RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,675
Posts: 5,212,687
Members: 24,202
Currently online: 590
Newest member: wendelcarree


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 18 2008, 05:03 PM   #91
therealfoxbat
Commander
 
therealfoxbat's Avatar
 
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

middyseafort said:
therealfoxbat said:
middyseafort said:
Just as long as the airlocks are at the head of the ship!
No way! You do NOT want the airlocks at the head of the ship! That falls squarely in the realm of (bleep)-ing into the wind...

(And just imagine the poor red-shirted guy whose job it is to go outside in a spacesuit and scrape all the airlock residue off the hull...)
Well, having it at the head of the ship would follow the Naval tradition.
Don't worry. I'm well aware of the Naval tradition. I was just offering a little "toilet humor" about the situation...

(Sorry about that... I just can't resist a good opportunity for a bad pun...)
__________________
TASTE MY SQUIRRELLY WRATH!!!

I really DO have a squirrelly wrath, you know...
therealfoxbat is offline  
Old February 18 2008, 07:37 PM   #92
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

ancient said:
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:
Yep, that's what I was thinking.

That's a total of 218 inches. Now, assume a mere 8' ceiling in each section on those two decks. That's 26" left over. Assume that the floor between deck 6 and 7 isn't filled with hardware (like many others probably are) and is in fact a "thin" floor section... oh, I dunno, let's say 6". That allows for a 10" hull thickness top and bottom.

Which is what I was thinking of.

NOW... it's also worth noting that the depth of the "undercut" is never really completely visible on-screen. Yes, from studies of the Smithsonian model, we know how deep it seems to be (but then again, did anyone actually take a caliper and MEASURE that or is it all just "eyeballed?"). But if you really want a few more inches there, I think that you can justify it without much of a problem.

I went looking through my bookshelf, trying to find where I'd seen the deck layout showing this. I couldn't find it in the short time I had at lunch, but I did find this... the first time I ever saw this particular concept. This is from the original (ring-bound, not square-bound) version of the "Enterprise Officer's Manual." I don't think it made it into the square-bound version (which is a significantly different book in many, many ways).

I never cared for the idea of making the lower dome an "extending pedestal" but I did like the idea that the triangles, and PART of the dorsal, would serve as landing legs. I don't see a whole lot of reason for having the A/B/C deck structure entirely separable as shown here, either (though it COULD easily justify how what we see on the ship in the St-11 trailer looks different, up there, than what we see in the series, couldn't it?).

But this is where I first saw the idea of the "undercut not being as much of an undercut, and being more of a "ring of hardware on the outside underside of the primary hull" idea.

(click the link to see it full-size)


Also, this is where I came up with the idea I've always had, that the little "nipple" on the lower dome was the Ion Pod.
Cary L. Brown is offline  
Old February 18 2008, 09:27 PM   #93
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

The last time I had a copy of the Officers Manual was around 1980 or so, and back then the ion pod idea seemed like a good one to me too. But since then I've gotten to see a ton of artwork from the series itself and now I sort of wonder if it wasn't originally meant to be a phaser emitter.

Shaw is offline  
Old February 19 2008, 01:54 AM   #94
Arlo
Fleet Captain
 
Arlo's Avatar
 
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

No handy link, but wouldn't those Sinclair drawings be rather accurate as to the depth of the undercut?
__________________
"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 19 2008, 03:13 AM   #95
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

Arlo said:
No handy link, but wouldn't those Sinclair drawings be rather accurate as to the depth of the undercut?
From what I can tell they are 20% shallower then what I got from initial raw image studies of the 11 foot model.

But because the surface is not regular, a definitive measurement would be impossible. I measured the depth along the line dividing the front and back halves of the primary hull... but if Sinclair got his measurements based on the intersection of the dorsal and primary hull (which I haven't measured yet), then we could easily both be right.
Shaw is offline  
Old February 19 2008, 06:59 PM   #96
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

I'm beginning to see how injured atheletes feel, having to sit on the sidelines while the game is still in progress...

Captain Robert April is offline  
Old February 19 2008, 08:16 PM   #97
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

Shaw, you realize, of course, that those drawings of the phasers in the picture you posted (from the technical display in 'The Trouble With Tribbles') are real technical specifications, most likely from a boiler of some sort, and were never ment to be scrutinised in any creat detail? However, I agree, the nipple in the sensor dome was most likely originally intended to be a phaser emitter(proximity blast?) or a torpedo bank?
TIN_MAN is offline  
Old February 19 2008, 09:37 PM   #98
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

You wouldn't be referring to this seldom seen detail, would you?

Captain Robert April is offline  
Old February 19 2008, 09:52 PM   #99
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

Captain Robert April said:
I'm beginning to see how injured atheletes feel, having to sit on the sidelines while the game is still in progress...


I can sympathize, Capt. A, I really can. I've never been evicted or lost my property, but I've had a few rough times too. Then again, if you play your cards right, you can make it all work out for ya in the end.

A great example was my last job. I came here for the job... and tried really hard to deal with a really bad managerial situation for two years. The guy in charge of the team was, simply put, a really really BAD leader. There was incompetence, and there was mismangement (you know, folks who play golf with the boss don't have to perform, guys who don't end up having to cover for the boss's buds). And there was dishonesty towards customers (ie, I calculated the weight of a system we were proposing and, in order to win the contract, they altered the REAL numbers downwards by about 30% in order to win it, saying we'd just "creep" it back up later.

I got really tired of it over time... though I was never really happy. Eventually, I realized that I was never going to make things better, so in the beginning of December I started looking for something else (not wanting to move, just wanting to get away from that particular intolerable situation).

My boss became aware of my desires, and as a result (ILLEGALLY, mind you) he terminated my position, right before Christmas. I was tempted to go get a lawyer... for a couple of days. But in the end, I decided to treat it as an opportunity.

Bottom line is that, as a result of my ability to devote myself almost exclusively to the "hunt," to creating a good portfolio, and to be available to travel, I got a new job offer last week, and will be relocating to Cary North Carolina (the city they'll always spell my name correctly... just outside Raleigh) for a new job in a better organization, with a better working situation, and nearly 60% more pay than before (without much of a cost-of-living change).

And there were other things that happened around the same time that also sucked (some of you may recall one or two of those!). It would have been really easy to "give up" and get depressed.

My point... I could have gotten really made, sulked, and let this drag me down. But I treated it as an OPPORTUNITY, and made use of that opportunity, and as a result I'm far better off than I was before.

(I also have an old girlfriend... "The one who got away" years ago who I SHOULD have married... who lives near there. So... we'll see!)

Cheer up, and treat it as an opportunity. It's 99% about how you THINK about your situation. That'll establish how to DEAL with it, and how other people see you... and if those are both positives, you'll be back on top of things before ya know it!
Cary L. Brown is offline  
Old February 20 2008, 02:34 AM   #100
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

CRA, yes that's the nipple thing I was refering to in the second part of my response to Shaw's post above, it was thought to be the ion pod, once upon a time.
TIN_MAN is offline  
Old February 20 2008, 03:22 AM   #101
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

I rather like the idea of that being the ion pod, still. I mean, the rest of that dome is accepted as being sensor-oriented, right?

Now, I noticed in the TOS-R version of "Court Martial" that they showed a missing element that they assumed was the ion pod. It was one of the protruding lamps on the side of the secondary hull, adjacent to the hangar deck. The only thing that bothers me about that was that there are TWO of those "bumps" (one on each side... shown when they "flipped" the ship shots on a few occasions... even if it wasn't on the physical model!). Apart from the "duplication" minor snafu, though, it does work pretty well... if you assume that this is what I've recently started thinking of this as.

Why would you need to eject the ion pod? Other than for script reasons, there's no logical justification if it's mounted into the hull like that. Is there?

But suppose that the pod is actually deployed... and is operating outside of the deflector shield boundary. Maybe it's on a telescoping "stalk" or maybe it's on a tether, being dragged behind the ship... but in both cases it's operating outside of the protective shield boundary and requires a "window" in the shields for that reason. My point... they can't completely protect the ship with it deployed. So it comes down to "dump the deployed pod" or "allow the radiation to flood through the window in the shields and damage the ship (presumably the radiation from an ion storm is relatively harmless to tissue, or else you wouldn't put a person out there in it!)

From that standpoint, the "dome nipple" doesn't make sense as the ion pod. Ideally, the pod would trail from the aft end of the secondary hull. But I can live with it deploying from the side... provided that there's a "crane" element that deploys along with it that trails a line to which the pod is attached.

Thoughts? Comments?
Cary L. Brown is offline  
Old February 20 2008, 04:11 AM   #102
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

I labeled it a targeting sensor for the entire weapons array.
aridas sofia is offline  
Old February 21 2008, 07:45 AM   #103
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

That bit on the aft end of the secondary hull might be the ion pod (it was certainly the mindset of the ST-R team)....OR, that might be just some of the damage the ship suffered during the ion storm.

They did get beat up in that storm, why not a blown out light?
Captain Robert April is offline  
Old February 21 2008, 08:34 AM   #104
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

I labeled that bit on the side of the hangar -- assuming it would be present P/S on the "real" ship -- an aft phaser. I think the ion pod would be a smallish, one-man pod anchored via tractor beam from that hatch on the underside fantail cutout. After all, Finney was hiding in engineering which, as many of you have educated me, is at least sometimes in the secondary hull.
aridas sofia is offline  
Old February 21 2008, 10:00 PM   #105
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

I also had it as an aft phaser, until it was pointed out that it clearly flashes in flyby shots.
Captain Robert April 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 01:14 PM.

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