View Single Post
Old April 25 2009, 10:32 PM   #17
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Okay, I've gone a step further, with a little bit of input from David Shaw (thanks!) in determining some details of the internal configuration of the ship.

The primary hull has some circular corridors, obviously. Not every corridor will be the same diameter, but they were all portrayed by just one corridor set in TOS. We have to acknowledge that this was a "cheat" and was never really intended to be a 100% accurate representation of the interior of the ship... don't you agree?

Well, I've done some basic cleanup on the studio plans (manually) and have created a section with dimensions. It's interesting to note just how crude the studio plans really were... lines aren't straight, curves aren't true arcs, etc... they're really hand-sketches, and I'm sure that the carpenters had a fun time figuring out how to make everything fit together! There's just enough information to serve as guidance, but nothing to the level of a true, dimensionally-accurate blueprint.

Still, the general information is there. One element that was given, explicitly, was the interior wall diameter for the briefing room set. So, from that one detail, and the "cleaned-up" drawing, I was able to create the following.

My "stake in the sand" is the 55' 7" radius from the centerline of the primary hull to the interior wall of the briefing room set. I scaled the set-drawing to match a real feature in my model at that diameter. And here's what I got.

What's interesting here is that the walls are actually far, far thicker than even I'd been assuming - 0.735m, or 29". (The yellow line represents my original, presumed "minimum wall thickness," by contrast). This actually makes a bit of sense, when you consider that they would have to put a guy inside that wall on either side of a doorway in order to pull the doors open or push them closed. Still, it's a serious chunk. And by reviewing the other set drawings, it becomes clear that this is a fairly typical wall thickness.

Also, I've determined that the corridor we're familiar with seeing is exactly 2.5m wide (98.5", or 8' 2 1/2"). Other bits I've extracted include the fact that, yes, the sets were 10' 0" tall overall, with each double-pocket door being 6' 6" tall and 4' 2" wide. There's a 5" distance between the top edge of the door and the reduced-height in the interior of the door alcove. As I've stated before, I really didn't feel obligated to keep the 10' number, as much of that is simply extended above the "set details" to prevent shooting of the rafters, I think, but I've permitted a full 10' from one deck to the next deck anyway, and I'm pleased with my choice.

How do you guys feel about the full 10' number? Anyone have a real argument against reducing that? It seems that, with the walls being so much thicker than I'd originally assumed, there's a lot of internal structure there already... but I still like having some internal structure between the deck and the next ceiling level down.

Just so you know, I plan to have an identical corridor matching the set on every deck where it will fit (in the primary hull), and that will drive my general internal design.
Cary L. Brown is offline