Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

[Captain Robert April]

I think I'll be sticking with the dorsal being mostly structural bracing, conduits, and turbolift maintenance, with a small breakroom for the crewmembers that are stuck there.

Not every part of the ship has to look like a Holiday Inn....

[Warped9]

Captain Robert April wrote:

---

Not every part of the ship has to look like a Holiday Inn....

The 1701D does that well enough with its overly beige colour scheme.

I posted this in another thread, but I think it's relevant here. I've emboldened the most relevant part.

Warped9 wrote:

---

But we're arguing a moot point. As a reboot they can do whatever they want and not be contradicting anything previously established because it's not in continuity with the original. But I would argue that it's still corrupting some other aspects of TOS. The ship in the Trek XI teaser looks like something a goth would design and doesn't look like the product of a future society of idealism of aspirations and optimism. It's reflecting something of the cynicism of today. And it's visually consistent with the industrial dark gray piece of shit that was the NX-01.

And aspiring to something better and optimism is an integral part of TOS. But I'm not really surprised to see it jettisoned.

But there is something else at play here and it may be generational. For a lot of TOS fans the Enterprise mattered as something more than just a piece of sci-fi hardware. It wasn't just another disposable Star Wars type thing or nearly any other bit of tech that has been rolled out in Trek since the '80s. The Enterprise was as important as Shatner as Kirk, Nimoy as Spock and the rest of the cast. The TOS E was a physical representation of so much of what we loved about Star Trek. To drastically change it is to tamper with a core element of Star Trek's appeal for many of us. It's a work of fiction, but the TOS creators did such a damned fine job of making it seem real that for many fans it pretty much is real.

Many of us had lumps in our throat when the refit E was destroyed in TSFS. But people were actually cheering and saying things like, "Aw, kewl." when the 1701-D was wrecked. Why? Because the producers saw it only as a piece of disposable hardware unlike the original and that was conveyed to the audience. Too bad really because while I never much cared for the 1701-D it was a helluva lot better than the 1701-E-yuch.

We argue about the TOS E because she matters to us and represents much of what we loved about Star Trek. TPTB have corrupted so much of what we loved about the show that this is the last bloody straw.

It's probably part of the reason I and many others continue--decades after the fact--to try to flesh out aspects of TOS to make them seem even more believable. The TOS tech says something to us that little Trek tech since ever has.

[Captain X]

I was pretty sad to see the E-D go, personally. Not only was she my favorite out of all the Big E's, but the writers made her go out like a bitch, and all for an excuse to design a new ship for the TNG movies.

[Captain Robert April]

That was one of the most offensive aspects of Generations for me.

They destroyed the E-D, not for a plot point, but because they were bored with her.

[EliyahuQeoni]

Captain Robert April wrote:

---

That was one of the most offensive aspects of Generations for me.

They destroyed the E-D, not for a plot point, but because they were bored with her.

And none of the crew seems to care. "She can't be salvaged, Number One, but I'm sure they'll build another one. No Biggie" seemed to be the attitude.

When the 1701 was destroyed not only was it a plot point but it had a noticeable and acknowledged effect on the characters. As a viewer I felt the impact as much as I had the death of Spock in the previous movie. In Gen its hard to feel that way because nobody in the film seems to care about it at all. The sequence was well done on a technical level, but there was zero emotion involved in it.

[Maurice]

Yes, I realize these are rough sketches, and this is far from final, and perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "issue", but that doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't make an observation about the wall thicknesses in the show sets, because while it may not be germane to your sketch at this point, it would eventually be something to consider (and I'm sure you are) when plunking the sets into a more finished version.

[Captain Robert April]

It probably all stems from the fact that Shaw's sketches look better than some of our finished works.

[Shaw]

DS9Sega wrote:

---

... but that doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't make an observation about the wall thicknesses in the show sets, because while it may not be germane to your sketch at this point, it would eventually be something to consider (and I'm sure you are) when plunking the sets into a more finished version.

I think the thing that makes me a little defensive on this issue is that the final wall thickness on this design is directly related to the fact that I'm basically assembling this ship as individual compartments. Each of these compartments has it's own outer hull, and they all exist within the ship's outer hull.

I'm illustrating this in this image (with absolutely nothing to scale)...

Not only is there a double hull between the living environment and space, there is also a double hull between each and every compartment on board.

I, personally, have never seen anyone else take this part of TOS and run with it to it's logical conclusion... which is not all that different from how the space shuttle is designed (crew compartment is separate from the shuttle's outer hull).

Further, the fact that there is sometimes two to three feet between a corridor wall and the inner wall of a room is space used for infrastructure (wiring, plumbing, etc). Throughout the ship there are cavities off the corridors leading to ladders which give the crew direct access to these areas. So these ladders are quite different in nature from the triangle ladders which allow someone to move throughout the Enterprise without using turbolifts (and I would even go as far as to assume that those ladder-ways have less than 1 g of gravity making it easy to move from the lowest deck to the highest without working up a sweat).

For me all this stuff is interconnected. One aspect leads directly to another and then another. And as long as they don't require 23rd century technology (black box stuff) to be valid, I don't ignore any of them.

[Arlo]

Do you know how thick the walls of the Apollo CSM were? It varies, but on average about 2".

Shaw's wall are just fine, imo.

[ancient]

Shaw wrote:

---

I envision the rear trunk being the main interconnect of the ships engines and power between the two hulls, while the front is a backup mainly used for supporting the secondary hull in the case of warp and impulse engine failure (so that both hulls would be receiving power from the main energizers located on deck 7 in the primary hull). I do have a power distribution and networking sketch, but haven't posted it yet.

Seems about the same as my own general idea.

Shaw wrote:

---

Besides the obvious question (why in the world are you judging these sketches in any where near that detail when not a single drawing seen so far will even be part of the final project?), I will not go against what was seen in TOS for outer hull thickness (currently estimated at about 9 inches...

Woo jeeze old man, wound a bit tightly are we? Of course everyone will be throwing a billion comments at you. That's what happens when you choose to do a blueprint for THE ship. Most of us that've tried have been brow-beaten at least a few times over it.

there are (currently) no plans to speak of. Just sketches of ideas that are being considered for the future plans. If you are attempting to nail down a detail on a sketch which was not directly concerned with that detail, then you ventured off the path of the topic.

Well, you were the one who made the thread title...Maybe you should've called it "There are no plans".

Please remember that everything so far is just a sketch. Would it be better if I did hand drawings? I want the ideas readable, but it seems like people are mistaking brainstorming for something that I currently don't have time to even start (less than worry about making sure that everything I am putting down in a sketch is accurate to within a fraction of an inch).

You got the colors all wrong though.

...Whoops, nevermind.

...They are wrong though.

Arlo wrote:

---

Do you know how thick the walls of the Apollo CSM were? It varies, but on average about 2".

Shaw's wall are just fine, imo.

It's fine, but remember that when it comes to real ships, weight is a bitch. Such concerns are probably over with by trekkian times.

[judexavier]

Just a quick question, what are currently the most accurate specs for the "actual" exterior form of the TOS Enterprise? Just wondering what you guys base your (very detailed and precise BTW) interior conjecture from.
I've always (well since the early 70's anyway) been very curious about the insides of the E, and trust your opinions as to what the ship actually looks like.

Great work, and frankly I'm really blown away by the attention to detail.
Can't wait to see more.

[ancient]

These two sets are both very well put together, and are based on the 11 ft model:

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/ccd-enterprise.php

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars...enterprise.php

[Shaw]

ancient wrote:

---

Woo jeeze old man, wound a bit tightly are we?

I'm temperamental... it is who I am and nothing is going to change that at my age. But here is the thing, I don't force anyone to spend time around me, so my presence must provide some amount of benefit to others that off-sets my off-puttingness.

But hey, I also don't stick around where I'm not welcome either. If I get the idea that my presence isn't enhancing the lives of others around me, then maybe it is time for me to move on. There are enough places in the world that would welcome my presence that I really don't need to waste any time where it isn't appreciated.

Well, you were the one who made the thread title...Maybe you should've called it "There are no plans".

Well, in the first post I talk about the fact that I'm only to the point of brainstorming, and on the first page I said that I wouldn't have any real time until April (which has been pushed even further off at this point), so it isn't like I've been hiding the fact that this isn't the final product.

Further, I figured that my use of the word attempt conveyed the fact that this is an active process verses a final product... but maybe I should wait and only share the work when it is done. I just thought that people would enjoy seeing the process I was using to figure this stuff out.

But what is more amazing is that no set of real plans I've ever seen included all of the information about the subject in every drawing. What you would end up with is information overload and you end up losing the forrest behind all the trees.

Maybe we are dealing with people who assume that the absence of information in a drawing must be taken as the absence of that information in the over all project. Frankly though, there is 10 times the amount of information collected for this project than I've displayed here. And there will be many times the amount of information used in creating these plans than will actually be in the plans themselves. Why? Because that information is needed to make sure that everything fits together logically, but isn't needed (and would distract from) the overall final plans.

Again, maybe it is my age, but plans that attempt to put all the details in with tons of "life like" colors and the like generally make stuff that (I find) are too cluttered to really make sense of. I'm of the less is more crowd, so once a logical order to things has been achieved, I'll be shedding a lot of the excess information.

[Shaw]

judexavier wrote:

---

Just a quick question, what are currently the most accurate specs for the "actual" exterior form of the TOS Enterprise?

Currently I'm in the process of applying the same techniques to reverse engineer the 11 foot model that I used on the 33 inch model. As I started this originally to put the deck plans within a representation of Jefferies original construction plans, but later (at the request of Cary) put this into the 11 foot model exterior, I started using my unfinished 11 foot plans (and elements from my 33 inch plans to fill in gaps).

Other than photo's and dimensions of the original 11 foot model, I've been attempting to stay away from other people's illustrations of the 11 foot Enterprise.

[judexavier]

Shaw wrote:

---

Currently I'm in the process of applying the same techniques to reverse engineer the 11 foot model that I used on the 33 inch model. As I started this originally to put the deck plans within a representation of Jefferies original construction plans, but later (at the request of Cary) put this into the 11 foot model exterior, I started using my unfinished 11 foot plans (and elements from my 33 inch plans to fill in gaps).

Other than photo's and dimensions of the original 11 foot model, I've been attempting to stay away from other people's illustrations of the 11 foot Enterprise.

Thanks Shaw

Yeah, I just started to wonder after seeing, lately, so many variations...
one recently I came across was this http://home.earthlink.net/~casimiro/
was very impressed with the amout of research etc.

Off topic, I thought I was likely the only "old guy" here.
"I'm temperamental... it is who I am and nothing is going to change that at my age. "

...yep, me too.

Great work, looking forward to seeing more.