I've updated the older images (above) on Photobucket for this thread
so that they are full resolution (approx. 2.3x what was available, due to my mistakes), one you open them and click 'magnify'. This problem shouldn't occur again unless my image size goes over 1mb.
I'm reading, too, I just haven't had a lot to say. You cover everything pretty well.
Overall, I think you're doing a good job and addressing everything pretty well. I'll try to chime in more if it helps.
Thank you, I appreciate the compliment. And I do recognize that by "covering the waterfront", so to speak, it cuts off a lot of discussion. If people don't have anything to say I don't need comments for the sake of my ego. I simply wasn't sure if anyone
other than Tin_Man was reading it (which is a bit odd, since I usually annoy at least one person per post, if not en masse
). And the comment was mainly just a humorous comment (hence the emoticon).
If people do have something to say, please feel free to do so, and don't be put off by the formality of the posts. Anyone who has comments can make them. If you find something interesting please say so, if you think something is wrong mention that, and if I make a stupid error I appreciate prompt notification.
Regarding deck alignments:
1)Personally, I find the idea of a 'symmetrical' secondary hull (i.e. one which has even deck spacing) rather appealing and that does seem workable from your model with some slight tweaks. The 'lower half' (below the hangar deck) already pretty much is, and with some equalization of the upper decks and shifting slightly upward, you might have it.
I think that's what FJ was originally aiming for, pretty much, for the whole ship. In this case, with a minor amount of uncertainty and interpretation, everything I did was based on window placement, and the most logical way to represent decks that made these usable to the crew. For the secondary hull, that left me with only the placement of the Deck 23 floor in terms of "wiggle room", because only Decks 23 & 24 are without either a window or porthole, and the bottom of the hull represents the floor of Deck 24 (at least in this interpretation). I put the floor where I did to make those two decks equal (maximum) height, which is a kind of uniformity.
2) I don't think the decks in the neck really need to line up with the decks in the lower saucer. I might argue that a small 'halfsie' non-deck (for separation bolts and such?) at the top of the neck might make the areas there line up generally better and possibly allow for more even deck spacing.
Actually, I didn't orchestrate that either. The position of Decks 9-13 was derived from window placement, mitigated by mutual ceiling height, Deck 8's floor was based on maximizing ceiling height without dropping it down into Deck 9's window area. Deck 14's floor got placed at the top-point of the secondary hull, but it could be higher, or lower if recessed into the secondary hull. Without a more precise estimate of deck and hull thickness, everything is a bit more estimated than it looks.
In terms of seperation, TMoST discusses the Interconnecting Dorsal as if it were part of the Secondary Hull, implying the disconnect is at the top. The unofficial first version of the Enterprise Officer's Manual" (Geoffrey Mandel & Doug Drexler) suggests the disconnect is towards the bottom -- allowing the ID to act as a control surface, erstatz fifth landing leg, and excursion point for the saucer if it should have to land on a planet. Inclusion of the ID would keep the saucer from spinning out of control and/or greatly decrease the load on the reaction control thrusters/impulse engines on descent. A saucer without control surfaces naturally goes into a spin, and presumably would accelerate its spin all the way to the surface in this case.
Since there is hardly any room at ID Deck 8 for any separation machinery, either it has to be scrapped as a usable deck or some other deck must be the disconnect point (or its on the saucer side). Since it allows gangway access, we probably don't want to make it unusable. ID Deck 14 has plenty of room, and one could raise the floor or recess the disconnect down slightly into the Secondary Hull. So, indirectly, one could
interpret the findings of the Canon window placement study as agreeing with the Officer's Manual on this point.
Comparative & Hybrid Plan Study: Matt Jefferies 1967 Cross-Section and Alan Sinclair's Revision-D port-side diagram.
To compare the differences between the Matt Jefferies (MJ) cross-section (CS) -- from the Writer's Guide and published in 'The Making of Star Trek' (TMoST) -- with 11' Production studio model (as reconstructed by Alan Sinclair (AS) and to see how feasible it is to convert the former to the latter with a minimum of modifications. Additional comparison is made between the '67 CS deck arrangement and the 11' Production model's "window" placement.
Removed the deck layers from a copy of 'CS-Alan Sinclair-24 Deck-SB' (mirrored starboard view).
Resized the 1701 image from the'67 CS to 2420 pixels wide.
Pasted it as a new layer into the image.
Did an standard articulation comparison. The diagram demonstrates the results.
Separated the modules of the '67 CS image into separate layers.
Repositioned the modules to match AS as closely as possible.
Did a re-articulated comparison. The diagram demonstrates the results.
Standard and re-articulated comparison indicate many differences with the studio model, and some similarities with Franz Joseph's (FJ) so-called "errors" and inaccuracies. There also may be similarities with the 33" version of the studio model, particularly in the disk of the upper primary hull, and a comparison should be done.
The area under the impulse engines appears somewhat problematic with the implied saucer-end disconnect from the TMoST version of Writer's Guide. In particular, there is a very tall, irregularly shaped room that overlaps two decks of the Interconnecting Dorsal and one deck of the Primary Hull. Impulse Engineering itself seems to be a one deck design unless one counts part of the external "intercooler" area above.
Other than the central decks of the primary hull and a couple decks in the secondary hull there appears to be relatively little similarity between the '67 CS deck spacing and the hypothetical deck placement based on analysis of the "windows" on the model. Frequently windows seem to be aligned with deck plates. The simulated crew members are often placed in between decks or partially so. In a few cases switching between "standing" and "seated" crew (or vice versa) might make a difference, but generally it does not.
Interesting features on the diagram may be overlooked. One possible interpretation of the Bridge and the partial deck directly below it is that the Bridge may be sitting on some sort of "shock absorbers" and the apparent lack of detail on the partial deck might indicate the Bridge may even be able to move around slightly while under stress (though there is nothing to prove that was the intended design). There is quite a bit of detailing that could be interpreted as "deflector machinery", but its unclear to me if the rings on the actual 11' model are inset into this area to any extent or not. Further research would be helpful here on sorting out what is "external" and "internal" detail. Additionally, the turbolift shaft at the bottom of the secondary hull does not simply stop at an access point, but expands horizontally, implying that this might be a storage area for unused turbolifts and possibly a maintenance area (there is no reason for an extensive horizontal shaft on such a small, narrow deck).
The '67 cross-section shows "inaccuracies" present in the other non-standard design concepts of 1701 (FJ, the 33" model). The analysis of the deck to window placement leads us to several possible conclusions: (1) the '67 CS is so distorted that proper analysis is impossible, (2) the details on the studio models we interpret as "windows" are not windows but something else unrelated to deck spacing, (3) MJ's conception of the interior of the ship during production differed from his conception when the studio models were built -- and this discrepancy was never resolved.
Evidence that #1 is incorrect is at least partially supported by the details of the drawing that do correspond well with AS (overall length of the various modules, overall height of the saucer, width of the forward part of the secondary hull), but there definitely is some distortion, exacerbated by the thick lines of the drawing. Evidence that #2 is incorrect can be derived from the fact that there are at least some apparent "windows" on the ship (or something depicted as windows) and that by the TNG era we clearly have "windows" inside the set that are associated with "windows" on the studio models (i.e., external zoom out on a person looking out a set window). Evidence that conclusion #3 may be the correct one can be found in the fact that the text description of the ship given in the Writer's Guide (as detailed in TMoST) does not match the '67 cross-section which accompanied it, not just in overall number of decks, but in its detailed description of the decks of the primary hull.