RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,397
Posts: 5,358,753
Members: 24,627
Currently online: 511
Newest member: space2050


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Fandom > Fan Art

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old February 16 2008, 03:20 AM   #76
Arlo
Fleet Captain
 
Arlo's Avatar
 
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

Interesting, but cramming two decks where one is normally is would make for an *awfully* huge ship...

^Like a frisbee, sure I can see that. Of course since it was never designed to enter atmo...
__________________
"Even with all its blemishes, Trek XI still teabags the bloated corpses that were Insurrection and Nemesis and managed to make Trek fun again." - Sheep
Arlo is offline  
Old February 16 2008, 03:25 AM   #77
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

Arlo said:Interesting, but cramming two decks where one is normally is would make for an *awfully* huge ship...
Not so much as you're probably thinking.

If you accept that the 10' ceiling height seen on-set was an "exaggeration" and that the "real" height was more like 8.5', and you accept the 1080' overall length rather than the 947' one... there's sufficient room in the TOS enterprise saucer for two decks there, with the outer ring being the "extra hardware ring" I mentioned.

Now, for the TMP version... the undercut is much deeper and there's no way to have more than one deck in that area (unless you're a set designer who assumes that the audience won't bring their slide-rules to the movie!)
Cary L. Brown is offline  
Old February 16 2008, 04:53 AM   #78
Arlo
Fleet Captain
 
Arlo's Avatar
 
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

Slide rule? Next May I'm bring a laser pointer, sextant and night scope to the theater
__________________
"Even with all its blemishes, Trek XI still teabags the bloated corpses that were Insurrection and Nemesis and managed to make Trek fun again." - Sheep
Arlo is offline  
Old February 16 2008, 05:43 AM   #79
ancient
Vice Admiral
 
ancient's Avatar
 
Location: United States
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

I'm bringing my trekkie calculator, pre-set to round up to the nearest canon contradiction.
__________________
----------------------------
Time Travel was and will be confusing
ancient is offline  
Old February 16 2008, 07:55 AM   #80
USS Mariner
Rear Admiral
 
USS Mariner's Avatar
 
Location: Homestate of Matt Jefferies
View USS Mariner's Twitter Profile Send a message via AIM to USS Mariner Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to USS Mariner
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

ancient said:
I'm bringing my trekkie calculator, pre-set to round up to the nearest canon contradiction.


"Lame."
__________________
Ignorance is forgivable,
Arrogance is reprehensible,
Narcissism is intolerable.

Subspace Commns Network ~ Visit Marinina!
USS Mariner is offline  
Old February 16 2008, 09:47 PM   #81
MGagen
Captain
 
MGagen's Avatar
 
Location: Crucis Court, Trans-Coal Sack Sector
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

Cary L. Brown said:
Not so much as you're probably thinking.

If you accept that the 10' ceiling height seen on-set was an "exaggeration" and that the "real" height was more like 8.5', and you accept the 1080' overall length rather than the 947' one... there's sufficient room in the TOS enterprise saucer for two decks there, with the outer ring being the "extra hardware ring" I mentioned.
I must respectfully disagree. At the intended size of 947' the total room available, outer hull surface to outer hull surface, comes to only 11'-7".

Even enlarging the ship to 1080' only gets you up to 13'-2.5". And this is without accounting for hull thickness, which would necessarily reduce the available room.

Unless you enlarge the ship to a far more than reasonable size, you can't fit two uninterrupted decks between the upper edge of the rim and the undercut.

M.
MGagen is offline  
Old February 16 2008, 11:26 PM   #82
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

There may not be room for anyone to walk around at that level, but there's just oodles of room for piping, conduits, and other assorted technical miscellany.
Captain Robert April is offline  
Old February 17 2008, 01:03 AM   #83
ancient
Vice Admiral
 
ancient's Avatar
 
Location: United States
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

My 1080 ft ENT doesn't have two full deck heights in the undercut. One full-size, and one with a 6-ft cieling. That's not enough to call it a full deck, but enough to make some storage space and so forth.
__________________
----------------------------
Time Travel was and will be confusing
ancient is offline  
Old February 17 2008, 07:03 AM   #84
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

ancient said:My 1080 ft ENT doesn't have two full deck heights in the undercut. One full-size, and one with a 6-ft cieling. That's not enough to call it a full deck, but enough to make some storage space and so forth.
How tall is the ceiling in your "full height" section, if you don't mind my asking?
Cary L. Brown is offline  
Old February 17 2008, 08:56 AM   #85
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

I found it interesting that people find it hard to believe that the Enterprise could have 430 crew with Jefferies' given dimensions. So I decided to compare the habitable areas of an Ohio class submarine with those of the Enterprise. The Ohio class has a crew of 155 living and working in about 54,000 square feet. The approximate area of deck 5 alone on the layout I'm working on is about 134,614 square feet (more than twice that of the Ohio class), and that doesn't take into account any of the other decks of the primary or secondary hulls.

So by US Navy standards the starship Enterprise is practically a luxury ship.
Shaw is offline  
Old February 17 2008, 04:20 PM   #86
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

The description of ship's accommodations on page 174 of TMoST makes it clear that Enterprise's accommodations are luxurious by Navy standards. Compare the following to the accommodations on the Ohio class sub you mentioned above.

Decks 4, 5, and 6 are primarily crew's quarters, with some provision for passenger's quarters. There are no duty stations on these decks, since the ship is big enough not to need action stations on the decks containing the crew quarters... Senior officers are assigned quarters on an individual basis, and are not normally required to share their quarters. Their accommodations consist of a two-room complex, evenly divided between an outer work room and inner bedroom/living area.

Junior officers are assigned similar accommodations, but usually are required to share them with one other fellow officer. The bedroom/living area therefore is correspondingly larger, while the work area is somewhat smaller.
This also tells us that "hot bunking" was not envisioned, because the sleep areas were conceived as needing extra space for... an extra bed. Also, it is arguable that the "outer work room" was not envisioned as a primary work station, but rather as an off-duty workplace, because of the way the habitation decks are described as lacking duty stations.

Compare this description with the Ohio-class berthing for enlisted crew:

http://home.comcast.net/~aridas/Trek/0873517.jpg
aridas sofia is offline  
Old February 17 2008, 04:26 PM   #87
Arlo
Fleet Captain
 
Arlo's Avatar
 
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

If that's luxurious, I wonder what they would have thought of the 1701-D...
__________________
"Even with all its blemishes, Trek XI still teabags the bloated corpses that were Insurrection and Nemesis and managed to make Trek fun again." - Sheep
Arlo is offline  
Old February 17 2008, 05:10 PM   #88
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

aridas sofia said:This also tells us that "hot bunking" was not envisioned, because the sleep areas were conceived as needing extra space for... an extra bed. Also, it is arguable that the "outer work room" was not envisioned as a primary work station, but rather as an off-duty workplace, because of the way the habitation decks are described as lacking duty stations.
The only place I might differ from your interpretation there is the assumption that shared quarters will require more floor space to be used by the extra bed. I've always envisioned this as being a bunk setup... so the "floor space" used is no different.

This is actually very close to being what modern billetting for enlisted personnel on Army bases is like (not combat billeting, mind you, but home-base type), although these are typically four personnel per room... two bunks. The portion of the room furthest away from the entrance is where the bunks are (typically next to the windows, though... go figure!). There's a "common area" near the entrance, where there's a table, a couch... typically someone has a TV and/or stereo... etc, etc. It's not a "work area" per-se, because it serves the purpose of "play" every bit as much as work. But you'll always find the troops polishing their boots or cleaning their field gear in this area as well, so it's "work" too.

That's kind of the IDEA behind the TOS billetting structure as I've always seen it.

Of course, one thing Roddenberry was adamant about was that there were ONLY "officers" on the Enterprise. This demonstrates the fairly isolated experience he had serving in the Air Force. Since officers are, by definition, "order givers" ... this makes no sense. This is something that was abandoned after Roddenberry "stepped aside" after the first year-and-a-half of TNG, too. SO... I ignore this dictate and assume that there are probably enlisted men onboard. ESPECIALLY since episodes of TOS clearly showed them to us (for an example, see "The Man Trap" and the fellow Swahili-speaking image Uhura saw in the hallway... "Crewman" is the Trek equivalent to the modern U.S. Navy's "seaman" or the modern Air Force's "airman"... which are also terms used exclusively for enlisted personnel.)

SO... if I were coming up with billetting for the 1701, I'd have senior officers having private quarters, senior enlisted (the equivalent of Sergeant Major ranks or whatever) having similar private quarters, junior officers having two-up bunked quarters, and junior enlisted having four-up bunked quarters. This would not be contradictory with anything we ever actually saw on-screen, and would make more sense in terms of "useful space" allotment while still leaving the crew to have a reasonably comfortable living situation.

One thing that bugged me... a LOT... about the TNG-and-later billetting structure was the idea that after work, most people were essentially encouraged to just go back to their quarters and be alone, rather than them having an incentive, for instance, to eat in a more communal setting (something that Voyager "cheated" to overcome and Enterprise dealt with in what was actually a reasonably acceptable fashion). There's a good reason for "messhall" dining... it's all about team-building and socialization.
Cary L. Brown is offline  
Old February 17 2008, 05:54 PM   #89
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

Cary, as I've noted before in discussions about the idea of enlisted men being absent in TOS, I'm fairly certain that Roddenberry was basing his view as much on his experience in the police department, as in the Army Air Corps or on contemporary NASA arrangements. In a police department -- a paramilitary organization charged with law enforcement, which is definitely one of the main duties GR assigned his Starfleet -- the patrolman rank is part of a continuous, undifferentiated scheme. All are "officers" in the sense that they have all received the same "commission" -- having been deputized with appropriate jurisdictional authority.

I believe his time in the LAPD is more informative of this decision, but the ongoing question of whether such a scheme is appropriate to running an isolated ship in a technologically advanced future remains. I think that if you see the base "rank" of "crewman" as an entry rank for academy graduates that must pass through service in the various ship's departments before either specializing in one of them and becoming a "crewman specialist" or advancing to broader leadership education as an ensign, then you have a rough analog to the "patrolman" idea.
aridas sofia is offline  
Old February 17 2008, 07:45 PM   #90
ancient
Vice Admiral
 
ancient's Avatar
 
Location: United States
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

Cary L. Brown said:
ancient said:My 1080 ft ENT doesn't have two full deck heights in the undercut. One full-size, and one with a 6-ft cieling. That's not enough to call it a full deck, but enough to make some storage space and so forth.
How tall is the ceiling in your "full height" section, if you don't mind my asking?
Upper hull: ~1 ft

Deck 6 height: 9 ft

Deck 6 floor thickness: 10 inch

Deck 7 @ undercut: 6ft 4 inch

Bottom hull thickness: ~1 ft

So what you said is actually pretty plausable, now that I look at it. :thumbsup:
__________________
----------------------------
Time Travel was and will be confusing
ancient is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:31 PM.

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