Is the Enterprise symmetrical?

I’m spinning this off someone else’s thread so as not to derail it too far.

But if one were to attempt drawing out the layout of the TOS E there is the issue of symmetry to address.

Strictly speaking, at least internally the Enterprise is not symmetrical, and this is because of the bridge. Whether it is oriented facing directly forward or it is offset some degrees to the port side the inevitable result is the interior is not symmetrical.

But I’m thinking more of the ship’s exterior.

It’s evident they thought the ship was meant to be largely symmetrical given they once thought of using reverse decals to show the port side of the ship. However, we all know the 11 footer shows very little of the port side and what is visible is not symmetrical with the starboard side. There are fewer windows visible on the port side of the saucer as seen on the rim, the A/B deck superstructure and the underside of the saucer.

So which is it?

 

MJ's TMOST drawing also shows a lack of symmetry in the saucer windows. IMO, such variations add to the verisimilitude of the design because one side of the ship isn't just a mirrored version of the other.

Also, symmetry can be viewed in different lights. On one ship I served on, all three electric generators were on the starboard side of the Main Space and in the corresponding location on the port side, you found the two refrigeration plants and the boiler condensers. Not symmetrical in equipment but roughly symmetrical in mass.
And I would use that approach if it were me.

 

I’ve never accepted the internal arrangement of the ship to be perfectly symmetrical. The bridge is but one example. The shuttlecraft is not perfectly symmetrical both inside and out. The shuttlecraft flight deck is also not perfectly symmetrical in detail

Interestingly Franz Joseph drew his ship’s exterior as perfectly symmetrical. And you can build the Polar Lights’ model as perfectly symmetrical.

 

It's asymmetric in most senses. For example it's neither rotationally nor translationally symmetric. Perhaps it might be reflection symmetric along its main axis, but probably only approximately, not perfectly.

 

I can't think of a single military ship in todays world that is symmetric so I would say no to the starship question because it really makes no sense; practically. On the 11 foot miniature the windows are not symmetric around the rim of the saucer.

 

All I can say for sure is the 11 foot model isn't symmetrical. Not only the lack of detail portside, but as I understand it, the saucer isn't perfectly round due to it simply being difficult to make it so in 1964.

 

The saucer windows as aired give it a built-in asymmetry, especially on the rims and underside. We also see the port side close enough to compare to the starboard side to see differences in the window layout so it makes sense that internally the Enterprise has asymmetry.

 

The idealized intention of the 11-footer was to be close enough to symmetrical, so they could flip the negative and show it going the other way. And that is probably why the bridge elevator housing had to be aft on the center line, defying the interior.

 

Well we know the 11 footer filming miniature was not symmetrical and had its flaws that would largely go unnoticed on a smallish CRT screen. But we are discussing the assumed “real” ship.

 

I thought the ships exterior is reflection symmetric. Internals are a different matter, starting with the Bridge.

 

We are talking about the ship’s exterior. And, yes, overall the ship is bilaterally symmetrical along its longitudinal axis. However, in detail, such as window placement and perhaps some other small details, is the question at hand.

Internally it’s safe to assume the ship is not at all symmetrical.

 

So long as the ships is -mass- symmetric, it really doesn't matter if little details inside and out are not perfectly symmetric.

Mass symmetry would not be that important either, if the ships propulsion system was purely gravitic in nature. Any such drive would be able to compensate for a lack of symmetry in the hull form and mass distribution quite easily.

 

Windows are tricky things to use for symmetry due to item 3, below:
1. Lighted Windows = Open Window Hatch with lighted area behind it.
2. Blackened Windows = Open Window Hatch with unlighted/dark area behind it.
3. Closed Windows = Closed Window Hatch (as used in The Mark Of Gideon and possibly an opened version in The Conscience of the King.) These appear nearly flush with the hull and are not seen on-screen from the outside until opened, so, the ship could have many more unseen windows.
I also believe that some of the small, round port holes are for optical/sensor equipment since the hull is mostly devoid of external equipment/greebles and most maintenance if done from the inside...YMMV .

As said above, none of "hatches" mixed among the rows of windows on the bottom of the saucer are symmetric.

 

I'm aware, hence the opening qualification.

 

The 11 foot model was only partially finished on one side as a cost savings measure. That side was never intended to be filmed.

 

Wasn't the ~33 inch model pretty much symmetrical? This might give us some clue as to the designer's intent for the 11 footer and/or the "real" Enterprise.

 

It's not symmetrical top-to-bottom or front-to-back, but that's because only the primary hull is a saucer.

 

Yes. I think the intent was for the ship to be largely if not wholly symmetrical. To that end I think the fewer windows visible on the port side can be mostly attributed to it simply not getting the same attention as the starboard side since it was not meant to be seen except though photographic sleight-of-hand.

 

You can peruse through Tallguy's Original Series FX Catalog and see all the iterations of the port side that was shown as a starting point. As Henoch points out, there could be portholes also in the closed position as well that you'd never know about so you have lots of leeway in deciding where the windows are (for both sides).

 

I always thought these were the darkened windows.