Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

[TIN_MAN]

Oh okay, Gotcha. I was thinking in terms of each deck having its own compartment rings, so this answers my question, thanks. My thinking was that each diagram might be used to represent the two main decks, 5 and 6 respectively? The P/C diagram would then work nicely as deck five, with its big double compartments for large rooms, and the window clusters would be free of bulkheads. Then, on deck six the T/L diagram allows for the P/C's overlaping with those above, would compansate for structural weakness (like bricks in a wall), especialy in the three outer rings where it's needed most. Then the outermost ring would have bulkheads at the cross quarter locations, neatly explaining why the one lone widow here is off to the side, and also the impulse deck engineering would be enclosed in bulkeads on either side. But yeah, if each P/C is two decks high, then what you have makes sense.

Oh, and as far as shafts bisecting entire compartmens, as far as I can tell, this would only happen in aft ring two on deck six, but this is one of the uninhabitable portions where the 'undercut' prevents the deck in rings two and three from attaining full hieght, and are thus used presumably only for piping and wiring, storage etc.?

[Wingsley]

Shaw wrote:

---

I know that a lot of people have thought that I picked the deck heights at random or to fit some preconceived ideas I had... this is not true. The positions of the decks are based on figures that Jefferies used in his vision of the Enterprise, which in turn is why I've used them.

To provide unique coordinates for both the primary and secondary hulls, each hull has been given it's own zero height (0 ft). For the primary hull, 0 ft is designated the "Weather Deck" and is at the upper rim of the hull. For the secondary hull, 0 ft is designated the "Waterline" and is at the center line axis of the hull. The heights for most of the decks are...

Primary Hull:
Deck 1 (bridge) is at 34 ft
Deck 2 is at 24 ft
Deck 3 is at 12 ft
Deck 4 is at 2 ft
0 ft is the Weather Deck
Deck 5 is at -10 ft
Deck 6 is at -20 ft
Deck 7 is at -30 ft
Deck 8 is at -40 ft

Secondary Hull:
Deck 13 is at 42 ft
Deck 14 is at 30 ft
Deck 15 is at 20 ft
Deck 16 is at 0 ft (the Waterline)
Deck 17 is at -12 ft
Deck 18 is at -24 ft
Deck 19 is at -36 ft
Deck 20 is at -46 ft

The dorsal is independent of both hulls and it's deck heights I'll figure out based on studies of the 11 foot model's window placement.

I've applied the information above to my drafts of the primary and secondary hulls in this diagram.

Click to enlarge

This information can be applied to my earlier sketches where this had been left rather vague.

This is very interesting, but also confusing.

How do the deck arrangements for the "interconnecting dorsal" neck between the saucer and the engineering hull fit into this? Are you saying the neck is completely divorced from both main hulls?

[Shaw]

TIN_MAN wrote:

---

... Oh, and as far as shafts bisecting entire compartmens, as far as I can tell, this would only happen in aft ring two on deck six, but this is one of the uninhabitable portions where the 'undercut' prevents the deck in rings two and three from attaining full hieght, and are thus used presumably only for piping and wiring, storage etc.?

Well, the main point being that a number of conditions come into play when arranging everything. Being able to move quickly throughout the ship without turbo lifts, being able to move quickly throughout the ship with turbo lifts, and that when a compartment becomes isolated, the people inside have full use of the compartment rather than having isolated pockets within a compartment. It makes for an interesting logic/geometry problem (and aspects of graph theory could actually be applied), which is what makes it so much fun to play with.

But in the end, I don't believe that there is only one solution. And because of that I would hope that people wouldn't just see mine and stop considering the other possibilities.

But yeah, rings two and three on deck six are most likely equipment bays, storage areas and the like.

Wingsley wrote:

---

This is very interesting, but also confusing.

How do the deck arrangements for the "interconnecting dorsal" neck between the saucer and the engineering hull fit into this? Are you saying the neck is completely divorced from both main hulls?

I guess I'm confused at how you are confused.

I stated that I'm not addressing the dorsal decks here, but will work on nailing them down when I have more information and have done more analysis. That information will come from an as yet incomplete study of the 11 foot model.

So are you saying that I should not post anything until I have everything completed?

But the dorsal is the dorsal. It isn't the primary hull and it isn't the secondary hull. There are plenty of sketches of the dorsal that I've posted in the past (like this), but I guess I don't see what is so confusing about not spending time discussing something that wasn't the point of what I was talking about.

Unless I'm missing something in how you are missing something in all this.

Of course if the question is about which coordinate system the dorsal decks would use... neither. But then again, I'm not doing plans for the ship as a whole.. I'm doing plans for the subassemblies which when put together give you a whole ship (which is most likely how it would have been constructed). The dorsal decks with have their own height callouts because when I look at the dorsal, it'll just be the dorsal at that point (just like when I look at the primary hull, it is just the primary hull, and when I look at the secondary hull, it is just the secondary hull).

And all three pieces (primary hull, dorsal and secondary hull) are further broken up into smaller pieces by compartments (the dorsal has a number of compartments too). Compartments are assembled to make the major components, and the major components are assembled to make the ship as a whole.

I've seen other people try to take the ship as a whole... and choke . I would rather take it as nice bight size pieces.

[USS Mariner]

Welcome back! When did you figure out how the pilot dome was shaped?

[Wingsley]

No, I wasn't suggesting a course of action. I was just puzzled by how you were planning to fit all the pieces of this jigsaw puzzle together. I agree that it looks like a daunting task.

[Shaw]

Menorah Mariner wrote:

---

When did you figure out how the pilot dome was shaped?

The pilot dome wasn't too much of an issue. MGagen had posted some very good drawings of the bridge based on Jefferies' original drawings that both matched with the images I have of the pilot configuration and the later cut down bridge (which I have photos of off the model and next to a ruler). That made for a nice set of sources which confirmed each other.

Of course I also got a lot of additional photos of other parts with nice ways of getting measurements... which I haven't had the chance to completely check against what I already had. But so far everything seems to be on the right track.

[Captain Robert April]

What I'm slightly giddy about is how your estimate of the size of the pilot dome looks to be slightly smaller than mine, yet still big enough to allow for the bridge to face forward, resulting in the bridge not necessarily being sunk down as much as my previous attempt. In fact, my most recent test on the matter puts the bridge at right about the same level as Jefferies showed in his cross section, so serendipity all around, I say...

[Captain Robert April]

Could we get a side view of the ship with the nacelles? I'm needing the, hopefully, final estimates of the overall contours of the ol' girl.

[Shaw]

Captain Robert April wrote:

---

Could we get a side view of the ship with the nacelles? I'm needing the, hopefully, final estimates of the overall contours of the ol' girl.

Sure, I just have to finish some projects for my clients first.

[Maurice]

Hey Shaw...did you get my message about the inboard nacelles back in Oct., and the photo of the 11' model I sent?

[Shaw]

Yeah, I got it... was a great image.

I thought I had written back to thank you for it (was sure I had written something) but it seems that this is another case of the forgetfulness my wife is constantly complaining about (although I can't recall the last time she brought it up).

So please forgive the oversight... and thanks a ton for the image!

[Maurice]

Shaw wrote:

---

Yeah, I got it... was a great image.

I thought I had written back to thank you for it (was sure I had written something) but it seems that this is another case of the forgetfulness my wife is constantly complaining about (although I can't recall the last time she brought it up).

So please forgive the oversight... and thanks a ton for the image!

Sure. I also shot some video of the model last week. If I think any of it is usable for you, I'll send it along.

[TIN_MAN]

Hope this isn't too far off topic Shaw, I know you don't want to "fill in the black boxes" too much, but since the following bears on the inner structural relationships, it's something I thought should at least be discussed and gotten out of the way, before moving forward.

Food for thought? Since we are all agreed (I think) that Jefferies TMOST cross section is a lot more representative of what he intended than most people previously thought, what should we make (if anything) of that little doohickey he put just below and in between the necelle pylons and the dorsal? My guess is he intended it to be some component of the engine system itself, possibly the engine (reactor) itself, or the housing thereof? We can see by comparison with the Phase II cross section (see below) that Jefferies left a cavity or bay, in the same area, and its perhaps interesting that in this case, it's right where the engine pylons themselves attach in this new version!

Given the perspective corrected length of the cathedral tube chamber, it's unlikely this feature could be the same thing, so it must be some other part of the inner workings?
So anyone got any ideas as to what it might be? I know we're just seeing the cross section of it, so it might extend deep into the hull, we just don't know, so there are lots of possibilities to think about.

So perhaps this could be one of your "puzzle pieces" Shaw, included separately, along with other internal odds and ends, that could be made use of, or ignored, as aspiring starship builders see fit?

[/QUOTE]

[Shaw]

I hadn't really thought about it... but you are right, it seems too deliberate a feature to be dismissed as filler in that illustration. As I recall, aridas put some unique engineering aspects of the TAS version of the ship in that spot. Whatever it is, room should be set aside for it in about the same place.

[TIN_MAN]

Kewel! If you don't mind then, I've got something preliminary worked out using your design, which I'd like to post here for your (and everyones) consideration, if it's OK with you? like aridas' It also uses elements of TAS and possibly solves other conundrums from TOS. I Don't want to risk derailing your thread though, so if you'd rather, I can start another thread?