View Single Post
Old July 7 2009, 05:36 PM   #115
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: WIP - TMP Enterprise, deck by deck

DiamondJoe wrote: View Post
I disagree that the deck plans should be considered totally canon, and I think that what is seen on-screen should be. For one thing, none of the deck plans of the refit Enterprise that are floating around on the internet have ever been seen on-screen (unlike the plans for the Enterprise D or E, which are prominintly featured on various displays).
No they weren't... there have never been "D" or "E" deckplans shown on-screen. The only "official deckplan set" for TNG came out after the series was over. (A better set was never truly released, by the way, but can be found on the 'net and makes, to me at least, a lot more sense than the one we got from Pocket.) There are, as far as I'm aware, no "deck plans" for the "E" anyplace.

The only "deck plans" that have ever seen screen time have been the FJ deckplans... which don't match the real TOS ship as seen on-screen anyway.
They are simply suppositions made for fun. And yes, I'm aware that this is too (and I think its a hell of a job)
That's not entirely true. Yes, it's being done as a "hobby" rather than to develop a real, buildable starship. (At least as far as we know!)

But it's not "just for fun." Trust me, I know... if it was "just for fun," in that sense, you could put anything anywhere, and not worry about trying to match up with anything, nor trying to apply logic.

My point is that this is as much a technical exercise as it is recreation. How do you reconcile totally contradictory evidence? What aspects are IMPORTANT, and what aspects can you afford to "wink and nod" at?

Ultimately, what you have to keep is anything which, if different, would change the context of what was seen on-screen. What you can afford to "tweak" is anything which can be justified as a "production mistake" or "production compromise."

For instance, the re-use of an existing set (the Klingon bridge) for making a torpedo room set is a "production compromise."
but I don't see how you can get around the fact that there is a corridor that leads out of the engine room, which if the room is where you say it is, simply cannot exist. It has to be further back.
Not true. You only have to change how long that corridor is. Instead of being 20 feet long, it becomes ten feet...

A more likely "compromise" from the original designer intent, I suspect, is the deck on which main engineering is located. It's quite clear that the intent is for the two angled "upwards" shafts at the end of the horizontal intermix chamber are supposed to be firing directly up the pylons, without any "jog" or interruption. I suspect, however, that the location we've been given by Andrew's original layout precludes that from being possible. Then, there's also that TWOK "drop-down door" which is also impossible if the engineering set is at the very spine of the engineering hull. Ultimately, engineering MUST be lower, I suspect.

But that's not so much based upon "it looks like this on-screen" as it is based upon "this is how the parts fit together most logically."

Your argument about that forward-leading corridor... seen ONLY ONCE, IN THE BACKGROUND, during TMP... is something that has no bearing on the storytelling whatsoever. If it doesn't fit, and everything else does... logic demands that that detail be the one which is "compromised" on, doesn't it?

The DESIGN INTENT was that the horizontal shaft run aft from the vertical shaft, and then branch to run up both pylons. The DESIGN INTENT was that the vertical shaft run from the base of the secondary hull, directly vertically, to the impulse deflection crystal.

Don't believe me? Check this out:
The guy in the bay does give a good idea of scale - thanks. I still feel that there has to be only one bay, though, and that as suggested the launch track splits into 2 tubes at the end. If you look at the end of the inspection in Trek 2, and the funeral scene, there is actually a fair amount of space in there - it doesn't seem particularly cramped.
You've made your point. CTM has considered the issue and made his own choice. You, of course, are welcome to do your own version and implement it any way you wish, as are all of us. That's really the fun part anyway.

EDIT: While I strongly recommend browsing Andrew's entire site, in order to save confusion among those who don't want to look "everywhere," here's the relevant image, on this page:

Looking at that, you can see that there IS room to move the engine room down a deck, without impacting anything significantly.

Last edited by Cary L. Brown; July 7 2009 at 07:05 PM.
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote