TOS Enterprise WIP

[Robert Comsol]

Albertese wrote:

---

"I have to say, this take on the hangar deck is fundamentally altering my take on the space. I think we may be edging up to a definitive structure, at least in my personal canon."

Unfortunately, it is not altering my take on the space, as - from a VFX production point of view - the only way to shoot and give audiences the "big picture" of the shuttlebay was to remove the 'back wall' of the shuttlebay miniature (which I feel should be there from an "in-universe" point of view).

Of course, as you put it so concise and eloquently, the "Thermian" approach Blssdwlf advocates will treat the footage as authentic while in contrast a "Brandon" approach would consider such "evil" production necessities accordingly (same applies for the observation corridor from "The Conscience of the King" - unlike these awful visual distortions in "2001-A Space Odyssey" I never noticed that something might be 'wrong' with this corridor ).

Since you asked, I revised my deck plans and started revision with the H or Hangar Deck (post # 66): http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=195496&page=5

(Last night I had managed to add the deck illustration to the bulk of text but apparently one of the administrators didn't like that. In case you'd like to comment I'd be grateful if someone could add the illustration in a Trek BBS compliant format in a reply. Thanx!)

Bob

[blssdwlf]

@Albertese - Thanks

@Bob - No worries. As I've indicated before, this is just one possible version of the Enterprise. We all have our own personal canon on how she is suppose to be As to the "back wall", we're never shown what that would look like and the filming model also lacked a back wall. I thought of a back wall or perhaps a large door there but alas, the TCOTK observation deck changed things a bit so that is where this version is.

I would like to point out that the "Brandon" approach from "Galaxy Quest" is pretty close to the "Thermian" approach since they did include the "chompers" in their plans and the sequence of operation. The "Thermians" however went one step further since they had to fill in the technology and all the equipment not shown on-screen based on what they were told that it could do. I obviously lack the technology to do that, but I don't mind trying to fill in the out-of-camera-view areas

[Mytran]

Just spent an exhausting 4 days moving house - this is a great sight to come back to, this shuttlebay is gorgeous!

Do I take it (from your wireframe above) that the Pylons are above the new section of the hangar deck?

[Robert Comsol]

blssdwlf wrote:

---

"I would like to point out that the "Brandon" approach from "Galaxy Quest" is pretty close to the "Thermian" approach..."

I think there is one good example that suggests the opposite, i.e. the upper side of the pilot Enterprise's saucer hull:

The actual 11' VFX model had these unique black stripes port and starboard: http://www.flickr.com/photos/birdoft...57619514479789

Unfortunately, the VFX footage never made it to the screen but the "Brandons" know that the (pilot) Enterprise used in the VFX for "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (re-used thoughout the series) did look like this - and blueprints of the pilot version would feature these unique surface details (as did some shots in TOS-R, amazing they noticed that!)

The "Thermians" couldn't possibly know as it had never been shown on screen. Instead they would continue to assume that the pilot Enterprise in WNM still looked like in "The Cage": http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albu...hasgone130.jpg

The interesting dilemma is that both approaches are right and wrong at the same time.

@ Mytran

Welcome back and I think I know your feelings - I'd also wish my garage would look like this...

[Albertese]

The cheif difference between the Thermian approach and the Brandon approach is source material. Thermians, have ONLY the aired material to draw from, while Brandon also has the books The Making of Galaxy Quest and the Galaxy Quest NESA Protector Technical Manual and other items of backstage research to draw from to help fill in the gaps. However, the Thermians must make their guesses without this supplemental material.

Although Galaxy Quest is a clear analog of Star Trek there is one rather huge difference... that being that somehow the aired episodes of GQ defined a consistant enough ship that both the Thermians and Brandon & Co. managed to arrive at such similar deck layouts. I imagine there must have been an episode where the main viewscreen displayed every deck in succession in one scene and that someone behind the scenes on the show made sure the locations for things in the hull stayed consistent... something which no one on Star Trek really spent too much time on. At least not any any real depth....

--Alex

[blssdwlf]

Mytran wrote:

---

Just spent an exhausting 4 days moving house - this is a great sight to come back to, this shuttlebay is gorgeous!

Do I take it (from your wireframe above) that the Pylons are above the new section of the hangar deck?

@Mytran - Wow. Yeah house moves are very exhausting. Glad you survived it!

Funny you should ask. Yes, they are (well at least 3/4 of it with the forward quarter over the TCOTK observation room. For comparison to the earlier version in the 947' hull, those pylons are directly over them and that flight deck was longer. Interesting how it worked out after trying to be more accurate

[blssdwlf]

Robert Comsol wrote:

---

I think there is one good example that suggests the opposite, i.e. the upper side of the pilot Enterprise's saucer hull:

The actual 11' VFX model had these unique black stripes port and starboard: http://www.flickr.com/photos/birdoft...57619514479789

Unfortunately, the VFX footage never made it to the screen but the "Brandons" know that the (pilot) Enterprise used in the VFX for "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (re-used thoughout the series) did look like this - and blueprints of the pilot version would feature these unique surface details (as did some shots in TOS-R, amazing they noticed that!)

The "Thermians" couldn't possibly know as it had never been shown on screen. Instead they would continue to assume that the pilot Enterprise in WNM still looked like in "The Cage": http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albu...hasgone130.jpg

Well if the "black striped" Enterprise never aired then yes, it would be outside of the scope of this project.

Second, was there an "unaired" fx-version of the NSEA Protector? We're making an assumption that there were different versions of the ship in "Galaxy Quest". Surely if there was, Brandon's first question about the "chompers" would've been, "which version of the Protector are you on before I answer you and potentially get you killed!?"

Robert Comsol wrote:

---

The interesting dilemma is that both approaches are right and wrong at the same time.

I'd argue that no version is wrong. It's whatever version that you prefer to work on with the rules that you've set forth.

@Albertese - Agreed.

[Robert Comsol]

Albertese wrote:

---

"Thermians, have ONLY the aired material to draw from, while Brandon also has the books The Making of Galaxy Quest and the Galaxy Quest NESA Protector Technical Manual and other items of backstage research to draw from to help fill in the gaps."

Wonderful, of course he must have such books "in-universe" but I hadn't thought that far.

@ blssdwlf

Thanks for the graphic 947' vs. 1,084' cutaway comparison, but I'm a little confused. If memory serves one of the 947' disadvantages would have been the inevitability of a diagonal circular shuttle lift. However, in both cutaways the shuttle lift seems to be at the same location?

And a general question: I assume these two overhead thingies near the clamshell doors to be tractor beams that eventually place the shuttle onto/into the rails.

But there is another prominent thingy in the center of the ceiling further to the bow. Does this one correspond to / allign with the red crystal thingy on the exterior hull? (which apparently was intended to be yet another pilot version running light - i.e. one light with one adjacent circular window in front and behind)?

Bob

[blssdwlf]

Robert Comsol wrote:

---

Thanks for the graphic 947' vs. 1,084' cutaway comparison, but I'm a little confused. If memory serves one of the 947' disadvantages would have been the inevitability of a diagonal circular shuttle lift. However, in both cutaways the shuttle lift seems to be at the same location?

I don't know about the inevitability of a diagonal lift as it depends on where the elevator is on the flight deck. In my 947' version, the flight deck is long and the elevator is far enough forward to remain vertical. The 1,084' version the flight deck is shorter, but the elevator is still vertical due to it's position.

The 947' flight and hangar deck parameters were:
1. screenshot of G7 flight deck
2. width of TCOTK observation room (not accounting for expanding width towards camera)
3. minimum height of hangar ceiling opening (white rectangular area) from JTB and TIS
4. visible hangar wall surfaces from JTB and TIS
5. the width of the pocket bays on the flight deck
6. the clamshell door location

For the 1,084' version, #2 no longer applied as the room could no longer fit between the flight deck wall and outer hull in the visible screenshot areas from the G7 flight deck.

Robert Comsol wrote:

---

And a general question: I assume these two overhead thingies near the clamshell doors to be tractor beams that eventually place the shuttle onto/into the rails.

Could be. Or they are coverings for phaser gun machinery that is sticking down into the flight deck space.

My thinking was that rails were some kind of linear tractor beam system where it could grab a shuttle or small craft once it got close enough over it and either slow it down as it entered or accelerated out as it left (ala TMP tram station).

Robert Comsol wrote:

---

But there is another prominent thingy in the center of the ceiling further to the bow. Does this one correspond to / allign with the red crystal thingy on the exterior hull? (which apparently was intended to be yet another pilot version running light - i.e. one light with one adjacent circular window in front and behind)?

That I don't know. I haven't matched up all the exterior parts yet.

[Albertese]

The more I look at this, the more I wonder what's going on with the engine pylons. Now, I suppose a reinforced hull ring structure (as per the FJ Booklet of General Plans) could structurally support them, but what goes through them? I always figured that various piping and conduits and assorted connections ran through the pylons connecting the engine nacelles to the engineering spaces below. Is there still room for such things with the hangar deck in the way like this? Before this cross section view, I thought maybe the lower ceiling of the ribbed area might allow for that, but now it seems as though only about a quarter of the pylon's fore-aft length would be over the lower-ceiling area and the rest over the high curved ceiling of the original miniature set. What kind of connections are you thinking of run through the pylons? Could we see a orthographic cross section through the pylons looking aft?

--Alex

[blssdwlf]

@Alex - I think there is room for piping and conduits in this setup. It isn't that much different from my first pass at it. I've mocked up a possible hull ring structure that still has the proper gaps for window ports on the hull. Pretty much all the conduits from the nacelle pylons will go above the observation deck corridors heading to the bow.

I figure there would be Matter and Antimatter feeds going up to the nacelle tanks, a power feed to operate the nacelle, control circuits and maybe a Matter and Antimatter overflow/return feed coming back down to the engineering tanks.

[Albertese]

Ah, that's cool. It seems as though you're interpreting those two parallel structures on the Flight Deck ceiling to be some sort of strongback for the entire secondary hull. That's a great idea. I had always thought before that those might be the venting structures whereby the volume's atmosphere was pressurized and depressurized, but big beefy structural elements somehow feels right, too.

--Alex

[blssdwlf]

@Alex - yep, I thought about those being part of the strong back a while back. I don't know if you remember this one I did which kinda spurred me on to do the rest of the ship?



And sample piping...

[Robert Comsol]

Just a detail: Is there still enough space near the keel to assign a useful function to the white square hatch (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=119751&page=12)?

Bob

[blssdwlf]

@Bob - Yes by putting a frame there to keep the opening.

I've been kind of rethinking the colored outlines on the hatches at the keel after texturing the flight deck. I'm thinking now that the red outlined are hatches and the not-red outlined are something else but am not sure as to what yet...