RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,161
Posts: 5,344,357
Members: 24,600
Currently online: 694
Newest member: Lord Galen

TrekToday headlines

Klingon Beer Arrives In The US
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Star Trek: Prelude To Axanar
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Abrams Announces Star Wars: Force For Change Sweepstakes
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

New Funko Trek Figure
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Saldana As A Role Model
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

San Diego Comic-Con Trek Fan Guide
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Cumberbatch As Turing
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Retro Review: In the Pale Moonlight
By: Michelle on Jul 19

Trek Beach Towel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 18

Two New Starships Collection Releases
By: T'Bonz on Jul 17


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 5 2008, 03:09 AM   #76
ancient
Vice Admiral
 
ancient's Avatar
 
Location: United States
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Vance wrote: View Post
ancient wrote: View Post
It's only deeper because of that long neck, which has no actual livable space in it. Some space is made up by the saucer width, but not enough.
Even going with that, keep in mind that much of the hull of the Nimitz (below decks) is the hangar and maintenance area. And, of course, much of the aft of the ship is the nuclear reactor plants.

So, really, if the remainder of the ship can house, somewhat comfortably, 1200+ crewmen, I'm thinking the 400 of the Enterprise should be fine. As I said, the only issue would be a handful of the set-pieces, which chalk up to Hollywoodisms anyway.
Yeah, I don't really disagree with that, because that wasn't really my point. I was talking about the relative size/volume only.

Now, if you want to talk about the crew size, I'm sure you could fit 430 people into the ENT fairly easily, but it would probably require the 9 or 12 person-to-a-room set-up we saw in TUC. The TOS ENT is not built like they were trying to save space though. I mean...7 foot wide, 10 foot tall corridors all over for one.
__________________
----------------------------
Time Travel was and will be confusing
ancient is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5 2008, 03:16 AM   #77
ancient
Vice Admiral
 
ancient's Avatar
 
Location: United States
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Shaw wrote: View Post
ancient wrote: View Post
It's only deeper because of that long neck, which has no actual livable space in it.
Funny, I thought there was lots of extra space in the neck and I'm one of those 947' guys. Come to think of it... I really wasn't having any of the space issues most everyone said there should be, and I still have lots of open space to fill.
Imo, the neck should comprise mostly of support structure and power/lifesupport/comp lines. With a few lounges to explain all the windows. I wouldn't put living quarters in the neck. Even if you did, how many would even fit?

There isn't really a volume problem with the ENT, the only real problem is with the shape. If you mostly ignore the supposed hangar size, and don't mind shinking the cieling height from the 10 ft height of the original set down to 7 or 8 ft to fit in the saucer rim, 947 isn't too bad. Though i prefer the 1080 foot size. Only slightly bigger, and an 11 deck saucer actually makes sense then.
__________________
----------------------------
Time Travel was and will be confusing
ancient is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5 2008, 04:09 AM   #78
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

One should recall that I was using the original set plans (with the 10 foot ceilings), Jefferies' original deck layouts, and had room for more than 290 cabins in the primary hull alone. No need for 9 or 12 people to a room there... I was considering a small amount of the crew doubling up but there is also a ton of room left in the secondary hull for more cabins.

As for the dorsal, the true strength of it would comes from geometry rather than bunk material. The amount of room for use can be seen in my sketches here, here and here.

In my opinion Jefferies did a good job and few if any compromises are needed to make everything work. But to each their own... if you want something different, do it your way. But it works as Jefferies laid it out just fine.
Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5 2008, 04:02 PM   #79
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Vance wrote: View Post
The classic Enterprise is the size of a frickin' Nimitz-Class Aircraft Carrier with less than half the crew
Half? A tenth of the crew! Carriers have, like 5,000 crew!
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5 2008, 04:55 PM   #80
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Forbin wrote: View Post
Vance wrote: View Post
The classic Enterprise is the size of a frickin' Nimitz-Class Aircraft Carrier with less than half the crew
Half? A tenth of the crew! Carriers have, like 5,000 crew!
Of course, on naval aircraft, crewmen don't get individual (or even "two per cabin") quarters... you basically get a "rack" and a couple of drawers right under your bed for storage, and that's it. Far from "comfortable."

Part of why this is the case is that on a carrier, the crew has plenty of exposure to fresh air, broad vistas (granted, of the ocean, not so much of land!) and so forth.

On submarines, on the other hand, they're packed in (if anything) even tighter. So submarine cruises are generally very short, and are cycled in and out. It's pretty well established now that continuous living in that sort of situation results in the crew going bonkers.

So... giving each crewmember 10X the space, AND including volumes for recreation and so forth, seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Here's how I see bunking on the ship. First off, I totally ignore Roddenberry's phoney-baloney claim that "everyone on board is an officer." That's nonsense on every possible level, INCLUDING on-screen evidence. The Enterprise clearly had "crewmen" on board, as well as officer ranks (ensign through captain).

The junior-most crewmen would be bunked four to a cabin... two sets of bunkbeds, with a partitioned-off common lounge area and a shared bathroom. This, along with the three-shifts system the 1701 supposely used, allows for a certain degree of privacy while still being very space-efficient. I'd probably put those four-to-a-cabin quarters in the neck, too... the relatively small spaces and large amount of wall structures would fit in well into the structural framework needed for a load-bearing neck structure.

The mid-level crewmen would be bunked two to a cabin... a single bunkbed, with the personnel working different shifts. These cabins would not be partitioned like the junior enlisted ones... no separate "lounge" area... since there would be no issue with noise/light preventing anyone from sleeping.

Senior enlisted crewmen, most warrant officers, and the junior officers (ensigns and lieutenants-junior-grade) would have the same basic cabin, but not a bunkbed, just a single bed.

Mid-level officers... lieutenant and lieutenant commander ranks... would have a larger private cabin with an integral living/office/lounge space which would be partitioned from their sleeping quarters. This would allow them to use that area as an office for use in private meetings with subordinates and so forth, as well as to perform certain other managerial aspects of their leadership responsibilities. Note that this isn't quite the same as what we saw in the series (where there was only one cabin set) but it DOES match what was seen in TMP (where they used half of the cabin set, rearranged, to represent Lt. Ilia's cabin)

Senior officers... Commander and Captain (as well as all of the department-heads, regardless of rank) would have the largest cabins, very similar to what the mid-level officers have but with larger office-spaces (since they might have larger groups present for any meeting). This would be pretty much what we saw in TOS for the "standard cabin" except that the partition wall would be something more like what was seen in TMP/TWOK, not just the mesh half-wall seen in TOS).

The only places where this doesn't match with what was seen on-screen would be with Ensign Garrovik and with Janice Rand, in TOS. Well, I have no problem mentally "retconning" Garrovick's cabin to be smaller... it's not like that has any real effect on the show. And as for Rand, well... I suppose as the Captain's Yeoman (who would be required to handle most of the captain's day-to-day business operations) so even though she's either an ensign (unlikely) or more likely a mid-level enlisted crewman, she'd rate the "special accomodation" due to having to use the cabin as an office as well (she is, after all, the "captain's secretary.")

Given all that... the 947' Enterprise easily holds a crew of 430 plus about a dozen full-sized "guest cabins," plus all the working spaces and cargo holds and so forth.

The only reason for upsizing the ship to 1080' comes down to trying to fit (as closely as possible) the existing sets into the existing model, with the hangar being the real "key factor." The bridge ends up needing some "size tweaking" (largely making the lift-entryway a bit deeper) but otherwise everything works.
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5 2008, 10:36 PM   #81
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
... with the hangar being the real "key factor."
I thought the hangar deck was okay on the 947' version, though I wouldn't mind if it was a little bigger. As the one part of the ship that is a pretty wide open space, it would be nice to use it for recreational activities... but it is a few feet too narrow for an official size volleyball court.

It might not be as much of a problem if the gallery wasn't as wide as we saw in Conscience of the King, but I couldn't justify changing what we saw on screen for something we've never even heard of in TOS.

My main motivation has been to see if what Jefferies put together for TOS worked with as few compromises as possible (and I think it seems to). But I think while aridas sofia's version also seems to work, when you attempt to add in TAS stuff as well the larger (1080') size might be even more desirable.
Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6 2008, 02:22 AM   #82
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
Here's how I see bunking on the ship.

SNIP!
I've been thinking along the same lines as far as quarters are concerned.

Things can get a bit cozy, however, when you start trying to find places for the fourteen science labs, bowling alley, gymnasium, theatre, rec rooms, etc.

I think I have accommodations for around forty guys down in the secondary hull (permanent engine crew), in something more of a barracks arrangement.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6 2008, 07:49 AM   #83
CuttingEdge100
Commodore
 
CuttingEdge100's Avatar
 
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Shaw,

I don't recall anybody proposing resizing the Enterprise to 1,080 feet. Who came up with that idea?


Captain Robert April,

I thought the Enterprise had 12-science laboratories?


CuttingEdge100
CuttingEdge100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6 2008, 12:18 PM   #84
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

CuttingEdge100 wrote: View Post
Shaw,

I don't recall anybody proposing resizing the Enterprise to 1,080 feet. Who came up with that idea?
There have been numerous extended discussions on the net over the actual size of the TOS Enterprise, and as there isn't an actual ship, there is a lot of details choices anyone can make when approaching the subject.

On the 1080' length, this is based on a direct doubling of the original intended length of 540' (from around the late summer of 1964). The fact that this was the original length was confirmed (quite nicely) by MGagen using the hull markings on the secondary hull. But for whatever reasons, Jefferies didn't use a doubled scale, and decided on a length of 947' for his internal use on the show's production. This has generally divided those of us interested in the TOS Enterprise as a workable ship (and making plans for such a vessel) into two camps... the 947' camp and the 1080' camp.

I generally fall into the 947' camp as my work in this area to date has been an attempt to see just how much rhyme and reason Jefferies actually put into the designing of the Enterprise. Most people assume that because Star Trek was made at around the same time as Lost in Space or Voyage to the bottom of the Sea that the attention to detail must have been as lacking. I've come to the conclusion that Jefferies most likely had a very clear vision of how the Enterprise was laid out and he left us some great clues as to what he saw in his mind back during TOS production.

One of the things that I believe is that the Enterprise in Jefferies' mind was always a work in progress, and he would have no problems changing this if he wanted. He didn't constrain himself to the finished 11' model, his Enterprise was the one in his head and in his drawings (which diverged from the original model in the years after it was built).

The best example of this is the Phase II Enterprise (which was what the TMP Enterprise was based on), which was supposed to have been a generally mild upgrade to the ship (in the proposed show), but Jefferies took the opportunity to make other modifications to the design. It was Jefferies' modifications that have led to the heated discussions over the question of whether the TMP Enterprise is actually the TOS Enterprise or a completely new ship.

One additional wrinkle in all this are the Joseph plans from 1973. Most people (including me while growing up) considered these the plans for the Enterprise. And this includes things like deck heights. Many people assume the show's ceiling heights (about 10') were a mistake given the number of decks in the Joseph plans, but Jefferies had actually assumed fewer decks in his design.

In my plans I used two main sources as seen here, and I've been using the original set plans for interior parts of the ship. Though to date I've only done outline sketches of where I plan on taking all this.
Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6 2008, 04:18 PM   #85
Vance
Vice Admiral
 
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Well, they WERE the plans to the Enterprise, since Roddenberry said so. That's the trick of all of it, isn't it?
Vance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6 2008, 08:04 PM   #86
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

IIRC, the Ohio class subs have the crew quartered in bunk rooms berthing nine men each, rather than rackling all over the ship. A bit more civilized
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6 2008, 09:35 PM   #87
westwords2020
Commander
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Currently, Russian Delta and Typhoon class subs are fitted for very long operations so a pool, sauna, gymn (?) and pet are are provided along with larger quarters, I think, to allow the crew to withstand a long patrol or under the ice in the Artic.
A bigger ship with 400 crew allows much more in the way of science and sensor capabilities. Computers are more extensive Adequate room is provided for two person cabins for crew and junior officers and single cabins for senior officers.
You have the bowling alley, the forest area and the Olympic swimming pool and large cargo facilities.
You also have more power availible for shields and weapons.
These crew amenties, like on Russian ballistic missile subs allow the crew to not just endure but enjoy their surroundings on a long patrol.
Oh, there are self preparing resturants onboard also.
Finally, a sufficently large shuttlebay is there as well.
Check out US and Soviet Submarine Designs of the Cold War 1946 to 2006 just out and authoured by Norman Polmar, an acknowledged expert in naval vessels with illustrations by A.D.Baker III, an expert in ship drawings.
westwords2020 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6 2008, 11:01 PM   #88
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

The real issue of size has always been that there's nothing 100% certain about any of it. The only "real" indicator was the on-screen (but unreadable) 947' number off of one of Matt Jefferies' comparison sketches (showing the 1701 and a Klingon Battlecruiser) in one episode. And, as has been pointed out more than once, he clearly didn't consider the design he provided to be "fully developed." It was, as I stated once (and got flamed over!) a "sketch" rather than a fully-realized design.

These days, many folks have tried to turn it into a real, fully-realized design. Franz Joseph did it first, back in the 1970s, and those were "official plans" signed off on by Paramount and by Roddenberry (though both later on tried to refute everything FJ did... mainly as a turf-battle thing, not due to technical merits). But the idea of trying to "make it all make sense" has been a hobby of some of us here for 40 years or more. So it's not like you can come in and just say "well, why don't we change this?" and not have it come across as a little bit... uh... "brash?"

I accepted the 947' number for years, but over time, started to realize that there were details on the real ship that weren't quite the same as what I THOUGHT I'd seen on-screen (the advent of video-tape certainly helped in that regard!). Today, we have some VERY accurate blueprints of the exterior of the studio model, though the two best-regarded ones still deviate slightly in subtle ways. But while these show the FORM very well, they don't show the SIZE or the INTERNAL CONFIGURATION so well.

That's where the "Matt Jefferies' original intent" stuff really started to come into play. People started comparing the window locations on the model and realized where Jefferies had originally intended deck-lines to have been, for instance.... and it matched up surprisingly well to Jefferies' original TOS-era sketches.

Now, one of the biggest issues with the FJ blueprints from 1974 was that he was bound by Roddenberry's claim that everyone on the ship was an officer (something that was in direct violation of on-screen evidence in numerous episodes!) So FJ's prints turned massive amounts of the internal volume of the ship into private or semi-private cabin space, reducing (as mentioned, above) the available volume for actual WORKING spaces (labs, engineering spaces, control facilities, etc). My own attempt at fitting things into the volume have been based upon reducing the total cabin-related volume by the scheme I described in my earlier post.

I've got a pretty fine model I've used as my starting point (thanks, TallGuy!), which I've been gradually populating internally.

What I discovered was that the deck heights work better if the ship is larger... my "ideal number" turned out to be 1,108', actually... but that's so close to 1080' that I chose to just lock in on that number and lower ceiling heights appropriately. I've allowed for reasonably thick walls and floor/ceilings because these are actual structural elements of the ship... consisting of load-bearing members as well as being heavily populated by plumbing, wiring, and ship's systems components. My walls are typically between 18" and 3' in thickness (thicker ones less common but present in more heavily stressed regions) with my deck thicknesses being about 2'. The hull skin is typically 18" thick... if the internal structure was less robust, this would have to be much heavier, of course.

I found out that I could keep the 10' ceilings for corridors with the 1080' version... assuming that the segments seen in the corridor ceilings are actually mechanical members and that cabin spaces have their ceiling suspended from those members (and thus being less tall overall). I found out that the hangar could work, with a 24' shuttlecraft (Warped9 did some great work on this as well, and I consider his to be the definitive "make it all fit" work on TOS shuttlecraft to date!) without interfering with the pylons on the 1080' version while it does interfere if you use the 947' version (see David Shaw's sketch above, for instance, which uses the 947' number).

I did discover that 11 decks in the primary hull is sort of nonsensical anyway... 10 decks, in the 1080' version, works very nicely (assuming you leave the bridge-dome nub as the turbolift shaft!)

The only real "tweak" that came into play here... where an existing set didn't work exactly as built... was the bridge. The centerline of the lift shaft is further out on the model, at this scale, then it was on the physical set. But the physical set can be tweaked very slightly... enough to justify by "different camera lenses" if you like... and it fits quite nicely. (You just have to accept that Pike had that bridge rearranged so that he didn't have the turbolift door right behind him... apparently the guy hated hearing the whoosh and not being able to see who was sneaking up behind him, so he had the bridge rearranged to annoy some of the TrekBBS posters!)

Seriously, I'm 100% sold on the 1080' thing... though I accept that some folks will always stick with the 947' number. I don't think Jefferies would have minded upsizing the ship by this small amount based upon a more rigorous study of the layout than he ever performed. He clearly was willing to improve on the design over time.

The big issue with your original suggestion, Westwords2020, is that you simply said "why not make it twice as big?" You gave a few examples of big ships. But you failed to support your argument with anything that would either convince us that it SHOULD be increased, or that by doing so you wouldn't be tossing out (for no good reason) 40+ years worth of familiarization so many of us have devoted so much time to already.

There are a number of real naval types (both currently serving and veterans) on here... and there are quite a few real technical types (myself among them) on here who've actually been involved with design at this sort of level for real-world applications (and who as a result try to apply our real-world perspective to this fictional universe).

Over time, most of us are open to adjusting our perspectives... IF YOU MAKE A STRONG, VALID ARGUMENT. I'd heard the 1080 vs. 947 debate for a long time and just stuck with the 947 number because it was "official," til I did the legwork myself and realized that one actually made more sense. I changed my mind because I was convinced, in other words... not by passion, but by logic.

None of us are totally dedicated to the idea that everything ever seen on-screen is inviolable and cannot be questioned. If that was the case, we'd have to accept that Starbase 11 kept their computers in the Enterprise's engineering bay! The trick is to look past the production necessities and to try to make what we have... what we've seen on-screen... fit into some logical framework. And many people... probably tens of thousands, over the years... have dedicated their time and energy to doing so already.
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2008, 01:02 AM   #89
Ronald Held
Rear Admiral
 
Location: On the USS Sovereign
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Are there any camps beside the ones supporting 947 'and 1080'?
Ronald Held is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2008, 08:45 AM   #90
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

I'm not totally married to the 947' figure, mainly because the notion of the ship being that figure right on the nose, with no left over inches, just kinda bugs me.

I'd much rather just take the exterior and the interior sets, and figure out how big the one has to be to fit all the other stuff inside and not look ridiculous.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.