don't forget the matter of the doors to the turbolift. Ya need clearance for those to open, too.


----------



## uss_columbia

Chuck_P.R. said:


> As I understand it, we already know that the bridge will fit depending on how much or little you lower it into the A/B deck.


Indeed, if you lower it so the top of the lift is within the teardrop, it will fit in any orientation. Captain April's original question specified that the bridge be positioned at the base of the pilot dome, though. I took that to mean that either the lower floor was even with the bottom of the dome or the upper floor was. I illustrated both.


----------



## uss_columbia

Captain April said:


> Don't forget the matter of the doors to the turbolift. Ya need clearance for those to open, too.


Excellent point! Next time I update my models, I'll add the doors.

If the dome's really only 42' diameter, I do think they end up sliding out into space, requiring some fancy seals.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

uss_columbia said:


> If the dome's really only 42' diameter, I do think they end up sliding out into space, requiring some fancy seals.


That won't be the first time thats happened in a Sci-Fi series! 

Assuming the door width is 3 feet wide or so, since they are split in the middle you would would only have to account for 1.5 to 2 feet door sliding outward. That could be within the margin of the hull thickness unless the dome curvature cuts into it near the top. Also, the elevator floorplan is more of an oval than a full circle. So it depends on where the center of it is and how deep the alcove goes into the external nub where the door slots would be.


----------



## Captain April

uss_columbia said:


> I think it would indeed work for the pilot dome. For the production dome, you need to lower the bridge just as much as the dome was lowered, as you've suggested before in the other thread. (I point this out for the benefit of readers here who weren't in that discussion back in '04.)


For the newcomers, the reason I'm focusing on the pilot dome is my approach that between the "Where No Man Had Gone Before" and "The Corbomite Maneuver", when the ship had that last refit to change from pilot version to production version, the bridge dome wasn't shortened, it was lowered, with the interior remaining in the same point within the dome. The net effect being that the bridge was lowered roughly to the level of Deck 2.

This way, the bridge can remain in a forward facing direction and the inferred design history of the ship is upheld. It also deals with the bulk of the offset argument (although, like Chuck, nobody has ever given me a satisfactory reason for why anyone would design a bridge to face thirtysomething degrees to port in the first fracking place).



> McMaster uses 36 degrees, I believe. I'm convinced by Mark's argument and accompanying evidence that the normal stations and turbolift were 35.5 degrees each with the viewscreen getting the extra space.


The last time I asked Mike Okuda about the size of the bridge, he said it was about thirty feet in diameter. But then, they hadn't built a full bridge, just a couple of stations for insertion into old footage. It'd be interesting to find out how big that Defiant bridge was...


----------



## Captain April

uss_columbia said:


> Indeed, if you lower it so the top of the lift is within the teardrop, it will fit in any orientation. Captain April's original question specified that the bridge be positioned at the base of the pilot dome, though. I took that to mean that either the lower floor was even with the bottom of the dome or the upper floor was. I illustrated both.


I'm thinking upper floor, but since the bridge is pretty much a unit unto itself, as opposed to some other random compartment onboard, it's really not required that the floor line up with any particular deck line. Especially since there's not anything else up on that level.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

uss_columbia said:


> ^ April wanted to know how we could force the bridge to fit into a pilot dome while facing forward.


None of your renders that showed the outside shell of the A deck and external tube seemed to be of the pilot dome and outside shell of the A deck.

They looked like the outside of the production versions to me. 

Then since the last "blue" render with just the bubble and interior didn't have any external shell components I could not tell you had switched to a pilot dome version yet.

Considering that they decided to almost double the length of the ship after the pilot bridge had been built, is there any substantive proof that the A deck was ever intended to house the bridge?

It has to be sunk in a 947 foot Enterprise, why would Jefferies ever have intended to suggest it would fit in a 540 foot craft when it won't fit - without sinking - into a 947 foot craft?

Even though the point at which they decided the craft(before or after pilot bridge was constructed) might not be able to be exactly pinned down. It won't even fit in just the A deck section on a 947 foot craft.

If anything, I think it's quite possible that Jefferies may have intended that steeply curved part of the pilot bridge's ceiling to mirror the part of the outside curve in the curved A deck and then end at the base of the transparent or translucent(take your pick) dome.


----------



## Captain April

^ That's definitely more in Mr. Gagen's balliwick than mine, so I'll wait for him to chime in.


----------



## irishtrek

Something I've mentioned on another thread concerning the size of the bridge I'll ask it here as well: does anybody here know what the size of the bridge set was from TOS?


----------



## Trek Ace

It was about 32 feet.


----------



## uss_columbia

irishtrek said:


> Something I've mentioned on another thread concerning the size of the bridge I'll ask it here as well: does anybody here know what the size of the bridge set was from TOS?


McMasters print shows the largest inside diameter at 31.1'; I used 31.5', though, as described in MGagen's old post linked below.


uss_columbia said:


> Based on 31.5' inner diameter of bridge as MGagen calculated from Jefferies drawings


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

That depends on whether or not one accepts the landing for the TAS style emergency exit as part of the interior. If one accepts the addition of the TAS emergency exit then the landing behind the wall should be counted as part of the interior blueprints as much as the elevator. 

In that case the McMasters interior blueprints, including the emergency exit landing, would be 32 feet.

I do realize, however, that not everyone believes TAS should be taken into account.

In that event the McMaster's greatest interior measurement would indeed be 31.1 approximately.

I do believe that MGagen's bridge measurements were taken from a detail of Stage 9 blueprints though. So even if they are accurate geometrically speaking, I don't know that the scale was meant to be taken too literally. A .4 difference is easily understandible.

One thing I don't think anyone has picked up on. While it was mentioned by uss columbia that according to Phil McMaster's alcove wall placement is off compared to the set, I believe Phil has also indicated that the actual TOS set wall positioning puts the turbolift closer to the rest of the bridge set then the McMasters prints.


----------



## uss_columbia

Chuck_P.R. said:


> None of your renders that showed the outside shell of the A deck and external tube seemed to be of the pilot dome and outside shell of the A deck.
> 
> They looked like the outside of the production versions to me.
> 
> Then since the last "blue" render with just the bubble and interior didn't have any external shell components I could not tell you had switched to a pilot dome version yet.


I never bothered to put the external tube on the pilot dome for two reasons:
1. the goal was to fit the lift inside the dome, making the tube irrelevant
2. the tube, if left at the position I believe is correct, is swallowed up by the oversize dome. Indeed, the illustration of the whole ship with the oversized dome on it _does_ have the lift tube; it's completely within the dome and thus can't be seen in the render.

You can't see a separation between the dome proper and the translucent top part because I lazily approximated the whole shebang as a hemisphere.

These are the oversized pilot dome illustrations I posted:


uss_columbia said:


> Here's how the bridge fits with the pilot dome approximated as a hemisphere.
> Two domes are shown, one at the level of the lower floor of the bridge, the other at the level of the upper floor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> We have dome diameters of 53.0' and 54.25'. Unfortunately, we don't know the exact diameter of the pilot dome on the model.





uss_columbia said:


> I was curious to see the scaling needed to fit in the _series_ dome as well as the pilot.
> The pilot dome illustrated is 53.75' O.D. -- just 7.5% over my best estimate for its actual size....
> The pilot bridge has only the lower level sunk below the dome....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As to whether you can finagle it to fit a 947' ship... Here's a 53.75' dome on my work-in-progress "3-footer" enterprise (which we've never seen with a so-called "pilot" dome). I don't think it fits on a 947' ship very well.


(The other recent renders were of the production dome, those with the lift approximately in the tube scaled normally; the one with the lift within the dome and the bridge rotated 35.5 degrees has a greatly upscaled dome.)

The bridge reasonably positioned in a correctly scaled pilot dome (and lift tube) (posted back here):








(Bridge shown as high as it could be (a little too high, really, not leaving enough clearance between top of lift ceiling and bottom of tube ceiling. It can be lowered at will.)





Chuck_P.R. said:


> Considering that they decided to almost double the length of the ship after the pilot bridge had been built, is there any substantive proof that the A deck was ever intended to house the bridge?
> 
> It has to be sunk in a 947 foot Enterprise, why would Jefferies ever have intended to suggest it would fit in a 540 foot craft when it won't fit - without sinking - into a 947 foot craft?


The timeline isn't clear as to which came first, the sizing of the bridge set or the rescaling of the ship design (or at the same time). If the bridge design was finalized before the rescale happened, he must have intended the bridge to be in the teardrop. If the rescale happened first or at the same time, it would have been in the dome all along.
(One theory I've had for a long time is that he intended a smaller bridge in the tall dome when the ship was 540' but found that such a small bridge would have been too cramped when he really got into the design. Whether that prompted the rescale or he intended it for the teardrop, I just can't guess.)


----------



## uss_columbia

Chuck_P.R. said:


> That depends on whether or not one accepts the landing for the TAS style emergency exit as part of the interior. If one accepts the addition of the TAS emergency exit then the landing behind the wall should be counted as part of the interior blueprints as much as the elevator.
> ...
> In that event the McMaster's greatest interior measurement would indeed be 31.1 approximately.


Neither the main lift and its alcove nor the secondary exit are included in the interior diameter figure I stated, of course.

McMasters' secondary exit, BTW, differs quite a bit from the one in TAS (the alcove and the adjacent station).



> I do believe that MGagen's bridge measurements were taken from a detail of Stage 9 blueprints though. So even if they are accurate geometrically speaking, I don't know that the scale was meant to be taken too literally. A .4 difference is easily understandible.


MGagen's analysis is well documented at the link I gave. It's based on two MJ drawings, one of which has called-out dimensions though not for the I.D. His reasoning is good. The difference being only .4 tends to validate that both figures are quite good, as is Trek Ace's "about 32 feet." 31.1, 31.5, or 32; it's not going to make much difference on fit. I think there's more significant uncertainty in the distance from bridge centerline to lift centerline.



> While it was mentioned by uss columbia that according to Phil McMaster's alcove wall placement is off compared to the set, I believe Phil has also indicated that the actual TOS set wall positioning puts the turbolift closer to the rest of the bridge set then the McMasters prints.


Actually it puts it further away: he puts the alcove deeper not shallower.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

True, we don't know how soon the rescaling came into Jefferies' consideration.

It might be interesting to ask the reverse question.

Given the high curved ceiling of the pilot bridge, how *low* - rather then high - would the bridge need to be below the A deck for even the curved part of it's ceiling to fit into the A deck of a 540 foot ship?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

uss_columbia said:


> Actually it puts it further away: he puts the alcove deeper not shallower.


Again, I must have missed that post.


----------



## uss_columbia

^ Not surprising. I'll look it up for you in a few. First, I'm going to whip up a render that addresses your fit-in-a-540'-ship question.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

By accident I just rediscovered a clip Aridas had referred me too earlier.

It's here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xe5SUxq25I&mode=related&search=

This clip, after watching it again answers a couple of recent questions.

Someone else, I think BEBruens, asked about the apparent lack of light fixtures in the TOS corridors.

Also there was the issue as to how high the hole in the ceiling above the bridge is, as I and no one else apparently could remember ever seeing it from an interior shot.

At about 2:47 we see that the Enterprise corridors have a mesh style ceiling perhaps similar to the type of drop in meshes that go under conventional flourescent lighting today, or like seen elswhere in the shuttlecraft interiors.

More exciting to me was what I saw at about 3:24.2 seconds.

For the first time anywhere that I've seen it clearly shows the opening above the curved ceiling and a light above the opening. I've drawn a yellow line where the opening is in the attached file, plus anyone can go the to the link above to look at the actual video.

Thanks again for the video link, Aridas!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

When you look at the more gentle first curving section of the bridge roof, then at the more steeply curving second part that ends in an opening, I'm more convinced then ever that that second steeper curve is made to mirror the inside of the A deck.

It makes sense. The B deck has a gentler curve, the A deck a much steeper one.

It would fit perfectly that way.


----------



## uss_columbia

Chuck_P.R. said:


> True, we don't know how soon the rescaling came into Jefferies' consideration.
> 
> It might be interesting to ask the reverse question.
> 
> Given the high curved ceiling of the pilot bridge, how *low* - rather then high - would the bridge need to be below the A deck for even the curved part of it's ceiling to fit into the A deck of a 540 foot ship?


Here's how the bridge fits in the teardrop section of a 540' long ship.









Note: the dome is 28.5' diameter at the base (which in 540' ship is the same proportion as a 50' dome in a 947' ship).


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Looks kewl! 

Great work!


----------



## uss_columbia

Chuck_P.R. said:


> For the first time anywhere that I've seen it clearly shows the opening above the curved ceiling and a light above the opening. I've drawn a yellow line where the opening is in the attached file, plus anyone can go the to the link above to look at the actual video.


Steve or Shaw (sorry, forget which) already pointed out this shot several pages back in this thread. I guess you missed it. You can see a much better picture here: http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=24&pos=35.
This shows that even with all that extra gray dome surface up there (compared to the series set), they still accidentally caught the TV lights glaring off something up around the top of the set. I would expect the "real" ship to have a dome and light fixture up there like the one Aridas Sofia illustrated (and posted back a few pages).


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

I had seen another posting that didn't have the visible ceiling line earlier, but not this one.

It's much crisper then the screengrab, thanks!


----------



## uss_columbia

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Again, I must have missed that post.


Here ya go:
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=1934837&postcount=399
(You didn't miss it, by the way. You commented on it. Might not have absorbed it all, though. There's a lot of information in there, and some of it's hard to visualize.)

The key part for this discussion is this:


X15-A2 said:


> Only by including that angle difference can an accurate plan of that area be drawn. Without it, the alcove is always frustratingly too shallow. Tappering the walls inwards pushes the turbolift doors further from the Bridge center point, thus making it somewhat deeper.


----------



## uss_columbia

uss_columbia said:


>


I should point out that while it looks like the bridge almost fits in the 540' ship's dome, it's misleading. The bridge model is a rotation of the _inside_ cross sections of the stations. The display screens would be on the outside of that, for example.

Still, I can't explain why the dome would be so very tall if this (having the bridge in the teardrop) was the intent when the ship was 540'. I'm pretty sure the full-deck-height of the dome is because there was meant to be a room in there.

I've posted before a picture of the Pato Guzman bridge concept (from before MJ took over the bridge design). It sure looks like the bridge was always intended to be in the dome. Here's a better picture of the concept art than the one I posted before.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

It's hard to tell anything from that picture, especially considering it was Pre-Jefferies.
Personally I think it could be interpreted as being in the B dec, with the A deck and inside of the transparent/translucent dome being visible above.

But again, all this is speculative on our parts. We probably will never know for sure.


----------



## uss_columbia

Interesting thought, but it doesn't fit the picture.
If you look at the left edge of the cocept art, you'll see a cross section that clearly indicates that the dome goes down at least as far as bottom edge of the viewscreen. Since the picture's cut off, it's possible that the dome then joins the B deck, but not higher than that. (And there's nothing to imply that the dome doesn't just continue down where the image is cut off.)


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

That's a very stylized artist rendition. 
I have a copy of it as well.

It's impossible for me to tell exactly what that is a cross section of, it could be a cross section of the B deck, the area starting slightly above the viewscreen the bottom of the A deck, with the circle at the top being the dome.

Again, it's a highly stylized drawing so it's hard to draw conclusions from it. Plus it wasn't even done on Jefferies watch.

So whatever interpretation you or I come up with, I'm not sure how much it means either way.

I just like it because it's a really neat picture.


----------



## irishtrek

42 ft. minus 32 would give the bridge housing a crawl space if you will of about 5 ft. You should also take into conisderation what thickness of the outer bridge housing should be.
Don't mean to throw a monkey wrench in here, but anybody know the size of the bridge housing on the 11 ft. filming model or even the one built by Greg Jein?


----------



## Captain April

Since the Guzman drawing was almost certainly done before a final ship design had even been cooked up, I wouldn't even hazard a guess as to where Guzman thought the bridge was supposed to be. Except "up top, where the bridge always is".


----------



## Captain April

A little blast from the past, for those who need to do a little catching up...

One o' them TrekBBS threads on this very subject

With special attention to these two tidbits:










This is basically what my thinking is on the bridge matter.

And this:










Gagen's detailed analysis of the bridge itself.

Have at it.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Captain April said:


> Gagen's detailed analysis of the bridge itself. Have at it.


Whoa thanks for that! I've never seen any of the actual set blueprints. Is that image posted at full size so the scale will be 1/48 when printed at 72 DPI?


----------



## starseeker

I don't know if anyone's mentioned this but in the ST Phase 2 book, they state that the "Mickey Mouse" ears on the back of the bridge are for the twin turbo lifts. This would imply that what most people assume is the turbo lift bulge is the turbo lift bulge. It also implies that the bridge is located at the very top of the saucer and that the bridge does not face forward (tho it would in P2). 
In changing the E from TOS to P2, M Jefferie's said: "...I didn't see there would be any need to change the exterior of the saucer."
The STP2 bridge blueprints are identical to the bridge blueprints readily available in various STTMP blueprint packages. The Refit bridge dimensions are well documented. Since the saucer of the STP2 E and of the TOS E are identical, one could also try to figure out the size of the E by fitting the Refit bridge into the P2 E plans. The distance between the centre to centre of the twin turbolifts can be easily measured from the interior bridge plans and that can be carried over to the distance from the centre to the centre of the turbolifts on the exterior P2 plans. From that you'll be able to measure the size of the P2 saucer, which will be the same as the TOS saucer, and carry that measurement over to calculate the rest of the TOS E. 
[Edit] Said calculation, done very quickly and with minimal accuracy, gives a CL to CL of the turbolift shafts of approx 20.67', which would make the P2 saucer approx 403' in diameter. Given the roughness of that measurement, it comes pretty close to the 417' diameter of the TOS E, so I think we can assume that 417 to be true. . 
Adding to the Irwin Allen scaling absurdity of the E is this, from the writer/director guide for P2: ""The USS E...[is] somewhat larger than a present day naval cruiser... The saucer section of the vessel (at the top of which is our command bridge) is eleven decks thick at the middle. The engineering section... contains at the rear a hangar deck large enough to hangar a whole fleet of today's jetliners..."
Um... a whole fleet??? How big are jetliners? 
Something's just not right there. McQuarrie's E maybe, but certainly not MJs.
[Edit] In a previous posting, someone quotes a letter in which the TOS E miniature's dome is 'approx 6.34"' in diameter and the elevator is 'approx 1 1/4"' in diameter. Note that the measurements are mixed. I don't think he meant 6.34, as that is not at all approximate, but that he probably meant 6 3/4", which can be approximate, and is a difference that might really screw up anyone using those dimensions to figure out scaling.
Also: it's not as if MJ couldn't screw up. After all, the bridge really might not fit into where it's supposed to, despite his cutaway drawings. If you look at his cutaway drawings of the shuttle bay, you'll see that his clamshell doors are always depicted as a segment of a sphere. (The miniature of the hangar bay also seems to have spherical doors, because on the miniature, they had to work.) If you look at his exterior drawings of the TOS E, you'll see that the clamshell doors are squashed into a partly inflated soccer ball shape that couldn't open or close, let alone remain airtight. If you model them (properly?) as a sphere, they quite change the look of the back of the eng hull.
And also: MJ set the bridge fairly low in the upper reaches of the saucer. The turbo lift doors are probably low enough to stay enclosed by both the second bulge and the wide intersect of the shaft tube with the hull.


----------



## starseeker

Ok, everybody, triple check my math for me. If the saucer is 417' in diameter, that's 5004". If I photoshop Sinclair Eng saucer to 66.67" in diameter, that makes it 1/75 scale. I cut and pasted a portion of the bridge domes at that scale to a bg layer of a new file. (Co-incidentally that gives me an upper dome diameter of approx 6 3/4" with a 1 1/4" diameter elevator.) McMaster's schematics of the bridge show the bridge to be almost exactly 40' from front tip to back of elevator. If I photoshop that to 1/75 scale, that is 6.4", right?? Am I doing this correctly? And if I photoshop that to 6.4" and layer it over the exterior outline[edit; mine appears to be sitting a little higher than in MJ's cutaway], this is what it looks like: 
So did I do something wrong here?


----------



## starseeker

Sorry, this is such a long thread and I've only looked at it occasionally. The parts that I have noticed previously are for all the alternative universe Es and their bridges and configurations - I didn't notice that others have already showed that the "real"?? bridge fits just fine as MJ designed. 
Re-invented the wheel there, I guess. 
How big is the TOS Enterprise? Well, at least now we know that the saucer really could and probably is the 417' in diameter just as MJ said. So the rest of the E's dimensions could be just as he said, too. There doesn't seem to be any reason not to believe him.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

There is the shuttlebay to consider...

I'm not saying it can't be made to fit,

But I believe it would take much more of Jefferies' cross section then he originally dedicated to it.


----------



## Captain April

I don't wanna get off on a rant here but, the sticking point is this: Why would any rational being design a ship with the bridge facing thirty-six degrees to port? Never mind all the technical rationalizations of how it _could_ be done, *why would anyone do such a thing in the first frelling place?* And there are more than a few indications that, as far as those actually making Star Trek were concerned, including Matt Jefferies, the bridge faced straight ahead, not to port (for one thing, the centerline on Jefferies' layout drawing runs from the viewscreen, through the command chair, and back through the communications station, _NOT_ through the turbolift). The Phase II redesign was an acknowledgement of a little whoopsie that was committed back during the original series, as well as a nod to those who pay attention to such things, something of a first in media sci-fi audiences (how many Lost in Space fans or Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea afficianados actually gave a rip about how the interiors of the Jupiter II and the Seaview couldn't possibly fit within those hulls? In the grand scheme of things, this sort of nitpicking is a relatively recent phenomenon, starting with Star Trek).

Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

As you pointed out awhile back when I was attempting to make the same point about how illogical it was,

(minus your claims that there is any proof as to the intent)

that issue has been beaten to death.


----------



## Captain April

But it still remains the crux of the problem...


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

What is the problem?

I honestly don't understand how there could be a problem unless you have some need to recreate the ship physically or in 3D.

If you believe the bridge would look better facing forward in some 3D or physical model you would like to make, simply sink the bridge low enough to do it that way.

If you aren't trying to create a 3D or physical model it's really a non-issue.

It's just a questionable curiosity about a fictional TV show. 

It's not a real-world problem unless you are trying to recreate the ship physically or in 3D.


----------



## Captain April

Or work out deck plans that don't require pockets of null space to make things fit.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

As far as bridge orientation goes you might want to re-read my "some people say why. I say why not?" message a few pages back. As far as the centerline through the bridge set drawing, its just easier to draw it that way. There is also a centerline through the elevator too, probably for the same reason - its easier to draw symetrical shapes that way that mirror across an imaginary centerline.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Perhaps I should have included drafting under the 3D column for reasons.

But if that is a reason to worry about it, simply lower the bridge so that the bottom inside floor meets the bottom of where the B deck is and that should allow you to fit it facing forward.


----------



## Captain April

Oh, I've lowered the sucker quite a bit, but there are still some issues to finagle in order to explain the apparent incongruity with having a bridge so low when it's always been the understanding that it's up top, hence the emphasis on the pilot dome and its place in the design history of the ship.

Regarding the 50' diameter that's been cited for the pilot dome, that was a guesstimate on my part. It might scale out slightly bigger or smaller, or something not so spherical along the sides, which is why I'm appealing to those more technical minded to see what they can come up with to resolve this conundrum.

Y'know, a 1/350 scale Enterprise would make this a little easier...


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Steve Mavronis said:


> You might want to re-read my "some people say why. I say why not?"


To me, "why not" is not a satifactory answer to the question "why?"

But really guys, this has been beaten to death and both sides know how to show the ship in a believable way no matter which side of the fence they are on.

If you like your bridge sideways, design it sideways, though it can't fit into the A deck entirely it just needs to be dropped a bit.

If you like your bridge straight forward then just drop it a couple more feet and face it forward.

Now that everybody knows how to place their version of the bridge into a 947 foot TOS E,

can't we all just get along?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Captain April said:


> Oh, I've lowered the sucker quite a bit, but there are still some issues to finagle in order to explain the apparent incongruity with having a bridge so low when it's always been the understanding that it's up top...


I don't know that that has "always been the understanding."

Whether you look at the curves over the top of the production bridge or the bridge as shown in the Cage,

it's appears to me that that curve is what was intended to be suggested to match up with part of the A dome - not the bridge itself.

So maybe you assumed that the bridge was in the A deck from an early age, but I don't see any evidence that Jefferies intended to suggest it was there. Especially when you look at his cross section.


Nevertheless, you still admit you know how to lower it.
So what's the problem?


----------



## Steve Mavronis

^^^ Agreed. There is never going to be an answer that everyone is comfortable with. It's up to ones personal preferences when you come down to it. It is an interesting discussion though and helps all of us to consider the possibilities hopefully with an open mind.


----------



## Shaw

Captain April said:


> Or work out deck plans that don't require pockets of null space to make things fit.


And include contortions to fit something that was never seen on screen.

So great, you would be happier if the command module faced directly forward... it doesn't, and your vote for something different is about 43 years late. And until we get some form of time machine so that you can return to the early sixties to plead your case to Matt Jefferies, it seems like you are slightly _OCD_ about this.

Believe what you want, but just know that no amount of arguing in the world will change the fact that the bridge was filmed the way it was.



But if you have to have the bridge facing forward, does that mean that auxiliary control was also facing forward? The ship could be helmed from there too.

The reason I ask is that watching _Doomsday Machine_, if we match up Scotty's movements with Kirk's in the Constellation it sure seems like the main viewscreen in auxiliary control faces to starboard.

Why have auxiliary control turned towards starboard while the bridge is turned to port? And if directions were of such importance that a slight turn to port makes any difference, why were all but the captain's chair basically normal chairs (not fastened to the floor) without seatbelts or the like? And for that matter, why weren't all the stations on the bridge facing forward?

If you are going to waste energy on these types of things, the least you can do is really go to town on the whole issue! Start making your plans so that every station on the bridge is facing forward.


----------



## MGagen

_Wow_. I go away for a week and my little revivified thread gathers 15 more pages.

A lot of water has flowed under the "bridge" since this was posted, but I have to respond to these two mischaracterizations:



Captain April said:


> And it's at _this_ point where I usually got into screaming matches with [MGagen], because I wasn't interested in all the mathematic details of how it _wouldn't_ work, I was only interested in how it could be made _to_ work.


 A "screaming match" requires at least two participants. In our debates, the screaming (and expletives) came from one side only. 

From my first posts (in early '03!) in his cross section thread over on TrekBBS I outlined _various_ ways a forward facing bridge could be _made to work_. He was not interested in them at the time because he claimed they were not necessary -- the bridge would fit in the production dome facing forward as is. It took years before he finally came to acknowlege that it doesn't fit in the production dome. Unfortunately for his current rationalization, it doesn't fit at the bottom of the pilot dome either...


----------



## MGagen

starseeker said:


> Also: it's not as if MJ couldn't screw up. After all, the bridge really might not fit into where it's supposed to, despite his cutaway drawings. If you look at his cutaway drawings of the shuttle bay, you'll see that his clamshell doors are always depicted as a segment of a sphere. (The miniature of the hangar bay also seems to have spherical doors, because on the miniature, they had to work.) If you look at his exterior drawings of the TOS E, you'll see that the clamshell doors are squashed into a partly inflated soccer ball shape that couldn't open or close, let alone remain airtight. If you model them (properly?) as a sphere, they quite change the look of the back of the eng hull.


 The "squashed soccer ball" shape actually can work and has an interesting feature: Because each section revolves around the central axis, the door sections separate as the doors open, giving room for the sections to slide past each other. Also, they could come together to present a nearly seamless outer surface, rather than the stair stepped one necessary with a spherical door. Here's a study drawing I made back in early '04 to illustrate the point:


----------



## uss_columbia

irishtrek said:


> If you measure the bridge dome on the PL TOS E it is 1/2 inche in diameter and at a scale of 1/1000 the measures out to roughly 41-42 feet across.


I carefully measured the 1/1000 scale PL series and pilot domes using my calipers that are rated for .0005" accuracy.

Series:
Dome diameter at base: 41.0' (average of two perpendicular measurements 0.4915")
Lift tube diameter at base: 7.3' (measurement .088")
Lift tube centerline to dome centerline: 21.2' (measured from front of dome to rear of tube (.5445") and did the math)

Pilot:
Dome diameter at base: 47.8' (average of two perpendicular measurements 0.5735")
Lift tube diameter at base: 7.5' (measurement .090")
Lift tube centerline to dome centerline: 24.5' (measured from front of dome to rear of tube (.6255") and did the math)

(For comparison, the measured PL saucer diameter (average of two perpendicular measurements) scales out to 416'.)

Notes:
The PL pilot dome, unlike the series dome, is not based on measurements of the studio model dome.
The pilot distance of tube centerline from dome centerline is probably not accurate on the PL model.
The series and pilot lift tubes have smaller diameters at top than at base -- this "draft" is required to be able to remove parts from the mold. As such, it differs from the studio model.

Here's an updated render of the McMasters bridge, lift, and doors in the PL dome & tube, using the updated series dome/tube measurements. I included the doors this time. On the render, the "thick" doors represent the inner _and_ outer lift doors together with the gap between them. They are shown in the fully-open positions. I have the doors 6.5' tall (which is just a guess).










Note that, as before, the lift doesn't quite fit in the tube, and the top outer corners of the lift doors would interfere with the dome wall, if I gave it reasonable thickness (my dome wall is zero thickness -- illustrating the outer surface only). Detail shot is below.









(The lift is also too large in diameter to allow the tube to have reasonable wall thickness. It's been said before that the lift interior set was extra large in diameter for filming reasons.)

For a TV set and miniature, it's all impressively close to a perfect fit! On a "real" ship, minor adjustments to lift/doors and/or dome/tube geometry would be necessary for everything to fit just right. (Or if you prefer, more major adjustments to enable the viewscreen to face forward.)





Captain April said:


> Regarding the 50' diameter that's been cited for the pilot dome, that was a guesstimate on my part. It might scale out slightly bigger or smaller, or something not so spherical along the sides


When I first mentioned 50', I said the exact dimension was unknown but that I was using your 50' figure. I subsequently did photo analysis (some of which I posted here several pages back) that confirms that 50' is pretty close. The shape is not spherical: it's somewhat flattened at the top; it does look like the sides near the base do match the spherical section. (In most of my renders of the pilot dome earlier in this thread, I lazily approximated it as a hemisphere. The 540' ship render I did for Chuck does have it appropriately flattened, but it's just a rough triangle-mesh.)





Steve Mavronis said:


> I've never seen any of the actual set blueprints. Is that image posted at full size so the scale will be 1/48 when printed at 72 DPI?


That's the same Jefferies Stage 9 drawing that appeared in TMOST, I believe. (Mark, correct me if I'm wrong. BTW, welcome back!) No images of the bridge construction blueprints have been posted. (It's been rumored that the New Voyages people got their hands on a copy, but the alcove detail in their set as constructed would suggest that they didn't, at least when they built that part of their set.)


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

There are some very accurate blueprints of the three foot pilot version Enterprise here:

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/ccd-enterprise-sheet-6.jpg


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

uss_columbia said:


> The series and pilot lift tubes have smaller diameters at top than at base -- this "draft" is required to be able to remove parts from the mold.


The lift tubes might have smaller diameters at the top then the base.
But there is no need for that to be the case if you are molding something.

If you are molding something in steel it is true that the top couldn't be bigger then the bottom.

But they could be the same size.

If they molded a piece of the three footer chances are they would have not been using steel, but some form of rubber, which can even allow a certain degree of undercutting, expecially at such a small piece size.


----------



## MGagen

Chuck PR:

He's talking about the PL model, which was styrene injection molded with metal tooling. The draft is indeed required for this piece. A similar production adjustment is seen in the central light on the leading edge of the primary hull. It should be a round hemisphere, but it was molded as an irregular nub to avoid an impossible undercut that would have hindered the release of the piece from the mold.

USS Columbia: 

 The bridge graphic is a detail from the large soundstage blueprints that were sold by Lincoln Enterprises back in the day. I believe it is the same basic drawing reproduced much smaller in TMOST. In the case of the ones LE sold, they were marked up versions with notes about the setups for specific episodes. 

M.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

MGagen said:


> Chuck PR:
> 
> He's talking about the PL model, which was styrene injection molded with metal tooling. The draft is indeed required for this piece. A similar production adjustment is seen in the central light on the leading edge of the primary hull. It should be a round hemisphere, but it was molded as an irregular nub to avoid an impossible undercut that would have hindered the release of the piece from the mold.


That makes a lot more sense now.
I still think they could have molded it in steel with the tube being the same diameter all the way up,

but considering PL's chinese manufacturer's tendency to pull parts prior them being completely cooled and their other issues with often using soft plastic I can see where that was a good precaution to take.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

MGagen, what do you think of the accuracy of Charles Casmiro's pilot and production TOS E drawings?


----------



## uss_columbia

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I still think they could have molded it in steel with the tube being the same diameter all the way up, but considering PL's chinese manufacturer's tendency to pull parts prior them being completely cooled and their other issues with often using soft plastic I can see where that was a good precaution to take.


It's not a Chinese thing. Domestic molders need draft, too. (Even if you put an ejector pin right above the part, you'd end up greatly distorting the part in order to get it out if you didn't have draft.)
If you insisted on zero draft, you'd have to have a movable hinge or slide on the tool, and you'd end up with a parting line. Tooling and molding costs would go _way_ up. This sort of thing would not even be considered for something like the PL model kit.

As to *"still"* thinking this. It would be a lot more friendly to either take people at their word (in this case mine and Mark's) or at least do your own research before stating your disbelief of us. Most of us don't claim things if we don't have a rational basis for it! (I've been heavily involved in this type of thing professionally. I'm not personally a tooling/molding expert, but I have coworkers that are, and I've managed projects that required us to design lots of injection molded components, including enclosures; I was in design-review and approval roles. I've also evaluated the results of these designs (of both internal and cosmetic parts) and am very familiar with what can go wrong and how. But you don't need to believe me. Try google "injection molding draft" for lots of others telling you that draft is required.)


----------



## uss_columbia

Chuck_P.R. said:


> There are some very accurate blueprints of the three foot pilot version Enterprise here:
> 
> http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/ccd-enterprise-sheet-6.jpg


I don't think I've seen this particular version of the Casimiro prints.
Why do you say it's of the 3-footer? (I don't think the 3-footer was ever modified to the "second pilot" configuration. It was seen in the second pilot (flying out of the barrier, with the shot reversed! (decals backwards), but I don't think it was modified to match the 11-footer "second pilot" configuration.)

It's my understanding that the different versions of the two miniatures are as follows:

3-footer:
- original version, before Gene asked for mods (no pictures seen)
- might have had taller bridge dome (just a guess)​- modified pilot version (seen at "delivery at Rigel", in the two pilots, in Spock's hands)
- did not have extra-tall bridge dome
- had the so-called "first pilot" nacelle ends​- modified to series version (seen in the series)
- still had same bridge dome as modified pilot version
- spikes removed
- nacelle end balls added
- dish diameter reduced​11-footer:
- original version (seen in The Cage, stock footage seen subsequently)
- tall bridge dome
- smooth nacelle ends (not the so-called "first pilot" nacelle ends)​- second pilot version (seen in second pilot, stock footage seen subsequently)
- hexagonal grill nacelle ends
- black ring segments on saucer
- ...​- series version
- no more black ring segments
- shorter bridge dome
- nacelle spikes removed, lighting effects added
- nacelle ball ends
- reduced dish diameter
- ...​If anyone has evidence that contradicts any of the above, please present it.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

uss_columbia said:


> As to *"still"* thinking this. It would be a lot more friendly to either take people at their word (in this case mine and Mark's) or at least do your own research before stating your disbelief of us.


 
Perhaps you missed the part where I admitted I didn't know you were talking about the PL kit. If I had known you were talking about the PL kit I would have of course known that a zero draft method would have been impractical - but still not impossible.

Can we please get away from the drama of taking every sentence as being some kind of deeply personal comment about ones' character?

And without bringing into the conversation or speaking for someone else(Mark)?

Can we just accept a discussion of what is and isn't doable without the drama of being personally offended because someone disagrees with something said? As if it's a character attack when it is not?

Actually that's exactly what's happening when you imply there was some deep dark meaning to a simple statement about how a part of a model can be molded.

Most people usually do not take such a thing that personally. As of late though, not agreeing with one or two points a guy makes is beginning to be raised to the level of personal offense.

If one takes that stance, it's impossible to discuss almost any topic.
No one has to agree with everything I say to be my friend, I would hope that in the future you would not define "friendly" by whether someone agrees with you.

It's possible to have someone disagree with you, to even be either right or wrong in that disagreement, and still have nothing to do with that person being friendly or not friendly.

If one takes every difference of opinion - even if you are sure that person is wrong - personally it becomes impossible to have adult conversations.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

uss_columbia said:


> I don't think I've seen this particular version of the Casimiro prints.
> Why do you say it's of the 3-footer?


The top and bottom of the saucer profiles lead me to believe it's of the three footer(not the A/B decks, but the saucer contours), though he doesn't state that on the sheets.


----------



## uss_columbia

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Perhaps you missed the part where I admitted I didn't know you were talking about the PL kit. If I had known you were talking about the PL kit I would have of course known that a zero draft method would have been impractical - but still not impossible.


First I said it, then you said "wrong," then Mark said "it's the PL and it's true" to which you said "I still think" [you're both wrong].

I don't believe there's much there to misinterpret. Of course, I considered the source and didn't really take offense, just felt the need to give you a little friendly advice. It's not just me, BTW, I distinctly recall Griffworks pointing out the same thing to you very recently, when you were telling some others they didn't know what they're talking about (about the Paul Allen photography policy).

My suggestion was sincere and not intended to "offend you back."

Griffworks: don't worry, I'm not going to say anything more on this.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Again, what I was disagreeing with was the idea that a steel mold cannot be made with zero draft.

I still disagree that it can't be made.

Yet you continue to twist what I was disagreeing on long after I told Mark I didn't know that you were talking about the PL.

On such a small kit, yes it would be impractical to construct a mold with zero draft.
I have admitted as much and agreed with you on it.

Yet you continue to bring it up.

Not only that, bring up a situation in which a moderator blatantly misquoted me as saying something I never said and then slammed the thread shut, as proof of what?

How you can take a simple point about how a certain part can or can't be molded and turn it into a character attack on me is rather odd.

It's you who continue to attack me, not that other way around.

Since no one can disagree with any point you make without insulting your honor, I'm going to solve the problem by putting you on my ignore list.


----------



## uss_columbia

Chuck_P.R. said:


> The top and bottom of the saucer profiles lead me to believe it's of the three footer(not the A/B decks, but the saucer contours), though he doesn't state that on the sheets.


Oh, I see. Those curves are more like the 11-footer. You can get a good view of the 3-footer's flatter curves in this picture.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Hopefully this thread won't be locked. I agree that clarification is in order if you feel your statements are taken out of context. We have to try not to play word games against one another. Maybe we can get over this and continue on the merits of the discussion topic. Everyone here needs to realize you can't force an opinion on others if they disagree. You should be able to use supporting arguments to make your case though. Just say your piece and others are entitled to agree or disagree agreeably. The very nature of this topic is open to wide interpretation. There is no conclusive right or wrong.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Steve Mavronis said:


> Hopefully this thread won't be locked. I agree that clarification is in order if you feel your statements are taken out of context. We have to try not to play word games against one another. Maybe we can get over this and continue on the merits of the discussion topic. Everyone here needs to realize you can't force an opinion on others if they disagree. You should be able to use supporting arguments to make your case though. Just say your piece and others are entitled to agree or disagree agreeably. The very nature of this topic is open to wide interpretation. There is no conclusive right or wrong.


 
Agreed. I have already admitted that I did not know that he was talking about the PL kit.

I've also agreed that it would have been impractical to have attempted to build the kit without using draft points.

I have no idea how it became of an issue of personal offense when we were only talking about how a piece might or might not be constructed.

When someone can no longer have a simple difference of opinion without it being turned into a major drama - it's a bit much.

It is possible to disagree with one another on points and not make it a major issue, muchless one of character.


----------



## uss_columbia

It seems I have overreacted to what Chuck said. Sorry, everyone.


For the record, I am quite happy to be proved wrong. Being wrong means I've learned something new.


Now back to your regularly schedule discussion...


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

uss_columbia said:


> It seems I have overreacted to what Chuck said. Sorry, everyone.
> 
> 
> For the record, I am quite happy to be proved wrong. Being wrong means I've learned something new.
> 
> 
> Now back to your regularly schedule discussion...


I've been asked by another party to lower my Ilist screen to read the above.

Thanks.

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with one another, I've been wrong quite a few more times then I can count.

Let's just go forward without assuming our disagreements on points mean more then we disagree on that point.

The discussions will be a lot more fun, and go further faster as well. :thumbsup:


----------



## uss_columbia

^ feel free to ignore, man. You just won't know what I'm saying about you.


----------



## Shaw

Chuck_P.R. said:


> MGagen, what do you think of the accuracy of Charles Casmiro's pilot and production TOS E drawings?


You know a few months back I was curious which of the drawings were the most accurate and did a comparison... this is a broad outline of my results.

All and all, _I_ have favored the Casmiro drawings when building with the only real sticking point being the cross-section curve of the top of the primary hull (where Sinclair's seem more accurate to the 11 foot model).

In this discussion, Casmiro's production bridge looks most correct, but I haven't looked that closely at his pilot version drawings.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

That is a fantastic overview of the two schematics!

All in all I have to agree with you on liking the Casmiro blues the best too.
I had never noticed the difference in upper hull lines, it is subtle, but it's there.

However, what put's the Casmiro over the top for me is the Dorsal, followed closely by his great Secondary Hull.

I might even be tempted to switch that order, but your eye is so naturally drawn to the Dorsal when evaluating drawings of the TOS E I think Casmiro's superior dorsal clinches it for me.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

^^^ Thanks for that 1701 reference drawing!


----------



## uss_columbia

Steve Mavronis said:


> Everyone here needs to realize you can't force an opinion on others if they disagree. You should be able to use supporting arguments to make your case though. Just say your piece and others are entitled to agree or disagree agreeably. The very nature of this topic is open to wide interpretation. There is no conclusive right or wrong.


There are facts and there are opinions. One is provable, one isn't. It's pointless to argue over opinions once its clear someone's opinion is firm. One thing I have to keep reminding myself, though, is that it can be equally pointless to argue over _facts_ when its clear the other party doesn't accept them. In both cases, you can offer a certain amount of supporting evidence and argument, but after that point it becomes senseless.

Anyway, it's quite enjoyable to learn others' opinions and viewpoints. Your "why not" question is a perfect example. For me, though, it's far _more_ enjoyable to uncover new facts and the interesting implications they often lead to.

Of course, facts are subject to interpretation, which can be incorrect. A long time ago, I was tempted to accept Phil Broad's 1/96 scale theory. His argument that it would be extremely unusual to use an oddball scale (a fact) was quite compelling. Then MGagen presented other facts that shed new light, adequately explaining the oddball scale while still allowing for the 947' intended size. (BTW, Phil has expressed his support for Mark's take on it; he just hasn't updated the 1/96 pages on his website (last I checked).)

With the bridge fitting almost perfectly in the dome when the ship is scaled to 947'; I think the size of the Enterprise being 947' has _almost_ risen to the status of fact. Without access to people that are not longer available for comment, we can't do any better.

There are still lots of interesting implications and side-discussions that aren't so firmly set, though. This thread could probably go on for many, many more pages of fresh discussion!





Shaw said:


> You know a few months back I was curious which of the drawings were the most accurate and did a comparison... this is a broad outline of my results.


I'd seen this comparison image before, but I didn't realize it was yours. Thanks for doing it and posting it!


----------



## Shaw

uss_columbia said:


> I'd seen this comparison image before, but I didn't realize it was yours. Thanks for doing it and posting it!


Yeah, I had posted it in a discussion about which plans were the best, but I thought it important to not take too limited a stance on this type of thing. Both plans are great references. And as we have access to both, why not use both. Using all the references we have has always been my position... Why limit ourselves?

The key is that we all see different things, and seeing plans like these is like seeing through other people's eyes. We can see details that we might have missed otherwise.

Basically, that is also why I love seeing everyone's models too. I love to see what details caught someone's eye while building different ships, details that I may not have seen when I built it... or may have saw differently.



Chuck_P.R said:


> However, what put's the Casmiro over the top for me is the Dorsal, followed closely by his great Secondary Hull.


Same here. The first plans I usually pull out when thinking about the Enterprise are almost always the Casmiro drawings.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

uss_columbia said:


> There are facts and there are opinions. One is provable, one isn't. It's pointless to argue over opinions once its clear someone's opinion is firm. One thing I have to keep reminding myself, though, is that it can be equally pointless to argue over _facts_ when its clear the other party doesn't accept them. In both cases, you can offer a certain amount of supporting evidence and argument, but after that point it becomes senseless.
> 
> Anyway, it's quite enjoyable to learn others' opinions and viewpoints. Your "why not" question is a perfect example. For me, though, it's far _more_ enjoyable to uncover new facts and the interesting implications they often lead to.


True, sometimes human nature takes over and fact/opinion gets blurred. We just have to be careful when trying to interpret someone's intentions like MJ and what he would have done or thought. What we decide may or may not be what was in his mind. For solid evidence we can only go with what is documented as said or written by the man himself and use them as specifications on certain dimensions if we can. 

The bad thing that throws a monkey wench in the bridge discussions here is the fact that the Enterprise was re-sized during the beginnings of making Star Trek. There is debate on the real world size of the ship enough to cast doubt on fitting the bridge and orientation. Most sources say 947 feet, while some insist over 1000 feet. That leads to a lot of fudging between the two camps. It's in the eye of the beholder.

One thing I've wondered about is the deck spacing on the 11 footer. If we measure the vertical distance between windows how does that compare to 947 feet? What is the deck height in real world scaled to that?


----------



## Griffworks

uss_columbia said:


> There are facts and there are opinions. One is provable, one isn't. It's pointless to argue over opinions once its clear someone's opinion is firm. One thing I have to keep reminding myself, though, is that it can be equally pointless to argue over _facts_ when its clear the other party doesn't accept them. In both cases, you can offer a certain amount of supporting evidence and argument, but after that point it becomes senseless.


And this was a part of my point in the other thread that I locked, tho it's more about calling someone's character in to question - constantly. Whether offense is intended or not doesn't matter. It's the fact of the act. 

As to Chuck's comments about the "drama" - if one doesn't cause "drama" by constantly calling other peoples integrity or character in to question, then there won't be any "drama"... 

And that ends this discussion on the subject.


----------



## uss_columbia

Steve Mavronis said:


> One thing I've wondered about is the deck spacing on the 11 footer. If we measure the vertical distance between windows how does that compare to 947 feet? What is the deck height in real world scaled to that?


On Phil Broad's web site, there are some images correlating the windows. You'll find them here: http://cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STEnterprise/EnterpriseRenderings/EnterpriseRenderings.htm. Note: some of them show the hypothetical 1/96 ship and others 947' ship. On the one with deck layout and windows, I don't know if his deck thickness numbers are based on the 947' ship or the larger ship.

You can also see his interpretation of the deck spacing compared to the TMOST cross section in this thread. (Here he's using a 947' ship for sure.)


----------



## Steve Mavronis

uss_columbia said:


> On Phil Broad's web site, there are some images correlating the windows.


Thanks for reminding me about that. I should mention that I love his renders on the shuttlecraft hangar. He gives a nice interpretation of the forward end we never saw.


----------



## Captain April

uss_columbia said:


> Oh, I see. Those curves are more like the 11-footer. You can get a good view of the 3-footer's flatter curves in this picture.


To bring up a previous point, in that pic, it's quite clear that the three-footer didn't get the larger bridge dome.


----------



## Captain April

uss_columbia said:


> On Phil Broad's web site, there are some images correlating the windows. You'll find them here: http://cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STEnterprise/EnterpriseRenderings/EnterpriseRenderings.htm. Note: some of them show the hypothetical 1/96 ship and others 947' ship. On the one with deck layout and windows, I don't know if his deck thickness numbers are based on the 947' ship or the larger ship.
> 
> You can also see his interpretation of the deck spacing compared to the TMOST cross section in this thread. (Here he's using a 947' ship for sure.)


Who wants to tell Phil that the smaller model was 33 3/4", not 48"?


----------



## uss_columbia

^ I already teased him a little in my 3-footer thread. Note that the page title (in your browser title bar, probably) says *14 foot* when you click it!


----------



## uss_columbia

Captain April said:


> To bring up a previous point, in that pic, it's quite clear that the three-footer didn't get the larger bridge dome.


Yup. Unless it originally had it, and that's one of the things Roddenberry wanted changed back when Datin first delivered the model. Hard to imagine the 11-footer builders not getting the memo, though. (Datin did the mods to the 3-footer and was the interface with the guys doing the 11-footer. I suppose it could have been a mistake they didn't have time to correct before The Cage, but I'd imagine they would have had time before WNMHGB. It's a mystery to me.)


----------



## uss_columbia

MGagen (if you're tuned in), when you corresponded with Mr. Datin, did you happen to ask him if he recalled what any of Roddenberry's requested changes were?


----------



## starseeker

MGagen said:


> The "squashed soccer ball" shape actually can work and has an interesting feature: Because each section revolves around the central axis, the door sections separate as the doors open, giving room for the sections to slide past each other. Also, they could come together to present a nearly seamless outer surface, rather than the stair stepped one necessary with a spherical door. Here's a study drawing I made back in early '04 to illustrate the point:


That is cool!
However, making it work it still doesn't reconcile the quarter sphere hangar bay doors that MJ shows in his cross sections with what appears on the back of the miniature. 
And on the hangar bay miniature, the doors appear very much to be spherical as they open. Tho from the pov the perspective can be misleading. 
But at least after this I know that MJs bridge fits exactly as he shows it. And correcting a couple scale mistakes I made in photoshop, I know that his hangar bay fits to scale as he designed it. So I'm now thinking that he really did design this thing w/o Irwin Allen contradictions. 
[Edit] And now I'm backtracking on the whole elliptical shape. Was it in fact real? As I go back over pictures of the 12' miniature's hangar bay doors, I see no evidence that they were elliptical at all. If that control room or whatever it is isn't centered on the axis of the door, then the miniature's could be spherical, which would make sense from a modeler's (Datin's) pov, as it would have been easier to make. MJs ext ship drawings do show an ellipse, but the drawings are very sketchy as to the interface between ext and int. His drawings (the ones I have anyway) of the int of the shuttle bay are either distorted or (I don't believe) not accurate, none of the lines are parallel. It's sort of a side view of forced perspective., everything narrowing as you get closer to the doors. It's possible that on the fairly crudely reproduced ext views (Making of ST book) that there was some sloppiness in the drawing or distortion in the repro, I suppose. 
Way OT for this thread: What shape do you think those doors really were?


----------



## Captain April

Once again, the drawing in TMoST is of a forced perspective miniature set, not of a full size hangar deck.


----------



## uss_columbia

MJ's hangar drawing seen in TMOST with the nonparallel lines you point out is of the miniature, which was built this way to allow the camera to peer into the oversized opening. That same "distortion" could affect the shape of the doors on the hangar deck drawing/miniature. (I don't have access to the diagram right now.)

I think the "real" doors are probably the elliptical shape whereas the models may have used a spherical section for construction convenience. (The control room detail is different between the 11-footer and the 3-footer, BTW, the 3-footer lacking the cylindrical part that "touches" the doors.)

It's hard to say from photos whether the doors on the models are sperical sections or have some eccentricity. "One of these days," I'll 3D-model it with varying eccentricity and see what fits the photos best.


----------



## uss_columbia

^ It occurs to me that we Star Trek fans have "varying eccentricity" of our own, just not in the mathematical sense. :lol:


----------



## Captain April

starseeker said:


> That is cool!
> But at least after this I know that MJs bridge fits exactly as he shows it.


Does it?

And I'm not just being snarky here, I'm trying to make a point.

Except for the cross-section, which tends to indicate a lowered bridge (and only eight decks, btw), *no MJ drawing depicts the relationship between the interior of the bridge and the exterior hull.* For that matter, there's no contemporaneous drawing that specifically identifies that tube on the back of the dome as the turbolift housing. It's not until the blueprints in the mid 70's that this concept gets codified.

So one cannot say definitively, based upon the available material produced at the time or from interviews, which direction he intended the bridge to face. The fact that he never "corrected" the other folks on set who believed that the bridge faced forward, and the illogic of facing a ship's bridge 36 degrees to port, tends to imply that he thought the bridge faced forward as well (I'm still waiting for a response from Mike Okuda to see if this subject ever came up during his discussions with Jefferies; the issue of possible influence from "The First Spaceship on Venus" came up, so why not this?).


----------



## aridas sofia

His cross section shows the turbolift shaft rising straight up to the bridge. I was going to cheat the bridge down a bit more to get it to face forward, but it would require ignoring his deck placement AND that tube. Too much for me -- he is clearly showing it off-centered.


----------



## starseeker

[QUOTE For that matter, there's no contemporaneous drawing that specifically identifies that tube on the back of the dome as the turbolift housing. It's not until the blueprints in the mid 70's that this concept gets codified.

[/QUOTE]

True. But the mid-70s codification was in ST Phase 2, where Matt Jeffries himself put two turbo lift shafts on the ext of the E, called them such (at least so shows/says the P2 book/references), and they do match perfectly the placement they'd have compared to the P2 bridge blueprint if the saucer was approx 417' in diameter. 
But perhaps MJ completely revised his bridge placement/design ideas from P1.


----------



## uss_columbia

The cross section of which aridas sofia spoke is just such a contemporaneous drawing. It may not spell it right out in large type, but the implication is strong.


----------



## Captain April

aridas sofia said:


> His cross section shows the turbolift shaft rising straight up to the bridge. I was going to cheat the bridge down a bit more to get it to face forward, but it would require ignoring his deck placement AND that tube. Too much for me -- he is clearly showing it off-centered.


He's showing how big the ship is, that's all. A detailed schematic, that ain't.


----------



## Captain April

uss_columbia said:


> The cross section of which aridas sofia spoke is just such a contemporaneous drawing. It may not spell it right out in large type, but the implication is strong.


It doesn't show what happens to that lift away from the centerline, now does it? And we have seen a couple of instances where the turbolift moves _*sideways*_ before opening onto the bridge, now haven't we, kids?


----------



## Griffworks

Watch it w/the condescending "kids" stuff please, CRA.... Let's not send this thread in that direction. It'll mean a Time Out for 10 days, minimum, and get the thread locked.


----------



## uss_columbia

Let's play a little game of "which is more likely."

Is it more likely that Jefferies intended the lift orientation that

A) hangs the lift almost entirely out into space​or

B) almost perfectly fits it in the tube?​


----------



## uss_columbia

What the heck:

C) drops the bridge below the dome









D) sizes the ship up dramatically








(Note: the ship size is increased just enough for the lift to clear the dome with reasonable wall thickness. A variation could shift the bridge in the bow and starboard directions and scale the ship up less.)


----------



## Griffworks

In all honesty, I'd have to say "A". 


What?  

 

Seriously, as has been pointed out in either this thread or another, Occam's Razor seems to apply, IMNSHO. Thus, B seems the most logical answer.


----------



## Griffworks

All kidding aside, let's watch the jabs, playful or otherwise. So long as we can all keep a sense of humor and not incite others, we're all good.


----------



## uss_columbia

I think I've got it: the lift isn't really a lift at all but rather an instantaneous intership transporter (with holographic projection of the destination). You step through the "lift" doors to beam into the "lift" chamber, then step out of the "lift" chamber to beam to the desired location. This can also explain why there's always a "lift car" waiting -- lots of "lifts" are available, and their actual location on the ship is unimportant.
There!


----------



## uss_columbia

Captain April said:


> It doesn't show what happens to that lift away from the centerline, now does it? And we have seen a couple of instances where the turbolift moves _*sideways*_ before opening onto the bridge, now haven't we, kids?


The lift tube feature is _on_ the centerline.
However, if you don't mind modifying the hull to make room for a sideways shift at the bridge, MGagen gave you this, way back when:


----------



## BEBruns

uss_columbia said:


> This can also explain why there's always a "lift car" waiting -- lots of "lifts" are available, and their actual location on the ship is unimportant.


Actually, in "The Naked Time", Kirk does have to wait for the lift after they carry Sulu off the bridge. I think this is the only time this has happened in any of the series.


----------



## uss_columbia

^ In TWOK, Kirk and Saavik were observed "holding up the ... elevator," much to McCoy's irritation.


----------



## jheilman

"She change her hairstyle?"

"Hadn't noticed."

Back when Kirstie was hot. :thumbsup:

Wow, 25 years ago!!


----------



## aridas sofia

Captain April said:


> It doesn't show what happens to that lift away from the centerline, now does it? And we have seen a couple of instances where the turbolift moves _*sideways*_ before opening onto the bridge, now haven't we, kids?


This is physically impossible. There is no "what happens to that lift away from the centerline" because the lift rises all the way up into the tube. That shaft doesn't stop below the bridge, it's top is the top of the tube -- if it went anywhere horizontally from there it would be out in space.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

^^^ Yes thats my take on it too. I have to check out which way the motion lights move when they get in the elevator and it goes, although in reality it stayed stationary on the stage. Of course there is probably instances where some stage hand goofed and moved the light bars the wrong way! Little did he know that 40 years later we find he throws a monkey wrench into the whole debate from his mistake!


----------



## Griffworks

OK, folks. It's past time to move on from talking about the Bridge and how it fits in the ship and back to the primary subject at hand. There are several pages now talking about the bridge that could have been devoted to Mark's primary reason for starting the thread and it appears to me that the majority of folks here have made it pretty clear that the bridge set fits in the "real" _Enterprise_, tho it being a bridge _set_ and not part of a real starship means that it might need a minor bit of tweaking. Whether it's offset in one direction or other other isn't germaine to the primary discussion point *and is therefore verboten to talk about*. 

For those who don't understand what I'm saying, in simpler language - *stop talking about the danged bridge and move on*!


----------



## Four Mad Men

MGagen said:


> The "squashed soccer ball" shape actually can work and has an interesting feature: Because each section revolves around the central axis, the door sections separate as the doors open, giving room for the sections to slide past each other. Also, they could come together to present a nearly seamless outer surface, rather than the stair stepped one necessary with a spherical door. Here's a study drawing I made back in early '04 to illustrate the point:


In honor of *MGagen*...

It took a couple of tries to get a sequence where none of the sections interfered with another while still remaining tucked in behind the following section. And there is still the issue of what to do with the "observation area" above the doors. Undercutting it would be the simplest solution but I don't want to do that just yet as I think it can be done without being so extreme in removing part of it. Need modify the doors just a little to present the segment separations when fully closed. As it stands now when closed the segments have no visible separation.

So... here is my U.S.S. Potemkin (aka Texture test bed)...

Hangar Door Test (106 KB, XviD)

Basically each section moves back and once clear rotates. Once the current section has rotated enough to provide clearance for the next, that section also moves back and rotates while the previous section continues its rotatation to it's final resting place. And so on for the third mobile section.


----------



## uss_columbia

Griffworks said:


> It's past time to move on from talking about the Bridge and how it fits in the ship and back to the primary subject at hand.


True, bridge discussion has been had. There's probably some life left in the hangar discussion, though.
Edit: Four Mad Men beat me to it!

You can read the past discussion on it over here, beginning with post 263.

If anyone saved the images mentioned in post 265 on the same page (and originally posted in 266), please post them or send them to me. (I asked Dennis if he still had them a while back (via PM on trekbbs) but didn't get a response.)

One of these days, I'll whip up some quick models of the non-distorted hangar in the position shown in the cross-section, with Warped9's interpretation of the just-over-24' shuttle, and see how it looks.

Phil's nice renders of a fairly workable hangar are here. (His "garage doors" would lead right into where I believe main engineering is located, though.)

(Ooh! I just mentioned the hangar deck _and_ main engineering. Let's keep it civil, people. )


----------



## uss_columbia

Very cool, Four Mad Men!!

Could we see a view looking down on the doors from above, please?


----------



## Steve Mavronis

uss_columbia said:


> Phil's nice renders of a fairly workable hangar are here. (His "garage doors" would lead right into where I believe main engineering is located, though.)


Yes Phil's hangar renders look great. He has the style down for the hangar bay look for the angles we never saw in the show. A far as I know they never made the forward bulkhead for the miniature hangar model. 

I was just looking at his deck layout here and the engineering room would be on the deck above the garage doors.

Main Engineering's location is a paradox. The ceiling and beams curve above which makes it right for the secondary hull next to the hangar under the warp engine pylons. The red engine chamber upsidedown "V" effect behind the grating could be the butt end of control conduits positioned at a 90 degree angle relative to the pylons "V" angle.

I prefer Main Engineering there, yet the door leads to a curved corridor like it is in the saucer section as if we are seeing impulse drives instead. (The studio set layout bears this out.) 

Also, we have seen smaller auxilary engine rooms (entered from a curved corridor) with the same red engine effect though the grating. Multiple red engine chambers would match up with the several impulse engines on the saucer. Just a paradox among many in the Star Trek world.


----------



## X15-A2

Actually, those doors in my Hangar Deck enter into an area below the level of Main Engineering. In my version, the entire Main Engineering set is positioned forward of the nacelle pylon attach point, including the "V" shaped structure seen behind the grill. This was done for several reasons but I'm certain that Mr. Jefferies originally intended the v-structure to be located directly below the pylons, as others here suggest. Unfortunately that location doesn't make any particular sense because the "V-structure" will not line up with the pylons (the exterior attach points are too far outboard). Main Engineering would have to be located much lower for the angles to line up, which then not only interferes with the forward Hangar Deck compartments but it is also not where he had intended it to be. So I put it at the level he had intended but moved it forward, which also allows for heavy duty carry-through bulkheads and related structure to occupy the space where the nacelles attach. The transverse support bulkheads then only need a few cutouts for the two forward hangar bays (beyond the blue doors in my renderings), the below-deck service area and the Observation Deck access corridors.

So, unless you want a Main Engineering room floor located slightly below the floor level of the Hangar deck, you won't be getting the nacelle pylons to line up with the V-structure seen in the set.

And Main Engineering does not open onto a curved corridor, it opens onto a straight corridor which is soon crossed by another corridor at right-angles. That cross corridor is indeed curved but I am certain that it would have been straight as well, had Mr. Jefferies had the budget to build it the way he planned it. He had clearly established where the set was located inside the ship but was not able to build everything that he wanted. Such is life.

Phil


----------



## Steve Mavronis

X15-A2 said:


> I'm certain that Mr. Jefferies originally intended the v-structure to be located directly below the pylons, as others here suggest. Unfortunately that location doesn't make any particular sense because the "V-structure" will not line up with the pylons (the exterior attach points are too far outboard).


I was just wondering what if the entire V-structure in main engineering was feeding just the starboard engine pylon, and the auxilary engine room took up the other half of the deck feeding the port pylon? Just a thought that crossed my mind. Maybe it would line up with the pylons better that way?



X15-A2 said:


> And Main Engineering does not open onto a curved corridor, it opens onto a straight corridor which is soon crossed by another corridor at right-angles. That cross corridor is indeed curved but I am certain that it would have been straight as well, had Mr. Jefferies had the budget to build it the way he planned it.


Could be. I was including the outer entrance short hallway with the ladder tube area as part of it. But it does connect to a curved set hallway. Although in "real life" main engineering needs to be under the warp engine pylons to be practical about it. Like you said, too bad Jefferies didn't have exclusive control over the set layout when it comes to how things are connected and seen on screen. 

Instead, they have it as it is on the set floor plan that way just for efficiency to fit everything on a studio stage building to give the "illusion" that you are inside a Starship. We can't take everything like that literally or it will drive us all nuts trying to rationalize it! LOL.


----------



## MGagen

I haven't had time to keep up with this blazing hot thread in recent days, so here's a mega post to bring me up to date.

*Chuck PR* asked my opinion of the Casmiro First Pilot plans: 
I do not have time at present to do a detailed comparison of these with my own research, but I did once do that with his production version. Unless these are substantially different my opinion of them would be the same. To wit, Casmiro's plans are the most beautiful artistically of any of the plans I've seen. The way he calls out various details is truly top notch and the overall plans are a work of art. They are really quite good and would rate a B+ grade from me on accuracy. Given how long ago he made them and the references that were available then, I'd say they are remarkably good. I still think the Sinclair plans get higher marks for accuracy overall. I'd give Sinclair an A-. The best plans (and I know they are small and have a few minor inaccuracies in them) are the Polar Lights decal placement guides from the PL instruction sheet. For overall proportion, shape and placement of the major components they are the best publicly available. My only major quibble with them is the spherical bridge shape. 

*Griff:*
I'm sorry to see you've banned any discussion of bridge issues from the thread -- but you're the boss. As the originator of the thread I'd like to say that bridge size and orientation are at least tangentially related to the issue at hand. And what's more, I was _just about_ to post some new data about the pilot dome. Do I need to start a new thread for it? If so, I'll post a pointer here at least to let folks know about it.

*4MM: *
Thanks for door animation! That is too cool. My original idea was that under the overhanging doo-hicky (I won't call it a control room, it's too small and inaccessible) was an unseen solid part where the doors attache in separate tracks. This is much like the lower, visible one on X15-1A's renderings. Since the door curves are still at an oblique angle there, I figured that the doors could slide past each other without having to move down or back, as long as the edges that mate up are beveled in the proper (and variable) angle. Your solution works too, and still shows the increasing space between the segments as they come to rest. Thanks!

* To all: *
I use "MGagen" and don't use my first name at all for a good reason. Some of us do not want our first and last names to occur together in an easily Google-able way for professional reasons. Not everyone wants hundreds of "fanboy" posts to come up in a search engine when prospective clients are Googling our names. In future, could everyone please refer to me simply as MGagen or just as M for short. Thanks!

* X15-1A:
* I think it is interesting to note that Jefferies calls out the deck level of Engineering as 2 feet below the Hangar Deck level on his Phase II cross section. Also, there is a way to have your cake and eat it too. Here's a graphic I did many moons ago to show how the conduits seen in Engineering could be made to attach to the nacelles. It takes the Jefferies specified "2 foot below centerline" deck level into account.

How Engineering might be oriented.

In my example, I've rendered the connection points as right angles which causes the conduits to have a wider configuration than on the show, but the same would work if you stuck with the visible angles. I also like the way it means you could walk up to the mesh and look down into the rest of the structure. It could also mean that an under floor conduit might stretch forward to link up under that dilithium crystal McGuffin in the middle of the deck. Food for thought.

M.


----------



## uss_columbia

MGagen said:


> I was _just about_ to post some new data about the pilot dome.


The "pilot dome" isn't the bridge, so it should be safe.  Please post.


----------



## Griffworks

MGagen said:


> *Griff:*
> I'm sorry to see you've banned any discussion of bridge issues from the thread -- but you're the boss. As the originator of the thread I'd like to say that bridge size and orientation are at least tangentially related to the issue at hand. And what's more, I was _just about_ to post some new data about the pilot dome. Do I need to start a new thread for it? If so, I'll post a pointer here at least to let folks know about it.


There was just too much arguing over the definition of the word "is" in the thread to keep the overall discussion going. The last several pages before I made my proclomation are a prime example of that. 

Anyhow, you can talk about the bridge dome area, far as I'm concerned. To a point, that includes the interios insomuch as how they relate to the exterior. Just so long as the discussion doesn't get involved in whether or not the bridge *set* fits in there, any sort of offset or not and basically that whole side-tracked line of discussion.


----------



## X15-A2

Mark,

The Engine Room could be placed in a lower position but lining up the V-structure should be the last consideration, IMO. To me, the curved roof clearly indicates the exterior hull and blocking any forward use of space for Hangar Deck operations is too big of a drawback. Since no "reasonably" sized Shuttlecraft can fit below decks (unless one extends the bay far beyond the original space allotted)(although Mr. Jefferies original "short design" probably would have fit, I'm sure), the forward area must be reserved for Shuttlecraft stowage and maintenance. This would not mean that the elevator is useless, it simply serves other types of operations such as cargo transfer, small-craft operations ("work bees"), and un-manned probe recovery, to name a few possiblities.

That is my thinking about the subject so far.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

What was the auxilary engine room used for that featured the same V-structure behind the grill too? I'm not talking about the upper control room they sometimes showed. Maybe I have the room names wrong.

Wish that Trek5 site was still up with all the episode screen captures. Is there a mirror site somewhere? They were great for reference.


----------



## Griffworks

I'm at work so don't have it here with me, but I've got an image at home on my PC that *Thomas Sasser* came up with as an interesting idea for the Engine Room in the secondary hull that he felt worked. Don't shoot me if I get these details wrong, but the gist of is was that he sunk the engineering deck about two decks lower than most folks place it, and then split it in half with the supposition that what we see on TV isn't the full engineering room, but just teh starboard side. I forget exactly how he came up with an explanation for explaining the curvature of the wall, but it seemed to make sense to me at the time. Anybody else remember the details? 

*CRA* also had an interesting take, but the details elude me right now, sorry to say. I know that a lot of his "plumbing" lined up pretty well w/the exterior markings on the secondary hull keel. 

Of course, I'm still of a mind that main engineering is in the primary hull. That's based on some of the scenes from TOS in which we get a view outside of main engineering and the hallway is somewhat curved.


----------



## uss_columbia

Steve: try trekcore.com

Griff:
CRA had two nearly identical engine rooms, one one each side (fore/aft) of the mesh/tube thingy, which he locates far forward of the nacelle pylons. The tubes connect to power transfer conduits or somesuch, with one part of the conduit making its way through the floor (under the dilithium doo-hickey) and on to the nacelles. The two nearly identical engine rooms are meant to explain the differences in the set dressing, one with the dilithium doo-hickey, for example. I'm not doing it justice with the description. You might have to wait for April to post his picture.
(BTW, I'd forgotten about his features corresponding to the keel markings.)

Sorry for using technical terms thingy and doo-hicky. I can't think of the layperson's terms. 

[Edit]
As to engineering in primary hull, I think there is indeed one there. The set we've seen has too high ceilings to fit where FJ placed it, but some kind of engineering section certainly belongs near the impulse engines.

(And there's that dilithium engineering room seen in Alternative Factor.)

I like aridas sofia's three-reactor theory. I put one reactor below the dilithium doo-hickey in main engineering, which I put ahead of the shuttle bay, where MGagen shows it. The other two reactors are in the nacelles.
In addition to these three M/AM reactors, we have backup fusion reactors in the primary hull near the impulse engines, in the PH engineering section. The Alternative Factor room would be somewhere in the EH. The auxiliary control room (with the cool shaped table/consoles) should be in the EH, too (for use in the event of saucer separation, among other things).

That's my take that seems to fit what we've seen fairly well. I don't sweat the _exact_ locations and details too much. And I don't mind that the engineering set seems to sometimes be used to represent the engineering section in the PH and other times Main Engineering in the EH.


----------



## Four Mad Men

*uss_columbia*

Thanks. I've not had the CG bug lately but MGs picture was nagging at me to try my hand at it.

*MGagen*

Yes, the way mine open is not like you show in your picture. I just really like the idea of them folding into each other. I have added the section separations on the outside and have re-rendered from a higher angle so you get a better view of what is going on. I called it "control room" (note the quotes) simply because I had no other name for it. So here is the newest animation hot off the presses:

Hangar Door Test 2 (94.9 KB, XviD)

And thanks for the inspiration!


----------



## uss_columbia

^ Thanks for the higher angle! Looks cool.

(I'm now wondering if it would look better or worse if all of the segments moved at once. (It would allow the door to open faster.) If you get the urge to do another movement sequence, it would be interesting to see. No pressure, though.)


----------



## Four Mad Men

My first setup did just that. The first two actually. One would not physically work and the other was not visually interesting enough. I am tempted, however, to try a pure translation of MGagen's idea where they don't interconnect when opening.


----------



## MGagen

X15-A2 said:


> The Engine Room could be placed in a lower position but lining up the V-structure should be the last consideration, IMO. To me, the curved roof clearly indicates the exterior hull....


 Actually, the curve is far too small to be the outer hull, at least in the 947 foot configuration. Interestingly enough, it's a good match for the outer hull if we place it in the original 540 foot ship concept:

Engineering in the smaller ship.

However, in the 947 footer, taking into account the 2 foot below centerline deck, it is concentric with the outer hull. I think this points to some structural bracing or features associated with the pylons. Unlike the Franz Joseph "velcro onto the hull plating" version, MJ's pylons had _ROOTS._



> ...the forward area must be reserved for Shuttlecraft stowage and maintenance.


 You're leaving out the possibility that the considerable space on either side of engineering might connect directly with the hangar deck. For all we know, under the engineering high-bay on the starboard side, and the manual monitor room on the port are two service bays for shuttles. I can just hear the sound of airguns as they tighten lug nuts drifing through an open door, as Scotty returns to Engineering, wiping the grease off his hands with a shop rag. He's just finished a lube job on the Columbia and his men are busy with the 50,000 light year nacelle rotation. We can't have any uneven intercooler wear, now can we? :lol:

M.


----------



## uss_columbia

MJ clearly labeled his hangar drawing with turntable _and_ elevator. It's been assumed this means the elevator goes _down_ to a storage or maintenance location below deck where it has an awfully hard time fitting. What if it actually elevates above the floor so it's easier to get access to the oil pan?


----------



## uss_columbia

MGagen: what about that pilot dome information you're holding? Don't tease us like that!


----------



## KUROK

uss_columbia said:


> MJ clearly labeled his hangar drawing with turntable _and_ elevator. It's been assumed this means the elevator goes _down_ to a storage or maintenance location below deck where it has an awfully hard time fitting. What if it actually elevates above the floor so it's easier to get access to the oil pan?



Yeah it's tight under there for an elevator.
Perhaps the big rectangular red outline under the hangar deck is an emergency entry/exit if the doors fail?


----------



## X15-A2

Mark,

Well, I've laid out the deck (plan view) showing the two forward Shuttlecraft Hangars and there is not enough room for port & starboard shuttle bays AND main engineering AND an access corridor for the Hagar deck AND structural framing.

It seems that most people who layout these ships interiors (fans) leave no room for structure or equipment spaces but even without those two elements, there still isn't room for main engineering on the same deck. Keep in mind that the Shuttle bays are not simply going to be places where the shuttles are shoe-horned in for storage, there must also be some access and work space around/over/under them and once you add that, there is precious little free space for anything else. It is so bad in fact, that my version features only one bay where minimum disassembly is possible, the other bay is a garage only. The two craft would have to swap bays for the other one to be worked on. Then what about spare parts? Would you have at least one spare warp nacelle for the shuttlecraft? Or a pair? I would think so but man, start putting those elements in and you begin to have compartments so cramped that it feels like you're onboard a U-boat! Even if those sorts of parts are stored elsewhere, such as below decks, they still have to physically fit in the bay along with the Shuttlecraft during changeout operations. The problem with the Enterprise is that there just isn't as much room inside as everyone seems to think. In fact, there really isn't enough room for everything that was shown, talked about and implied.


----------



## X15-A2

Mark,

About the Engine Room ceiling curvature, I think the arc that you've shown on your graphic is too sharp of a radius. Did you note that the inner curve of the ceiling frame is not the same as the outer curve? In fact, neither one appears to be an arc at all. Instead they look more like elipses or possibly lines made up of two tangent arcs of differing radii. Heres a couple of shots to show what I'm talking about:

This one shows the irregular nature of the ceiling curve:










This one shows how the ceiling frames tapper:


----------



## uss_columbia

Warped9's concept of how the "elevator" might work is quite interesting, definitely worth a read if you haven't seen it.


----------



## MGagen

X15-1A,

You make very good points, as always. Thomas Sasser's engineering proposal is making more sense every day. If only it weren't for that sticky point about where the ladder goes up to from that little room in the high bay. 

For my part, the image I worked from for the ceiling line did not have as much of it filled in solid. The flat area further to port from the conduit mesh was not even present on it. As such, I felt free to interpret in continuing in an arc past the center point. I assume this is extra flat ceiling was added for certain shots. 

In the end, though, I cannot personally give up the location of Engineering indicated by Jefferies in his Phase II plan. Perhaps the two pockets on either side of engineering are merely elevators to lower the shuttles down to a larger garage and maintenance area a deck below. Then the central elevator could be for workbees as you suggest, going down to a slightly higher section of the same garage. 

M.


----------



## MGagen

uss_columbia said:


> MGagen: what about that pilot dome information you're holding? Don't tease us like that!


 Worthwhile things take time -- and this one's a doozy. I've been working on it all evening and have just finished.

However, given the strictures imposed by our esteemed moderator, I'm going to start a new thread for it. It will definitely generate some discussion of how the interior was intended to fit.

Here's the thread:

* A Look at the Original Pilot Bridge Dome as Depicted in the Construction BPs*

I hope to see you all there!

M.


----------



## starseeker

I'd always assumed that like the primary bridge, the main engineering control room was located in the primary hull. That the curved ceiling was reflected in the curved segment on top of the primary hull that runs back from near the bridge to over the impulse engines. The spacing between two forced perspective tunnels leading back from the engineering room closely matches the spacing of the inner two of the original 4 pairs of impulse... vents? thrusters? exhausts?
By the way, what are the impulse engines? They're not anti-matter. Where do they store their propellant? 
If saucer separation is a possibility, the the primary hull has to be self-contained, at least for a limited period of time. That means it would have to have it's own engineering control room as well as fuel supplies, etc, over and above all the warp engineering facilities located in the engineering hull. (Did MJ consider the possibility of saucer separation or was that a later add-on?) 
Perhaps the engineering room we see on TV wasn't supposed to represent the engineering facilities located on decks 18 or 19 or wherever and shown on later movie and TV incarnations. And we also know that the Jeffries tubes were a later add-on, not part of the original design, so they could be left out of consideration. If original intent is what's being discussed.


----------



## aridas sofia

I interpreted Jefferies' notations on the Phase 2 cross section, and illustration on the TMoST graphic, to mean a multi-story engineering space. If one looks at what Mike Minor then did with the Jefferies Phase 2 drawing, and the multi-story engineering room that resulted that was to have been just forward of the hangar deck... and if one lines up pylons, hangar, and the space indicated for engineering... I think you end up with the familiar space being on the same level as the hangar, and other spaces related perhaps to the TAS "engineering core" rising above and below that room:


----------



## X15-A2

There always appears to be plenty of space until one looks at the various decks in latteral crossections. Then you discover how little space there really is inside this hull.

If you add a reasonable hull thickness plus internal structure, then there is even less room. We don't know exactly how thick the hull was meant to be but there are clues. First, there is the portion of casing visible over the Hangar Deck doors, which works out to be about 26 inches in thickness. Next are the known displays of the ships ability to sustain all manner of high structural loads, up to and including the nearby detonation of a nuclear device.

I don't know how thick the hull would have to be to withstand such loading (we also have no idea what the hull is made of either) but in addition to structural loads, it must also be hardened against other types of threats to the lives of the crew. First and foremost of these protections would be against radiation (this is probably the top threat for crews in space), next would be thermal protection followed by magnetic and finally electrical. I imagine that these considerations would result in a layered hull of varying thicknesses resulting in a fairly deep total thickness. There might be layers for protection from other less obvious types of threats as well.

Before anyone jumps in with comments about how these issues would be dealt with by "force fields", keep in mind that Starfleet architects would be well aware of the many instances in the service histories where electrically driven systems were denied or rendered inoperative, thus leaving the given crew with only the capabilities of the basic ships structure to protect them. This would be the final fall-back survival position for the crew and as such, the ship designers would be obligated to give them the best survival chances possible. In fact, we know that they did so by virtue of the many extreme life threatening situations the ships have survived.

I see this design approach as being similar to that of a battleship. On a battleship the crew have heavy long-range guns, medium-range guns, and close-in guns to protect from threats of various levels of immediacy. They also have torpedoes and ECM capabilities for even more protection but for the most part, these systems all rely (to different degrees) upon a functional ships infrastructure, mostly its electrical generating capability. Take that system away and the ship becomes a "target", its only protection then being the passive ones, namely the armored hull.

This "last ditch" capability would be present on our "Starship" as well, in the form of a thick outer hull with heavy internal bracing. Though we never saw the true hull thickness (and it might well vary from section to section, it does not necessarily have to be uniform), we always saw the heavy internal structure, in nearly every set.

These are few more things to consider when creating an inboard profile or deck plans.


----------



## aridas sofia

As for deck thickness, we see a mesh overhead the corridor in the deleted scenes from WNMHGB, and in both Jefferies cross sections it scales out to ~one foot IIRC. 

As for the rest of it (hull thickness, etc.) he allows a similar thickness. Not being conversant in the requirements of a warp-capable vessel, I'm willing to go with the designer's intent on this one.


----------



## X15-A2

So you have decided to ignore the visible portion of the casing around the Hangar Deck? To me that is the strongest evidence we have of the intended hull thickness but of course, it is not definitive. I would argue that the extant MJ inboard profile is too small to really extract fine detail such as thicknesses, however, when I bring it into the CAD environment and scale it up to 947 feet, this is the result:










This image just shows a selection of thicknesses for comparison purposes. There is obviously "wiggle room" because the image is blurry but it is still instructive, though once again, not definitive.


----------



## Captain April

uss_columbia said:


> Steve: try trekcore.com
> 
> Griff:
> CRA had two nearly identical engine rooms, one one each side (fore/aft) of the mesh/tube thingy, which he locates far forward of the nacelle pylons. The tubes connect to power transfer conduits or somesuch, with one part of the conduit making its way through the floor (under the dilithium doo-hickey) and on to the nacelles. The two nearly identical engine rooms are meant to explain the differences in the set dressing, one with the dilithium doo-hickey, for example. I'm not doing it justice with the description. You might have to wait for April to post his picture.
> (BTW, I'd forgotten about his features corresponding to the keel markings.)
> 
> Sorry for using technical terms thingy and doo-hicky. I can't think of the layperson's terms.


I'd originally set that up as a joke, but it just made so much sense when I thought about it a while, I just kept it.

My thinking of it is that the aft engine room, with the dilithium doo-hickey, wasn't quite set up that way in the first season; rather, we had that rather odd room in "The Alternative Factor" in that area. When the second season started, the aft engine room was upgraded, primary engineering operations were moved there, and the forward engine room was relegated to a backup role, and primarily to monitoring of the fusion reactors.

As for the big screen separating the tube assembly (I have it as a plasma transfer manifold) and the rest of the room, and why you can't see through it into the other engine room, when they did the upgrade, they switched around the screen and the corresponding bulkhead on the other end. 

Ya may not agree with my solutions, but almost all of them are done for a reason.


----------



## aridas sofia

X15-A2 said:


> So you have decided to ignore the visible portion of the casing around the Hangar Deck? To me that is the strongest evidence we have of the intended hull thickness but of course, it is not definitive. I would argue that the extant MJ inboard profile is too small to really extract fine detail such as thicknesses, however, when I bring it into the CAD environment and scale it up to 947 feet, this is the result:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This image just shows a selection of thicknesses for comparison purposes. There is obviously "wiggle room" because the image is blurry but it is still instructive, though once again, not definitive.


I would say that the Phase 2 cross section is a much better indicator of his intent in this regard, because its scale makes such a fine measurement more reliable. The decks on that illustration are about a foot thick, using the provided reference measurements as a guide. So is the hull.

It's been a while since I did the ablve illustration, and studied the Phase 2 cross section in any detail, so forgive me if I'm misremembering. But I'm pretty sure I'm right -- the hull and decks were a foot thick.


----------



## MGagen

The Phase II section view has a 2 foot thickness called out in one place, but it is unclear whether this is referring to the hull thickness or the deck. The actual drawing shows something more like 18 inches for the deck thickness. The hull thickness is not depicted on the drawing, as it is rendered as a single line throughout.

M.


----------



## aridas sofia

Yes... you're right. Now that I look at the drawing again I see that I was mixing sources in my mind. When I did that illustration, I was juggling several sources in coming up with what I did -- the Phase 2 drawing, the photos and drawings of the 11 foot miniature, and things like the WNMHGB and "Charlie X" scenes showing (respectively) mesh decking and wall thickness, and much more. I included two decks in the secondary hull with the 18 inch thickness and made the others 1 foot. It seemed to strike the best balance among the various sources. And the common sense notion that a technology that could manipulate gravity with pinpoint accuracy would have very little concern for gravity-incurred stress tolerances. They'd need space for whatever utilities needed physical support for transmission -- conduit and the like. And the decking would vary in dimension to accommodate those varying needs. 

Similarly, I included a heavier hull in the saucer -- the primary habitation area and the part that is supposedly capable of entering an atmosphere -- versus the secondary hull, with its multiple hatches and possible "thin hull" areas. In this way I was trying to flesh the thing out and, in detailing it, include something of the attention to verisimilitude that I believed Jefferies would have done had he tackled something similarly detailed.


----------



## irishtrek

Have you guys taken into conisderation how much space between deck plates? Space to be used for gravity generators, over head lighting, air conditioning ducts, etc., etc.? I would think about 2-3 feet.


----------



## MGagen

My impression has always been that the decks are fairly thin, but are secured to the visible support frames seen overhead in the corridors. If you looked overhead as you walked down the typical corridor, you'd see that the reflective shower curtain material panels are pierced where ever necessary to allow all of the electrical wire, plumbing conduits and heating ductwork that always seems to come crashing down on everyone's heads in a shower of sparks whenever the ship is attacked. 

Of course, YMMV.

M.


----------



## Captain April

So, has this discussion now moved to the bridge dome thread, or do we want to keep this leviathan moving?


----------



## Cheap Jeep

McGagen,

All of which is well, fine and good until you are searching the internet, high and low, to get some decent dimensions of things like the Secondary/Engineering hull to check against Casomir and Sinclair plans with.

Because when you build the rerelease AMT original kit, as 99.999% of us do; you end up with differences of under a millimeter (kit lateral raised area is about 10.5/11mm, drawing shows as _narrower_ indent-slot dimension of about 9mm). All the while working on hull drawings that are supposed to be short but in fact match up pretty well with most of the failings being in curveature as with the hangar section.

Given two things:

1. The hull is very poorly designed for both load bearing and comparison to plans (cut it in half and you lose any hope of getting a circle).

2. I have seen people take 1/4" chunks out of the assembled hull to insert a spacer which the plans don't seem to indicate as being necessary.

It would be REALLY NICE to have some accurate studio model dimensions for items _other than_ the primary hull saucer.

Because what I'm seeing is sheet plastic on the order of .20 or .30 different and a file. Something for which the thickness of line on the printout could easily be an influence.

Since the great Phil Broad himself has told me that the above two sets of plans are good 'but for some drafting errors' and I am in fact scaling the entire set of drawings from the size of the plastic saucer, the only real way to get anywhere's close to the original is to take dimensions and overlay them on TOS stills as photographic proof. 

This searching high and low across the Internet is a fools quest when the best means to make our own choices seemingly is nowhere recorded.

Even in the 60s and 70s, what with the errors that simple mimeographic and photocopying slop can induce, what /idiot/ of a draughtsman doesn't put dimensions on his plans for the fabricators to check against?

I don't care what the real size is supposed to be. I want to match the on-screen model. And by now, someone should have published a decent set of drawings to start that process, even if it had to be done by digital capture on an episode by episode basis.


Jeep


----------



## John P

^These are old, and I assume you know about them already, but:
http://bruts_3.tripod.com/public_resource_enterprise/


----------



## Captain April

Part of the problem is that the actual construction plans for the model have never been fully shown to the public (only extreme closeups of a couple of sections), and for some unknown reason, Matt Jefferies never saw fit to make sure the publicity drawings (as seen in "The Making of Star Trek", for instance) matched up with either the actual plans, or the model as built.


----------



## Atemylunch

I don't think any true original plans exist. A general concept sketch sure. At times modelmakers have to do with a lot less. Most of the stuff was most likely worked out on the small model, then scaled up to the SSM. 

It's my understanding that there is a modern set of drawings of the E, that were created at the time the SSM was rebuilt. The MR E, and Jim Key E(I have both models) were apparently created to the same drawings. But to have an absolute accurate plans of the E is impossible. Nor would anybody want to create an absolute reproduction on the SSM, it's in pretty bad shape. But then what do you expect for a 40+ year old model. 

I would put Allen Sinclair's as the best publicly available. Mainly because he offered up his plans in a more usable format. And after going over his work, he misses little, if anything. 

There are many reasons as to why they will not put out the "accurate" plans. 
One is money, license holders want to be able to offer things others don't. As to maintain a market advantage. The other and the most important is the owner of the property. They have sole discretion over how this stuff is put out. We have no say in that. Even when ST was at it's peak, we still saw very little of the TOS E. 

When it comes to what is truly accurate plans, that is a good question, most of the time the guys that made them have just as much info as all of you.


----------



## Captain April

Well, Richard Datin still has the construction plans, and a few folks here have managed to get a peek at them.

And I'm sure they'll pop up fairly shortly.


----------



## Model Man

My impression had always been the ship is 1,100' long. Don't know where I got the measurement... FJ's SFTM?

But at 1100', the 11' model is 1/100, the 3' model is ~1/350, the 18" is ~1/640 and the 11" is 1/1000. Does this not make sense?

Guess I'll duck out before I get razor-sharp T-Squares and protractors hurled at me!


----------



## Captain April

Ahem.










Until proven otherwise, this is what we have to go on.


----------



## John P

And that is the final word in my book.


----------



## StarshipClass

AMEN! :thumbsup:


----------



## uss_columbia

When I saw this thread pop up to the top, I was hoping for some new information. Not expecting it, but hoping.


----------



## Warped9

When I was working out the actual size of the vehicle for my TOS shutlecraft drawings, after a lot of weighing different matters and very insightful input from folks on this site as well as the TBBS, I eventually came out with a shuttlecraft just under 26ft. long. That allowed me to integrate all the disparate elements of the three versions of the _Galileo _ we saw onscreen into a believable whole.

And that 26ft. shuttlecraft was meant to be accommodated within the hangar area of a 947ft. _Enterprise._ Even though the ship's actual size is never stated anywhere officially onscreen. And *aridas * drew up some beautiful cross-section drawings that made a 947ft. ship quite convincing and workable.

That said if someone made an even more convincing argument that the ship was actually more like 1080ft. in length then I could reasonably accept that as well.


----------



## Captain April

My only problem with the length of 947' is the length coming out as 947' _exactly._ It just seems to me that there should be a few left over inches somewhere.


----------



## Ruckdog

Well, just move the ship closer to the nearest star, and I'm sure those extra inches will appear for you!


----------



## StarshipClass

Ruckdog said:


> Well, just move the ship closer to the nearest star, and I'm sure those extra inches will appear for you!


That's what _*she*_ said!:wave:


----------



## Warped9

Captain April said:


> My only problem with the length of 947' is the length coming out as 947' _exactly._ It just seems to me that there should be a few left over inches somewhere.


Fair enough. But the thing that is rather appealing about 947' is that it is not a nice round number. It's rather odd. And who is to say that it isn't 946' or 947' plus some odd inches? 947 _could_ be just a round up or or down figure.

I call my shuttlecraft at 26' for the sake of discussion, but it's actually 25'-11 and some fraction inches.


----------



## Captain April

I can live with that...


----------



## Warped9

Warped9 said:


> I call my shuttlecraft at 26' for the sake of discussion, but it's actually 25'-11 and some fraction inches.


I goofed in my recall. My shuttlecraft figure isn't 25' plus a bit but 26' plus a bit: 26.427' to be exact. I checked. And the main hull sans nacelles is 24.485' and essentially consistent with Kirk's reference in TG7 to a 24ft. shuttlecraft


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Warped9 said:


> I goofed in my recall. My shuttlecraft figure isn't 25' plus a bit but 26' plus a bit: 26.427' to be exact. I checked. And the main hull sans nacelles is 24.485' and essentially consistent with Kirk's reference in TG7 to a 24ft. shuttlecraft


Very close at least.

I came across an old softcover book recently in which one of the builders of the interior set confirmed that the three identical width sections of the interior 1st cabin that seemed to be made up of simple 4 foot sections were indeed made up of sections exactly four feet wide.

If one were to build as close to the original as possible identical interior set it appears thats the space from the front of the interior's 1st cabin to the back wall of the second cabin(were the cylinders start)

is almost _*exactly*_ 24 feet.

Maybe instead of mispeaking 2.x feet on the length,

perhaps Kirk was thinking of the interior's length?

Heck, just four broadcast episodes prior to The Galileo Seven, Kirk spent hours walking back and forth inside a shuttlecraft while chasing Spock in The Menagerie.

Kirk certainly had enough time to pace out the interior cabins' length and maybe even got the 24 feet of space stuck in his head a bit as Kirk faced his own death/or rescue scenario.

Again that 24 feet of interior space length might have stuck in his head. His own traumatic shuttle ride had occurred just four episodes back as the show was originally broadcast.

Or, perhaps Kirks rememberance of the interior's length was due to having once tried to figure out how many buffant-haired Starfleet coeds could fit inside one shuttlecraft? 



N.B. Based on the confirmed interior segment's widths a truly integrated interior/exterior Class F shuttlecraft would be about 31.5 feet long, trimming nothing from what was seen onscreen of both the interior and exterior's symmetries.

Yes, about 2-2.5 feet might unnoticably be trimmed by a couple of methods, but failing any attempt to do such admittedly slight trimming, a truly integrated Class F shuttlecraft would likely have been right at 31.5 feet long.

Again, original credit for figuring most of this out almost to the inch back when video and drafting tools consisted of little more then "stone knives and bear skins" must be give to Trekist.

The guy who first set out to properly integrate a realistic shuttlecraft decades ago.

Trekist, you deserve a couple of decades worth of thumbsups!!!!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

P.S. It's also been pointed out by knowledgeable guys like Phil Broad that it was common practice to create exterior sets at 3/4 scale.

This not only would have saved money on the production of Galileo, but might have well been what made the Galileo transportable or not transportable, as it was necessary for the guys at AMT who built the exterior set piece had to take off the wings/engine pods in order to make her fit on a roadworthy trailer.

If the exterior set piece, which according to Phil Broad was a bit shorter then the 24 feet, again 31.5 feet would be a very accurate "real world size" assuming 22.x as a 3/4 scale stage piece.


----------



## Krel

The Shuttle exterior was built to Matt Jefferies drawings where he envisioned it as a small vehicle. It wasn't until after the Shuttle was built that it was decided that they wanted the actors to be able to stand without stooping in the interior set. Watch when people exit the Shuttle, they are always hunched over. The interior is bigger that the exterior, the Shuttle is a TARDIS!

David.


----------



## Warped9

About 31ft. or so exterior was the figure I also got in order to accommodate an interior such as we saw onscreen. But as it's been exhaustively discussed and dissected in *My TOS shuttlecraft* thread a 31.5ft. shuttlecraft is just too big to be workable within the _E's_ hangar facilities, even if you scale the ship up to 1080ft. And that large an exterior creates other problems as well such as ease of entering/exiting the craft.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Krel said:


> The Shuttle exterior was built to Matt Jefferies drawings where he envisioned it as a small vehicle. It wasn't until after the Shuttle was built that it was decided that they wanted the actors to be able to stand without stooping in the interior set. Watch when people exit the Shuttle, they are always hunched over. The interior is bigger that the exterior, the Shuttle is a TARDIS!


Well then I say go with the exterior size as built per Jefferies original intention. It's the interior set design size that is scaled wrong!


----------



## Warped9

deleted....


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Steve Mavronis said:


> Well then I say go with the exterior size as built per Jefferies original intention. It's the interior set design size that is scaled wrong!


Jefferies, however, supervised the building of the interior set too.

Let's also remember, Jefferies original intention was actually for a bus-like vehicle much larger then even 32 feet.

The question is, a what point one can compromise and create a craft that would work(one: as a craft itself; and secondly: fit in a TOS E somewhere within the size of 947-1080 feet.

Pretty much all of us could agree on the above, the question becomes what size do we need to get the entire Shuttlecraft down too that each of us feels is acceptible without it looking we each consider to be radically different from what we saw of both the interior and exterior sets.

That's the only point I think we might or might not differ on.

To me personally, I'm not at all married to even a length of 1080, muchless 947 feet. So I don't truly have a problem with a 31.5 foot craft.

I understand and respect Warped 9's opinions on the matter, though I think going down to 26.x feet would require an interior that would be noticably different.

Again, while I have no trouble with a 31.5 foot craft, I'm also not averse to trimming a bit to get the craft down to about 29 feet long.

That's the final compromise that FourMadMen and I came down too on our version of the Class F.

As first suggested by Phil Broad in the Galileo thread and then executed by FourmadMen and myself, I started by taking 6" inches off of the "standard" four foot sections and a bit off the rear cabin/rear propulsion area.


That allowed us to take over 2 feet off the length and yet create an integrated craft that was almost imperceptibly the same as what was seen onscreen. 


Some would say a shuttlecraft of a bit over 29 feet is still too long.

I think it could be made to work within the TOS E.

How easily it could be a workable length would depend on a few factors.
Up too and including whether or not you consider the newly remastered shuttlebay, which appears to be much deeper then suggested in TOS.

But remastered vs original aside, the only thing stopping even a 31.5 foot shuttlecraft from working is how tightly you want to stay wedded to a length of 947 feet.

Personally I don't think it's a good idea to change the basic look of either the exterior or interior of the Shuttlecraft.

That being said, I come to conclude that it's not very likely that one could go lower then about 29 feet in exterior length without very noticably changing the interior.

A 29 foot shuttlecraft may or may not fit in a TOS E too easily, but I don't see getting it much smaller then that and having it look much different then what was seen onscreen, at least in terms of the interior.

Great minds might disagree. That's just one man's(my) personal preference.

Franz Joseph, a man I respect immensely, clearly disagreed.

Having realized the vast differences between the two he decided the producers and set designers made a dumb mistake and just designed a radically smaller interior of his own design.

That definitely and completely fixed the space problem, I would not have personally gone that way, but FJ did solve the "Tardis" problem.


----------



## Warped9

^^ For my scaling I ended up with a vehicle that would have noticebly less headroom (for someone over 5'-8") and a noticeably shorter cabin. Cabin width should still be close to what it was onscreen. But looking at the interior set onscreen it looks to me like there is a lot of spare room between seats as well as aft of the rearmost seats, and there was headroom to spare especially considering that the actors tended walk somewhat croched a bit when it was entirely unnecessary--thus giving me the impression that the producers might have been trying to convey the idea of a more cramped interior.

The final convincing element for me was the ease of entry/exit in how large a step-up was I willing to accept.


----------



## Captain April

I know a lot of work has been done by various folks on the original mockup (to the point that there is very little "original" left of the poor thing), but has anyone ever tried building their own full size shuttlecraft?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Warped9 said:


> ^^ For my scaling I ended up with a vehicle that would have noticebly less headroom (for someone over 5'-8") and a noticeably shorter cabin. Cabin width should still be close to what it was onscreen. But looking at the interior set onscreen it looks to me like there is a lot of spare room between seats as well as aft of the rearmost seats, and there was headroom to spare especially considering that the actors tended walk somewhat croched a bit when it was entirely unnecessary--thus giving me the impression that the producers might have been trying to convey the idea of a more cramped interior.
> 
> The final convincing element for me was the ease of entry/exit in how large a step-up was I willing to accept.


There appears to be a lot of room in my and FourMadMen's Shuttle between the seats(front to back as you mention aft of the rearmost seats).

However there was a lot less reducible space on the original's interior sets seats then one might think going strickly by memory.


In order to make the interior and exterior hull's *horizontal seams match*,

(the many many problems with doing this properly don't automatically occur to one until you go to match the two interior and exterior hull horizontal seams - which are WAY off matching properly as seen onscreen - much in the same way the interior and exterior front hull angles don't match as was first extremely well documented and elaborated on in Trekist's original blueprints)

Anyhow, in order to make the interior and exterior hull's *horizontal seams match*,

we felt forced to raise the height of both the seats and the control consol.

Doing that frees up a great deal of fore to aft leg room between the chairs, as the seen-onscreen chairs had everyone almost sitting on the floor - which forced the actors to stretch their legs forward to an almost unnatural degree.

But without raising the seats their is tremendously less free space fore to aft.

I hope I'm explaining this well enough for those who may or may not have been involved in the old thread. 

If not I apologize in advance and ask that you let me know and I'll try to elaborate.

I've spent so much time on these issues with the others in the old Bob Villa Galileo thread that sometimes I think I've explained something that I haven't really explained well at all.


----------



## CaliOkie

Let me begin by apologizing if this matter has already been dealt with. When the first pilot was planned and the "3-footer" was built, the original length of the Enterprise, according to The Great Bird Of The Galaxy was "about 300 feet long." If 1" equals 10' (1/120th scale) the 33" model represents a ship that is 330 feet long with a crew of 204 people. 

Before the first season, it became clear that a ship that small just wasn't going to work very well. So, someone suggested that a ship the size of an aircraft carrier would make more sense. An aircraft carrier is about 1,200 feet, give or take. That is about 4 times the size the ship was originally thought to be. 

So, they built a model 4 times larger at about 134 inches. Here's the interesting thing. Both models are built in the same scale of about 1/120. The difference in the size has to do with the change in the idea about how big the ship was supposed to be.


OK, it is a fact that the big model is 4 times larger than the small model . . . which suggests to me that they just measured the small model and multiplied by 4. I really don't think anyone gave any thought to what the actual size of the thing was . . . except for the fact that between the pilot and the series it was decided to conceptualize it a lot larger.

As for the sets, the only thing anyone worried about them fitting into was Sound stage #9 at Desilu Studios -- and my understanding is that they were pretty cramped in there. 

Also, as for the bridge . . . the original set was made up of eight panels and that was increased to 10 panels when the show went into production. So, the bridge got bigger and the turbolift changed positions in relation to the captain's chair. You have to take that fact into account when you try to "fit" the bridge into the model.


In spite of all this, the fact that everything sort of fits together and makes sense is a reflection of the very creative minds that were at work on this show from the beginning. When one compares it to the relationship between the exterior and interior of "Lost In Space," or even "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea," it is obvious that the Enterprise holds up so much better.

By accounting for a few little discrepancies, (like windows that would have to be 10 feet long and 6 feet high) you can "build" a pretty good Enterprise that conforms to what was depicted on the show. 

Same with the movie Enterprise. Of course, by then, they were a little more conscious of the issues involved and went to some pains to make things fit (well, the shuttle bay doesn't quite fit as depicted). But, hell, overall they did a pretty good job of making something that seems believable.


And that is just my humble opinion which is worth about as much as the electrons that go to make up this missive.


But, I will say I am fascinated that people have researched this in so much detail. I enjoy having the information and speculation and I appreciate the time and work that has gone into these 59 pages. Keep up the good work. It is well beyond anything I could come up with.


----------



## Warped9

Chuck_P.R. said:


> There appears to be a lot of room in my and FourMadMen's Shuttle between the seats(front to back as you mention aft of the rearmost seats). (the many many problems with doing this properly don't automatically occur to one until you go to match the two interior and exterior hull horizontal seams - which are WAY off matching properly as seen onscreen - much in the same way the interior and exterior front hull angles don't match as was first extremely well documented and elaborated on in Trekist's original blueprints)
> 
> Anyhow, in order to make the interior and exterior hull's *horizontal seams match*,
> 
> we felt forced to raise the height of both the seats and the control consol.
> 
> Doing that frees up a great deal of fore to aft leg room between the chairs, as the seen-onscreen chairs had everyone almost sitting on the floor - which forced the actors to stretch their legs forward to an almost unnatural degree.
> 
> But without raising the seats their is tremendously less free space fore to aft.
> 
> I hope I'm explaining this well enough for those who may or may not have been involved in the old thread.
> 
> If not I apologize in advance and ask that you let me know and I'll try to elaborate.
> 
> I've spent so much time on these issues with the others in the old Bob Villa Galileo thread that sometimes I think I've explained something that I haven't really explained well at all.


I get it because although it might not be immediately apparent I did tweak the scaling of the seats a bit and I fudged the horizontal seam of the interior by raising it a bit while also reducing the ceiling height. I didn't want to do anything truly drastic because my intent all along was to have a vehicle that looked near identical to what is seen onscreen until you pull out the measuring tape.



Captain April said:


> I know a lot of work has been done by various folks on the original mockup (to the point that there is very little "original" left of the poor thing), but has anyone ever tried building their own full size shuttlecraft?


If I won a really good pile of dough off a lottery then I'd love to do this then take it on the road to various conventions. And I'd base it on my 26ft. drawings so that folks could feel it was like the real thing. And I'd have to have it "working" with lights and sound f/x some of which would be initiated by playing with the controls. You could have my interior screens rather than as windows displaying approaching or leaving the hangar deck and or planet, planet landings/take-offs and warping through space all with voice overs. That would be just so freakin' cool! And folks would love to have their pictures taken with and inside the thing. Throw in a guest appearance by Shatner and/or Nimoy and you'd have a crowd magnet.

Mind you, transporting the thing could be a challenge. Likely you'd have to have detachable stabilizers and nacelles and transport it on a flatbed if it didn't fit within an enclosed trailer. And getting the doors to work as they should could be a challenge although it should be easier today then back in the '60s.

But on display it would be damned cool!

Hmm. I wonder what it could really cost to build a full scale replica of this thing? I mean you'd save a ton of money not having to have real working warp and impulse engines and the like. It doesn't actually have to fly. :lol:


----------



## trekkist

Of late, I’ve had little time even to lurk…but having re-found this thread, and spent the last five or so hours saving the pertinent bits into an MS word document (171 pg in 8 pt type!)…and seeing the last post dated but a few days past…I thought I’d chime in to give a heartfelt thanks to Chuck P.R., for his

>…a truly integrated Class F shuttlecraft would likely have been right at 31.5 feet long.

>Again, original credit for figuring most of this out almost to the inch back when video and drafting tools consisted of little more then "stone knives and bear skins" must be give to Trekist.

>The guy who first set out to properly integrate a realistic shuttlecraft decades ago.

>Trekist, you deserve a couple of decades worth of thumbsups!!!!!


It really was a labor of love…as well as what seemed at the time a pointless task. References were video (only crudely freeze-frame-able), 35mm photos taken off the TV image (couldn’t freeze-frame to take those), the Photonovels, TMOST, a number of slides bought at conventions, and a black & white picture in some ghastly monster mag showing the anomalous angle of the front interior wall (as seen in “Immunity Syndrome”). Field of conflict was a home-made light table (on which I still work…sometimes). Verificational proving ground was my grandfather’s basement, in which I paced out distances with use of a stand-in office chair. No help was forthcoming from Franz Joseph, who I wrote in hopes of lifting his exterior proportions (thinking he'd pulled them from the exterior prop directly)…and who (quite understandably) took offense at my being the one times ten to the eighth or so fanboy to criticize (however obliquely, or so I thought) on his “too small” interior (I still have his letter somewhere…but as I said, he’d come by his pique honest). Done at last, I sold several lots of a hundred, wholesale, to New Eye Studio & Intergalactic Trading Company…and got ripped off by an outfit I won’t name, who I investigated sueing, but didn’t. Asked (repeatedly, mainly by girlfriends) if I’d made any money on the deal, I replied that it depended on whether I counted hours spent in creation. Wholesale was a multiple of zerox fees, of course…but what had been my non-billable hours? I’ve no idea. 

All of which I recount only to observe how much more fun it is to take part (or lurk) in company, rather than in solitude, one un-air conditioned summer, many years ago. 

(two K’s in “Trekkist,” BTW)


----------

