Hybrid Deck Study: Comparison of the Dave Shaw TOS 1701 deck placement and human based interface using Alan Sinclair's Revision-D port-side diagram.
To determine the overall plausibility of the Dave Shaw (DS) Reconstructed TOS 1701 Deck Placement design within the confines of the modern fan based plan reconstruction of Alan Sinclair (AS) using Canon 11' TOS 1701 studio model window placement and typical human height as metric indicators.
Cropped Dave Shaw preliminary cross-section.
Pasted detailed hangerbay into main diagram.
Moved and mirrored remaining text.
Resized to 1735 pixel width.
Changed color channels to red.
Pasted as a transparent image into 'CS-FJ-Alan Sinclair-Hybrid-Adjusted-Starboard' as a new layer.
Maneuvered the image to match AS, using the hanger fantail as a reference.
Adjusted horizontally to match upper surface of peripheral Primary Hull.
Created new purple colored AS mirrored Starboard image.
Pasted it as a new layer.
Maneuvered the image to match original red AS image, using the warp nacelles as a reference.
Deleted red AS starboard image.
Moved the purple AS image to the top layer.
Removed Hypothetical Platforms from previous study.
Removed extra simulated (blue) crew members not near "windows".
Added extra simulated (green) crew members to appropriate areas (as a new layer) to indicate DS deck & window interface.
DS Primary Hull Decks 1 (there are possible portholes port & starboard), 5, 6 & 7, Interconnecting Dorsal Decks 7-10, and Secondary Hull Decks 16a & 16b all have excellent to satisfactory interface between the simulated crew (sitting or standing on the deck) and the external "windows".
DS Primary Hull Decks 2 & 8, Interconnecting Dorsal Deck 11, and Secondary Hull Decks 14-15, 17-19 have unsatisfactory to very poor interface between the simulated crew (sitting or standing on the deck) and the external "windows".
The remaining DS decks lack reference "windows".
While in the previous hypothetical 24 deck study it was relatively easy to locate the simulated crew in a logical way to interact realistically with almost all the "windows" on the 11' studio model. With this deck layout, frequently, the external "windows" are aligned close to or on deck plates. In many cases the decks would have to be relocated significantly to allow normal viewing (short of laying prostrate or being on ladders). In some cases hypothetical platforms could remedy the situation, but in the case of this layout the height of the platforms would be considerable, at which point one begins to wonder if split level decks would be appropriate (which in the previous study only were used in the "pocket" areas of the hanger bay). The location of a possible door or window on Deck 8 is an example, where it is placed far up near the ceiling and would require a ladder or stairs to reach. Deck 2 has similar issues with windows, that are essentially at ceiling height while portholes are at knee level. These problems reappear through much of the secondary hull.
There are a number of possible solutions:
1. The external "windows" are not actual windows but something else.
2. Rearranging deck placement to optimize window placement. This will likely impact deck height.
3. Increase the number of decks and rearrange some existing ones. This will impact deck height.
4. Retcon the external windows placement to match the internal decks rather than the 11' studio model.
The most logical conclusion, to this observer, is that the 11' studio model was not planned with this sort of deck placement in mind, rather there were more decks in the original design the model was based on. Alternately, the model builders scrapped the design given to them for window placement and substituted a largely incompatible one instead.
It might have been better to delete the blue simulated crew members (they were left in to illustrate a closer crew-"window" interface). I may create a version of the study removing them.