RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,754
Posts: 5,433,531
Members: 24,836
Currently online: 588
Newest member: Mei'konda

TrekToday headlines

The Art of John Alvin Book Review
By: T'Bonz on Sep 23

Episode Four of The Red Shirt Diaries
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Star Trek: The Compendium Review
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Orci Drops Rangers Project
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Retro Review: Image in the Sand
By: Michelle on Sep 20

Star Trek: Shadows Of Tyranny Casting Call
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

USS Vengeance And More Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

Trek 3 To Being Shooting Next Year
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

Trek Messenger Bag
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18

Star Trek Live In Concert In Australia
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18


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 > Star Trek Fandom > Fan Art

Fan Art Post your Trek fan art here, including hobby models and collectibles.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 14 2011, 03:47 AM   #376
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

Hmm.. the two square windows being part of the larger rectangular one from the outside...? Must go try this as it might work (if the deck lines up with the internal flight deck balcony)
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 14 2011, 04:42 AM   #377
Psion
Commodore
 
Psion's Avatar
 
Location: Lat: 40.1630936 Lon: -75.1183777
View Psion's Twitter Profile
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

Perhaps you're being a little too primitive with your mechanical transformations. Intel (and others) are working on technology they call "programmable matter", and while it's hardly as advanced yet as depicted in this somewhat deceptive CNN video, imagine if some components of your ship were made of this stuff.
__________________
Twinkies are back. I knew they couldn't stay away from me for long.
Psion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15 2011, 02:26 PM   #378
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

@Psion - I've thought about something like that or some other type of material but lean more towards a mechanical approach to stay more in line with how things were presented in TOS.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15 2011, 03:22 PM   #379
Psion
Commodore
 
Psion's Avatar
 
Location: Lat: 40.1630936 Lon: -75.1183777
View Psion's Twitter Profile
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

How many moving parts did we see on the Enterprise besides doors? And even those might have been an application of programmable matter depicted in 1960s tech with two guys hidden behind the walls pulling pocket doors open.

Don't get me wrong, it's your project and your vision. But keep in mind that you might be doing the equivalent of using a Victorian perspective to see steam technology in the engine room and wondering how they'll shovel coal in the 23rd century.

Why don't we see bolts and rivets anywhere on the Enterprise? How come there aren't any signs of valves? What about TOS makes you think there's a mechanical approach to starship engineering, all those grease stains on Scotty's uniform?

EDIT TO ADD:
blssdwlf, take the above as good-natured ribbing and not a serious criticism of your design process or ideas. Is programmable matter a superior approach to mechanical? Only if it were my project, and we can count the number of finished projects I have on one hand of a guy with no arms!
__________________
Twinkies are back. I knew they couldn't stay away from me for long.

Last edited by Psion; July 15 2011 at 05:45 PM. Reason: Tone clarification.
Psion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16 2011, 12:08 AM   #380
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

Psion wrote: View Post
How many moving parts did we see on the Enterprise besides doors? And even those might have been an application of programmable matter depicted in 1960s tech with two guys hidden behind the walls pulling pocket doors open.
Well there is Sulu's pop-up viewer on the helm console. The slider controls on the transporter console. The various knobs and slide-out machinery. Are they "geared" machinery, who knows? But they do not exhibit the SG-1 "Replicator" ability to morph between shapes.

Psion wrote: View Post
Don't get me wrong, it's your project and your vision. But keep in mind that you might be doing the equivalent of using a Victorian perspective to see steam technology in the engine room and wondering how they'll shovel coal in the 23rd century.
No worries, Psion. The perspective I'm taking is to recreate what is aired on screen, with a touch of TMP/TWOK to have a place to "upgrade" into and chanting, "What Would The Thermians Do?"

As quaint as the thinking appears to be for TOS, their equipment did *alot* in a "vacuum-punk" / "transistor-punk" way... even more so than the later TNG presentation of similar systems. If I find a shred of evidence that "programmable matter" or something similar like it could explain a piece of machinery or effect I'd incorporate it or seriously lean towards it

Psion wrote: View Post
Why don't we see bolts and rivets anywhere on the Enterprise? How come there aren't any signs of valves? What about TOS makes you think there's a mechanical approach to starship engineering, all those grease stains on Scotty's uniform?
Check the image below for samples of screws, rivets, and wrench (for bolts most likely). Fasteners most likely are NOT seen because they are hidden behind panels, walls, coverings, etc.

As to "valves" they are referred to:

"The Galileo Seven" SPOCK: Perhaps if you were to channel the second auxiliary tank through the primary intake valve.

"The Changeling" NOMAD: Inefficiency exists in the antimatter input valve. I will effect repair.

"By Any Other Name" SCOTT: I have opened the control valves to the matter-anti-matter nacelles. On your signal, I will flood them with positive energy.

"That Which Survives" SCOTT: Watkins, check the bypass valve on the matter/antimatter reaction chamber. Make sure it's not overheating.

But... it would seem that they use high tech tools to adjust valves and other power devices which require no physical contact or does so via some kind of wireless control (which could suggest valves with control motors.)

Psion wrote: View Post
EDIT TO ADD:
blssdwlf, take the above as good-natured ribbing and not a serious criticism of your design process or ideas. Is programmable matter a superior approach to mechanical? Only if it were my project, and we can count the number of finished projects I have on one hand of a guy with no arms!
LOL. I'm still working on this and it's been years

blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16 2011, 04:01 AM   #381
Psion
Commodore
 
Psion's Avatar
 
Location: Lat: 40.1630936 Lon: -75.1183777
View Psion's Twitter Profile
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

From your reference shots: "If there is a wrench, there is a bolt somewhere ..."

A point both hilarious and well-made. I'm laughing my rump off and conceding you the argument.
__________________
Twinkies are back. I knew they couldn't stay away from me for long.
Psion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16 2011, 07:05 PM   #382
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

LOL - thanks Psion

So I was reading through the Ariel carrier thread and the most recent post was about the ~950 feet Enterprise in a diagram seen on the show.

I tracked it down to "The Enterprise Incident", measured it out and well, there you go, a ~950' Enterprise!

However, there are some interesting parts that don't match up to the filmed model(s) which I might use as reasoning that this ~950' model represents the original design/version of the Enterprise before Pike took command. This version would be the what the Enterprise looked like when it first was constructed. Then the version we see filmed in the series happens to be a slight redesign and refit, perhaps larger than the previous version. And the version we see in TMP is another larger redesigned and refit version.

Sounds a little crazy, I know

(Or out-of-universe explanation: I'm using the Matt Jefferies graphic that made it into the episode as the reference to a "pre-Pike" ship that was ~950' and because of the differences with it and the filmed model there is some wiggle room to consider the filmed model to be a redesign like the TMP version and thus I could make the filmed model larger and still be Thermian about it We have some precedent in the movies where internal graphics on the refit-E still show the older TOS graphics so why couldn't the TOS version show pre-TOS graphics? )


Last edited by blssdwlf; July 17 2011 at 03:27 AM. Reason: correct episode is "The Enterprise Incident"
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16 2011, 09:42 PM   #383
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

I definitely think many of the details in these diagrams reflect the original concept MJ preferred, such as a bevel around the lower edge of the saucer, the more curvaceous underbelly of the secondary hull, the "reversed" windows on the pylons etc. etc.

But then there are many details that reflect changes made to the model after they were built, such as the smaller bridge dome and deflector dish, mods. to the nacelle end caps etc. etc. So it's a mixed bag when it comes to these diagrams. At best they can only point us in the direction of what an original build “E” might have looked like?

Plus, I don't think they help much as far as rationalizing the (in universe) scale overall, since the changes are pretty small compared with the later TMP refit. You'd be better off just ignoring the scale in these diagrams and using whatever scale you think works best?
TIN_MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17 2011, 12:30 AM   #384
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

Good points. The only reason I'm thinking of this is before I had thought 947' was just an after the series thing, something that wasn't available from the series itself. But this gives me pause to think well, 947' apparently is there... but just not with the ship we see in the series to give me some room to resize the ship if necessary
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17 2011, 03:59 AM   #385
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

Matt Jefferies definitely created a sketch that had that scale on it. And I'm sure that his originally-intended number was ~950'.

However, remember that he was working for a 1960s TV show, on a tight schedule and budget, and was creating a ton of content on a daily basis. The fact that we got as much detail and accuracy as we did is impressive, no question.

But to claim that his work, on paper, is "inviolable" is sort of silly. He, himself, never felt that way about his own work (as indicated by his frequent revisiting of concepts, not to mention his sketches for updating the E later on).

Nobody can speak for M.J. but I feel confident that his main concern was coming up with a ship that looked good and which worked. I sincerely doubt that the man would have insisted that 947' (a figure derived by review of a diagram never intended for close scrutiny, and expected to be seen only on 1960s TV sets) was more important than, say, making the sets seen on-screen match up with the physical exteriors seen on-screen (even though, as we know, there are myriad instances where this simply can't be done anyway, due to production shortcuts... the TMP rec deck, anyone?)

Given infinite time and resources, I have no doubt that M.J. would have continued to evolve his design. Would he have come up with any of our specific solutions? Maybe in a few cases, but most likely he'd have come up with something which differs, at least in some measure, from anything any of us have envisioned as of yet. That's how creativity works, after all!

947' is NOT a "firm stake in the sand." It's just a number that was tossed out as a "good enough" estimate for the purposes of a TV show, and which was never mentioned on-screen or seen on-screen.

NO, THE DIAGRAM ABOVE WAS NEVER SEEN ON-SCREEN CLEARLY ENOUGH TO DERIVE A FIRM LENGTH. And it was never intended to be seen in the detail we now do get to see it, anyway. It falls into the same general category as the "insurance remaining" indicator on the TNG medical diagnostic reader display, or the little "nomads" and "ducks" and so forth seen in TNG-era diagrams, and so forth.

I have no problem at all with people being dedicated to keeping the 947' length for their own purposes. My only problem comes up when someone insists that things we ACTUALLY SAW, ON-SCREEN, must be rejected in favor of a number which was never established to the audience.

What is canon, is what was seen on-screen... well, except when it isn't. We don't HAVE to accept that the Enterprise had nacelle domes one second, and didn't have them the next second. We don't have to accept that the ship's gymnasium is EXACTLY like the ship's engine room. We don't have to accept that the ship's landing bay has a bare, featureless wall. We don't have to accept that the Galileo is a TARDIS.

There's nothing wrong with the "what would the thermians do?" approach... and it's actually quite fun to watch. As long as nobody starts claiming that this is the "right" solution, and every other solution is wrong.

That, unfortunately, is what some people have done with the 947' number. It's silly, really... especially when it means that the sets won't fit without major revision. Rejecting sets (which saw more screen time than the ship exterior ever did, much less a diagram seen once, and then only in a very blurry fashion) seems... well, like misplaced priorities, that's all.

The Thermians would likely end up assuming that a "foot" is larger than 12" and then figure out how everything works. (After all, the term "foot" as a unit of length was never established on-screen!) Or they might have concluded that the entire crew was under 4'6". Either way... that's the only real way to reconcile the sets and the ship's exterior without significant compromise to either.
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17 2011, 12:10 PM   #386
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

@Cary L Brown - I'm going to have to disagree with you about not being able to see the diagram clearly enough on screen as the top view gets a decent close-up in "The Enterprise Incident".

947' was the working size I had picked because that was as good as a place to start and I knew I might need to scale up from there. But up until "The Enterprise Incident", I had not considered it to be a number that can be derived.

I am attaching 947' size to only the "diagram version aka pre-Pike version". I'm still going to end up scaling the Series ship up to fit the flight deck and not because of interior set issues (which I have yet to find except for the flight deck).

Funny enough that you mention how would a Thermian know what the measurement for a foot would be... simple, use Miss Lincoln from "Assignment Earth" as the reference



Last edited by blssdwlf; July 17 2011 at 06:13 PM.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23 2011, 08:45 PM   #387
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

I rather like that chamfered saucer edge. The bulge at the bottom of the secondary is also seen in FJs Constitution class blueprints but is actually a bit more abrupt. This was what I was refering to as the (pre-refit) teardrop shape. But in the drawing above, and in the tech manual, the secondary hull actually looks longer than it does in the FJ blueprints. The AMT model Shaw does work on isn't quite FJs The Franklin Mints are based on FJ, and the Zocci SFB plastic ship miniatures look based on the long secondary hull variant above.

BTW, an accurate Quindar/ Mike Minor Phase II can be done with the mesh of the FJ ship.

If I could make a request. Could you overlay the FJ blueprint atop the Jefferies long secondary hull drawing above?
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 24 2011, 10:40 AM   #388
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

@publiusr - No problem. Red is from FJ's blueprint and Black is from MJ's (sorry - there is a slight distortion on the MJ version). Scaled both ships to be the same length. MJ's appears to be just a hair longer than FJ's. A good 3D version of FJ's ship was done up recently by havoc92.

blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 24 2011, 08:13 PM   #389
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

That's surprising how well that fits after all. I see now--the Jefferies version secondary hull isn't longer after all, but thinner. You might remember the--what was it--McMaster drawing of Trek ships with the Fesaurius--he kept a production saucer but placed it atop a secondary hull with the bulge. I wonder how that might overlay the above.

BTW this discussion might be interesting to you
http://federationreference.prophpbb.com/topic852.html

Havoc did a great job with FJs. I think Vektor did one at scifi-meshes but it was lost. My Cholesterol gets in the way of my memory.

Here is as far as Shaw has gotten with the AMT. Would you be able to flip that over and overlay that with the above two as well?
http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx/...sembly_004.jpg

It seems to match well with the top view at least.
http://federationreference.prophpbb....-50.html#p9902
http://federationreference.prophpbb....70.html#p10011
http://federationreference.prophpbb....-40.html#p9880

Last edited by publiusr; July 24 2011 at 08:35 PM.
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 25 2011, 01:28 AM   #390
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

@Cary L Brown - I'm going to have to disagree with you about not being able to see the diagram clearly enough on screen as the top view gets a decent close-up in "The Enterprise Incident".

947' was the working size I had picked because that was as good as a place to start and I knew I might need to scale up from there. But up until "The Enterprise Incident", I had not considered it to be a number that can be derived.

I am attaching 947' size to only the "diagram version aka pre-Pike version". I'm still going to end up scaling the Series ship up to fit the flight deck and not because of interior set issues (which I have yet to find except for the flight deck).

Funny enough that you mention how would a Thermian know what the measurement for a foot would be... simple, use Miss Lincoln from "Assignment Earth" as the reference
You can see the diagram, TODAY, on a HD screen, on BluRay.

But in 1966, on the best possible color TV set, there was no way you'd have ever seen anything from which you could derive anything CLOSE to the sizing.

I know, we're looking at it as though this is all gospel, but again, remember, the sick bay monitors in TNG had one of the indicators which showed "insurance remaining." This was never intended to be seen, but it was there.

The images seen in TEI were, as far as I'm concerned, along those same lines. Intended to be recognizable as views of the Enterprise and the D-7A design, and to show rough proportion between the two. But the ships shown in the diagram aren't the ships seen on-screen, just "rough approximations," and the scale is NOT clear enough that, without leaping through hoops that no one on the original production crew could have ever imagined you'd be leaping through, you could ever arrive at any reasonably approximation of the size of the ship.

On a late-1960s TV set, you could only see the basic shapes, and see that there was something which was probably a scale bar, in that diagram.
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
decks, interior, movies, tos

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 03:44 PM.

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