I'm creating this area to be a place where topics can be discussed by any interested parties to greater depths. My reason for doing so are a number of comments that long posts are unwanted by some and potentially detrimental to the board's traffic. While the former is true, the latter I find in principle hard to believe, so this is my attempt at resolving such complaints. Posts here may be very long, complex, and technical. If you're not interested in these kinds of posts, you aren't required to read them. While I intend to post in this thread, others are strongly encouraged to do so as well. We don't all have to agree but hopefully conversations will not get too heated. While it is 'rocket science' (of a sort), and at times it might be hard work, I hope we can still have some fun while we learn a thing or two about this "hobby". ____________ Here are some earlier posts for reference: http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=2614152&postcount=96 http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=2620604&postcount=112 http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=2620624&postcount=113 ____________ Because we're having ice storms and freezing rain I may not be back on the board for several days to post, I'm releasing two parts of this three part study so that there is sufficient material to discuss over that span. Apologies for this particularly long post due to these circumstances. ____________ Standard Articulation Study: Franz Joseph BoGP cross-section and Alan Sinclair's Revision D plans of TOS 1701 ---Purpose To compare the similarities and differences of the design found in the Franz Joseph (FJ) "Star Trek Booklet of General Plans" to the modern fan based plan reconstruction of Alan Sinclair (AS) on the basis of the entire configuration of each design. --- Process: (the teach-a-man-to-fish section) Cleaned up and properly oriented FJ cross-section (removed text, etc.). Reconstructed unscanned areas of FJ upper/lower domes (as best as possible). Selected background color. Cleaned up Alan Sinclair port view (i.e., removed non-diagram components). Resized overall length of ship to 2420 pixels to match the FJ diagram. Changed Color Channel to full Red. Selected background color. Copied and pasted both as transparent images into a few file as separate layers. Added a white background layer (for visibility). Aligned primary hulls of two images, vertical centerline & upper/lower outer saucer decks (as best as possible). --- Conclusions: Are in the Conclusions section of the Rearticulated Study because either they are redundant or many/most rely on the rearticulation to make them clear. ____________ Secondary Hull aligned forward. Secondary Hull aligned aft. Rearticulation Study: Franz Joseph BoGP cross-section and Alan Sinclair's Revision-D port-side diagram of TOS 1701 ---Purpose: To compare the similarities and differences of the design found in the Franz Joseph (FJ) "Star Trek Booklet of General Plans" to the modern fan based plan reconstruction of Alan Sinclair (AS). In this case, the large but separate components of the FJ design are repositioned on an individual basis to minimize global inaccuracies due to interfacing of parts and allow comparison on the 'modular' basis. --- Process: Continued on from the Standard Articulation Study procedures. Replaced the AS outboard nacelle diagram with his alternate inboard diagram (that detail is now going to be of importance). Inboard port-view strut detail is not provided by AS so this was not added. Separated the FJ Primary Hull, Interconnecting Dorsal, Secondary Hull, Nacelle Struts, and Warp Nacelles into separate layers. AS diagram was placed as the top layer, ultimately. Realigned the primary hull so that placement was optimized (fine tuning to maximize overall layout). It is possible that this is not absolutely correct, as comparing different features seemed to indicate small variations in suggested positioning. This might indicate scanning inaccuracies, drafting inaccuracies, printing inaccuracies, or interpretive errors on my part. Realigned the interconnecting dorsal to match AS (the heavy outer lines make the fit quite plausible as is). After finishing the realignment of the secondary hull a notable gap between it and the interconnecting dorsal was found. There was no way around this without misaligning some other FJ component. Realigned the secondary hull using the primary vertical turbolift shaft and the deflector dish shaft as reference points. Moved FJ's pylons to align with AS plans (did not enlarge them). Realigned FJ nacelle to AS, overlapping from the front. Cut & paste a small section of nacelle diagram that was overlapping the strut diagram and repasted it to fill the gap created by repositioning the nacelle. --- Conclusions: As expected, FJ's plans were sometimes similar to but often out of conformity with the AS plans. As we believe that AS's plans are more accurate to the original 11' studio model, what is the nature of the inconsistencies. They fall into two types: structural inaccuracies (how things are shaped, and their relative size) and articulation (how the various parts are positioned together as individual modules). Overall height of the primary hull is similar and FJ's deck spacing seems highly plausible in comparison to AS external diagram, with the Bridge, FJ Deck 2, and Deck 11 possibly having minor issues. FJ's Bridge deck needs to be sunk slightly (perhaps a couple feet) to conform with the height of the underlying 'command pod' in AS's plans, but this would bring all vertical elements of FJ's Bridge plans into close alignment with AS. FJ's 'command pod' is more forward set, but otherwise appears very similar, though somewhat lower than height. Moving this component aft somewhat would offset a number of differences, but would require repositioning the turbolift shaft in that section of any plans. Some differences will probably remain. FJ's bridge and turbolift shaft are perhaps 20% larger in all dimensions. FJ's upper sensor dome is much larger than AS, and this may have to do somehow with production changes in this part of the 11' model, as it seems out of proportion. Contours of portions of the upper and lower inner primary hull do not match. FJ has more volume in the lower primary hull (FJ Decks 7-10, with upper decks being the most different), AS has slightly less in the upper primary hull (primarily FJ Deck 4). AS has the primary hull undercut (the continuation of the lower hull contour) significantly more pronounced than FJ, and this would impact the midsection of Deck 7 particularly. FJ's impulse housing is somewhat shorter, slightly lower on top, and undercut at the lower aft section compared to AS. FJ's interconnecting dorsal is somewhat narrower and more rearward set than AS. FJ's secondary hull is shorter than AS, causing the forward sections and the deflector dish to be misaligned in the "standard articulation" diagram. The rear of the hanger fantails are aligned, but FJ's hanger area does not extend upward enough to match AS's dorsal backbone until repositioned, and the FJ sub-hanger deck area and adjacent areas are particularly smaller than AS. The lower keel of both diagrams almost align without repositioning, with FJ extending slightly lower than AS. After repositioning to align the forward part of the secondary hull in the two diagrams, the shortness of FJ's secondary hull becomes apparent, and the hanger area appears to be far too small, not to mention short, the aft part (and perhaps sides) of Deck 24 are eliminated, and the unnamed area of hull below it disappears completely. Realigning to match the overhang of the hanger bay cowling makes more of Deck 24 disappear and misaligns the primary vertical turbolift shaft, but removes most of the inconsistencies with AS in regard to the aft secondary hull, while generating enormous ones at the front. Ultimately I decided to match the forward section alignment as this seemed to cause the least serious overall alignment issues and made revising plans somewhat less of a nightmare as a prospect. Approximately half a deck is lost in the unnamed, unnumbered, outer hull section below Deck 24 and approximately that distance is gained with the new gap where the secondary hull attaches to the interconnecting dorsal. From this perspective FJ's nacelle struts are narrower and somewhat too far forward, comparison of inboard detail is lacking from this particular angle in AS's plans so they are not compared here. The warp nacelles are set higher in relation to the rest of the ship in FJ's plans, and not far enough forward in comparison to AS. Major nacelle components tend to be close, but not precisely aligned, with accuracy tending to decrease the further aft we go. The forward part of the nacelles is in almost perfect agreement, with the exception that FJ's "Pre-Stage Flux Tuners" (the three forward rectangles) are slightly longer, narrower, and significantly thicker, as well as being positioned somewhat differently than AS. The inboard nacelle "Flux Stage" (inner panel) detailing matches in certain aspects, but not closely, between the plans. FJ's "Space Matrix Restoration Balancers" (the rectangles at the rear) are considerably longer than AS but otherwise correspond well. FJ's aft "Intercoolers" are almost identically attached, but are taller or at a different angle, with some detail differences. FJ's "Matrix Tuning Cowl" is shorter than AS and the "Space Matrix Restoration Coil" (aft sphere) is more deeply inset in FJ's plans. --- Footnote Why is this study so much shorter than my previous Dave Shaw to FJ comparison? In that study we were manipulating two different views of the internal layout of the ship as well as external layouts, and creating a hybrid as a hypothetical model. Here, we are taking FJ's decks "as given", and primarily comparing the external hull outlines. A study could be taken to compare the externalities of FJ's design to AS (et al.) but primarily this would indicate cosmetic issues rather than underlying structural deficits. Our next step in this study will examine the ramifications of the Alan Sinclair configuration on deck layout using FJ's design as a hypothetical model.
Sorry, there are some additional delays on this end in posting the next segment. Some offline activities have me distracted at the moment.
Hybrid Deck Study: Franz Joseph BoGP cross-section and Alan Sinclair's Revision-D port-side diagram of TOS 1701 --- Purpose To compare the plausibility of the overall Deck Placement design found in the Franz Joseph (FJ) "Star Trek Booklet of General Plans" within the confines of the modern fan based plan reconstruction of Alan Sinclair (AS). --- Process Continued on from the 'Rearticulation Study' procedures. Removed all internal detail from existing FJ decks except the lines indicating deck-plates/ceilings, except for some bulkheads related to deck height changes. Extended lower aft section of secondary hull below the hanger deck. Removed the floor for FJ Deck 24 & the Tractor Beam Graphic. Effectively the "outer hull" area beneath it now becomes the non-flat floor for this cargo area. The Tractor Beam emitter could still be located in this area in a somewhat different location. Removed potions of deck plates extending beyond the AS diagram. Extended lines that didn't reach the outer hull. Standardized deck plate thickness at three pixels (this was almost universally the case already). Dropped the Bridge "ceiling" slightly to align with bottom of dome. Bridge deck plate was set at 2 pixels. Reduced the Bridge deck plate to a more typical level and dropped the Bridge "conn well" into FJ Deck 2. Adjusted the floor of FJ Deck 2 downward slightly to more evenly split the space between 2 & 3. Adjusted FJ's Deck 7 floor downward slightly to match AS outer hull lines. Raised the floor of Deck 11 in the primary hull. FJ & AS have differences in this area, so this was necessary. Retained the "undercut" area at the interconnecting dorsal because the dorsal is not undercut (as the primary hull is). Yellow AS line remains to indicate the undercut in this area. Top of the interconnecting dorsal has an extra layer of pixels to indicate possible disconnect point (reduces ceiling height on deck below). If it disconnects at the bottom this deck would gain that back in height and a lower deck would lose it (or more if a thicker separation line is suggested). Extended deck lines to aft of secondary hull to match AS outline. --- Analysis FJ's Bridge was far too large overall, for unclear reasons. FJ's Deck 2 is once again problematic, though somewhat less so than in other depictions, because FJ's command pod is a bit too tall. But leaving the Bridge slightly "dropped", as adjusted here to conform to AS's lines as the periphery of the bridge, doesn't make FJ Deck 2 unusable. Considering the other changes I had to make this seem justified on an experimental basis. If these decks are scientific laboratories (as per TMoST in the Production era, as opposed to the Pilots and "The Enterprise Incident") they would presumably be almost continuously occupied and would need to have a comfortable ceiling height for most of the area. In the current "hybrid" configuration, Deck 2 is now 17 pixels tall, Deck 3 is 18. If we assume that the ships length of 2420 pixels equals 947 feet (as per TMoST, approx. 288.646m as per FJ), then Deck 2 is 6.65 feet tall (in the area under the proposed "conn well" is estimated at 13 pixels - 5.09 feet) and Deck 3 is 7.04 feet. If we could assume that they are more evenly spaced and that the deck plates are really not 3 pixels deep (1.17 feet) -- at least in this area -- we could probably get the deck height up to 7 feet on average (or perhaps one to 8' and one to 6'). If we play with the idea that with the taller Pilot dome the theoretical briefing room under Deck 2 had a ceiling that extended up into the dome, then ceiling height in that room becomes highly flexible. Of course, this is all hypothetical and estimated, but it could be of some interest. Equally, if all of the Bridge could be shown to fit comfortably in the Bridge dome proper (with appropriate ceiling room for Production TOS), that would be equally helpful in terms of making all of Deck 2 full height. Are there issues in the outer ring of the primary hull? Ultimately we get back to the tall corridors depicted in the series, which are presumably Deck 5 and 6, and perhaps Deck 7. FJ's Deck 5 & 6 measure 20 pixels (7.83 feet) tall and (the adjusted) Deck 7 measures 21 pixels (8.22 feet) tall, whereas if we go out to the inside of AS's lines of the outer perimeter of the saucer Decks 6 and 7 decks combined measure 47 pixels (18.39 feet), so at maximum both decks would average less than 9.2 feet (taking deck plate into consideration). So, if we assume 1/2 foot of deck plate in this area, and we assume one deck is 7 feet tall, the other would be roughly 10.89 feet tall. Increased deck height is hard to explain them without 'stealing' height from some other deck, which is a possibility if one uses a split level deck scheme for the periphery. Changing Deck 5's height would require moving its ceiling upwards and decreasing Deck 4, assuming approximately 11' is insufficient. Deck 11 ended up being multi-tiered -- in a similar 'multi-level' configuration to the Bridge. If more ceiling height is needed further sinking the center section into the upper portion of the lower sensor array (the 'rim'). Currently the deck is 19 pixels (7.44') tall, with a surrounding reduced-height deck of 14 pixels (5.48'), and an upper bay that is a partial deck (presumably for equipment, such as FJ's phaser banks) of 5 pixels (1.96') or less. Dropping a section into the base of the sensor dome would increase this to (hypothetically increasing head room for phaser control). Of course, deck plate and hull thickness would change all these numbers. In the secondary hull we have the issue of some of the windows not lining up with decks very well at all. Of course we are back to the old story, "are they really windows" -- for the moment we assume so. Adjusting the decks slightly up or down might be an answer, but there are problems with this. One is the alignment of the hanger deck floor (not to mention this deck arrangement is at least partly vouched for by the the main deflector alignment), which is difficult to reconcile with the windows on the deck below. But we do have a series of windows that look to be directly placed on a deck plate. That is definitely problematic. We have similar problems in the interconnecting dorsal, which given the gap created there would be easier to solve by shifting decks slightly. On Deck 5 the windows are relatively low compared to the floor, but perhaps manageable. The Deck 2 & 9 windows seem placed correctly. Readjusting Decks 18 & 19 (and, to a lesser extent, upper secondary hull decks)to correspond with the level of the hanger deck would benefit window placement enormously in comparison to AS, but would have implications for the FJ deck plans. Below are some estimates of the heights of various decks, assuming (for the time being) the AS hull thickness of roughly one pixel and the FJ nominal deck thickness of three pixels (neither of which is probably a fully satisfactory assumption). Primary Hull Deck=Pixels (Feet) 0=9 (3.52') 1=25/22 (9.78'/8.61') 2=17/14 (6.65'/5.48') 3=18 (7.04') 4-6=20 (7.83') 7=21 (8.22') 8=18 (7.04') 9-10=20 (7.83') 11=19/14/5 (7.43'/5.48'/1.96') Lower Dome=13 (5.08') (excluding protrusion) 'Impulse Engineering' (Deck 6 & 7) 44 (17.22') Secondary Hull Deck=Pixels (Feet) 8=17 (6.65') 9-13=20 (7.83') 14=31/11 (12.13'/4.30') 15-19=20 (7.83') 20=20/25 (7.83'/9.78') 21=20 (7.83') 22=21 (8.22') 23-24=19 (7.43') Hypothetical 'Warp Core Engineering' (Deck 18 & 19)=44 (17.22') Hanger Deck at Fan Tail=76 (29.74') How well these estimates correspond to the actual sets, and where final placement of given sets are in terms of decks, would strongly indicate where fine tuning is necessary. If some decks need to be significantly taller, other decks would need to be that much shorter. --- Conclusions All 24 FJ "true" decks were able to be retained but there were alterations -- some more considerable than most, primarily line extensions. Overall FJ's decks, with some significant modifications, could be largely retconned into the AS version of 1701. The primary differences would be less space on the periphery of the lower primary hull decks (which are primarily storage, water, or support machinery areas), decreased space at the base of the secondary hull (cargo and storage areas), and increased space towards the rear of the secondary hull (which probably makes up for the volume lost elsewhere). Secondary hull window placement is an issue, but modification of the placement of some decks could resolve that as well.
Another post from my Fortress of Solitude... Photobucket has been resizing my images and forcing them to about half their resolution. I just noticed this today. For new posts the problem should be corrected, but I will have to see if I can resolve the issue for the old posts. I will post a message when this is done. Apologies. +++++++++ Hybrid Deck Study: Empirical based model of TOS 1701 deck placement based human interface and Alan Sinclair's Revision-D port-side diagram: 24 deck arrangement --- Purpose To derive a plausible overall Deck Placement design within the confines of the modern fan based plan reconstruction of Alan Sinclair (AS) using Canon 11' TOs 1701 studio model window placement and typical human height as metric indicators. As a starting basis we begin with the "hybrid" FJ based deck plan from the previous study as a falsifiable hypothesis. --- Process Continued on from the 'FJ-AS Hybrid Deck Study' procedures. Corrected the lower sensor dome undercut that had been overlooked in previous work. Created simulated humanoid figures 15 pixels (5.87') high standing, 11 pixels (4.30') seated. 16 pixel standing height was not selected as it would have been 6.26', and the number selected would better represent both sexes typical height biased towards a larger number of males. Replicated and positioned these figures to best approximate optimal viewing angles from pertinent windows, portholes, and other areas of interest. Where possible the figure was adjusted to optimize viewing for figures somewhat taller or shorter than the simulation. Repositioned the locations of deck plates to best match the position of the representative figures. Avoiding prohibitively low deck heights (less than 6') and not intruding on window "frames" were additional factors used for adjustment. Additionally the location of certain key decks (hanger bay, etc.) were used for guidance in overall positioning of adjoining decks. For decks where windows of various heights were present, added theoretical raised platforms and decks to represent split- or multi-level design. Added some theoretical decks where appropriate, to possibly explain various inconsistencies or inadequacies of existing plans, or to explore possible designs. Copied the original file. Replaced the Port view with a mirrored AS Starboard view (to avoid having to mirror the FJ cross-section and make consistent viewing possible). Added a few additional representative figures where appropriate. --- Analysis In retrospect using the Port side AS view was a minor mistake. This was done because the FJ cross-section and side view are from Port. AS accurately depicts this side of the model which, because it was the unfilmed side, is not detailed to the same level as the Starboard side (which has more windows on Decks 6/7, for example). An additional starboard view diagram is necessary to check for inconsistencies. If one were recreating the studio model it becomes an issue if one wants to faithfully replicate these asymmetries as intentional design, or mirror the Starboard side to avoid repeating production errors. I did not keep track of positioning of decks, mainly because there was a great deal of trial-and-error involved and secondly because the effort required to record all these changes is not compensated for by third party participation at this point (i.e., I'm not sure anyone is reading these essays). The current position for the Bridge deck plate may need minor adjustment, based on analysis of minimal turbolift ceiling height. Additionally, whether the turbolift can drop directly into the main vertical turbolift shaft, or requires a slight horizontal run, is a possible issue with the FJ arrangement. Deck 2 arrangement seems plausible, in a Pilot configuration (briefing room), depending upon further alternation of Bridge height. Impact on production Lab central ceiling height is potentially an issue. There definitely seems to be space in the outer hull for two full decks, but whether Decks 5-7 are all of the appropriate height needed to correspond to the physical sets is a different matter that feedback would be appreciated on. The undercut prevents direct access from the inner to outer portions of Deck 7 except at the Interconnecting Dorsal or Impulse Engineering (assuming it is split level like the Engineering set). The exact arrangement of Primary Hull Deck 11 is flexible, and ultimately dependent on whether or not it is decided if it is compatible with the depiction of Phaser Control and surrounding areas in the series. Turbolift access probably cannot be directly vertical from the main shaft, unless the FJ location is adjusted slightly. Primary Hull Deck 8 has "windows" of an unusual height (below typical sitting level), assuming we do not make Deck 9 shorter than it already is. Dropping the deck would solve the viewing angle problem but would make it impossible for typical humans to access Deck 9 while fully upright. Deck 9 is listed by TMoST and FJ as fabrication facilities, yet it has many "windows". FJ does not provide access to all of these windows, despite putting in transparent "skin" areas. It may also have airlock capability, as there are door-like shapes. Ceiling height are generally generous with the possible exception of Primary Hull (PH) Deck 9 & 10 and Interconnecting Dorsal (ID) Decks 8-10. Ceiling height on PH Deck 9 and ID 8-9 is an adequate 6.26' (as could be PH Deck 11 under one interpretation of deck location), while PH & ID Deck 10 are 6.65' which would accommodate most humanoids. With the exception of PH Deck 10 (which houses a cargo transporter and cargo bays) and ID Deck 10 (which is an observation lounge) these areas are designated for fabrication, machinery, or access (gainway & turbolift shafts). These are probably sparsely inhabited and/or automated. The ID Deck 10 observation lounge could have its ceiling height in creased by decreasing ID Deck 9 to below acceptible height. On the other hand, a small observation lounge and cargo deck with a low but adequate ceiling height is probably acceptable for all but the tallest crew members. Some of the other observation lounge decks in the ID have potential issues with window height. FJ depicts these as seated lounges. In the case of Deck 11, for example, this would cause a ceiling height issue in relation to the next deck, once the deck was adjusted for a seated view from the windows leaving little room for upright locomotion. Ultimately I resolved these issues by using elevated platforms for the seated areas, allowing people to stand upright by the windows while being at a similar viewing height to seated occupants. Deck height was not very consistent, and other than for the areas that have minimal occupation there seemed to be little logical reason for the differences. If one disagrees with the use of platforms, then shifting the deck plates would be the logical option, and as mentioned there is the possibility that issues could occur. In the secondary hull there are multiple examples of what appear to be different window heights on the same deck. While many of these can be explained away as examples of seated vs. standing viewing design, in other cases this can't be done. Adding a few raised platforms resolved the issue without causing more serious problems (such as deck height). If one disagrees with the use of these platforms this would require the use of multi-level decks which complicates the overall arrangement but FJ essentially had already done this in the BoGP Deck 19 (presumably for different reasons). Repositioning of Secondary Hull decks 19 and above makes all of Deck 19 consistent with the hanger bay deck, and Deck 15 becomes a bit more reminiscent of the Engineering compartment we see in ST:TMP. In the sides of the hanger bay there appear to be various observation windows. This implies either a series of decks, partial decks, gangways, or ladders -- out of sight through the lateral access points. I made a theoretical extension of the deck above the actual shuttle bay, extending it out to below the dome above the hanger doors. The basic concept is that the hanger bay is double hulled, and that the walls and ceiling we see from inside the bay are not the actual outer hull. This would certainly add strength to the design, as well as increase safety under battle conditions. The only explanation I have for the apparent "windows" on the nacelle pylons is that they are intended as observation ports when the ship is severely damaged (blind and dead in space) for use by engineers ascending to the nacelle to visually examine the ship for exterior damage. But their placement would make this difficult or possibly impossible for most/many parts of the ship, particularly the nacelles, especially since the inboard of the pylons seems to lack them. Of course, its possible that they are not windows at all. Primary Hull Deck Pixels (Feet) 0 9 (3.52') 1 25/22 (9.78'/8.61') 2 17/14 (6.65'/5.48') 3 18 (7.04') 4-5 20 (7.83') 6 23 (9.00') 7 18 (7.04') 8 25 (9.78') 9 16 (6.26') 10 17 (6.65') 11 19 or 16 / 12/5 (7.44' or 6.26' / 4.70'/1.96') Lower Dome 22 or 19 / 16 or 13 (8.61' or 7.44' / 6.26' or 5.09') 'Impulse Engineering' (Deck 6 & 7) 44 (17.22') Secondary Hull Deck Pixels (Feet) 8-9 16 (6.26') 10 17 (6.65') 11 18 (7.04') 12-13 22 (8.61') 14-15 25 (9.78') 16 24 (9.39') 17-18 18 (7.04') 19-20 22 (8.61') 21 21 (8.22') 22 23 (9.00') 23-24 19 (7.44') Hypothetical 'Warp Engineering' (Deck 18 & 19) 43 (16.83') Hanger Deck at Fan Tail 76 or 65 (29.74' or 25.44') --- Conclusions The FJ / TMoST-Writer's Guide (text description) of the number of decks for TOS 1701 seems plausibly consistent with the actual 11' studio model, as reconstructed by Alan Sinclair. Overall this deck arrangement seems plausible on the basis of this examination. If the ceiling height of particular sets makes it necessary, some adjustment could still be made, but ultimately there is a limit to how far this layout can be adjusted without causing serious additional problems. If the ship were 1080' long this would provide 14% additional space for excessive ceiling heights or to adjust deck spacing. However, it seems clear that 947' is an appropriate length for the ship, as dictated by the bulk of supplemental production materials. Several area that have been noticed as having "issues" with an 11-deck arrangement all seem workable with this current, hypothetical arrangement. The interesting conclusion drawn from this is that whoever created the Writer's Guide / TMoST text describing the decks of 1701 seems to have planned out the 24 deck arrangement very well in relation to the studio model. How else do we explain that the two (presumably) least inhabited decks of the Primary Hull end up having the lowest ceiling height when we derive their location from window placement? What is perhaps more interesting is that FJ, despite the fact that TMoST doesn't give a detailed description deck-by-deck description of the Secondary Hull, continues on with this description and continues to make allocations that this analysis point to as meaningful while his own plans fail to do this. Somehow FJ has the Secondary Hull decks with the least ceiling height (8-9) end up being allocated to (presumably) automated machinery and storage. For all these decks, with the exception of ID Deck 10 (where FJ matches this estimate), FJ shows in his cross-section greater ceiling height, and generally seems to be aiming for a consistent ceiling height. From FJ's depiction of 1701, Deck 9 with its windows would presumably make a better observation lounge or office space than an auxillery machine room. Yet its not. FJ's window placement is not particularly accurate, nor is his shape or size for the secondary hull, nor does his position of the 24 decks exactly match those derived here -- so it seems unlikely that he could have reached the same conclusions with the materials he had access to and the interpretations he seems to have made as have been made here. One possible explanation is that FJ got access to a document that provided information on the contents of each secondary hull deck. Why, if this existed and was available to the shows writers (as the description of the primary hull was in the Writer's Guide), this didn't appear in TMoST is a mystery. Of course, this is only speculation, it may simply have been pure luck. If such a document did exist, then it would clearly indicate that a well-planned out 24 deck version of the ship was more than an oversight or a mistake dumped into the Writer's Guide.
Oooh! great work, keep it coming! P.S. you might want to put a plug in at one of the other threads, I don't think anyone knows you're here?
Comparative and Hybrid Plan Study: Matt Jefferies 33" and Alan Sinclair's Revision-D port-side diagram --- Purpose To compare the differences between the 11' and 33" versions of the Production studio models and to see how feasible it is to convert the former to the latter with a minimum of modifications. Concept derived from ideas presented by Warped9 --- Process Did an standard articulation comparison. The diagram demonstrates the results. Did a rearticulated comparison. The diagram demonstrates the results. Made preparations to make a hybrid version: Started with unarticulated versions of each diagram, each as their own layer. Followed the following procedures on the Alan Sinclair diagram. Removed command pod. Trimmed excess top of saucer. Repasted and repositioned command pod as new layer. Removed bottom of primary hull. Repasted and repositioned as new layer. Trimmed excess and overlap. Removed lower sensor dome & housing. Repasted and repositioned as new layer. Removed lower sensor dome. Repasted portion stretch horizontal 33% and shrunk vertically to 40% as new sensor dome. Removed Secondary hull and lower part of the interconnecting dorsal and nacelle pylons. Repasted and repositioned as new layer, matching the forward part of the hull. Removed fantail, hanger bay entrance, and aft dome. Repasted and repositioned as new layer. Removed and repositioned the aft dome. Trimmed excess from secondary hull and dorsal. Removed nacelles and remainder of pylons. Repasted as new layer and positioned to match original attachment point. --- Analysis Perhaps a deck is lost beneath the command pod. Another deck or so is lost above the lower sensor dome. Probably the lowest deck of the interconnecting dorsal is lost. Some aft hanger bay space is lost, and this would effect the topology of the hanger entrance and fantail peripherally. Further conversion could be done by removing a couple meters from the outer ring of the primary hull dish, making it less than two full decks. The interconnecting dorsal could be refashioned but that would be considerable work for little benefit, as would be adjusting the nacelles. Shrinking all of the secondary hull is also possible, but would make a logical, easy conversion to "The Cage" version of the ship difficult to imagine (a major conversion or replacement of the secondary hull might be required). --- Conclusions I'm not sure what changes (other than those shared with the 11' model) were made in converting the first Pilot version of the 33" to the Production version, but hopefully other experts could suggest any omissions or errors that have occurred by not being aware of these (i.e., differences between the Pilot 33" and 11' models). And frankly those details are beyond this brief study. Overall a some moderate changes to the design produced results with the key differences that the 33" model possesses. Furthermore, conversion to the Production version of the ship could be seen as adding or modifying existing modules to the 33" design without making widespread alterations. Furthermore, all these alterations would increase space available in the ship. Presumably these modifications would have taken place after the first five year voyage. Unfortunately, using this scheme contravenes pretty much everyone's conceptions about the nature of the evolution of 1701's design, whether they are inside the franchise or amateur Treknologists. But it is within the realm of possibility.
Thanks BK. Still, its a nice image of me typing away in a crystal fortress at the north... err, is it now south?... pole! That and being invulnerable and all... Pretty sweet gig.
I'm reading, too, I just haven't had a lot to say. You cover everything pretty well. Regarding deck alignments: 1)Personally, I find the idea of a 'symmetrical' secondary hull (i.e. one which has even deck spacing) rather appealing and that does seem workable from your model with some slight tweaks. The 'lower half' (below the hangar deck) already pretty much is, and with some equalization of the upper decks and shifting slightly upward, you might have it. 2) I don't think the decks in the neck really need to line up with the decks in the lower saucer. I might argue that a small 'halfsie' non-deck (for separation bolts and such?) at the top of the neck might make the areas there line up generally better and possibly allow for more even deck spacing. Those are just minor nitpick thoughts. Overall, I think you're doing a good job and addressing everything pretty well. I'll try to chime in more if it helps.
I've updated the older images (above) on Photobucket for this thread so that they are full resolution (approx. 2.3x what was available, due to my mistakes), one you open them and click 'magnify'. This problem shouldn't occur again unless my image size goes over 1mb. +++++++++ Praetor, Thank you, I appreciate the compliment. And I do recognize that by "covering the waterfront", so to speak, it cuts off a lot of discussion. If people don't have anything to say I don't need comments for the sake of my ego. I simply wasn't sure if anyone other than Tin_Man was reading it (which is a bit odd, since I usually annoy at least one person per post, if not en masse). And the comment was mainly just a humorous comment (hence the emoticon). If people do have something to say, please feel free to do so, and don't be put off by the formality of the posts. Anyone who has comments can make them. If you find something interesting please say so, if you think something is wrong mention that, and if I make a stupid error I appreciate prompt notification. I think that's what FJ was originally aiming for, pretty much, for the whole ship. In this case, with a minor amount of uncertainty and interpretation, everything I did was based on window placement, and the most logical way to represent decks that made these usable to the crew. For the secondary hull, that left me with only the placement of the Deck 23 floor in terms of "wiggle room", because only Decks 23 & 24 are without either a window or porthole, and the bottom of the hull represents the floor of Deck 24 (at least in this interpretation). I put the floor where I did to make those two decks equal (maximum) height, which is a kind of uniformity. Actually, I didn't orchestrate that either. The position of Decks 9-13 was derived from window placement, mitigated by mutual ceiling height, Deck 8's floor was based on maximizing ceiling height without dropping it down into Deck 9's window area. Deck 14's floor got placed at the top-point of the secondary hull, but it could be higher, or lower if recessed into the secondary hull. Without a more precise estimate of deck and hull thickness, everything is a bit more estimated than it looks. In terms of seperation, TMoST discusses the Interconnecting Dorsal as if it were part of the Secondary Hull, implying the disconnect is at the top. The unofficial first version of the Enterprise Officer's Manual" (Geoffrey Mandel & Doug Drexler) suggests the disconnect is towards the bottom -- allowing the ID to act as a control surface, erstatz fifth landing leg, and excursion point for the saucer if it should have to land on a planet. Inclusion of the ID would keep the saucer from spinning out of control and/or greatly decrease the load on the reaction control thrusters/impulse engines on descent. A saucer without control surfaces naturally goes into a spin, and presumably would accelerate its spin all the way to the surface in this case. Since there is hardly any room at ID Deck 8 for any separation machinery, either it has to be scrapped as a usable deck or some other deck must be the disconnect point (or its on the saucer side). Since it allows gangway access, we probably don't want to make it unusable. ID Deck 14 has plenty of room, and one could raise the floor or recess the disconnect down slightly into the Secondary Hull. So, indirectly, one could interpret the findings of the Canon window placement study as agreeing with the Officer's Manual on this point. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Comparative & Hybrid Plan Study: Matt Jefferies 1967 Cross-Section and Alan Sinclair's Revision-D port-side diagram. --- Purpose To compare the differences between the Matt Jefferies (MJ) cross-section (CS) -- from the Writer's Guide and published in 'The Making of Star Trek' (TMoST) -- with 11' Production studio model (as reconstructed by Alan Sinclair (AS) and to see how feasible it is to convert the former to the latter with a minimum of modifications. Additional comparison is made between the '67 CS deck arrangement and the 11' Production model's "window" placement. --- Process Removed the deck layers from a copy of 'CS-Alan Sinclair-24 Deck-SB' (mirrored starboard view). Resized the 1701 image from the'67 CS to 2420 pixels wide. Pasted it as a new layer into the image. Did an standard articulation comparison. The diagram demonstrates the results. Separated the modules of the '67 CS image into separate layers. Repositioned the modules to match AS as closely as possible. Did a re-articulated comparison. The diagram demonstrates the results. --- Analysis Standard and re-articulated comparison indicate many differences with the studio model, and some similarities with Franz Joseph's (FJ) so-called "errors" and inaccuracies. There also may be similarities with the 33" version of the studio model, particularly in the disk of the upper primary hull, and a comparison should be done. The area under the impulse engines appears somewhat problematic with the implied saucer-end disconnect from the TMoST version of Writer's Guide. In particular, there is a very tall, irregularly shaped room that overlaps two decks of the Interconnecting Dorsal and one deck of the Primary Hull. Impulse Engineering itself seems to be a one deck design unless one counts part of the external "intercooler" area above. Other than the central decks of the primary hull and a couple decks in the secondary hull there appears to be relatively little similarity between the '67 CS deck spacing and the hypothetical deck placement based on analysis of the "windows" on the model. Frequently windows seem to be aligned with deck plates. The simulated crew members are often placed in between decks or partially so. In a few cases switching between "standing" and "seated" crew (or vice versa) might make a difference, but generally it does not. The irregular shapes and sizes of the various compartments makes a regularized separation of various areas into pressure vessels difficult to conceive of (at least with any certainty). However, this probably mirrors modern naval capitol ship architecture: many irregular compartments of various sizes pieced together like a 3D jigsaw puzzle. This theoretically maximizes efficiency in terms of use of space, at the cost of highly increased complexity of construction and impacting living conditions (i.e., laid out like a hotel vs. laid out like a rat's den). --- Conclusions Interesting features on the diagram may be overlooked. One possible interpretation of the Bridge and the partial deck directly below it is that the Bridge may be sitting on some sort of "shock absorbers" and the apparent lack of detail on the partial deck might indicate the Bridge may even be able to move around slightly while under stress (though there is nothing to prove that was the intended design). There is quite a bit of detailing that could be interpreted as "deflector machinery", but its unclear to me if the rings on the actual 11' model are inset into this area to any extent or not. Further research would be helpful here on sorting out what is "external" and "internal" detail. Additionally, the turbolift shaft at the bottom of the secondary hull does not simply stop at an access point, but expands horizontally, implying that this might be a storage area for unused turbolifts and possibly a maintenance area (there is no reason for an extensive horizontal shaft on such a small, narrow deck). The '67 cross-section shows "inaccuracies" present in the other non-standard design concepts of 1701 (FJ, the 33" model). The analysis of the deck to window placement leads us to several possible conclusions: (1) the '67 CS is so distorted that proper analysis is impossible, (2) the details on the studio models we interpret as "windows" are not windows but something else unrelated to deck spacing, (3) MJ's conception of the interior of the ship during production differed from his conception when the studio models were built -- and this discrepancy was never resolved. Evidence that #1 is incorrect is at least partially supported by the details of the drawing that do correspond well with AS (overall length of the various modules, overall height of the saucer, width of the forward part of the secondary hull), but there definitely is some distortion, exacerbated by the thick lines of the drawing. Evidence that #2 is incorrect can be derived from the fact that there are at least some apparent "windows" on the ship (or something depicted as windows) and that by the TNG era we clearly have "windows" inside the set that are associated with "windows" on the studio models (i.e., external zoom out on a person looking out a set window). Evidence that conclusion #3 may be the correct one can be found in the fact that the text description of the ship given in the Writer's Guide (as detailed in TMoST) does not match the '67 cross-section which accompanied it, not just in overall number of decks, but in its detailed description of the decks of the primary hull.
FYI, if you have scripting disabled in your browser, you may not have the option of enlarging the images to full size on PhotoBucket
Hybrid Deck Study: Comparison of the Dave Shaw TOS 1701 deck placement and human based interface using Alan Sinclair's Revision-D port-side diagram. --- Purpose To determine the overall plausibility of the Dave Shaw (DS) Reconstructed TOS 1701 Deck Placement design within the confines of the modern fan based plan reconstruction of Alan Sinclair (AS) using Canon 11' TOS 1701 studio model window placement and typical human height as metric indicators. --- Process Cropped Dave Shaw preliminary cross-section. Pasted detailed hangerbay into main diagram. Moved and mirrored remaining text. Mirrored image. Resized to 1735 pixel width. Changed color channels to red. Pasted as a transparent image into 'CS-FJ-Alan Sinclair-Hybrid-Adjusted-Starboard' as a new layer. Renamed file. Maneuvered the image to match AS, using the hanger fantail as a reference. Adjusted horizontally to match upper surface of peripheral Primary Hull. Created new purple colored AS mirrored Starboard image. Pasted it as a new layer. Maneuvered the image to match original red AS image, using the warp nacelles as a reference. Deleted red AS starboard image. Moved the purple AS image to the top layer. Removed Hypothetical Platforms from previous study. Removed extra simulated (blue) crew members not near "windows". Added extra simulated (green) crew members to appropriate areas (as a new layer) to indicate DS deck & window interface. --- Analysis DS Primary Hull Decks 1 (there are possible portholes port & starboard), 5, 6 & 7, Interconnecting Dorsal Decks 7-10, and Secondary Hull Decks 16a & 16b all have excellent to satisfactory interface between the simulated crew (sitting or standing on the deck) and the external "windows". DS Primary Hull Decks 2 & 8, Interconnecting Dorsal Deck 11, and Secondary Hull Decks 14-15, 17-19 have unsatisfactory to very poor interface between the simulated crew (sitting or standing on the deck) and the external "windows". The remaining DS decks lack reference "windows". --- Conclusions While in the previous hypothetical 24 deck study it was relatively easy to locate the simulated crew in a logical way to interact realistically with almost all the "windows" on the 11' studio model. With this deck layout, frequently, the external "windows" are aligned close to or on deck plates. In many cases the decks would have to be relocated significantly to allow normal viewing (short of laying prostrate or being on ladders). In some cases hypothetical platforms could remedy the situation, but in the case of this layout the height of the platforms would be considerable, at which point one begins to wonder if split level decks would be appropriate (which in the previous study only were used in the "pocket" areas of the hanger bay). The location of a possible door or window on Deck 8 is an example, where it is placed far up near the ceiling and would require a ladder or stairs to reach. Deck 2 has similar issues with windows, that are essentially at ceiling height while portholes are at knee level. These problems reappear through much of the secondary hull. There are a number of possible solutions: 1. The external "windows" are not actual windows but something else. 2. Rearranging deck placement to optimize window placement. This will likely impact deck height. 3. Increase the number of decks and rearrange some existing ones. This will impact deck height. 4. Retcon the external windows placement to match the internal decks rather than the 11' studio model. The most logical conclusion, to this observer, is that the 11' studio model was not planned with this sort of deck placement in mind, rather there were more decks in the original design the model was based on. Alternately, the model builders scrapped the design given to them for window placement and substituted a largely incompatible one instead. -- Postscript It might have been better to delete the blue simulated crew members (they were left in to illustrate a closer crew-"window" interface). I may create a version of the study removing them.
Well, it is interesting in that a lot of this depends on Alan Sinclair's drawings being accurate to the 11 foot model. Sadly, they aren't. Are they the most accurate plans available to the public? I'd have to say that on the whole... no. While both Casimiro and Sinclair have errors (some of which are totally different from each other), overall Casimiro's plans are better. A few years ago (when I thought this was a well covered subject) I believed that one could get away with merging the best elements of both Casimiro and Sinclair into a super set of 11 foot plans. Unfortunately, while addressing the issues each got wrong on their own, it did nothing to solve the issues that both plans missed together. Click to enlarge Could they be fixed with the help of someone else's plans? Sure. Sasser's plans are quite nice, aridas sofia's plans are very nice, and Gary Kerr's plans are great too. But that was a lot of stuff to try to work together (some of which isn't meant for public consumption), so I decided to start over from scratch. Given that, am I worried that my sketches from more than a year ago don't match up with Sinclair... not really. Sinclair is the worst available window placement reference, so that plus the fact that I stated that the finalized deck placement would have to wait for my finalized exterior plans means those are super old sketches that are at best a general outline of where I was heading. Well, here is something you should try... making a timeline. When were which windows placed where? The WWWWPW question brings up some interesting aspects of the models history. First, the original windows weren't functioning at all, they were just painted on. The second attempt at putting windows on the model required drilling holes into the wood and using plexiglas tubes to help illuminate them (one would generally assume that those early lit windows are in the same places... but I haven't, so I've been cross checking their placement). The third time around, the producers just wanted more windows, period. See, originally there were only three rows of windows on the secondary hull... two above and one below the pendant on the side. But Jefferies did draw onto the original plans where he wanted the windows to go (when his hand was forced and Roddenberry insisted on windows). That window placement (which was followed pretty closely on the 33 inch model) is significantly off from the 11 foot model. My original deck levels sketch was based on an early assumption that the original window placement by Jefferies on the construction plans were pretty closely followed in the dorsal. They were not, and when I move from the sketch phase to final placement phase I'll be going off of the final placement of windows that I have reached in my year long study of the 11 foot model (as opposed to using someone else's studies and hoping they were as thorough as I would have liked). Click to enlarge My current plan is to make the deck levels in the dorsal match the windows on the 11 foot model as it appeared in The Cage. Similarly, the upper two rows of the windows on the side of the secondary hull are associated with the upper and lower levels of the engineering deck (which is, based on Jefferies 1967 and 1977 drawings a double height deck). I can adjust the next deck down (which is associated with the last row of original windows) as needed. Please note... very important... Sinclair's windows on the rim of the primary hull are wrong. That is not how the models windows are actually placed, they are actually too close together to make for nice placement for two decks. On a side note... your studies seem to be time challenged. In the case of the 11 foot model, you seem to want to forget that it has three different states for how it appeared on screen, and it reached those states under different conditions. What they were trying to do in the beginning, what they did in the interim, and what was finally done for the series were all greatly effected by environmental factors which often had more to do with how the model looked on screen rather than how true they were being to Jefferies' vision of the ship. In a very similar manner, you seem to not understand that I am sharing sketches of ideas... works in it's most raw states, trying out ideas to see if they fit or not. More than a year ago when I started, I decided not to use Sinclair or Casimiro (for the reason stated above) and so my internal sketches were based on very early external sketches of the 11 foot model. Those raw early external sketches were fine for playing with ideas, but I stated many times that none of that stuff was even close to finalized... in fact, none of that stuff will be used (other than concepts) in the final plans. There are aspects (with relation to the actual filming model) from my sketches a year ago that have no reflection on where things are going... and I stated as much back then. People who don't understand that I'm sharing the research and thought processes behind all this when reaching conclusions about it have made me consider not sharing this stuff until it is finished. Your conclusions based on a sketch of concepts I shared with the community a year ago based on the fact that it was in all possibility not where I was going and ignoring that fact gives me great paws. Are you the only person that doesn't understand that distinction? I don't know. But you are looking at what I've been sharing in the same way that you've been looking at the 11 foot model and Jefferies work, so I'm willing to assume that this is unique to how you see this stuff (sort of like trying to watch a movie by overlaying every frame on top of each other and looking at them all at once... and missing the plot because of it). It is an interesting form of analysis where the idea is to hide the important information in a massive flood of details of things that change over time. I would be interested in your points of view of life in general. I imagine that the fact that people move from childhood to adolescence to adulthood to middle-age and finally old age runs counter to how you view people. Is the child the same person as the senior citizen all those years later? Most of us understand that the progression of things has profound effects, but that they can still be the same thing over it's lifetime. If you can't see the stages in my work, in Jefferies' work or in the 11 foot model, is this also true of how you see life in general? Just an interesting question.
Whorfin and Shaw, you both need a sig like JuanBolio's indicating that those reading your posts should feel smarter for having read them. It happens to me every time. Shaw, I guess I'm not the specific one to answer your question, but personally I have definitely seen and understood that what you have shown is a work in progress, working through the different 'phases' as they were developed for the show. The one thing I think I'm not particularly clear on, and perhaps you aren't yourself at this point, is whether you plan to treat these separate phases as the evolution of the ship over time, or conclude that the final 'phase' chronologically (I suppose that would be the 11-footer's lit form) is what the ship 'really' looked like? Whorfin, I would recommend acknowledging Shaw's information regarding the window placement issues when going into this further, and therefore perhaps not feel limited by the window placement itself.
Actually, for the deck plans I haven't really decided. I think people who have done the 11 foot model are doing it backwards (and doing everyone a disservice by not doing the model as is or as was) by starting with the series (or later) version. But then again, I'm attempting to document the model itself at this point and not the fictional starship it played on TV. With the deck plans, because I plan on making their major elements open for anyone to use, I'll most likely do some of the work with the series version in mind. But I'm not limiting myself to that. After all, plans are usually of a ship being built or undergoing major modification. But in the end, the main question has always been... Jefferies drew up plans of the Enterprise, which included deck heights that matched the sets that were used. Could what we saw on screen work? If it doesn't, I'm sure that major holes would have shown up by now. I think that if Whorfin is going to do comparative analysis between plans, a strict definition of scale should be set out. For example, overall length is the single worst measurement to work from because the major elements being misaligned will radically throw everything else out of sorts. The radius of the primary hull is a good choice (and the one I generally use), but the plans (which represented a 417 foot wide primary hull) were 15 inches across, and the 11 foot model was supposed to be four times that (at 60 inches). The actual model is 59.25 inches. So is the 11 foot model's primary hull supposed to be 417 feet across or about 412 feet across? See, if the 59.25 inches represents 417 feet, then the 11 foot model is actually representing a 943 foot long ship. If it is 412, then we are talking about a length of 932 feet. We could use the secondary hull length (at 340 feet), which gives us a length of 930 feet (which is starting to make the 412 foot primary hull look right). How about the warp nacelles? At 504 feet, that would make the ship 935 feet in length. The major elements seem to be pointing towards a ship who's length is between 930 to 935 feet (averaging about 932 feet). That is not 947 feet, which in turn is why the overall length is the worst number to work from when studying the 11 foot model.
Dave, Thanks for dropping by and contributing. I'll work up a response in a day or two, and recreate some version of my zapped post from the other thread. Perhaps I should bundle that in here. +++++++++ Praetor, When given the opportunity to acknowledge information what is my characteristic response? Its like waving a red flag before a bull! If I'm wrong, I'll be very glad to find out about it. I would hope Dave feels the same. My contention has been that everyone has been "in the right", just using different, contradictory information. I'm not entirely content with leaving things simply at "I'm wrong, and my sources are wrong". That may be the case, but I would like to see that clearly demonstrated. Putting the argument on that footing leads me towards a similar, knee-jerk response -- which I will do my best to resist. My main concern is that the discussion be conducted in a reasonable manner, and nobody gets too frustrated. But I expect it will be a very frustrating business.
I don't think you're 'wrong,' and I don't think Shaw is saying you're wrong - but he does make a good point about taking into consideration the fact that he's not done yet with his study, and therefore we don't fully know the 'accuracy' of the plans you and most people, including myself, go from. So in that regard, if the goal is 100% accuracy in every way possible, it may fall short. But I shall await your response. I'd again also urge you to ignore/alter the window placements if the preponderence of the evidence shifts to favor a deck alignment that contrasts with them.
Well, I find it interesting that anyone would feel they could reach any conclusion about anything when all I've been sharing are Cocktail Napkin Sketches of my concepts and ideas so far. Sure, my rough sketches may look like final products... but they certainly are NOT. For example, I took the time to outline what that cross-section was an attempt at doing when I first introduced it back a year ago... But Whorfin's stated goal was:Purpose: To determine the overall plausibility of the Dave Shaw (DS) Reconstructed TOS 1701 Deck Placement design within the confines of the modern fan based plan reconstruction of Alan Sinclair (AS) using Canon 11' TOS 1701 studio model window placement and typical human height as metric indicators.My work has already been getting vetted by some of the most knowledgeable people on the subject, and he starts his analysis with a year old sketch and applies it to plans he isn't truly familiar with... well, that seems sorta off base a little to me. I'm in the middle of my study... nothing is set in stone yet. I have been sharing my research and in the course of the last year have started with one set of assumptions only to find that they didn't hold up and changed course. But it is a classic strawman tactic to attempt to lock a person down to the points they want to define you with. Whorfin tried this by defining my plans as being based on Jefferies construction plans, when one of the first course alterations I made was to move to the 11 foot model as a foundation. Why did he do it? He said his explanation was lost, but I'm guessing that he wanted me to fit his preconceptions because he could make his case easier that way. If he viewed my work the way it was intended (for people to pick and choose what they like and make their own work from it), then he wouldn't have attempted to lock down his vision of my positions (from the past no less) and then hold it up against his idea of the Canon 11' TOS 1701 studio model. And that doesn't even address the fact that he is almost phobic about change in anyone's work over time. ________________ I think it is important to know if you know your sources are reliable before relying on them. I scrutinized many plans of the 11 foot Enterprise, mainly because I really didn't want to reinvent the wheel in my work. I did the 33 inch model because it was a mountain no one had attempted to climb, and back then I never thought I was going to attempt the 11 foot model because it was well covered by a number of people. What I found was that I couldn't count on the work of others for the 11 foot model. And that starting with the work of others led to errors I might not have noticed creep in. Do you know Sinclair's plans well enough to use them as a reference? I know them very well, which means I know both their strengths and weaknesses. Do you know their weaknesses? If you need someone else to clearly demonstrate what would be obvious to someone who has studied those plans, then I have to conclude that you haven't really taken the time to study them yourself. You should be able to list the errors of Sinclair's plans for us before relying on them. I know his plans well enough to be able to pick out a CGI model based on them because some of the errors are pretty big. Study the plans. Don't assume they are the best (which they are not) or that they are the most accurate (which they also are not), assume that they are a very good attempt and go back and figure out where he missed the mark. You need to learn to do this on your own... after all, we wouldn't want you assuming my 11 foot plans are definitive just because I sidestepped the errors of Sinclair and Casimiro. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime. It is time for you to go fishing for errors where you seem to believe there are none to be found. I've pointed out some errors in Sinclair's plans, lets have you point out a few I haven't listed (so no searching my past posts on this subject... that would be cheating!).
Dave, Well... Source: # Decks (Primary Hull / ID / Secondary Hull) MJ 1964: 4 / 3 / 4 (Pressure Compartment Schematic) MJ 1967: 8.5 / 7 / 8 MJ Phase II: 8 / 5 / 8 (ID decks that overlap the secondary hull are counted as secondary hull.) My first observation is that there is some variability over the years. The second observation is that you use Phase II and the Pressure Compartment Schematic as a basis for your pressure diagrams, and said pressure vessels are not consistent with the "overlapping" compartmentalization in the MJ 1967 cross-section. The final observation is that we have no publicly available internal diagrams of the ship between 1964 and May of 1967 (to the best of my knowledge). So, the internal design you are suggesting existed in 1964 (on a 200' design consisting of 11 decks), vanishes in 1967, and reapears in Phase II. To me this indicates that I am not the only one with "time challenged" studies, as you put it. As has already been explained, my suggestions are hypothetical, deductive, and generally not tied to a specific date. A general chronological sequence can be given, but it is largely conjectural. Actually, I've went back and taken a look at what you've release recently. Overall, other than some detailing on various areas (I discussed this at more length in my "lost" response) you haven't been releasing a whole lot. In fact, you stopped releasing updates, and have only relented (for which we are grateful) recently. Frankly the studies I am doing do not lend themselves to piecemeal additions. I think you would have enormous problems with me interpreting your posts, taking various changes to the design you release as partial graphics, and then trying to merge these in to your previous diagrams and represent that as your work. My intention was to do studies using Sinclair, Casimiro, other available works, and then your own 11' study when it was released. The release of the last study only took place when you challenged the validity of my statements, indicating that an alternative to your designs was plausible. If the external plans are faithful, why will they need modification to work with your deck plans? They need modification to indicate the different phases of construction (Pilot I/Pilot II/Production I/Production II-the dome refit). Perhaps that's what you meant. Not really. To quote Stephen E. Whitfield: "In May, 1967, Matt Jefferies sent me a copy of The STAR TREK Guide, a set of guidelines laid out by series creator Gene Roddenberry for use by the show's many writers and directors. At that point I considered myself quite familiar with the show, partly because of the work I been doing for AMT and partly because I had seen virtually every episode that had been on the air. My first reading of The STAR TREK Guide opened up a whole new world to me. Here was an immense wealth of background data totally new to me and equally fascinating. My immediate reaction to that first reading was, 'What a nifty basis for a STAR TREK book!' Several days later I was in Gene Roddenberry's office, explaining the book idea to him. Gene was immmediately excited by the project. He not only gave it his blessing, but gave me carte blanche access to the studio in order to assist my research for the book"." (TMoST p. 11-12) [capitalization in original] So TMoST is based on the writer's guide plus full access to the production and its staff. This is why I do not selectively read TMoST, this is why I don't simply accept the parts that agree with a particular theory I might have and ignore or dismiss the parts that do not. Dismissing TMoST, by dismissing aspects that are contradictory, is a perilous and unwise endeavor IMHO. While Jefferies' concepts, from whatever era, for the model are of great historical interest, the primary object of study is the 11' model itself. I have no interest in retconning the model to match either plans or theories. Correcting its known flaws (asymmetry, any warping, etc) is more than enough. Using the "hero" starboard side (as opposed to the neglected port) is probably the best way to do that in many instances. I view it this way: He has concepts before the 11' model was built, he has concepts after (including during the production), but in the final analysis the 11' model trumps any differences with it. During "The Cage" the ship was much smaller than it was later, at one point as small as 200 feet (TMoST, p. 89, 134). This changed for the second pilot, where the length was set by Jefferies as 947 feet. (TMoST, p. 134) Since we know that other sizes were bandied about during this period (1080 feet for example), presumably these changes would have had some impact on the internal design. Other than this statement being contrary to the facts, and dismissing the aspects of the Writer's Guide as "hastily put together" (but not specially manufactured???) that disagree with your own theories, what is the point of this statement. From my perspective I honestly don't see that I have mis-characterized anything, you perhaps you didn't read what I said carefully. I was discussing the internal design of the ship, comparing your approach (which uses Phase II and the pressure diagram as its primary sources). You seemed to take what I said as an accusation that you had never looked at the 11' model. That's not the case. I presented an alternative, and briefly explained why it differed from your own ideas, that is neither a misrepresentation nor inappropriate. Respectfully, your own views should be able to be compared with those of other's without you seeing that as mere incompetence or something underhanded. My intention was to do Sinclair studies, than Casimiro, and eventually your own (when they are finalized). And anything else that seems appropriate. Your assumption that the conclusions solely rests upon AS is a bit unfounded. It would be equally fair to point out that your own claims don't seem fully substantiated and then ignore the fact that you aren't done with your research. If you're not worried, there shouldn't be much need for complaint. Here's how this came about. I started a deck study to work from the externals of the ship to the internals (removing and moving as many decks as necessary to align with the window placement). I expected that this would match your own results or be very close. This did not happen. I then checked your own preliminary internal layout and that of MJ 1967. Neither "worked". My intention was to repeat this with Casimiro, but I was in no hurry because your work was preliminary and I intended to "sit on" this information waiting for your final release so I could check that. In the mean time people are interested in drawing out deck plans NOW. So I just let them know that there might be a viable alternative. If you are wrong in your claims there still is a viable alternative, and in any case people should be allowed to make their own minds up. The 24-deck study stands on its own, your work was referenced as an alternative. When called, I showed my hand, none of this is reason for offense. I did not categorically state that your work was wrong, just that it wasn't compatible to the design it was being compared to. Presumably then, for the production model, MJ was doing this himself rather than having an outside company do the work, or is this incorrect? I'm interested in the evolution of the model's windows and lighting but it has no bearing on the discussion at hand, I wasn't comparing all the versions of the model, just a particular reconstruction of a particular version. Ultimately, the production version of the model is the most reasonable candidate for resolving any contradictions (should they exist) with the pilot versions. Its unlikely that decks would be added or moved (unless the secondary hull was replaced, which is a possibility), so if we "pretend" its a real ship I would prefer minor retcons to the pilot versions than retconning the production version to match the pilots. But this is irrelevant to historical studies of the model, and only matters from the "fictional" interpretation that this was a real ship. Noted and logged. As mentioned, there's a lot of that going around. I'm aware there were multiple adjustments to the model. In terms of "environment" there was lighting, film stock, and processing. In turn, you seem to want to criticize specific studies for things that are beyond their scope. That's why the word "preliminary" is used in referring to these interior layouts. So, no, I do understand, and have made that point clear to my readers. My point should have been equally clear to you. Well, I'm not the one that stopped you from sharing more recent work. And I understand your time constraints, and am waiting patiently for the final product. But in turn you have to understand that you have put your work out there, and represent it as correct, and are seemingly currently representing it as the only correct public reconstruction despite the fact that its unfinished. Do you honestly think we don't have any right to discuss it? Or criticize it? Even if incorrectly due to a lack of information? You can't have it both ways, you can't expect to be able to criticize other reconstruction efforts and then expect your own work to be immune from analysis and criticism. You can't critique other people's work with your partial results and then be irate when people talk about it. Continued on next page due to posting limits