Actual Size of Ships in Star Trek
- Thread starter CuttingEdge100
- Start date
Quite right, I hadn't noticed that!
It is also interesting that the curveyer "barrel" shape of the Phase II secondary hull is more or less a continuation of the original Jefferies Enterprise sketch, ignoring the more conical shape that the miniature ended up with.
I'm pretty sure it's the same set piece. You can see the black line
on the edge of the angled beam behind McCoy's shoulder, and it seems to match the one to the right of TMP Spock. Only the doors are different (they appear to have pushed the travel pod right up again the wall in TWOK, removing the thicker TMP doors altogether).
Last edited:
As for the TOS Enterprise (exclusively) I'd say that either 947' or 1,080' is correct, based on the following observations:
Pro 947'
Here is the saucer cutaway from my deck plan project, done to match a length of 1,080'. Notice how the bridge and the turbo lift do not align in a vessel size of 1,080'.
The connection of the exterior turbo shaft casing to the bridge module on the actual 11' VFX model is a bottleneck that would only allow the turbo lift door to connect both exterior components.
Pro 1,080'
Once we consider deck heights, "satisfying" window placement and the likes, a bigger ship would be better solution. One of my pet details in support of the bigger variation (TMP notwithstanding) is the actual location of the port side turbo lift apparently used by Spock in "The Naked Time":
At a smaller length, the port side turbo lift would probably be sticking out of the ship.
With a length of 1,080' the bridge proportions would have to be inflated, while at 947' the interior proportions would have to be compacted.
Asuming a length of 1,013' would be a compromise giving both camps equal pain, but I still wonder whether I should eventually go for this compromise or rather stick with the 1,080 figure.
Bob
Pro 947'
Here is the saucer cutaway from my deck plan project, done to match a length of 1,080'. Notice how the bridge and the turbo lift do not align in a vessel size of 1,080'.
The connection of the exterior turbo shaft casing to the bridge module on the actual 11' VFX model is a bottleneck that would only allow the turbo lift door to connect both exterior components.
Pro 1,080'
Once we consider deck heights, "satisfying" window placement and the likes, a bigger ship would be better solution. One of my pet details in support of the bigger variation (TMP notwithstanding) is the actual location of the port side turbo lift apparently used by Spock in "The Naked Time":
At a smaller length, the port side turbo lift would probably be sticking out of the ship.
With a length of 1,080' the bridge proportions would have to be inflated, while at 947' the interior proportions would have to be compacted.
Asuming a length of 1,013' would be a compromise giving both camps equal pain, but I still wonder whether I should eventually go for this compromise or rather stick with the 1,080 figure.
Bob
He even kept the beveled primary hull too...
Oh yeah, definitely the same set piece. I guess you could say the "airlock" chamber used the same controls and panels as the rear end of the pod compartment for "familiarity"
Shaw has conclusively documented original intent was that the TOS E was 947 ft long, but the Thermian in me urges deference to a higher authority.
Jeffries' work (not to mention Shaw's) is inestimable…but the final arbiter must be the "reality" of the series (singular and plural). Is 947 established on screen, and if not, is it contradicted?
To the first question, many would offer the Constitution/Klingon D-7 comparative views seen on the briefing room tri-screen in "The Enterprise Incident." Low resolution of late-'60s TVs would not have kept fans of that time have recognizing those illustrations as having appeared in The Making of Star Trek, in whose reproductions the scale bars were readable…thus pegging 947.
HowEVer, those (then-illegible) scalebars' unit notations must be considered apocryphal, being as how in-universe Starfleet drawings would have been metrically scaled.
Given no other on-air reference to the ship's size whatsoever, what conclusion can be drawn from depicted interiors? Does TOS offer a size indicator?
It certainly does. In fact, it offers two…one of which contradicts the other. In "The Galileo Seven," Kirk refers to a "twenty four foot shuttlecraft." In that and later episodes, said shuttlecraft is seen inside the hangar deck. Though it's unclear to me if the series' one-point perspective angles on the hangar deck can be used to derive its length (relative to the shuttlecraft), certainly one can derive its (shuttle-relative) width, if only at the shuttle's aft most point.
It has been argued that the hangar miniature was built in forced perspective (as implied by the cutaway drawings of The Making of Star Trek). But its builder, the late Richard Datin, provided dimensions which disprove this. Consult his citation of the miniature's overall length, width and height at either end, and compare the resultant ratios with those of the Enterprise miniature. The hangar miniature was not built in forced perspective. Did its on-screen depiction display visual distortion due to lens length, etc.? Perhaps. But shuttle/hangar relative size(s) can be derived from the known size of the shuttle miniature, and guess what? The latter was in fact JUST AS MUCH SMALLER THAN the hangar as it appeared on-screen.
Why is this vital? Because -- if one defers to aired data -- the shuttle cannot have been 24 ft long. That size (just a bit larger than the soundstage shuttle exterior prop) will not contain a shuttle interior as depicted.
If one "grows" the shuttle to contain its interior, and places it within a hangar sized to fit within a 947 ft ship, the result is the TOS-R hangar…whose relative shuttle/hangar proportions CANNOT be obtained by photographing a TOS-accurate-sized shuttle within a TOS-accurate-sized hangar.
So how big's the ship? Must we employ laborious computer or mathematical analysis to find out? I personally lack such skills…but Matt Jeffries told us, or so Lynn Miller (onetime Galileo soundstage prop) has said. According to Miller, Matt stated the Gal prop was built at 3/4 scale to the "real thing."
Grow the shuttle prop (exhaustively documented, and at last on safe museum display) by 4/3, and one must (if subscribing to "series reality") grow the hangar…and the ship…but the same multiplier.
At 947 x 4/3, the TOS E comes to 1262.6 feet long. Grow the refit by the same proportions, and it becomes large enough to contain the rec room of TMP, and side-by-side torp bays as seen in "Wrath of Khan" (which, being refits of the TMP Klingon bridge, are of known size…and too wide to fit, as a pair, in the refit's dorsal torp bay structure).
"B-b-but…maybe ONE torp bay fed TWO launchers, as in Shane Johnson's book!"
Really? Then why didn't we see BOTH travel pod bay doors?
"B-b-but how can you ignore ORIGINAL INTENT?"
I revere Probert, too, but depicted sets ignored his well-researched plans ("Uh…the rec deck won't FIT there"/"Go cash your check")
…as did the TOS hangar size (relative to an embiggened shuttle) Jeffries'. That's the breaks.
If 947's the law, the TOS hangar deck, the TMP rec deck, the WoK torp bays cannot appear as they did on screen.
I'm no artist…as these, my only published works, demonstrate:
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/class-f-shuttlecraft.php
&
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars...blueprints.php
Nor am I the master of historical documentation (though I've the greatest respect for those who are). I'm merely a (to coin a phrase) simple country draughtsman, and something of a purist in terms of "series reality." But I think the foregoing arguments are logical.
Want a visual perspective on the "actual sizes of ships in Star Trek"? Take the "1/1000" TOS & TMP Enterprise kits, the "1/1000" Excelsior kits, and put those three alongside the 1/1400 Enterprise-C and -D kits.
THAT's about how big the former "actually" were, in comparison to the latter. Or so says the screen. We've not been told that…but we've been misinformed. It wasn't meant to be that way. But pre-production isn't "real." The final cut is.
Offense rests.
Jeffries' work (not to mention Shaw's) is inestimable…but the final arbiter must be the "reality" of the series (singular and plural). Is 947 established on screen, and if not, is it contradicted?
To the first question, many would offer the Constitution/Klingon D-7 comparative views seen on the briefing room tri-screen in "The Enterprise Incident." Low resolution of late-'60s TVs would not have kept fans of that time have recognizing those illustrations as having appeared in The Making of Star Trek, in whose reproductions the scale bars were readable…thus pegging 947.
HowEVer, those (then-illegible) scalebars' unit notations must be considered apocryphal, being as how in-universe Starfleet drawings would have been metrically scaled.
Given no other on-air reference to the ship's size whatsoever, what conclusion can be drawn from depicted interiors? Does TOS offer a size indicator?
It certainly does. In fact, it offers two…one of which contradicts the other. In "The Galileo Seven," Kirk refers to a "twenty four foot shuttlecraft." In that and later episodes, said shuttlecraft is seen inside the hangar deck. Though it's unclear to me if the series' one-point perspective angles on the hangar deck can be used to derive its length (relative to the shuttlecraft), certainly one can derive its (shuttle-relative) width, if only at the shuttle's aft most point.
It has been argued that the hangar miniature was built in forced perspective (as implied by the cutaway drawings of The Making of Star Trek). But its builder, the late Richard Datin, provided dimensions which disprove this. Consult his citation of the miniature's overall length, width and height at either end, and compare the resultant ratios with those of the Enterprise miniature. The hangar miniature was not built in forced perspective. Did its on-screen depiction display visual distortion due to lens length, etc.? Perhaps. But shuttle/hangar relative size(s) can be derived from the known size of the shuttle miniature, and guess what? The latter was in fact JUST AS MUCH SMALLER THAN the hangar as it appeared on-screen.
Why is this vital? Because -- if one defers to aired data -- the shuttle cannot have been 24 ft long. That size (just a bit larger than the soundstage shuttle exterior prop) will not contain a shuttle interior as depicted.
If one "grows" the shuttle to contain its interior, and places it within a hangar sized to fit within a 947 ft ship, the result is the TOS-R hangar…whose relative shuttle/hangar proportions CANNOT be obtained by photographing a TOS-accurate-sized shuttle within a TOS-accurate-sized hangar.
So how big's the ship? Must we employ laborious computer or mathematical analysis to find out? I personally lack such skills…but Matt Jeffries told us, or so Lynn Miller (onetime Galileo soundstage prop) has said. According to Miller, Matt stated the Gal prop was built at 3/4 scale to the "real thing."
Grow the shuttle prop (exhaustively documented, and at last on safe museum display) by 4/3, and one must (if subscribing to "series reality") grow the hangar…and the ship…but the same multiplier.
At 947 x 4/3, the TOS E comes to 1262.6 feet long. Grow the refit by the same proportions, and it becomes large enough to contain the rec room of TMP, and side-by-side torp bays as seen in "Wrath of Khan" (which, being refits of the TMP Klingon bridge, are of known size…and too wide to fit, as a pair, in the refit's dorsal torp bay structure).
"B-b-but…maybe ONE torp bay fed TWO launchers, as in Shane Johnson's book!"
Really? Then why didn't we see BOTH travel pod bay doors?
"B-b-but how can you ignore ORIGINAL INTENT?"
I revere Probert, too, but depicted sets ignored his well-researched plans ("Uh…the rec deck won't FIT there"/"Go cash your check")
…as did the TOS hangar size (relative to an embiggened shuttle) Jeffries'. That's the breaks.
If 947's the law, the TOS hangar deck, the TMP rec deck, the WoK torp bays cannot appear as they did on screen.
I'm no artist…as these, my only published works, demonstrate:
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/class-f-shuttlecraft.php
&
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars...blueprints.php
Nor am I the master of historical documentation (though I've the greatest respect for those who are). I'm merely a (to coin a phrase) simple country draughtsman, and something of a purist in terms of "series reality." But I think the foregoing arguments are logical.
Want a visual perspective on the "actual sizes of ships in Star Trek"? Take the "1/1000" TOS & TMP Enterprise kits, the "1/1000" Excelsior kits, and put those three alongside the 1/1400 Enterprise-C and -D kits.
THAT's about how big the former "actually" were, in comparison to the latter. Or so says the screen. We've not been told that…but we've been misinformed. It wasn't meant to be that way. But pre-production isn't "real." The final cut is.
Offense rests.
Preaching to the converted here! One of those shuttlecraft hyperlinks is broken, BTW.
I'm fascinated to see how close the 1262' length is to my "guess-timated" figure of 1,250, just one of those wild coincidences I guess!
Incidentally, for a really good, detailed cutaway at how the 947' Enterprise might look (if derived from Matt Jefferies' cutaway) I recommend Aridas Sofia's work:
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/web/1701-cutaway.jpg
It demonstrates how well the ship could have fitted into its official dimensions, even if that's not what we (the viewers) ended up with.
One of those shuttlecraft hyperlinks is broken, BTW.I'm fascinated to see how close the 1262' length is to my "guess-timated" figure of 1,250, just one of those wild coincidences I guess!
Incidentally, for a really good, detailed cutaway at how the 947' Enterprise might look (if derived from Matt Jefferies' cutaway) I recommend Aridas Sofia's work:
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/web/1701-cutaway.jpg
It demonstrates how well the ship could have fitted into its official dimensions, even if that's not what we (the viewers) ended up with.
There's an easy way to tell that the hangar deck miniature wasn't forced perspective. If it had been, the shuttlecraft would have looked like it was getting larger leaving through the doors. I would guess that they used a wide angle lens inside the hangar model anyway, to make it look bigger.
Damn hyperlinks. Try this:
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/star-trek-modelers-blueprints.php
I've followed Aridas' work since he was illustrating the Federation Reference Series with tiny, grainy photos of -- what gaming company's miniatures were they? -- and couldn't admire it more. He (and Shaw, and others) are a different breed of purist -- call it the "original intent/established canon" order -- and far more in the majority than I.
But as Blish said of Klingons, one must not only count heads, but weigh 'em. To me, the very term "The Original Series" is an insult. "TOS" is a usual identifying acronym…but in an ongoing body of fiction, generally accepted practice is to denote subsequent and/or subsidiary series…NOT the FIRST. It's perfectly acceptable (arguments about quality notwithstanding) to expand upon the original (as in, to tell additional stories, set in that time period or not), to reinterpret/rationalize the original (Cox's Khan novels, in which the Eugenics Wars occur in secret), even to retcon the original…but if one does the latter, one should be open and aboveboard about it.
Abrams tried to have it both ways in the latter regard: he invoked a change in the timeline, but opened his first film with the technologically unique-to-the-Abramsverse Kelvin, whose existence (and backstory) PREDATES his posited timeline-change event. Thus, the JJverse, and all which follows, CANNOT in fact be related to TOS and its sequels in other than name; they are simply and absolutely retcons, trying to pass for being not-quite-that to appease the likes of us.
What's this to do with Shaw et al? Simply this: pre-JJ, Trek sequels ALSO retconned TOS by dint of insufficient research. Sure, Jeffries himself refitted the TOS E for ST Phase II, and Probert followed masterfully, and expertly, on that work…but both artists -- like Sternbach, the Okudas, etc., erred in accepting as canon what I consider apocrypha. TOS itself was and is canon…was, that is, at the time the first live sequels entered preproduction. But TOS' canon is NOT accurately reflected in "supporting documentation," materials unfortunately but understandably taken by those who created TMP, TNG and etc. as being factual, due to said documentation's having been produced at the time of TOS, and by the people producing TOS. The series itself produced, presented, made canon a (sometimes) subtly different reality all its own.
A ship larger than 947 ft is the most trivial, readily observable (though not to this day commonly accepted) example. More abstruse, a BIT more accepted, but also contradicted by subsequent series (which retconned that canon) is the matter of warp velocities. We all "know" how fast a warp factor is, right? Its the factor's own number cubed times light speed. But Kirk's E went far faster in EVERY case of a distance and travel time's being cited:
SULU: It's impossible, but there's Sirius over there when it should be here. And Canopus. And Arcanis. We're. All of a sudden, we're clear across the galaxy, five hundred parsecs from where we are I mean, were. I mean--
(Arena; 500 parsecs is the distance they travelled chasing the Gorn. Do the math. 500 pc is 1630 light years. If warp seven is 7 cubed cee (not that the whole chase was conducted that quickly), the "hot pursuit" took nearly FIVE YEARS)
BARSTOW [on viewscreen]: Negative. I'm evacuating all Starfleet units and personnel within a hundred parsecs of your position. (The Alternative Factor) (All Starfleet units' evacuation will be done in a year or so, if they can all hold warp seven that long)
CHEKOV: Only one-sixteenth of a parsec away, sir. We should be there in seconds (Bread and Circuses)
RAHDA: We're holding warp eight point four, sir. If we can maintain it, our estimated time of arrival is eleven and one half solar hours.
SPOCK: Eleven point three three seven hours, Lieutenant. I wish you would be more precise.
(That Which Survives -- they've been thrown 990.7 light years away from their destination. To go 990.7 light years at light speed would take 8,678,532 hours; to do so in 11.337 hours yields a velocity of 765,505 (point 160) times cee. THAT was warp eight point four, as enjoyed by Kirk & Co…which makes it odd that the Enterprise-D, allegedly a FASTER ship, is cited as moving, at IT'S "warp factor 9.9999," 199,516 times the speed of light (according to a chart prepared by, was it Sternbach? expert in his role as TNG advisor in science, but ill-prepared to advise on matters Treknological, for the simple reason that he was more a professional than a fan. Which is to say that he'd had better things to do that to immerse himself for years in a rigorous examination of what TOS itself presented, on-air, of its own technological milieu (as opposed to how "official sources" DESCRIBED that milieu)).
If soundstage sets, as depicted, cannot be contained within the confines of a 947 ft ship, that generally-accepted (no matter by who) length cannot be correct (no matter how prettily it's blueprinted). If Kirk's E's performance transcended a WF-cubed formula, that formula is in error. If EVERY series presents (obviously without "original intent") on-screen evidence that impulse is NOT a sublight-only means of propulsion, it is not. It doesn't matter who calls it a fusion drive; they're wrong. How dare I call that an undeniable fact? Because:
RIKER: Increase to warp six.
LAFORGE: Aye sir. Full impulse.
(TNG "Conspiracy")
SPOCK (on intercom): Engine room reports auxiliary power restored. We can proceed at impulse power.
KIRK: Best speed to Regula I. Kirk out.
(Wrath of Khan. They'd been 12 hrs 43 minutes out at an unknown warp velocity prior the battle; Reliant approached them at half impulse, which they presumably "dropped from warp" to match; they arrive prior to onset of rigor in Khan's Regula victims)
In TNG, we see (well…now know there was filmed) the refit's bridge engine control console (post 22, this thread:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=97652&page=2
on which the "impulse sys" slider appears just above a scale whose leftmost extreme would be 25%, and whose rightmost lies beyond C. Underscoring the latter startling, and apparently beyond-impulse-capability zone of velocity-selection is the small lettering between the scale and the "impulse sys" lettering: in red, "sub-light." Why, pray tell, would a helmsman's panel need a written reminder that impulse was sunlight…unless it wasn't always?
And TOS, of course, presented such "anomalies" as a 1/3 impulse Constellation catching and outrunning the doomsday machine (whose threat to Rigel was not that of a sublight hostile), "simple impulse" powered Romulan warbirds englobing a warp-velocity Enterprise (The Deadly Years), the addition of impulse power to warp to break free of Balok's Fesarius (as though a single light speed worth of thrust OR velocity could add significantly even to a warp-factor-cubed warp emergency speed)…
…all of which examples of the (allegedly) non-canonical I've seen dismissed on prior citation with the most labyrinthine of arguments (right down to "Geordi was joking")…or outright ignored…and myself called a troll (which kind of reminds me of Godwin's Law).
Sorry to go on so, but I'm a bit hot and bothered of late; yesterday I had an EKG subsequent to being clocked at 190 over 110 BP, and though since then back on BP meds (don't get me started on how much fun it is to be unemployed in a red state) must honestly describe my current condition as NDY -- Not Dead Yet.
I'm not up to rocket science or even public service, but given I've a little name recognition, Trekwise, I've felt moved to throw down my own personal gauntlets once more, for the record…or pee to mark my territory, or whatever. 'nuff said.
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/star-trek-modelers-blueprints.php
I've followed Aridas' work since he was illustrating the Federation Reference Series with tiny, grainy photos of -- what gaming company's miniatures were they? -- and couldn't admire it more. He (and Shaw, and others) are a different breed of purist -- call it the "original intent/established canon" order -- and far more in the majority than I.
But as Blish said of Klingons, one must not only count heads, but weigh 'em. To me, the very term "The Original Series" is an insult. "TOS" is a usual identifying acronym…but in an ongoing body of fiction, generally accepted practice is to denote subsequent and/or subsidiary series…NOT the FIRST. It's perfectly acceptable (arguments about quality notwithstanding) to expand upon the original (as in, to tell additional stories, set in that time period or not), to reinterpret/rationalize the original (Cox's Khan novels, in which the Eugenics Wars occur in secret), even to retcon the original…but if one does the latter, one should be open and aboveboard about it.
Abrams tried to have it both ways in the latter regard: he invoked a change in the timeline, but opened his first film with the technologically unique-to-the-Abramsverse Kelvin, whose existence (and backstory) PREDATES his posited timeline-change event. Thus, the JJverse, and all which follows, CANNOT in fact be related to TOS and its sequels in other than name; they are simply and absolutely retcons, trying to pass for being not-quite-that to appease the likes of us.
What's this to do with Shaw et al? Simply this: pre-JJ, Trek sequels ALSO retconned TOS by dint of insufficient research. Sure, Jeffries himself refitted the TOS E for ST Phase II, and Probert followed masterfully, and expertly, on that work…but both artists -- like Sternbach, the Okudas, etc., erred in accepting as canon what I consider apocrypha. TOS itself was and is canon…was, that is, at the time the first live sequels entered preproduction. But TOS' canon is NOT accurately reflected in "supporting documentation," materials unfortunately but understandably taken by those who created TMP, TNG and etc. as being factual, due to said documentation's having been produced at the time of TOS, and by the people producing TOS. The series itself produced, presented, made canon a (sometimes) subtly different reality all its own.
A ship larger than 947 ft is the most trivial, readily observable (though not to this day commonly accepted) example. More abstruse, a BIT more accepted, but also contradicted by subsequent series (which retconned that canon) is the matter of warp velocities. We all "know" how fast a warp factor is, right? Its the factor's own number cubed times light speed. But Kirk's E went far faster in EVERY case of a distance and travel time's being cited:
SULU: It's impossible, but there's Sirius over there when it should be here. And Canopus. And Arcanis. We're. All of a sudden, we're clear across the galaxy, five hundred parsecs from where we are I mean, were. I mean--
(Arena; 500 parsecs is the distance they travelled chasing the Gorn. Do the math. 500 pc is 1630 light years. If warp seven is 7 cubed cee (not that the whole chase was conducted that quickly), the "hot pursuit" took nearly FIVE YEARS)
BARSTOW [on viewscreen]: Negative. I'm evacuating all Starfleet units and personnel within a hundred parsecs of your position. (The Alternative Factor) (All Starfleet units' evacuation will be done in a year or so, if they can all hold warp seven that long)
CHEKOV: Only one-sixteenth of a parsec away, sir. We should be there in seconds (Bread and Circuses)
RAHDA: We're holding warp eight point four, sir. If we can maintain it, our estimated time of arrival is eleven and one half solar hours.
SPOCK: Eleven point three three seven hours, Lieutenant. I wish you would be more precise.
(That Which Survives -- they've been thrown 990.7 light years away from their destination. To go 990.7 light years at light speed would take 8,678,532 hours; to do so in 11.337 hours yields a velocity of 765,505 (point 160) times cee. THAT was warp eight point four, as enjoyed by Kirk & Co…which makes it odd that the Enterprise-D, allegedly a FASTER ship, is cited as moving, at IT'S "warp factor 9.9999," 199,516 times the speed of light (according to a chart prepared by, was it Sternbach? expert in his role as TNG advisor in science, but ill-prepared to advise on matters Treknological, for the simple reason that he was more a professional than a fan. Which is to say that he'd had better things to do that to immerse himself for years in a rigorous examination of what TOS itself presented, on-air, of its own technological milieu (as opposed to how "official sources" DESCRIBED that milieu)).
If soundstage sets, as depicted, cannot be contained within the confines of a 947 ft ship, that generally-accepted (no matter by who) length cannot be correct (no matter how prettily it's blueprinted). If Kirk's E's performance transcended a WF-cubed formula, that formula is in error. If EVERY series presents (obviously without "original intent") on-screen evidence that impulse is NOT a sublight-only means of propulsion, it is not. It doesn't matter who calls it a fusion drive; they're wrong. How dare I call that an undeniable fact? Because:
RIKER: Increase to warp six.
LAFORGE: Aye sir. Full impulse.
(TNG "Conspiracy")
SPOCK (on intercom): Engine room reports auxiliary power restored. We can proceed at impulse power.
KIRK: Best speed to Regula I. Kirk out.
(Wrath of Khan. They'd been 12 hrs 43 minutes out at an unknown warp velocity prior the battle; Reliant approached them at half impulse, which they presumably "dropped from warp" to match; they arrive prior to onset of rigor in Khan's Regula victims)
In TNG, we see (well…now know there was filmed) the refit's bridge engine control console (post 22, this thread:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=97652&page=2
on which the "impulse sys" slider appears just above a scale whose leftmost extreme would be 25%, and whose rightmost lies beyond C. Underscoring the latter startling, and apparently beyond-impulse-capability zone of velocity-selection is the small lettering between the scale and the "impulse sys" lettering: in red, "sub-light." Why, pray tell, would a helmsman's panel need a written reminder that impulse was sunlight…unless it wasn't always?
And TOS, of course, presented such "anomalies" as a 1/3 impulse Constellation catching and outrunning the doomsday machine (whose threat to Rigel was not that of a sublight hostile), "simple impulse" powered Romulan warbirds englobing a warp-velocity Enterprise (The Deadly Years), the addition of impulse power to warp to break free of Balok's Fesarius (as though a single light speed worth of thrust OR velocity could add significantly even to a warp-factor-cubed warp emergency speed)…
…all of which examples of the (allegedly) non-canonical I've seen dismissed on prior citation with the most labyrinthine of arguments (right down to "Geordi was joking")…or outright ignored…and myself called a troll (which kind of reminds me of Godwin's Law).
Sorry to go on so, but I'm a bit hot and bothered of late; yesterday I had an EKG subsequent to being clocked at 190 over 110 BP, and though since then back on BP meds (don't get me started on how much fun it is to be unemployed in a red state) must honestly describe my current condition as NDY -- Not Dead Yet.
I'm not up to rocket science or even public service, but given I've a little name recognition, Trekwise, I've felt moved to throw down my own personal gauntlets once more, for the record…or pee to mark my territory, or whatever. 'nuff said.
Well said, and doubly so for making your points without implication of maliciousness on behalf of the later TV show creators or even the 1960s/1970s supporting materials. I also doubt they were trying to subvert TOS, just trying to create a consistent universe with its own rules and technology, albeit done after the fact of TOS (I use that acronym for convenience) and of course without doing the research (which may or may not have been possible or practicable back then).
Its well known that Roddenberry considered TMP to be how his version of Star Trek always should have been, and doubly so TNG where he had even more creative control. The original Trek movies can be reconciled with the TV show without too much difficulty, but reinterpretations of 20th and 21st century history in the pilot episode of TNG further distance them from the universe that TOS created; which I really don't mind, to be honest. There are so many differences (some large, some small) between the two incarnations that it makes the most sense IMO to simply think of them occuring in different timelines. That was certainly the intent of this BBS poster here, where he is attempting to reconstruct the Eugenics Wars and other contemporary events using Star Trek references devoid of TNG and later interference.
I can't help but agree that Impulse is clearly an FTL drive. However, that panel doesn't really support the case if, as the post itself assets, the numerals refer to the next large tick mark along. It's odd, but I've owned rulers that do this too. Velocity therefore would range from 0.2 to 1 C. How one would move the ship at speeds less than 1,357,920,000 MPH or why "sub-light" is written so clearly beneath the scale, I have no idea. Maybe the scale is more virtual than we thought and it slides or reconfigures itself for faster/slower velocities?
P.S.
Thanks for the Shuttlecraft plans, I have been an admirer for years!
Its well known that Roddenberry considered TMP to be how his version of Star Trek always should have been, and doubly so TNG where he had even more creative control. The original Trek movies can be reconciled with the TV show without too much difficulty, but reinterpretations of 20th and 21st century history in the pilot episode of TNG further distance them from the universe that TOS created; which I really don't mind, to be honest. There are so many differences (some large, some small) between the two incarnations that it makes the most sense IMO to simply think of them occuring in different timelines. That was certainly the intent of this BBS poster here, where he is attempting to reconstruct the Eugenics Wars and other contemporary events using Star Trek references devoid of TNG and later interference.
I can't help but agree that Impulse is clearly an FTL drive. However, that panel doesn't really support the case if, as the post itself assets, the numerals refer to the next large tick mark along. It's odd, but I've owned rulers that do this too. Velocity therefore would range from 0.2 to 1 C. How one would move the ship at speeds less than 1,357,920,000 MPH or why "sub-light" is written so clearly beneath the scale, I have no idea. Maybe the scale is more virtual than we thought and it slides or reconfigures itself for faster/slower velocities?
P.S.
Thanks for the Shuttlecraft plans, I have been an admirer for years!
If the TMP control were the only "evidence" I'd ignore it. But the preponderance of evidence elsewhere makes this (like Georgi's warp six impulse, which I've always been astonished an entire cast and crew saw filmed) an example of the "real" Trek universe "seeping through" despite its creators contradictory beliefs.
As to intent, that was never malicious, nor at all lacking in any sort of commence, attention to detail, or imagination. Like I'm sure most fans, I own EVERY sequel series tech publication. TMP and TNG advisors did an incredible job of fleshing out the "conventional wisdom" Trek universe (that officially established by TOS), nor is it to their discredit that they did not subject TOS itself to the relentless scrutiny of fans, under which the official documentation falls apart. They were fans, but first and foremost, they were working professionals, to whose credit goes the incredible degree of internal consistency throughout the sequel series.
As to timeline contradictions, I wrestled with those for many years, until it came to me, quite recently, that ALL can be rationalized by the simple expedient of a balkanized Earth. The incredibly advanced multi-modular DY-100 was a Soviet (or at least Asian continent) design (and thus available to Khan). The sleeper ships made obsolete as of 2018 (Spock, "Space Seed") were unavailable to the nations whose combined efforts sent four person tin can Ares type ships to Mars (Voyager "One Small Step"). Zefram Cochrane's Phoenix was cobbled together in a war torn U.S., its rudimentary technology surpassed a very few years later by another nation's (or nations') attempt to send the S.S. Valiant outside the galaxy. It's been an insulting slight towards all non-Americans that Trek has so rarely acknowledged, let alone depicted, the technological contributions of other nations than the U.S. (as most appalling demonstrated in the credits to Enterprise, which show off a raft, the HMS Enterprize, a balloon (presumably August Picard's), the Spirit of St. Louis, the space shuttle Enterprise, Amelia Earhart (I think), the Wrights' Flyer, the X-1, some glass-nosed submarine, Saturn/Apollo, Robert Goddard at his chalkboard, the lunar module Eagle, the Sojourner Mars rover and the International Space Station. What of Konstantin Tsiolkovski, Wernher von Braun, Sergei Korolev, Sputnik, Yuri Gagarin, Valentina Tereshkova, the world's first [Soviet] spacewalker (name lost at present to my addled brain), the world's first [Soviet] space station(s) (the Salyuts). I don't know who signed off on that title sequence, but to omit ALL the firsts of other nations seems to border on, if not malicious, at least…what's the word…parochial? Partisan? Nationalistic? Hardly in keeping with the intro to a show about a future unified Earth...
As to intent, that was never malicious, nor at all lacking in any sort of commence, attention to detail, or imagination. Like I'm sure most fans, I own EVERY sequel series tech publication. TMP and TNG advisors did an incredible job of fleshing out the "conventional wisdom" Trek universe (that officially established by TOS), nor is it to their discredit that they did not subject TOS itself to the relentless scrutiny of fans, under which the official documentation falls apart. They were fans, but first and foremost, they were working professionals, to whose credit goes the incredible degree of internal consistency throughout the sequel series.
As to timeline contradictions, I wrestled with those for many years, until it came to me, quite recently, that ALL can be rationalized by the simple expedient of a balkanized Earth. The incredibly advanced multi-modular DY-100 was a Soviet (or at least Asian continent) design (and thus available to Khan). The sleeper ships made obsolete as of 2018 (Spock, "Space Seed") were unavailable to the nations whose combined efforts sent four person tin can Ares type ships to Mars (Voyager "One Small Step"). Zefram Cochrane's Phoenix was cobbled together in a war torn U.S., its rudimentary technology surpassed a very few years later by another nation's (or nations') attempt to send the S.S. Valiant outside the galaxy. It's been an insulting slight towards all non-Americans that Trek has so rarely acknowledged, let alone depicted, the technological contributions of other nations than the U.S. (as most appalling demonstrated in the credits to Enterprise, which show off a raft, the HMS Enterprize, a balloon (presumably August Picard's), the Spirit of St. Louis, the space shuttle Enterprise, Amelia Earhart (I think), the Wrights' Flyer, the X-1, some glass-nosed submarine, Saturn/Apollo, Robert Goddard at his chalkboard, the lunar module Eagle, the Sojourner Mars rover and the International Space Station. What of Konstantin Tsiolkovski, Wernher von Braun, Sergei Korolev, Sputnik, Yuri Gagarin, Valentina Tereshkova, the world's first [Soviet] spacewalker (name lost at present to my addled brain), the world's first [Soviet] space station(s) (the Salyuts). I don't know who signed off on that title sequence, but to omit ALL the firsts of other nations seems to border on, if not malicious, at least…what's the word…parochial? Partisan? Nationalistic? Hardly in keeping with the intro to a show about a future unified Earth...
It looks like it can be interpreted different ways (and the original post by ds9sega is also an interpretation). Each major tick mark could be low/high range of 10% C. So it could be | 0.30C - 0.39C | 0.40C - 0.49C |...| 1.00C - 1.09C
Which could indicate the impulse engines were capable of light speed or slightly beyond it. I don't quite buy the next tick being the actual labeled number below though as it would be gross mislabeling. OTOH, every medium tick (where there is a number under it) could be the actual number and the major tick a midpoint.
Strange that the WARP SYS above doesn't have a "FASTER-THAN-LIGHT" label on it. Perhaps the IMPULSE SYS needed the "SUB-LIGHT" label so it can differentiate when the impulse engines are operating at sub-light? Then again, we've seen warp engines run sub-light as well so it could be a general or warning indicator that they're flying sub-light?
Anyways, interesting find Trekkist.
BTW, for some reason I was thinking those were stargate chevrons at the top
Mytran
BTW: What size did you or blssdwlf get for the shuttlebay?
Timo
Forbin
trekkist
Everybody
Just out of curiosity... where did the 1080 feet come from?
It wouldn't...
I never gave the comparison any thought actually, merely that it wouldn't fit on the rim.
The bridge, neck torpedo tube, and turbolifts were reconfigured too...
BTW: What size did you or blssdwlf get for the shuttlebay?
Timo
Sounds good...
Forbin
Brilliant! I love it!
trekkist
Okay so that brings the ship to 1,262.6667' or 384.862 meters in length. There was some calculations done for the shuttle bay for scale-ups and we did some work, and I'd like to see how they compare.
Everybody
Just out of curiosity... where did the 1080 feet come from?
The original length of the model was supposed to be 540' before it was enlarged during production of The Cage. This length can be seen in the number marks on the secondary hull, which correspond to the distance measured from the front of the dish housing (in feet).
For whatever reason, the "official" length was set at 947', but from a draughtsman's perspective a 1:96 ratio from the size of the miniature itself seemed more logical, and the 1,080' length was posited as an alternative several years ago (it may have been by McGagen, I forget exactly).
Work carried out by other individuals more recently (among them Shaw I think, although don't quote me on it!) showed that in fact the model makers did not work from a scaling ratio of the suggested length of the ship, but instead by scaling up the construction plans themselves (which had been sized to fit the paper they were drawn on rather than any particular fictional length).
Nevertheless, the length of 1,080 remains popular among many fans - given the lack of concrete evidence in the show itself, it's not hard to see why!
For whatever reason, the "official" length was set at 947', but from a draughtsman's perspective a 1:96 ratio from the size of the miniature itself seemed more logical, and the 1,080' length was posited as an alternative several years ago (it may have been by McGagen, I forget exactly).
Work carried out by other individuals more recently (among them Shaw I think, although don't quote me on it!) showed that in fact the model makers did not work from a scaling ratio of the suggested length of the ship, but instead by scaling up the construction plans themselves (which had been sized to fit the paper they were drawn on rather than any particular fictional length).
Nevertheless, the length of 1,080 remains popular among many fans - given the lack of concrete evidence in the show itself, it's not hard to see why!
Keep in mind that, in "Journey to Babel", it was clearly indicated that, in addition to the Enterprise crew, the ship was hauling of 100 passengers to the conference. This would very strongly suggest that a Constitution-class vessel in the TOS era would have a total accommodation capacity of well over 500.
>It looks like it can be interpreted different ways (and the original post by ds9sega is also an interpretation). Each major tick mark could be low/high range of 10% C. So it could be | 0.30C - 0.39C | 0.40C - 0.49C |...| 1.00C - 1.09C
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2314/2217463413_6894143df3_o.gif
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2314/2217463413_6894143df3_o.gif
If the above-linked diagram can be "inserted" into this thread, would someone please do it? Pending that, I am (as I'm writing) looking at the above link on another screen. What I see is:
a BIG tick at far left.
four LITTLE ticks before appearance of the MEDIUM tick labeled 3 (presumably 30% of C).
4 sets of four little ticks before the medium tick of 5.
Consistent numbers of ticks between 5 & 7, 7 & 9, 9 and C.
Thus, medium ticks align with whole fractions (3, 5, 7, 9), of which only the odd ones are visible.
Big ticks align with (per numbers of ticks) 3.5, 4.5, 5.5, 6.5, 7.5, 8.5.
Beats hell out of me why the biggest ticks would denote "non-whole" percents of see -- i.e., 35%, 45%, etc., rather than 30%, 40%, etc.
Do such percents correspond to some system OTHER than decimal? Note that the smallest ticks break .05% "segments" of c into four smaller units. Is this consistent with anything?
Mind you, it's not irrelevant that the "Warp Sys" tick marks are also a bit odd, in that whole numbers fall between the largest ticks (which would seem to denote warp 1.5, 2.5, etc, with, in this case, segments of ".5 warp" divided into four parts.
All this aside, the diagram's primary indicators of trans-light impulse are:
1)ticks lying beyond c. Do it a little, you can do it a lot.
2)the redundant, red-lettered "SUB-LIGHT" indicator beneath.
Notice that the phrase "SUB-LIGHT" is the ONLY lettering in red in ANY of the panels posted here:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3144790&postcount=22
with the exception of "red shift" appearing in red (as "Blue shift" is in blue) in the "Doppler comp" indicator just below the Impulse sys indicator.
It would, of course, be VERY important a glance at the panel could confirm whether impulse were in sub-light or ftl mode. Thus, red letters.
a BIG tick at far left.
four LITTLE ticks before appearance of the MEDIUM tick labeled 3 (presumably 30% of C).
4 sets of four little ticks before the medium tick of 5.
Consistent numbers of ticks between 5 & 7, 7 & 9, 9 and C.
Thus, medium ticks align with whole fractions (3, 5, 7, 9), of which only the odd ones are visible.
Big ticks align with (per numbers of ticks) 3.5, 4.5, 5.5, 6.5, 7.5, 8.5.
Beats hell out of me why the biggest ticks would denote "non-whole" percents of see -- i.e., 35%, 45%, etc., rather than 30%, 40%, etc.
Do such percents correspond to some system OTHER than decimal? Note that the smallest ticks break .05% "segments" of c into four smaller units. Is this consistent with anything?
Mind you, it's not irrelevant that the "Warp Sys" tick marks are also a bit odd, in that whole numbers fall between the largest ticks (which would seem to denote warp 1.5, 2.5, etc, with, in this case, segments of ".5 warp" divided into four parts.
All this aside, the diagram's primary indicators of trans-light impulse are:
1)ticks lying beyond c. Do it a little, you can do it a lot.
2)the redundant, red-lettered "SUB-LIGHT" indicator beneath.
Notice that the phrase "SUB-LIGHT" is the ONLY lettering in red in ANY of the panels posted here:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3144790&postcount=22
with the exception of "red shift" appearing in red (as "Blue shift" is in blue) in the "Doppler comp" indicator just below the Impulse sys indicator.
It would, of course, be VERY important a glance at the panel could confirm whether impulse were in sub-light or ftl mode. Thus, red letters.
Happy to oblige, I have rehosted DS9Sega's image (all copyright to him) to avoid intruding on his own bandwith. Feel free to repost and use my Photobucket data allowance instead! 
You've already mentioned the odd "eighths" that the Impulse System ticks are divided up with. But did you notice that the Warp Factors are divided up into SEVENTHS? How on earth does the poor helmsman set a speed of "Warp 2.5" or "Warp 1.3" or indeed anything decimal?!
You've already mentioned the odd "eighths" that the Impulse System ticks are divided up with. But did you notice that the Warp Factors are divided up into SEVENTHS? How on earth does the poor helmsman set a speed of "Warp 2.5" or "Warp 1.3" or indeed anything decimal?!
Similar threads
