TOS Enterprise WIP

Discussion in 'Fan Art' started by blssdwlf, Apr 24, 2010.

  1. BK613

    BK613 Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Location:
    BK613
    ^^
    Not sure if the decreased variety of clothing as the series progressed was because of fewer uniform types or that we simple saw fewer background people in general.

    Wearing the proscribed uniform of the day even during off-duty times is standard operating procedure in modern navies, especially when at sea. There are a few exceptions (on my ship, Surf 'n' Turf Sundays) but mostly it is a combat readiness thing.
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2011
  2. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    ^^ Perhaps all of the above? The production especially in the last season seem to have saved in costs by not showing very many extras :( Fewer extras mean fewer chances to see radically groovy clothing as Cary mentions :)
     
  3. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    One more TOS-movie era volume comparison...

    Enterprise-refit ~238,000 m3
    Reliant ~ 254,000 m3

    Enterprise measured at 1000' x 465'. Reliant beam matched to 465' with a length of 791' (241m). As I suspected, that large back section gives her alot more volume to work with. Nacelles are rough placeholders, but mostly same for both Enterprise and Reliant (Reliant's nacelle lacks the bottom blister.)

    Now how those power transfer shafts go from the engineering section to the nacelles on the Reliant - that's would be a challenge to map out :)


    [​IMG]
     
  4. mattpiper

    mattpiper Ensign Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Location:
    Carrollton, TX
    I'd suspected for awhile that the Miranda class had more interior volume than a Constitution class. Now we know for certain.
     
  5. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Hmm. Studying some more there might be some interesting differences. When I match the top of the sensor domes on the bridges to each other from the top views, the Enterprise saucer diameter is somewhat larger. I had made the assumption that the saucers of the two ships were the same diameter. I wonder if the Reliant was meant to be smaller?
     
  6. aridas sofia

    aridas sofia Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 3, 2002
    I must admit to not really agreeing (though you weren't asking me). :p I just don't get all the discussion and disagreement over the size/scale of the original ship. It seems to stem for the most part from "wishful thinking" -- that somehow, someway, if we ignore what Jefferies told us, if we ignore the scale indicated on the two views of the ship given in "Day of the Dove", if we insist that a forced perspective (or otherwise distorted for purposes of fitting a camera) hangar deck miniature should be taken as the intended shape of that deck (even though it doesn't match the space allocated on either of Jefferies' cross sections)... if we do ALL these things and more, we can somehow get that big hangar deck shown in TAS. I'm not saying that this is why any particular person advocates dumping what was established onscreen, just that it seems to be a recurring theme in these discussions. "That hangar deck just isn't big enough for four shuttlecraft". And yet, it is. A 947' ship fits the bridge as filmed, and the hangar as it is meant to be (and as was drawn by Jefferies in the Phase II cross section).

    We know what the designer intended. We know the shuttlecraft fit. We know the bridge fits. We know the size indicated on a scale bar onscreen. I just don't see the ongoing problem.

    The only thing that I can see that leads you to a bigger ship is if we insist all the decks are as tall as those sets indicate. And yet Jefferies shows us that isn't the case. He has decks of varying heights, and decks that vary in height even on the same level. So, even here the only problem exists if we insist the ship to be something other than what we are told it is. Which is sort of like insisting it is over 1000' long when we are told it is 947'.

    ;)
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2011
  7. Tallguy

    Tallguy Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    May 2, 2005
    Location:
    Beyond the Farthest Star
    Over 1000'?!?! I KEEL YOUUUUUU!

    I want the to see the ship where the hangar can hold a fleet of airliners.
     
  8. aridas sofia

    aridas sofia Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 3, 2002
    That would be Ariel. :cool:
     
  9. Cary L. Brown

    Cary L. Brown Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Except, of course, that that's not true. Deck placements are established by window positions, as seen on-screen. Deck heights and room configurations are indicated by on-screen scenes. Exterior shape is indicated by on-screen scenes.

    The 947' number is never indicated at all, on-screen. It can only, and only just BARELY, be "derived" from a single illustration which does NOT list the length at all, but only shows a small scale-bar, and which was no more intended to be able to be read on-screen than the "insurance remaining" indicator on the TNG sickbay displays, or the "giant rubber ducks" on the TNG engineering displays, were intended to be studied in detail.

    The fact remains that you simply cannot match EVERYTHING we've been given up. In your case, you tend to say that "sets can be smaller than we saw on-screen," so you can fit the remaining details.

    And that's just fine... it's a fair approach, but it's a COMPROMISE. It is in violation of what is seen on-screen. You do have to acknowledge that, don't you?

    To me, I just think that the sets... which were seen in every single episode, week after week, for three seasons, are far more relevant to "canon" than a single illustration which was never really even visible on-screen in any degree of detail, which was only seen for a brief few moments, and which shows a ship which is only marginally similar to the ship we actually see on-screen for every one of the 79 episodes of the series.

    We're all forced to choose which bits we'll keep, and which we'll allow to "bend" a little bit. My approach is to say that what we see on-screen is what matters, far more than anything else, overall. Yours is to choose the 947' and to try your best to make things fit into that. BOTH APPROACHES ARE COMPROMISES, and neither is 100% in agreement with every bit of information out there.

    Because some of that information is simply contradictory... it is literally impossible to get a perfect, 100% match-up.

    Is the primary hull of the 1701 eleven decks thick (per the writer's guide) or is it eight decks thick (per MJ's diagrams)? Is there any undercut on the primary hull underside (as per the 11' and 3' models) or is that surface flat (per MJ's diagrams)? Where are the phasers? What is the shape of the ship overall? What is the window configuration?

    How do you reconcile 100% of everything seen? The answer is... you can't. It's simply not possible.

    Of course, it's far easier with Star Trek than it is for, say, Star Wars... just try fitting the Millennium Falcon's interior sets into the exterior (and which exterior? The one seen in the first film? The one seen in the Hoth hangar? The miniature from the first film, or one of those from the second and third films?). Or try figuring out where, on the Star Destroyer, that bridge really is, just for starters.

    In my case, I discovered that by increasing the size of the ship just very slightly, I could get virtually everything to work out without even needing "tweaks."

    I even discovered that I could put the standard "on-set corridor arc" onto more than half of my primary hull decks... six out of eleven of them (or rather, six out of ten... my deck 11 is basically a "crawl-space"). If it was at 947, I could only put this corridor arc onto four decks, and one of them would have no useable rooms on the outer side of that ring...

    I barely "tweaked" the window locations... less than six inches up or down in most cases, from what was indicated on the various sets of prints I was using as a reference. And they ended up lining up nearly perfectly, with set distances from floor to window C/L.

    At NO POINT did I ever try to match the "TAS" shuttle bay... my own shuttle bay is situated entirely behind the engine pylons, and I've been able to nearly perfectly replicate the on-screen image of the hanger bay in Maya using a virtual "wide-angle-lens." This would not have been possible had the ship been a bit smaller, though... I'd have had to compromise a lot more.

    Don't get me wrong, I enjoy your own drawing of the Enterprise "guts," though I find the extensive terraced "stair-stepping" and the huge variety of different craft stuffed in there to be far too different than what was seen on-screen for me to "accept" it as the "correct" presentation. That's the fun thing... trying to make everything fit in a way which works with the image each of us carries around in our head, isn't it?

    For me, I just know that the Enterprise isn't "really" 947' long. I know it's longer, but not dramatically so... 1067', in fact.

    Meanwhile, you know that it's exactly 947' long, and that the sets we saw on-screen aren't "really" as big as we see.

    Since the ship doesn't actually exist... it's hard to say which one is the "right" answer, now, isn't it?
     
  10. Albertese

    Albertese Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 3, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    I think it's funny how many people will casually throw out the 24 foot reference to a shuttlecraft's size from "The Galileo Seven" but religiously adhere to the 947 foot figure, which was never explicitly stated on screen.

    Weird, huh?

    --Alex
     
  11. aridas sofia

    aridas sofia Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 3, 2002
    I never meant to say that the TOS sets could be smaller than what we saw onscreen, only that the sets we saw in TOS needn't be the only representatives of room height. Some areas might be 10' or 12' high, and Jefferies allows for that. Other areas will need to be 7-8' high, and he indicates that as well. (Our earlier discussion was about Ariel and was based on the TMP sets, which are an entirely different story.)

    As for "windows" indicating deck position, who says? The times we see "windows" in TOS-- in Pike's cabin and in the gallery above the hangar deck -- they are a hell of a lot smaller than those "windows" on the exterior. It is arguable from that onscreen evidence that the windows aren't windows at all, and that they are "environmental sensors" capable of showing the view from any of those rectangular imagers (just as Franz Joseph claimed they were). If the huge outside rectangles and circles aren't inextricably linked to the small windows with the rounded corners on the inside, there is absolutely no evidence of where the decks are located. Which is as it should be because the windows were fudged on the model after the scale of the ship was changed, and in no way link up with the deck placement the designer -- and presumably his bosses -- intended.

    When I did that cross section I was trying to see whether Jefferies' own cross section could be reconciled with what we saw. If you follow the route I've outlined-- going with a hangar adjusted for distortion, putting the sets where his deck heights allow them to fit, etc -- it works. Even the number of decks in the saucer fits if you count every level I've indicated as a deck. And those oddball support craft seen in the hangar and maintenance areas below? All of them but one were designed by Jefferies (only the repair capsule wasn't). Again, I was testing him, and when you lay out the decks as he indicated and scale his support craft in a sensible way, they fit.
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2011
  12. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    It's a 24' shuttle when the rear landing gear is folded back :shifty::whistle:

    Just kidding. :lol:

    To Cary and Aridas: Well, for this thread and project, if the shuttle interior as seen on the screen matches MJ's illustrations, that's great. But if it doesn't, I stick with the on screen version as that's what my project is aiming for: the on screen version of the ship.

    Cheers :)
     
  13. aridas sofia

    aridas sofia Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 3, 2002
    I'm 100% with you. I've been following your thread silently from the start in part because you are actually doing what I set out to do. The only difference is you are taking the existing sets and setting them on a different set of shelves. (Was that a record for using "set" in one sentence?) You're starting with a different cross section. I started with Jefferies' because I wanted to see if it would work, and the cross section I did was just the first step on the road to a 3D model of the interior. The guys I was working with and I only got five decks done before we stalled -- I'm impressed that all on your own you've gotten so far. I guess that says something about the inefficiencies of committee work. ;)

    As far as your work goes... hell, what can I say? By the time you're done you'll have built the ship. I can't wait to take a stroll down those beautifully realized sets once you're done!
     
  14. Psion

    Psion Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2001
    Location:
    Lat: 40.1630936 Lon: -75.1183777
    Is anyone else hearing the combat theme from "Amok Time" playing out in their heads as they read this thread now?

    Seriously, it's great fun reading this discussion and the insights it provides into your equally fascinating decisions.
     
  15. Tallguy

    Tallguy Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    May 2, 2005
    Location:
    Beyond the Farthest Star
    No, it's more the "Spock theme" with the brainy sounding bass.

    Amok Time fight music starts when you say that the bridge faces forward.
     
  16. Redfern

    Redfern Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    Actually, I'm imagining two kids going, "Uh huh!", "Uh, uh!", "Uh HUH!", "Uh, UH!" in the back seat of a vehicle during a long and tedious drive. Then, as their voices grow louder, I imagine Ptrope as the hapless driver finally turning around and barking, "If you two don't behave, I'm turning this thread around and NO ONE will get to enjoy Wally World!"

    But then, my mind tends to make bizarre comparisons like that. ;)

    Sincerely,

    Bill
     
  17. aridas sofia

    aridas sofia Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 3, 2002
    You see, this is why I don't post much here anymore. I was trying to make a point civilly to someone I respect and have worked with, and you guys try to make it into a pissing contest. Everything doesn't have to be a pissing contest, you know. Cary and I understand where each of us are coming from just fine, and we respect each other's positions. I thought the OP might benefit from hearing other POVs. If we can't discuss this shit without all the kids gathering around in a circle and yelling, "fight! fight!" then this really isn't a forum. It's a joke.
     
  18. Tallguy

    Tallguy Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    May 2, 2005
    Location:
    Beyond the Farthest Star
    * sigh * That was the point of my previous comment. Compared to the out and out wars that have gone on previously this has been very civil. Compared, hell. It's just been civil.

    I've gotten some very different ideas about what I think the inside of our favorite ship looks like just from this thread alone.
     
  19. Science Officer

    Science Officer Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    This is a really interesting thread. All I can say is that I'm glad I'm not doing interiors! There are a few things on the exterior of the refit which don't make sense, but I'm trying not to think about them. I've already run out of nails to bite.
     
  20. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Hey guys - it's all good. I want to echo what Tallguy wrote and want to say and thank you all for being very civil. I'm very open to ideas that even though they might not end up in the on-screen version, would certainly think would be cool to one day to see in another 1701 thread being built out (or already built) :)

    @Science Officer - I've been watching your thread and you have quite a super detailed build out of the movie 1701 and I'm looking forward to seeing it all textured out! :D

    @aridas sofia - thank you for the kind words!

    @humor - I was kinda thinking of that Star Trek instrumental where Kirk gets an inspirational moment. Now I'm going to go try and find it on youtube... :D
     

Share This Page