WOW! Memories of my childhood perusing the Josef blueprints daily just flashed into my mind. And your next pic will be?
^ Hopefully squaring away some of those cabins. And figuring out where the bowling alley is on this level.
I'm thinking the outer rim compartments will primarily be rec rooms, mess halls, etc. Question: Would bunking the crew four to a room be able to fit the other four hundred crew on this level comfortably?
The only level left. Officer quarters on decks 4 and 5, permanent engine crew quarters down in the secondary hull, still leaves over three hundred crewmen in need of a bunk, plus enough overage for VIPs and other passengers. Might be time for an overview of the whole shebang....
Captain - Have you considered "hot-bunking?" In essence, 2 (or more, depending) crew members are assigned the same bunk. It is still used in the Navy today on smaller vessels (especially subs) and it mioght solve your space issues. Of course, this being a Starfleet vessel, and their being the possibility that a woman and a man be assigned the same bunk, that could give a whole new meaning to the term hot-bunking!
Something like that might work for the barracks setup down in the secondary hull, but up in the saucer, I'd like to at least come somewhat close to Roddenberry's ideal of every creman having their own cabin.
Looking at some of the Ent-D deckplans I have, it seems Roddenberry pretty much acheived that ideal by the TNG era. You could try having 2 people sharing a cabin much like the double stateroom in the technical manuel. That would mean the number of rooms needed would be cut in half theoretically. From the looks of things, it may be hard to avoid any bunking up.
I think it's a foregone conclusion that there are going to be some bunking involved, especially in the lower ranks.
It's nice to hear from Mike Okuda, as always. I like to just make the ship as big as it needs to be to fit the insides, and consider its length to be a minor and unimportant detail. as a result, My diagrams usually end up a bit larger than 947 feet. But then again, MJs & FJs ENT diagrams are both showing a ship quite a bit out of proportion with the model, so if you want to get technical, fitting the actual model onto its scale might yield quite a different length. Anyways, Looking fwd to updates.
I know I have a hankerin' for another pointless discussion on the subject, complete with little diagrams and visual aids. (pulls out my diagrams)
Well, I just posted my latest dissertation on the subject over on Hobbytalk.com. Howzabout I post it here, just to remain consistent? But first, my email to Mr. Okuda that started this latest tidbit... After complying with requests to post my initial email on HobbyTalk, to put Okuda's response in context, I got a few semi-snarky responses on how I worded my initial missive, and how, apparently, I'm the only one who's upset about this matter (translation: I'm not going along with the fanon doctrine of an offset bridge). Which prompted the following...
Oh my God. This is so f#*@ing funny I have to break my self-imposed ban on posting in this forum to respond: Really? Since when? Since you decided his length of 947 feet was negotiable, or that the bridge needn't be centered in the dome, or that there were back to back engineering rooms, or that you could ignore that TMoST cross section that Jefferies drew, and instead the template for your work would be the demonized Franz Joseph's plans?! At least your posts are dependably disingenuous. I really think this "born again" Jefferies adherence is in deference to the people that have tried, tried and tried again to show you that the guy you have claimed didn't have time to wipe his nose actually did do a reputable -- indeed exemplary job -- of meshing the interior and exterior of that ship. And that this fact might -- might -- have something to do with the fact that we are still here 40 years later discussing it. Welcome to the club. A day late and a dollar short, but welcome nevertheless.
Hmmmm.... How did you reach that translation? I'm not sure that even Babel Fish would yield anything that off base. See, in English, what was said was that the only time people get upset with you is when you insult them for not falling inline with your Trek world view. I, personally, don't care if you believe that the way the set was laid out on the sound stage is the only way it could be and that the Enterprise is only 60' long... but when you attack others for not joining in with your views, that is were most of the problems with you pop up. Agree, disagree, it shouldn't matter... but stop taking the fact that people aren't following your beliefs on this topic as personal affronts against you. And heck, Trek is actually Roddenberry's... he wanted the Enterprise upside-down. So just because it was filmed one way, maybe we should all follow that "creator's intent" and start imagining it as upside-down. It would sure solve the bridge issue.