View Single Post
Old March 5 2009, 01:44 AM   #4
Lieutenant Commander
Whorfin's Avatar
Re: Long-Winded Treknology: The Original Series

Hybrid Deck Study: Franz Joseph BoGP cross-section and Alan Sinclair's Revision-D port-side diagram of TOS 1701

--- Purpose

To compare the plausibility of the overall Deck Placement design found in the Franz Joseph (FJ) "Star Trek Booklet of General Plans" within the confines of the modern fan based plan reconstruction of Alan Sinclair (AS).

--- Process

Continued on from the 'Rearticulation Study' procedures.

Removed all internal detail from existing FJ decks except the lines indicating deck-plates/ceilings, except for some bulkheads related to deck height changes.

Extended lower aft section of secondary hull below the hanger deck.

Removed the floor for FJ Deck 24 & the Tractor Beam Graphic. Effectively the "outer hull" area beneath it now becomes the non-flat floor for this cargo area. The Tractor Beam emitter could still be located in this area in a somewhat different location.

Removed potions of deck plates extending beyond the AS diagram.

Extended lines that didn't reach the outer hull.

Standardized deck plate thickness at three pixels (this was almost universally the case already).

Dropped the Bridge "ceiling" slightly to align with bottom of dome. Bridge deck plate was set at 2 pixels.

Reduced the Bridge deck plate to a more typical level and dropped the Bridge "conn well" into FJ Deck 2.

Adjusted the floor of FJ Deck 2 downward slightly to more evenly split the space between 2 & 3.

Adjusted FJ's Deck 7 floor downward slightly to match AS outer hull lines.

Raised the floor of Deck 11 in the primary hull. FJ & AS have differences in this area, so this was necessary.

Retained the "undercut" area at the interconnecting dorsal because the dorsal is not undercut (as the primary hull is). Yellow AS line remains to indicate the undercut in this area.

Top of the interconnecting dorsal has an extra layer of pixels to indicate possible disconnect point (reduces ceiling height on deck below). If it disconnects at the bottom this deck would gain that back in height and a lower deck would lose it (or more if a thicker separation line is suggested).

Extended deck lines to aft of secondary hull to match AS outline.

--- Analysis

FJ's Bridge was far too large overall, for unclear reasons. FJ's Deck 2 is once again problematic, though somewhat less so than in other depictions, because FJ's command pod is a bit too tall. But leaving the Bridge slightly "dropped", as adjusted here to conform to AS's lines as the periphery of the bridge, doesn't make FJ Deck 2 unusable. Considering the other changes I had to make this seem justified on an experimental basis. If these decks are scientific laboratories (as per TMoST in the Production era, as opposed to the Pilots and "The Enterprise Incident") they would presumably be almost continuously occupied and would need to have a comfortable ceiling height for most of the area. In the current "hybrid" configuration, Deck 2 is now 17 pixels tall, Deck 3 is 18. If we assume that the ships length of 2420 pixels equals 947 feet (as per TMoST, approx. 288.646m as per FJ), then Deck 2 is 6.65 feet tall (in the area under the proposed "conn well" is estimated at 13 pixels - 5.09 feet) and Deck 3 is 7.04 feet. If we could assume that they are more evenly spaced and that the deck plates are really not 3 pixels deep (1.17 feet) -- at least in this area -- we could probably get the deck height up to 7 feet on average (or perhaps one to 8' and one to 6'). If we play with the idea that with the taller Pilot dome the theoretical briefing room under Deck 2 had a ceiling that extended up into the dome, then ceiling height in that room becomes highly flexible. Of course, this is all hypothetical and estimated, but it could be of some interest. Equally, if all of the Bridge could be shown to fit comfortably in the Bridge dome proper (with appropriate ceiling room for Production TOS), that would be equally helpful in terms of making all of Deck 2 full height.

Are there issues in the outer ring of the primary hull? Ultimately we get back to the tall corridors depicted in the series, which are presumably Deck 5 and 6, and perhaps Deck 7. FJ's Deck 5 & 6 measure 20 pixels (7.83 feet) tall and (the adjusted) Deck 7 measures 21 pixels (8.22 feet) tall, whereas if we go out to the inside of AS's lines of the outer perimeter of the saucer Decks 6 and 7 decks combined measure 47 pixels (18.39 feet), so at maximum both decks would average less than 9.2 feet (taking deck plate into consideration). So, if we assume 1/2 foot of deck plate in this area, and we assume one deck is 7 feet tall, the other would be roughly 10.89 feet tall. Increased deck height is hard to explain them without 'stealing' height from some other deck, which is a possibility if one uses a split level deck scheme for the periphery. Changing Deck 5's height would require moving its ceiling upwards and decreasing Deck 4, assuming approximately 11' is insufficient.

Deck 11 ended up being multi-tiered -- in a similar 'multi-level' configuration to the Bridge. If more ceiling height is needed further sinking the center section into the upper portion of the lower sensor array (the 'rim'). Currently the deck is 19 pixels (7.44') tall, with a surrounding reduced-height deck of 14 pixels (5.48'), and an upper bay that is a partial deck (presumably for equipment, such as FJ's phaser banks) of 5 pixels (1.96') or less. Dropping a section into the base of the sensor dome would increase this to (hypothetically increasing head room for phaser control). Of course, deck plate and hull thickness would change all these numbers.

In the secondary hull we have the issue of some of the windows not lining up with decks very well at all. Of course we are back to the old story, "are they really windows" -- for the moment we assume so. Adjusting the decks slightly up or down might be an answer, but there are problems with this. One is the alignment of the hanger deck floor (not to mention this deck arrangement is at least partly vouched for by the the main deflector alignment), which is difficult to reconcile with the windows on the deck below. But we do have a series of windows that look to be directly placed on a deck plate. That is definitely problematic. We have similar problems in the interconnecting dorsal, which given the gap created there would be easier to solve by shifting decks slightly. On Deck 5 the windows are relatively low compared to the floor, but perhaps manageable. The Deck 2 & 9 windows seem placed correctly. Readjusting Decks 18 & 19 (and, to a lesser extent, upper secondary hull decks)to correspond with the level of the hanger deck would benefit window placement enormously in comparison to AS, but would have implications for the FJ deck plans. Below are some estimates of the heights of various decks, assuming (for the time being) the AS hull thickness of roughly one pixel and the FJ nominal deck thickness of three pixels (neither of which is probably a fully satisfactory assumption).

Primary Hull
Deck=Pixels (Feet)
0=9 (3.52')
1=25/22 (9.78'/8.61')
2=17/14 (6.65'/5.48')
3=18 (7.04')
4-6=20 (7.83')
7=21 (8.22')
8=18 (7.04')
9-10=20 (7.83')
11=19/14/5 (7.43'/5.48'/1.96')
Lower Dome=13 (5.08') (excluding protrusion)
'Impulse Engineering' (Deck 6 & 7) 44 (17.22')

Secondary Hull
Deck=Pixels (Feet)
8=17 (6.65')
9-13=20 (7.83')
14=31/11 (12.13'/4.30')
15-19=20 (7.83')
20=20/25 (7.83'/9.78')
21=20 (7.83')
22=21 (8.22')
23-24=19 (7.43')
Hypothetical 'Warp Core Engineering' (Deck 18 & 19)=44 (17.22')
Hanger Deck at Fan Tail=76 (29.74')

How well these estimates correspond to the actual sets, and where final placement of given sets are in terms of decks, would strongly indicate where fine tuning is necessary. If some decks need to be significantly taller, other decks would need to be that much shorter.

--- Conclusions

All 24 FJ "true" decks were able to be retained but there were alterations -- some more considerable than most, primarily line extensions. Overall FJ's decks, with some significant modifications, could be largely retconned into the AS version of 1701. The primary differences would be less space on the periphery of the lower primary hull decks (which are primarily storage, water, or support machinery areas), decreased space at the base of the secondary hull (cargo and storage areas), and increased space towards the rear of the secondary hull (which probably makes up for the volume lost elsewhere). Secondary hull window placement is an issue, but modification of the placement of some decks could resolve that as well.
Whorfin is offline   Reply With Quote