TOS Enterprise WIP

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

  1. CuttingEdge100

    CuttingEdge100 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Myrtran

    I did a proportional comparison basing the shuttles on a 24' design (each shuttle is 32 pixels) and I got a length of 1,644.75 feet or 501.3213m

    Admittedly the decks are a little bit excessively large 13.5 feet without even factoring the spacing between the decks. I think the minimum size to shoehorn the shuttles in this drawing would be 1,315.8 feet or 401.057 meters (tight fit); based on deck-space it would appear that 1370.625 feet or 417.7678 meters would accommodate 10' decks with 1.25 feet of spacing or 7.5 inches between each deck (the decks looked to be around 10' high); with provision for provision for 12' decks not counting space in between you'd be right set at 1644.75 feet.

    Regardless, I don't think most decks are going to be 12-feet high (you'll see an occasional deck that has a larger ceiling than others), so the 417.77 meter frame would probably be fine based on these measurements.

    When I looked at that drawing, I got 1644.75 feet (I proportionally measured the pixels for the shuttle craft at 24 feet), provided I assumed a 22-foot shuttle (or a slightly "tighter" fit), I'd get 1,507.5445 feet. I'm not sure where you got 1,420 or 1,437 from.


    Maurice

    May I remind you of the scene in Star Trek V when the Enterprise-A went off to warp after Kirk crash-landed?

    The ship traveled sideways relative to the warp-streak!

    Regardless, based on what I said with the minimum size for the shuttles, 1315.8 feet would do the trick so I'm fine with 1,420 or 1,437 if it all fits; with that said, the refit enterprise to the same scale ((1000/947)x1437) would be 1,517.423 feet or 462.5121 meters!
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2014
  2. Mytran

    Mytran Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Location:
    North Wales
    Looking back at my earlier post on page 60, it seems I was playing around with figures to get Robert_Comsol's theory about the dorsal to work, then (very roughly) backscaling that to give a figure for the TOS-E. I used the technique of matched the saucer rims as I figured that would be the most "realistic" method of continuity between the original ship and its refit design.

    As the rest of that post made clear, 1,437' really would be a massive ship (and later discussions in this thread raised the problems of matching onscreen footage of the clamshell doors with such a vessel.

    The 1,420' length of Drexler's cutaway comes from KingDaniel's calculations here.

    I recently reran the calculations recently on how big the TOS-E would be (if the basic diameter of the saucer was kept from original to refit) this time with greater accuracy. I'll try and post my working (and the orthos used) later today. However, running with Blssdwlf's calculations of a 1,164' TMP-E, I calculated the TOS-E to be 1,250' long.
     
  3. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    It's been a while since I looked at the measurements but I would think that there will be a mix of 10' thru 16' decks on the ship just to account for the various deck heights on screen. As to the length, your guess is as good as mine.


    ST5 had a lot of visual fx problems. Enough that I'd discount everything from the time they went to sleep at the camp to the end where they're singing at the campfire as a bean-fueled dream. The worse was the vertically distorted shuttlebay.

    Funny enough I didn't have a problem with that since they did a sideways warp shearing away move from a standing stop in "The Corbomite Maneuver".
     
  4. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    @Mytran - thanks for the references. I need to get back to this project :)
     
  5. Mytran

    Mytran Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Location:
    North Wales
    No biggie. Sometimes Trek fan-work takes a while. I've been working on my "final 100% accurate set plans" for 3 years now! :lol:

    Now, I promised to show my working on how I reached my TOS-E length of 1,250' so here goes:

    For the Enterprise Refit I used Big Jim's model maker orthos (which are HUGE, for highest accuracy).

    For TOS-E I used Casimiro's second edition diagram (which are most accurate for ship shape, if not window placement).

    I centred the saucers and enlarged the TOS-E until the bottom edges of the saucers matched. I then realised there was an overlap with the undercuts and had to reduced the size of the TOS-E back a bit (reasoning that the structural frames of the undercut wouldn't have changed either). The end result has the refit-E nestling inside the TOS original, at least when the upper faces of the saucers are aligned:

    [​IMG]

    Now for the maths: Assuming a Refit-Enterprise length of 1,164' (thanks, Blssdwlf!) then the TOS-E comes out at 1,250' long. If you'd rather stick with the "official" 1,000' refit then TOS-E is 1,073' long. And if you'd rather ignore that undercut thing I mentioned earlier and just go with matching the bottom edges of the saucers then TOS-E would be 1,260'. However, my flag is firmly in 1,250'

    So, in-universe: The refitting process changed the shape of the TOS-E saucer edge (better warp dynamics, I guess) and the saucer thickness is trimmed down by removing redundant equipment in that area. Other changes in the saucer shape are likewise achieved by removing outdated or damaged areas, leading to a lighter, faster and stronger design of vessel (IMO):

    [​IMG]
    (click for full size)

    Obviously the secondary hull underwent more major alterations (I admit that some welding on of extra girders must have happened in places) but for the most part I'm happy with this line of thinking. Over to you, guys!
     
  6. Nightowl1701

    Nightowl1701 Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Well, that picture makes one thing pretty clear about the refit - either the original engineering hull was thrown out entirely along with the nacelles and the remodeled saucer was re-attached to a totally new build, or (if the engineering hull's scale was matched up) the saucer was. Given how radically different the parts of the engineering hull we saw was, I tend to believe the former.
     
  7. Mytran

    Mytran Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Location:
    North Wales
    The lengths of both secondary hulls are close enough, but much of the TMP external shape would need to be reworked - the refit has more of a "barrel" shape compared to the more conical design of the original.

    The dorsal and nacelle pylons are certainly new-builds, however.
     
  8. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    In TOS it seemed that the engineering hull wasn't as important to save (see "The Apple"?) so perhaps the TMP ship only kept the primary hull internals. I still like to think of the TMP ship expanding on the TOS ship rather than trimming down from the TOS ship, but that's just IMHO. :)
     
  9. Tallguy

    Tallguy Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 2, 2005
    Location:
    Beyond the Farthest Star
    The Apple doesn't say it was less important, just less bulky (or whatever other reason it would be easier to blast out with).

    Probert was on record decades ago that the only thing left of the original ship after the "refit" was a bolt mounted on Scotty's wall.
     
  10. Mytran

    Mytran Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Location:
    North Wales
    In The Apple Kirk calls to jettison the nacelles and leave with the "main section only" which is often thought to refer to the saucer. However, if the nacelles were independently ejectable (perhaps warp coils are really heavy) then "main section" could be the habitable part of the whole ship, primary and secondary hulls still joined.
     
  11. judge alba

    judge alba senior street judge Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    mega city 1
    which makes sense of the line from tmp where decker says this is a almost totaly new enterprise

    dont have the excact quote just relying on a very dusty brain cell :)
     
  12. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    That's a good point since he doesn't call out the engineering section.

    I think when Scotty and Decker talk about the TMP ship as a "redesign and refit" that we tend to overlook the redesign part and only remember "refit". In that case, the whole ship design could be completely changed in the redesign...
     
  13. CuttingEdge100

    CuttingEdge100 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Mytran

    Hey, I did a pixel-by-pixel scale, I computed the size of the shuttlecraft (24 feet) and that's an object I know the size of: That gave me 1,644.75; The 22-foot shuttlecraft would give me 1,507.6875.

    Admittedly, I did do some computations as to what size the bare-minimum for shoe-horning the shuttles in and I got 1315.8, and adjusted for a deck size that would be based around a 10' high deck and that would be 1370.625'.

    1,420 actually gives more room to play with than the bare minimums, but the shuttles as shown in that diagram would yield a ship of 1,644.75

    I'm not sure how the necks width is important other than it be to scale...

    I suppose it's more important than you can fit an elevator that can lower a 24-30 foot shuttle down into the deck below, and squeeze 4 x 24-foot shuttles into a space below (maybe slightly behind the bulkhead of the bay itself (the hanger's forward bulkhead can easily be further forward)

    Regardless, I don't object to 1,420 or 1,437 as a usable size.

    But that isn't correct -- the saucer was widened from TOS to TMP. In fact the 947-foot ship enlarging to 1000 was based on this: The saucer was a little bigger; the nacelles were a little shorter.


    blssdwlf

    Of course it did, I was merely responding to Maurice wrote about the worst SFX shot being in ST-III. STV beat that by a long-shot LOL!

    SFDebris had once commented that you could easily have ignored STV and went straight from STIV to STVI and there wouldn't have been a problem. I kind of agree

    Huh? What about the turbolift shaft...
     
  14. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    That was still bad, but not because of the repeating deck signs meant (to me) as shoddy labeling but because I suspect if I were to model it I wouldn't be able to fit it in the hull :) The shuttlebay was the worse to me because that was an external element that was suppose to be matched to the hull and they totally messed up the proportions.
     
  15. Mytran

    Mytran Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Location:
    North Wales
    Using the shuttlecraft as a size guide is problematic, as there was no consistent system. Kirk mentioned a "24 foot shuttlecraft" but the stage prop is just shy of 22 feet long, where as the interior more likely represents a 30 foot vessel.

    Also, going with the 24' shuttle did not give me the same results as you:

    • 1 x shuttle = 144 pixels long
    • 1 x starship = 6650 pixels long
    • If a shuttle is 24' then that scales at 6px/ft...
    • Then a Drexer starship Enterprise is 1,108'4" long

    I can't be sure, but I think KingDanielIntoDarkness used the crewmember's height to approximate length and it was from his thread that I got the 1,420' long figure. Although looking at it now, that would make the crewman in the shuttlebay (38px tall) a giant of 8' tall!

    Conversely, if he is 6' tall then the ship must only be 1,050' long and the shuttle a mere 22'9" long.

    All in all, I'd rather not use cutaways as a source of scale if that's OK! ;)


    ...and the shape of the upper saucer, the shape and depth of the lower saucer, the diameter of the secondary hull, the dorsal, the top three decks etc. It's an engineering nightmare if starting from a 947' long ship, especially when the length of the TOS-E was never clearly established in the first place.

    I know there was lots of things going on behind the scenes as to what "really" happened regarding the change of appearance, I just like to separate that from "in-universe" whenever possible :)

    This page covers the changes quite succinctly

    I must admit I've never examined it that closely. Was it too wide or too tall in relation to the miniature or something?
     
  16. CuttingEdge100

    CuttingEdge100 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Mytran

    Well... I used a larger diagram (more accurate in scaling and I got

    Total Image = 7368 x 2587 pixels
    Enterprise Length: 6650 pixels
    Shuttle = 99 pixels
    Ship/Shuttle Ratio: 67.1717171717171712
    The Math
    • 67.171717171717172 * 24 = 1612.121212121212121
    • 1612.121212121212121/3.28083 = 493. 376027444644228
    Approximate Ship Length: ~ 1,612.1212 feet / 491.376 meters

    Provided the various other measurements I made adjusted, you'd get the following
    • Baseline size assuming a 22' shuttle: 1,477.7778' / 450.428 m
    • Bare-minimum estimate to stuff the 24' shuttles in: 1289.697 / 393.1008 m
    • Sufficient Room for 10' deck minus floors: 1343.4343' / 409.48 m

    Wait... we're using the same scale image: I got 6650 for the ship too... then how did you measure the shuttle at 144 pixels in length when I got 99?

    I thought 947' was stated by W. Matt Jeffries?

    How do you make sure the shuttles will fit if you don't have a cutaway?


    blssdwlf

    What decks would be 16 feet high?
     
  17. Mytran

    Mytran Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Location:
    North Wales
    Because I was being a plonker and rushed my calculations through my lunch break! I was also working from an insert of the shuttlebay that I did not realise had been enlarged by approximately 150%
    Very sloppy workman ship, I apologise. I will now attempt to correct my figures but as I said, I think KingDanielIntoDarkness used the height of the crew as a guide, so lets get them measured first:

    Crewman = 27/28/29 pixels tall (depending on the fuzziness)
    Door = 30px (in shuttlebay) or 32 pixels (saucer)
    Deck Height = 56px (floor to floor, saucer section, typ)

    Right, once more unto the breach (although I could not decide if the shuttles were 99 or 100 pixels long):

    1 x shuttle = 99 pixels long
    1 x starship = 6650 pixels long
    If a shuttle is 24' then that scales at 4.125px/ft...
    Then a Drexer starship is 1,612'1" long
    A crewman is 6'9" and a door is 7'3"/7'9"
    Deck Height = 13'7"

    1 x shuttle = 100 pixels long
    1 x starship = 6650 pixels long
    If a shuttle is 24' then that scales at 4.166666px/ft...
    Then a Drexer starship is 1,596' long
    A crewman is 6'8" and a door is 7'2"/7'8"
    Deck Height = 13'5"

    Needless to say, those would be some tall crewmen! How does the 1,420' figure hold up?

    1 x starship = 6650 pixels long
    If its length is 1,420' then that scales at 4.6830985px/ft...
    Then a Drexer shuttlecraft is 21'2"/21'4" long
    A crewman is 6' tall and a door is 6'6" to 6'10" high.
    Deck Height = 12'


    In all cases I have rounded off the final figures for clarity, since at fractions of an inch we are dealing with quarters of a pixel or smaller and it's hard to be 100% certain. However, the 1,420' figure (while it does not gel with a 24' shuttlecraft) is most consistent with the depiction of crewmen, doors, decks and the stage prop shuttlecraft mockup.



    Yes, I should have been more precise. Using details (such as people or shuttles) from cutaways produced for the TV shows as reliable scaling elements can prove difficult. The Voyager MSD for example features either TINY crewmen or GIANT shuttles, depending on your POV. The Drexler one above also shows shuttlecraft which are smaller even than the mockup, as well as doors which are way too tall (the on-set doors were 6'6" high)


    Well, the Season 1 Engine Room set is 16 feet high, I think. Too tall for a 1 deck but not tall enough for 2?


    Never onscreen though, and what we did see onscreen suggests a vessel somewhat larger.
     
  18. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    You can see where the modelmakers got the vertical proportion out of whack anytime they did a close-up of a landing sequence. Definitely too tall.

    http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tffhd/ch8/tffhd1006.jpg
     
  19. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    The S1 Engine Room interior was ~16' tall and that set was used for the phaser room, multi-purpose theater/gym. The gym also had a space even taller visible beyond the grill. The S2 Engine Room was 19' tall and had the upper deck (Emergency Manual Monitor, balcony) only 6'6"-7' off the bottom deck.

    So you could have extremes between 6'6" to 19' or more.
     
  20. CuttingEdge100

    CuttingEdge100 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Mytran

    Okay... that makes sense

    It's 99: I'm not sure what graphic program you're using, but I have a Mac and there's a Preview function and you can just drag a box around and it says exactly how many pixels.

    That's right

    This is really nitpicky, admittedly, but a foot is not 1/10 of a foot, it's 1/12th. This would make the ship about 1612'1.455" (roundoff)

    Based on the minimum size to shoehorn the shuttles in and provide a 10' deck, you'd have 1343.4343.... 1420's quite good as it provides a little more room. Works for me!

    True enough, but if it's written by W. Matt Jeffries, that can be considered a useful number for scaling TOS to TMP...


    blssdwlf

    At the penalty of sounding stupid do you have pics of both?