The only interior that could be used for scaling purposes on the TOS Enterprise was the flight deck*. With the flight deck, the TOS Enterprise comes in at 1080'. What other interiors supposedly didn't fit?
*edit: original FX
Last edited:
General Star Trek starship thread.
- Thread starter Charles Markov
- Start date
The only interior that could be used for scaling purposes on the TOS Enterprise was the flight deck*. With the flight deck, the TOS Enterprise comes in at 1080'. What other interiors supposedly didn't fit?
*edit: original FX
Agreed that the undercut on the TOS Enterprise prevented placement of a 2-floor interior on the rim but those large sets (engine room, gym/auditorium and phaser control room fit fine further in on the saucer.
Yeah, it's hard to buy into. If I were to try and imagine Disco Enterprise as part of the TOS universe I too have difficulty with the "restoration" aspect of the timeline. 3 years before "Disco" we know what the TOS Enterprise looked like in "The Cage". So let's say 18 months of redesign and refit we get the Disco Enterprise. And then a few years later they redesign her back to look the way she was in "The Cage" prior to Kirk's command? Or maybe they end up reverting her back because it was broken at the beginning of Disco's Season 2?
FWIW, an onscreen display in one of the TOS episodes would suggest that an earlier version of the Enterprise looked like the Matt Jefferies illustration which had a beveled rim, more curvy (less cigar) shaped secondary hull and warp nacelles positioned slightly differently. But we've never seen a ship reverted back to an earlier design in TOS or the TOS movies.
"Brothers" shows our heroes having records of Pike's ship with straight (if split) pylons. Granted that such records have consistently been out of date, as in the TOS movies. But if the swept pylons are a recentish change (perhaps even a field repair during the five-year mission), then this is further data for these things being extremely malleable and subject to many, many changes during a ship's lifetime.
Which is sort of the best possible take on Jeffries' original pylon concept anyway. The pylons don't separate the nacelles from the rest of the ship - they bring them closer to the ship, that is, the saucer! But they do facilitate rapid discarding or swapping of the nacelles, which might be the one and only point.
OTOH, perhaps Kirk "went back" only because this antiquated model of starship couldn't accommodate modern nacelles and had a dwindling stock of spares.
Beyond that, we have trivial aesthetics and a scale issue. I'm for the DSC scale having been the correct one all along, regardless of the back-and-forth-refit issue. But it does help with that issue, too.
Timo Saloniemi
Which is sort of the best possible take on Jeffries' original pylon concept anyway. The pylons don't separate the nacelles from the rest of the ship - they bring them closer to the ship, that is, the saucer! But they do facilitate rapid discarding or swapping of the nacelles, which might be the one and only point.
OTOH, perhaps Kirk "went back" only because this antiquated model of starship couldn't accommodate modern nacelles and had a dwindling stock of spares.
Beyond that, we have trivial aesthetics and a scale issue. I'm for the DSC scale having been the correct one all along, regardless of the back-and-forth-refit issue. But it does help with that issue, too.
Timo Saloniemi
Speaking as one of the people who's tried putting the interior sets into a 1000' TMP Enterprise, we really do, unless you're expecting that when if finally see one of the saucer-rim windows in action (outside the rec-deck), it'll be at foot-level.
I found it to just be a gimmicky piece of nonsense. Like the spinning primary hull on USS Discovery. It's supposed to look "cool" but really makes no sense at all.
The TMP Enterprise is a whole different can of worms. The recreation set is tied to the saucer rim windows and there is an obvious disconnect between the interior and exterior model where it won't fit without something getting changed. Same with the flight deck in TMP where it would require a ship as large as 1150' to properly fit in it.
But, I believe Henoch is speaking of the TOS Enterprise which only needs to be sized for the flight deck and at 1080' works fine.
I appreciate the hard work both you and other artists do on this site. Thank you.
Yes, I was referring to the TOS Enterprise. I'd rather see a compromise first in the interior set dimensions, then move on to the external size to arrive at something reasonable that could be a "real" 3D Enterprise. Others have the addressed the big three TOS scaling issues: Bridge; Shuttlebay and Shuttlecraft. My axiom, "If it don't fit, use a bigger hammer."
In dialogue, the word "starship" or "Star Ship" was used numerous times to refer to a special vessel. Even in Court Martial it is said that "not-one-man-in-a-million" can command a Starship. When I say "very like Kirk's Enterprise" I mean that the ship has a role that is non mundane, so to speak: not a cargo ship or a garbage tug or whatever. Registry numbers may mean a variety of things, what I think they mean, and what someone else may mean might differ, though I'd like to believe there is a real in-universe answer outside of the behind-the-scenes scrambling.
The interiors, if we are honest, most had oddly shaped wall-joinings to hide the real shape of the room. I would consider the size of most rooms flexible when compared with the set. This is even more true for installations like Starbases and the insane asylum from "Whom God's Destroy"
Probert said that room would not fit, and that it should be in the secondary hull, but whoever above him would not listen. Until I head that, I thought it was in the secondary hull. I guess Probert won on that one, in a way. Could that room not be the arboretum with the big windows, and the plants were not potted yet?
As I said above, I largely agree with this because many sets in TOS have layouts that could mask their true size. In a way, that adds to the magic and realism, because as much as I love the blueprints, I, for one, like having to figure out what the floor plan is "supposed to look like," when it probably was a room that looked 30' square that was really only 15' square with cleverly angled walls.
Last edited:
Apparently so. Yet Kirk's ship being one cannot be used as defining either the upper or lower limit or the exact middle of starshipness. That is, TOS with its single onscreen starship type provides no data on that, while the sight of bigger ships in the spinoffs only rules out the "Kirk's ship defines the upper end of what counts as starship" idea.
With DSC, we sort of get the least controversial setup: we see ships larger and smaller than Pike's, and no indication those wouldn't be starships (that is, gaggles of differently sized ships are collectively referred to as "starships").
Heck, we could even argue the rooms are flexible in-universe, too! The accordion-like back wall of the Transporter Room set, seen at differing weird angles in different episodes, might rightfully be a folding one - whenever something big is transported on board, the deck hands fold the wall away so that the personnel doorway doesn't limit what can be pushed into the corridor!
Probert said that room would not fit, and that it should be in the secondary hull, but whoever above him would not listen. Until I head that, I thought it was in the secondary hull. I guess Probert won on that one, in a way. Could that room not be the arboretum with the big windows, and the plants were not potted yet?
The twin turboshafts at the "front" end of the Rec Deck would sit rather naturally right below the Bridge with its twin turbostations... There's plenty of room for the Rec Deck there, aft of saucer centerline. Just install "interior windows" that can provide whatever view the users desire. Prominent but blank interior windows are a thing in all the DSC sets, after all! As are synthetic views.
Timo Saloniemi
Probert initially wanted the rec room below the b/c deck, so there's probably some design overflow from that.
I always heard that the tos Connie was designed from the outset by Matt Jeffries to be one thousand feet long even. The bridge and windows all suggest that size, with the refit the length was bumped up to something like 1200 or 1500 feet. So yes actually, the Tos connie does have a consistent size and so it makes no sense for the team behind Discovery to just up and change the dimensions of the ship to fit with their own notions of ship size.
Actually Andrew Probert had designed the TMP Enterprise to be 1000 feet even (305m).
The book, "The Making of Star Trek", page 134 talks about how the original concept to the TOS Enterprise was 200' but then expanded out by Matt Jefferies to 947' and was one of the behind the scenes explanations why the crew size was bumped from 200 to 400 between the 1st and 2nd pilots.
A while back I had tried to fit the filmed TMP flight deck and engineering+corridors into the TMP Enterprise and found that you needed at least 1165' to make it work. And ditto for the TOS Enterprise needing at least 1080'. But that's just us slide rule guys looking at this stuff and working with our own head canon.
The Disco team appears to be working with their own universe of ideas and that's cool. No reason to try and mash TOS into it
Honestly, that pretty close for any movie production. I'd say that supports the size range being as intended pretty obviously. I, for one, can just accept Probert's 1000' in that case and say the hanger just looks a little bigger than it is. Or, I could say the ship was a tad bigger than it seems. It's close enough for me. Thank's for the data.
Any math people on her willing to try to use the German Tank problem to see how many Starfleet vessels there are, like was spoken of before?
Yeah. If someone were to build out the interiors based on the drawings from Probert's designs instead of what the production department built for the interiors it would all fit
In another thread you gave 1831 as the highest registry number so plugging in the numbers:
m= 1831 (highest number)
n= 10 (10 ships in "Court Martial" list)
N=m+(m/n)-1
N=1831+(1831/10)-1
N=2013
Alternatively, "Errand of Mercy"'s unit XY-75847 might boost that number:
m=75847
n=1
N=151693
YMMV
Yeah. If someone were to build out the interiors based on the drawings from Probert's designs instead of what the production department built for the interiors it would all fit
In another thread you gave 1831 as the highest registry number so plugging in the numbers:
m= 1831 (highest number)
n= 10 (10 ships in "Court Martial" list)
N=m+(m/n)-1
N=1831+(1831/10)-1
N=2013
Alternatively, "Errand of Mercy"'s unit XY-75847 might boost that number:
m=75847
n=1
N=151693
YMMV
Wow. Thanks for doing the math. Okay, that's a simpler formula than I saw on Wikipedia, which was so confusing that I was not sure how to use it.
I don't know what the reference to XY-75847 is. Can you provide more info on that. For the moment, though about 2013 "starships", not all in active service, and around 150,000 total vessels in the Federation with various registries and roles (not just NCC) seems at least mostly reasonable to what is seen onscreen.
Thanks again for the quantitative consideration!
You're welcome @Mres_was_framed! I just used the simple frequentist formula. The more complex bayesian analysis I didn't do
XY-75847 is from "Errand of Mercy". In my head canon it's a destroyer-sized ship
UHURA: Captain. Unit XY-75847 report a fleet of Klingon ships in their sector, sir.
Similar threads
