Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

[Shaw]

Bernard Guignard wrote:

---

Shaw
Buy the time you are fininshed you will have a Manual that will Eclipse the Haynes manual keep up the great work

Thanks!

I keep wondering what I'd be able to accomplish if I could devote some real time to this.

USS Mariner wrote:

---

I'm surprised no one noticed this before.

I know that MGagen had sketched out the arrangement according to the dimensions and had considered that maybe he had one of the dimensions wrong.

The first time I noted that a switch of the nacelles would give you a placement similar to the actual models was when I arranged the fore/aft views side ways on my Jefferies' plans.

[Captain Robert April]

Fascinating...

[USS Jack Riley]

One question about the 33" model that might shed some light on the 947' v. 938'. Did Jeffries build it himself or did one of the series' model makers build it? the reason I ask is that the studio may have just said to one of the builders, "Build a 33" model of this ship," which the model maker did without much knowledge of the actual final size of the ship. Jeffries, on the other hand, might have been a little more accurate in his scaling since he knew the exact length.

Just some food for thought or garbage for the trash can. YMMV.

BTW - Shaw, great work on this as usual. I can really appreciate your love for this project given the amount of research you put into it. Look at the page count for crying out loud - 77?! Shows you are getting some good response (if not always in agreement) and that you are serious about getting this done. Keep it up!

[USS Mariner]

USS Jack Riley wrote:

---

Look at the page count for crying out loud - 77?! Shows you are getting some good response (if not always in agreement) and that you are serious about getting this done. Keep it up!

Actually, on the highest post/page settings, it's only at 29 pages.

[Shaw]

USS Jack Riley wrote:

---

One question about the 33" model that might shed some light on the 947' v. 938'. Did Jeffries build it himself or did one of the series' model makers build it? the reason I ask is that the studio may have just said to one of the builders, "Build a 33" model of this ship," which the model maker did without much knowledge of the actual final size of the ship. Jeffries, on the other hand, might have been a little more accurate in his scaling since he knew the exact length.

Just some food for thought or garbage for the trash can. YMMV.

Well, the history of the two models is that Jefferies' only model building was done in August of 1964 when he built a mock-up of the final configuration of the Enterprise (most likely to push that design over some of the other ones on the table that Roddenberry was considering). Jefferies had done nice color renderings of all the designs for Roddenberry, but the design they eventually went with was the only one Jefferies took the additional step of building a mock-up of for that meeting. From what I can tell, the mock-up was most likely about the same size as the PL 1/1000 TOS Enterprise model kits you can get in stores today (about 10 or 11 inches long).

If it sounds a little extreme to have spent the rest of August, all of September and all of October on designing a spaceship for a TV pilot, you wouldn't be the only one. My guess is that Roddenberry was really getting into the fleshing out of the spaceship and Jefferies was happy to oblige. But towards the end of October it seems that the studio executives started worrying about the amount of time and effort being spent on the ship, and started pushing for the model building to get started.

On November 4th Richard Datin was contracted to build the nearly three foot long study model, which he got started on immediately. This is an important date to note because the date on the final plans for the models is November 7th. Datin was shown (and given) a set of earlier plans when hired to build the model. These earlier plans had an earlier design at a different scale, but notes were written on them for Datin like "DO NOT BUILD THIS PYLON" and "DO NOT BUILD THIS NOSE". Datin wasn't equipped to build shapes that size, so he in turn hired out the turning of some of the major components to a woodsmith (who's name Datin has since forgotten).

One of the major difference between the earlier drawings that Datin was given and the final plans for the models was that the earlier drawings had size callouts on them (which denoted the scale of those earlier drawings)... and the final drawings had none of that. The only notation on those was FULL SIZE & 3" = 1'-0" TO LARGE MINIATURE. But those plans were followed very closely, and other than the shape of the primary hull on the 33 inch model and the final positioning of the nacelles, the plans on the page became the models we saw.

The full version of Jefferies' original plans have not been released, but a lot of data on them has been... including a ton of measurements of the elements on the page. It was based on those data points I was able to gather that I was able to reverse engineer an approximation of Jefferies' plans.

Click to download (PDF, 1.4 MB)
Alternate site (with JPEG versions)

When all the data and elements are drafted out on the page, what I got was something that looked remarkably like the Enterprise we all know and love. With one notable exception... the placement of the nacelles on their supports. From the top and side views it isn't quite so noticeable, but the front view shows just how odd the placement is compared to the way the models were eventually made.

But all of the callouts on the first sheet are strictly the measurements taken from the original plans as given to me. On the second sheet I included elements drawn by Jefferies himself from the original plans that have been made public.

So other than swapping the nacelles, I don't believe that Datin took too many liberties with the building of the models. The 33 inch model (from my studies) is 33.67 inches long, where as the plans called for a 33.75 inch long model. The 11 foot model is 134 inches in length, the original plans scaled up by a factor of four would have been 135 inches. Based on that I believe that Datin, Mel Keys, Vern Sion and Volmer Jensen were following the plans as closely as they could (given the time pressure they were under).

BTW - Shaw, great work on this as usual. I can really appreciate your love for this project given the amount of research you put into it. Look at the page count for crying out loud - 77?! Shows you are getting some good response (if not always in agreement) and that you are serious about getting this done. Keep it up!

Thanks!

I love doing this type of research and enjoy sharing whatever I can put together (obviously as time permits)... but I'm quite surprised that this thread didn't die off rather quickly back in 2008. I personally think it shows just how much interest remains in the original Enterprise (specially when one considers that there have been a number of very interesting and on going threads on this subject).

She is a popular girl.

[Shaw]

Sorry to bring this thread up with nothing new to post to it... it is more about some of the early posts than anything else.

I had been considering house cleaning on my site for quite some time, but it was always pretty far down my to do list. I had planned on watching my server activity over the next few months and then re-evaluating my situation (both server resources and financial situation), but while being called out by Gagarin, I started taking a closer look at this situation.

I will most likely delete images from my server from 2008 and before. Normally it wouldn't make much difference as many of the threads that I had posted images in are long since lost... but it will effect this thread. I'm considering removing most of the 2009 images as well, but that I'll consider after I see if removing the other images has an effect.

As for the future of this thread, Gagarin was kind enough to provide me with some sound advice...

Gagarin wrote:

---

... Enjoy it? Do it. Don't enjoy it? Then don't.

And then he punctuated that advice with a number of posts that I think can fairly be classified as unenjoyable.

In retrospect, I haven't posted much of what I've done in the last year or so because it hasn't been enjoyable... and have even avoided participating in many threads because I could foresee the experience being more trouble than it would be worth.

Gagarin is absolutely right, I may as well state what should have been obvious from the lack of activity in this thread... I've stopped enjoying this and I've stopped sharing.

He also provided some other sound advice...

I'm sure all the agonizing and hand wringing about what's true or not and what's trusted or not would be aided by putting up what you've uncovered in a non-interactive way. People can take it or leave it. Or you can be cryptic and give things piece meal from what you've learned, whenever you feel like you can come down off the mountain. Make a simple webpage and people can take it for what it's worth.

I'll most likely just collect together everything and publish it all at one time, much like how some of my work is shared on the Star Trek LCARS Blueprints Database now.

I owe Gagarin for helping me with this... without his input, I most likely would have remained undecided on a course of action.

Thanks Gagarin!


So to recap... stuff from 2008 will most likely be gone by the end of the week, some (or all) stuff from 2009 within a month or so.

[Captain Robert April]

If bandwidth is the issue, then the Blueprint Database is undoubtedly the way to go.

[Psion]

Shaw, Psidonia has been running constantly since the late 90s. If you'd like, I'd be happy to host your stuff in a directory on my server. Alternatively, you can put stuff up on a Google directory under Google Sites and link to everything there -- I did that a lot recently until I significantly upped my bandwidth at home.

I'm sorry to hear you've soured on things; your threads were always an interesting exploration into the why things are the way they are, rather than just blind acceptance. Smart and creative are too rare a combination and your threads are always mixed with excessive quantities of both.

Be happy!

[Shaw]

Actually, I'm not unhappy with my host... it is just that my income isn't constant so some months I don't notice (or care) while others it seems like a luxury I could do without.

As for hosting the images else where... I considered it, but I've noticed that most of the images are sketches that were intended for the post they were in and I've seen them taken out of context when viewed on their own. Plus I wouldn't be able to re-link them into those older posts (at least I don't believe so).

[Vance]

Shaw wrote:

---

As for hosting the images else where... I considered it, but I've noticed that most of the images are sketches that were intended for the post they were in and I've seen them taken out of context when viewed on their own. Plus I wouldn't be able to re-link them into those older posts (at least I don't believe so).

Let me check my usage, Shaw, and see if we can't work something out. This sort of thing is what Jaynz is about, after all...

[Shaw]

Well, I just checked... I can't edit the inline images on any of my early posts. So unless I'm hosting them, they will disappear from those posts.

Keep in mind, I was willing to put this off for a couple months... in which time I hope to have gotten paid for a book I'm working on, so this wouldn't have been an issue. I was avoiding looking at this stuff right now because (frankly) I didn't want to know right now.

But, as I said, Gagarin made me take a closer look (with my wife looking over my shoulder).

The images have always been free to everyone... they are under a share-and-share-alike license... so anyone is free to host them else where. But I've gotta make rent, pay bills... and every so often eat.

I'm just amazed that even if I ignore this thread for months at a time, people keep viewing it. That has never happened in any other thread I've posted in before (or since).

[Captain Robert April]

Folks wanna see how this ends.

The price you pay for being good, dude.

[Tallguy]

I know what it's like when stuff becomes un-fun. At the same time I should add "DON'T GO, SHAW!" I think publishing without (much) comment would be the way to go. I just want to see plans of the 11 footer in all her incarnations that are as good as your 3 footer plans. No big thing, right?

[Ptrope]

Shaw & Gagarin, your recent posts have been moderated from this thread - they veered too far off the topic and too far into personal areas and issues which are not allowed on the TrekBBS. No warnings issued, and the thread will remain open - please keep the discussions on topic and refrain from personal comments about other board members. - Ptrope

Carry on ...

[QuinnTV]

Psion wrote:

---

your threads were always an interesting exploration into the why things are the way they are, rather than just blind acceptance. Smart and creative are too rare a combination and your threads are always mixed with excessive quantities of both.

I'm quoting this because it really does sum up how I view your contributions. I am sorry to see you go in another direction. Hope you come back at some point. Always liked to see your work.