Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

Y'know, one thing that might prove useful is something I tried when I was compiling callouts on the eleven footer: Forget decimals, use good old fashioned fractions.

Remember, this was 1964. Half inch, quarter inch, eighth inch. When I started figuring the measurements in that format, so many things just fell into place.

 

You have a model of the three footer! Any good images? I had started my own CG model but without motion blur (to recreate the TOS title shots) I didn't take it very far.

And I'm putting some serious thought into doing the 18" model... even to the point of grabbing one off ebay to make measurements and collect curve info. While any of the early long box models would do for the shape itself, I'd love to get one with the original decal sheet intact.

I've been using rounded measurements (to a quarter of an inch in most cases) on the cross reference measurements (comparing two known dimensions within an image to make sure that my calculations on other unknown dimensions are being done accurately). The main reason for deferring to a decimal system (besides making the math easier) is that while the inner structure may have been in dimensions of up to an eighth of an inch, once the exterior surfaces started being applied those nice measurements would have been lost.

Honestly, I really wish I had some nice images of the model as originally completed. I'm getting the impression that the addition of lighting effected the model significantly. Between the cutting of holes for the window elements and the deformation of those same areas of the model from the heat of the lights (over 40 years), a lot of irregularities have popped up in these studies. Irregularities I'd be willing to bet weren't there when the model was first delivered for filming in The Cage.

 

Sorry, didn't mean to mislead. The three footer is on my "list". But I have to finish all my WIPs before I start on that bad boy. "Coming in 2009!" But when I do, I'll have awesome plans for it.

I wonder how "accurate" to the original kits the new Polar Lights release will be.

 

Reportedly, they've eliminated the deflector shield grid on the upper saucer. Beyond that, who knows...

 

Did it always have the grid? Did the Constellation?

 

The AMT model always had that grid, and I believe it's still visible on the Constellation model.

 

I got a little side tracked with work this week, so I'm running behind on finishing my studies of the 11 foot models curves... sorry about that.

These are the best images of the original Constellation model that I have... I'm not sure how visible the grid is, but I'd be willing to bet that it is still there.

 

You can just make out some of the grid in the highlights on the starboard side.

 

SHAW I am so amazed by the quality of your "sketches" and the reasoning behind them. Keep up the good work.

 

Shaw, where did you get this volume for Ohio? Since the submerged displacement is the weight of the volume of water taken up by the sub and a (metric) ton of water has a volume of 1 cubic meter, shouldn't the volume be about 18,750 cubic meters?

Also, the ratio of the submerged displacement and the unsubmerged displacement can give you the density of the ship.

 

Okay finally read through this thread. Here are some thoughts i didn't see covered.

Matt Jefferies' background was in aviation (as was GR's). He was a pilot in WW2 and had some post-war experience as well. Plus he owned his own plane.
Several design aesthetics show up from this experience.

The bridge, for example, is basically an expanded aircraft cockpit. The helm/navigation console is very similar to the pilot/co-pilot setup and nothing like you would have found on navy ships of the day. The separate stations around the edges are reminiscent of the radio operator/flight engineer/radar operator stations on large military aircraft of the day.

Early Enterprise drawings also suggest this background. The "nose cap" over the main dish for example. The fact that he labeled the nacelles "power units" early on suggests that he viewed the engines as the primary source of power on the ship (just like they were on the aircraft he was familiar with.) IOW instead of power flowing up the struts to run the engines, power flowed down the struts from the engines to run the ship. (Some dialog makes a lot more sense when viewed from this perspective.)

So SHAW when you are trying to understand MJ's design choices, I would suggest looking at 40s 50s and 60s aircraft design as well.

On a side note, I didn't see the armory on your list of rooms.

 

Thanks!

Actually, by the time that Star Trek was in development, the arrangement of helm stations on most submarines matched the configuration used in TOS (with the dive officer seated in about the same position as the captain's chair on the TOS bridge). And this arrangement has remained effectively unchanged to this day (with the best control room reference I could find appearing in this 2001 report, here). The other bridge stations don't look all that different from the sonar stations or fire control stations either.

This is not to say that aircraft cockpit design wasn't a factor, just that it wasn't the only factor.

I'm quite sure that you are right about much of his early design thoughts, but over the course of early production much of that gave way.

On the energy production/distribution, power for the ship seemed divided into three areas... main engines in engineering, impulse engines and the main energizers. Spock effectively took out the main engines using the phaser banks in "Paradise Syndrome", which left the Enterprise crippled for several months. That seemed (in that episode) to be the equipment behind the engine room.

Still, there is something to be said about having the power production aspects within the nacelles themselves. Which is why I've wanted to stay as ambiguous as possible on this issue. All arguments have valid points, and there just isn't enough definitive evidence to nail any of this stuff down... which in and of itself is one of the best aspects of the design (which helps keep it timeless).

But you are right, I should spend more time looking at aspects of WWII and Cold War era aircraft... and the thought had crossed my mind while watching Dr. Strangelove a few weeks ago.

Yep... I've got to add that one to the list. I'm currently thinking that the armory would be adjacent to the transporter section (which I'm considering putting on deck 7)... though a secondary arms locker near the hangar deck also seems in order.

That post was a very quick and dirty estimate that I did scratched out on a piece of paper (long since lost). But I'll do my best to reconstruct what I was thinking at the time.

The Ohio class submarine is in effect a long cylinder. By looking at it, I (for the purpose of that estimate) felt that where is was not cylinder like (where it tapers and the added volume of the sail) effectively canceled so that I could treat it as a cylinder of 7.5 meters in radius and 170 meters in length. That is where the 30,054 m^3 came from.

When considering displacement, one usually takes in to consideration that for most ships, a significant amount of the ship remains above water, but with a submerged submarine, this isn't an issue... though one has to take into account that a large amount of water needs to be added to the sub's volume to get it to submerge.

Should the mass of the sub be equal to the mass of the water that would have filled that same volume?

Both airships and submarines are based on the same principles of buoyancy equilibrium control. And that is a function of volume and density to change the apparent mass of the craft.

Again, it was quick and dirty, and was an example of my train of thought on this issue rather than rock solid data. I plan on getting much better numbers before attempting the calculations again, and even then I'll make sure to note that it is a guestimate rather than a hard figure. After all, there are going to be areas that I have no idea of what type of equipment might have been there while working on these plans.

But I will point out that I do believe that the Enterprise has a certain amount of symmetry in mass distribution along the axis of the impulse engines as illustrated in this image...

​

So I'll also be dividing up what ever overall mass I get for the ship such that the system of four components work nicely with the arrangement of the impulse engines. Which, in turn, might add weight to BK613's argument of the nacelles really being the bulk of the main engines.

But all that is a ways away from where I'm at now. I'm still (slowly, obviously) working towards finishing my exterior studies of the 11 foot model.

I've decided to first finish that project on it's own, independent of the interior, to round off my earlier work on the 33 inch model and the original Jefferies construction plans. I figure those three projects together make for one large nice historical look at the filming models of TOS (though I haven't ruled out adding in an additional study of the 1967 AMT kit as well as it also had screen time in TOS).

With that information documented, I'd feel much better about showing a slightly modified exterior to help make sure that interior and exterior elements line up a little better (for example, the exterior windows of the hangar deck gallery).

I would like to thank everyone for their continued interest and input on this.

 

Shaw - Again, great work on this and you are doing a fantastic job with it all.

I have something that I have been tossing around in my head that you might want to think about in working out your impulse engine thrust chart. Your mileage will vary based on how much real v. Star Trek science you plan to use. I will also try and explain this as best I can given my limited scientific vocabulary.

What if the glowing parts of the impulse engines is simply a "tailpipe" as Uhura put it in ST VI. IOW, the glowing parts are not representative of the impluse engine's thrust (or at least only contribute slightly to the thrust of the ship), but instead are just the ionized gases left over from producing the thrust.

If the impulse engines work in the manner that you are suggesting, then there is no way to go full reverse (at least none that I can see readily from the current design). In essence, you would have to order a 180 degree turn on the z axis (yaw in aeronautical parlance) and then hit full impulse in order to slow to a stop and then start increasing speed in the opposite direction.

We have never seen any evidence of this on screen. The closest thing I can remember seeing where the intent to show a slow down using impulse engines slowing the ship was in ST II when the Enterprise comes up on Space Station Regula 1 and slows to stay in close proximity to the station (there is a sound effect that makes it a definite slow down to stay next to the station - I know the problem here - there is no sound in space, I always use the sound as though I am hearing it on board the ship, rather than from outside where I would be breathing vacuum anyways and have more important things to worry about ).

Anyway, I would be interested in your take on this and how you plan to account for going full reverse on impulse engines without turning the ship around.

Looking great with the continued work and I can't wait to see more!

 

A submerged sub has neutral buoyancy (or at best slightly negative buoyancy), so that it's overall density is equal to that of water (ie, 1 tonne/m^3). Therefore, its volume should be its submerged displacement tonnage divided by the density of water. The difference between the surface displacement tonnage and the submerged displacement tonnage would be the weight of the water it takes in to its ballast tanks to achieve this neutral buoyancy.

Since we're worried about the density of the dry/unballasted/surfaced ship, just divide the surface displacement by its submerged displacement. This gives us a figure of 0.894. If you multiply that by Enterprise's volume of 211,248 m^3, you get 188,872.6, which is very close to the 190,000 figure.

 

You know, this would most likely be a great time to apply BK613's point of looking at how aircraft deal with this issue. If the impulse engines were a vectored thrust type of engine at their most basic level, then maybe they used a similar mechanism for reverse thrust the many modern jet aircraft use.

I'm not saying that we ever saw anything like this on the show (as an effect), but there isn't anything that would rule out something similar done either physically or with deflectors on the model (though I would lean toward a physical solution before an invisible one).

While I most likely won't take the workings too far, I'd have to say that I fall into the camp of those who feel that impulse may have had some FTL abilities (most likely in conjunction with deflector system).

Well... I was just trying to point out my train of thought back then. But it sure looks like your calculations are better than mine (and more along the lines of what Jefferies most likely used).

 

I guess I look at the impulse vents as simply that - vents. The "tailpipe" reference got me to thinking about the movement of a car. The exhaust from the tailpipe produces little (if any) thrust to actually move the car. It is the turning of the wheels that moves the car with the exhaust simply a result of the power production necessary to move the wheels.

Similarly, the impulse vents produce little (if any) thrust. It is the magical and, I am sure, properly scientifically labeled parts of the impulse engines that actually move the ship. The impulse vents simply, well, vent radiation, plasma, ionized gas that is a byproduct of the power necessary to make the impulse engines work.

Again, just a thought. Can't wait to see more on this. Your previous work has not disappointed, so I eagerly await future additions.

Incidentally, your statement about the FTL capabilities of the impulse drive could explain the statement in "The Cage" about how the time barrier had just been broken.

 

Well, I had been working towards getting together a final set of hull curves from the 11 foot model to share before starting in on the other details of the exterior, but after getting ambushed in another thread by someone who was harboring a significant amount of animosity towards me that seems to have been rooted in the sharing of my work here, I've decided that maybe sharing isn't generating the type of reactions I had thought it might.

There are a number of finalized steps along the way to finishing this project, and as I reach those I'll post links to the material here, but raw sketches of works in progress are going to be kept private from here on out. Given this latest experience, it seems like the best way to defuse the situation (though I have to admit, I'm still not entirely sure how it arose to begin with).

Anyways, for all of you who were offended by my sketches or my design processes, I'm sorry... my intension wasn't to make people angry or upset, just to share what I was in the process of working on so that if anyone saw something useful that they could use, they wouldn't have to wait for the final version.

 

My advise would be to ignore this moron and continue with this thread (it is yours after all) in any way you want.

 

Hey Shaw dont leave one comment from one individual spoil it for the rest of us. I'm enjoying your work greatly and look forward to what you have to show. I know that I don't say much but I really enjoy reading about the thought processes and supposition that your putting into it. Just my two cents. Keep up the great work