Engine Room(s) on the TOS Enterprise (revisited)

[blssdwlf]

But given the choice between trusting TMoST, FJ, and TMP compared to TAS, I'll take TMoST, FJ, and TMP any day. I consider the technical details of TAS to be a joke.

The Animated Series is like an alternate 2D universe. It's like comparing Spider-Man and Spider-Ham. Of course they're going to be different.

TMoST includes pretty much all the information from the series bible plus a lot of history and production details. So we know that is accurate so Roddenberry's procrastination does not negate the book as a fairly reliable source of information. Probably more accurate than Roddenberry's later recollections. And it's place as a source for both FJ and the TMP designers is concrete. The places they align are Kirk's quarters and senior officers on Deck 5, Junior officers on Deck 4, general crew on Deck 6, Transporters and Sickbay on Deck 7.

Last time I checked, Kirk took the Elaan to Deck 5 to go to the sickbay in "Elaan of Troyius" so Deck 7 in TMOST isn't accurate.

And I am not elevating it above anything on screen. I'm using it to fill in the gaps and as a bridge to the larger canon.

I can appreciate sticking to TOS only and trying to create a ship that fits what we see on screen, but so much of what we see on screen was made more for studio purposes than out strict spaceship design that I feel the need to correct for that.

FWIW, I've been down the path you went with looking forward to the TMP Enterprise to get ideas on where stuff might go in the TOS Enterprise. Where I differed from your approach is that when I filled in gaps, I chose not to discard the source material to make the filler material fit. You are altering and discarding things in the name of "correcting" it to fit other supplemental material. It's like a subtle Retroactive Supplemental Continuity (RetSupCon?) Again, there is nothing wrong with that. What I've been trying to point out is that once you've started "correcting" things based on your personal preferences you don't need to refer to the on screen material as you're really building your own unique version of the ship. So what if the on screen engine room is 20' tall and won't physically fit in the outer rim of the saucer of a 947' ship? It will fit in your version because it's your version and that's what counts. YMMV

 

[yotsuya]

Hollywood has been known to create larger than life sets so they camera can fit in them and they have been known to create scale sets because full size would be too big. I'm just applying that known Hollywood practice to the TOS sets. I'm not changing anything else. The two engine room sets are so different that I think they represent two different rooms on the ship and with the frequently stated ability to separate (I consider the two episode references to be saucer separation whether that terminology matches the dialog or not) necessitates an Engineering room in the saucer. So yes, I cut the ceiling down from 17 feet. I am leaving the other one at 20 feet as the set was built. The bridge stays as built. Most of the rest of the sets just get a ceiling (which they didn't have but need to put them inside a ship).

But doesn't changing the size of the ship do the same thing? For the TMP Refit we have a lot of direct scale references in the form of docking ports, matte paintings, and four characters actually coming up a lift and walking on the hull. That happens to match the given scale and the TOS given scale. Plus the Enterprise and D-7 drawings appeared with a scale next to them making the 947 length canon. So what canon item do you change? I'm lowering the ceiling to a reasonable height and leaving the floor plan for all the sets as they were. I'm fitting things into the ship as unaltered as possible. I see in TMoST support for the way I've done it. 11 decks in the saucer, most with 8 foot ceilings and the others unseen in the series and given over to mechanical systems only engineers would see. And both Kimble and Probert stick to short decks in the saucer for the most part and larger decks in the secondary hull. For me everything lines up from the sets on screen to the studio models of the ships. And I fail to see any real difference in changing the lines and scale of the ship and changing the lines and scale of the hangar model. Given a choice I'd rather change the hangar. It has a lot less screen time. And the sets were limited. One curved corridor, one quarters, a couple of other rooms also off the same corridor, all to represent a ship with many more straight and curved (also at other radius as needed) corridors. I'm not going to let the limits of 1960's Hollywood limit the ship design. That doesn't make sense to me. I think some of the solutions are ingenius, but they are not for me. My secondary hull main engineering has a a completely straight cross corridor instead of a curving one.

 

[blssdwlf]

But doesn't changing the size of the ship do the same thing?

You mean the TOS Enterprise? The size of the ship isn't mentioned or illustrated on screen.

For the TMP Refit we have a lot of direct scale references in the form of docking ports, matte paintings, and four characters actually coming up a lift and walking on the hull.

That's the TMP Enterprise.

That happens to match the given scale and the TOS given scale.

That's not true. They have not been shown in a side-by-side comparison on screen and there are no specific details that can be used for accurate scaling.

Plus the Enterprise and D-7 drawings appeared with a scale next to them making the 947 length canon.

The diagrams as shown in "Day of the Dove" show a roughly 940' long version of Matt Jefferies' Enterprise. MJ's ship has a different primary hull, B/C superstructure, different secondary hull and nacelles in a different position than Pike and Kirk's Enterprise. Without a physical match, there is no canon length given for Pike and Kirk's version of the Enterprise. However, we can interpret it as a previous or possible future version of the Enterprise that looks just like MJ's illustration.

So what canon item do you change?

It sounds like you are looking for an excuse to change a canon item. A good reason is because you want to build your version?

Hollywood has been known to create larger than life sets so they camera can fit in them and they have been known to create scale sets because full size would be too big. I'm just applying that known Hollywood practice to the TOS sets. I'm not changing anything else. The two engine room sets are so different that I think they represent two different rooms on the ship and with the frequently stated ability to separate (I consider the two episode references to be saucer separation whether that terminology matches the dialog or not) necessitates an Engineering room in the saucer. So yes, I cut the ceiling down from 17 feet. I am leaving the other one at 20 feet as the set was built. The bridge stays as built. Most of the rest of the sets just get a ceiling (which they didn't have but need to put them inside a ship).

I'm lowering the ceiling to a reasonable height and leaving the floor plan for all the sets as they were. I'm fitting things into the ship as unaltered as possible. I see in TMoST support for the way I've done it. 11 decks in the saucer, most with 8 foot ceilings and the others unseen in the series and given over to mechanical systems only engineers would see. And both Kimble and Probert stick to short decks in the saucer for the most part and larger decks in the secondary hull. For me everything lines up from the sets on screen to the studio models of the ships. And I fail to see any real difference in changing the lines and scale of the ship and changing the lines and scale of the hangar model. Given a choice I'd rather change the hangar. It has a lot less screen time. And the sets were limited. One curved corridor, one quarters, a couple of other rooms also off the same corridor, all to represent a ship with many more straight and curved (also at other radius as needed) corridors. I'm not going to let the limits of 1960's Hollywood limit the ship design. That doesn't make sense to me. I think some of the solutions are ingenius, but they are not for me. My secondary hull main engineering has a a completely straight cross corridor instead of a curving one.

That sounds like a good plan for your layout You should check out some of the 3D build outs (there are some great versions of FJ's ships) and/or fan designs in the Fan Art section for more ideas on what that would look like.

 

[Henoch]

Uneven sets bug me so I need to find reason behind them.

In both TOS and TMP, I assumed that the starboard partitioned off area could be a horizontal turbolift run. Just another idea, but anything such as battery banks is possible.

 

[TIN_MAN]

Regarding ship's batteries or emergency power cells, these are said to power basic life support, such as gravity and oxygen.
But here's a thought, are they related to the "impulse power packs" mentioned in "WNMHGB"?

 

[yotsuya]

You mean the TOS Enterprise? The size of the ship isn't mentioned or illustrated on screen.

Except in Day of the Dove as you mentioned.

That's not true. They have not been shown in a side-by-side comparison on screen and there are no specific details that can be used for accurate scaling.

Really? What was this then? I call this on screen and in scale innumerable times in TNG. They happen to exactly match Probert's drawings.

The diagrams as shown in "Day of the Dove" show a roughly 940' long version of Matt Jefferies' Enterprise. MJ's ship has a different primary hull, B/C superstructure, different secondary hull and nacelles in a different position than Pike and Kirk's Enterprise. Without a physical match, there is no canon length given for Pike and Kirk's version of the Enterprise. However, we can interpret it as a previous or possible future version of the Enterprise that looks just like MJ's illustration.

I fail to comprehend why you insist it represents a different ship. To be frank, that is nonsense. The Enterprise is represented on screen by 4 different models, each with as many minor differences as that drawing has. Not to mention this drawing and the readout drawing representing the ship. It is all one ship. One.

This is something where you are picking and choosing. All are used on screen to represent the Enterprise. They are all different in some way. Yes, the 11 foot model is the usual one representing the ship in space, but not the only one and that ship display graphic probably spends more time on screen as it is in nearly every bridge scene.

It sounds like you are looking for an excuse to change a canon item. A good reason is because you want to build your version?

Nope. I am trying to juggle many conflicting things and settle on one which best fits everything I am looking at. As I am looking beyond TOS, I do care that what I do fits with the TMP refit. It is part of canon. You seem to be ignoring that. So you are picking the canon you want to make the Enterprise you want. Nothing about our goals is different other than you seem offended by my use of the greater canon and that I don't confine my sources to just TOS. The TOS Enterprise and the TMP Enterprise are supposed to be the same ship and my goal is to render two sets of plans that support that. Totally canon goal. And I am going by on screen shown sizes and dimensions.

And it isn't just the ship that is shown differently. Uniforms subtly change (sometimes in the same scene), sets are dressed different, things are described differently. TOS was just inconsistent about a great many things. TNG made a far greater effort and the 5 different models of Ent D are hard to tell apart. TOS was the 1960's and modern exactness wasn't the norm. I am taking that lack of exactness into account in how I judge what to include and what needs to be tweaked.

That sounds like a good plan for your layout You should check out some of the 3D build outs (there are some great versions of FJ's ships) and/or fan designs in the Fan Art section for more ideas on what that would look like.

That is not my goal so I will ignore your suggestion. I'm trying to render plans of a canon ship, not a fan art ship.

 

[TIN_MAN]

I'm a bit confused; wasn't it "The Enterprise Incident" that established the scale of the ship? "The Day Of The Dove" diagram really does nothing onscreen to establish the scale -except in a very general way- and to the extent that it does, it really represents the early 540 ft version of the ship, not the final 947 ft version.

The above post illustrates why I take the approach that TOS is an approximation of the fictional universe it depicts, and therefore there is an "idealized" version of the interior and exterior that includes elements from all models and sets, and why it pays to not get to pedantic about the details.

 

[yotsuya]

I think the bridge display graphic might be the only one that retains the older 540 scale (it was made for The Cage bridge set and never changed). The scale had been changed before the 33 inch model was built and everything following was scaled to 947 feet.

 

[blssdwlf]

Except in Day of the Dove as you mentioned.

@TIN_MAN caught it. We see the illustrated diagram in "The Enterprise Incident" of a version of the Enterprise that isn't the same as the one Kirk currently was on. So correction, it's not in "Day of the Dove"

Really? What was this then? I call this on screen and in scale innumerable times in TNG. They happen to exactly match Probert's drawings.

I call these sculptures artwork with nothing establishing its accuracy. And just how accurate are these sculptures when we know the E-B and E-C look nothing like their filmed versions?

I fail to comprehend why you insist it represents a different ship. To be frank, that is nonsense. The Enterprise is represented on screen by 4 different models, each with as many minor differences as that drawing has. Not to mention this drawing and the readout drawing representing the ship. It is all one ship. One.

Choosing to show only the illustrations is misleading. Let me add some better context.

This is something where you are picking and choosing. All are used on screen to represent the Enterprise. They are all different in some way. Yes, the 11 foot model is the usual one representing the ship in space, but not the only one and that ship display graphic probably spends more time on screen as it is in nearly every bridge scene.

More accurately, the 11 foot model is the usual one representing the ship in space while the other smaller versions are usually used in distance shots where the differences in detail are less apparent due to lack of resolution.

When we do see close ups of the smaller versions, they're usually in the form of representations and stand-ins for the Enterprise. However, they're all creations of the alien of the week so to have inaccuracies in those models are not unexpected.

The episodes where we see illustrations and diagrams are interesting. The one near the turbolift and the one shown in "Day of the Dove" sacrifice accuracy for readability as an infographic.

The MJ illustrations in "The Enterprise Incident" has two issues that keep them from being useful for dimensions.
1. In the SD version, the resolution is too low to see what the numbers are on the scale.
2. In the HD version, you can make out the numbers but then you can see the differences between the MJ version and the space version (11 footer). If you have ever modeled the MJ version you can see that it cannot be the 11' version.

You should watch some of the episodes you reference to get a better context of their usage.

Nope. I am trying to juggle many conflicting things and settle on one which best fits everything I am looking at. As I am looking beyond TOS, I do care that what I do fits with the TMP refit. It is part of canon. You seem to be ignoring that.

When did I not care about the TMP refit's canon-ness? I believe I wrote that the way you were creating your version of the Enterprise you didn't need to justify anything to modify the televised material since the other sources you are using don't really match. It just seemed more logical to do that when using sources outside of the televised material.

So you are picking the canon you want to make the Enterprise you want. Nothing about our goals is different other than you seem offended by my use of the greater canon and that I don't confine my sources to just TOS.

Can you quote me where I seem offended? If I'm offending you in some way please let me know. I prefer to be as accurate as possible regardless of the source (or pedantic as @TIN_MAN might say) so perhaps that's a problem?

The TOS Enterprise and the TMP Enterprise are supposed to be the same ship and my goal is to render two sets of plans that support that. Totally canon goal. And I am going by on screen shown sizes and dimensions.

It's an admirable goal but saying it's "canon" when there are no sizes and dimensions shown on screen for either Enterprises seems very head-canon-y

And it isn't just the ship that is shown differently. Uniforms subtly change (sometimes in the same scene), sets are dressed different, things are described differently. TOS was just inconsistent about a great many things.

So choosing to use the "inconsistency hammer" to bring in other materials that are also inconsistent as the filmed material doesn't compound the issue?

TNG made a far greater effort and the 5 different models of Ent D are hard to tell apart. TOS was the 1960's and modern exactness wasn't the norm. I am taking that lack of exactness into account in how I judge what to include and what needs to be tweaked.
...
That is not my goal so I will ignore your suggestion. I'm trying to render plans of a canon ship, not a fan art ship.

"Canon" is such an interesting word here for us to discuss. We're all fans here with obviously our own unique interpretations, our own head canon, of the Enterprise. So continue on

 

[blssdwlf]

I'm a bit confused; wasn't it "The Enterprise Incident" that established the scale of the ship? "The Day Of The Dove" diagram really does nothing onscreen to establish the scale -except in a very general way- and to the extent that it does, it really represents the early 540 ft version of the ship, not the final 947 ft version.

The above post illustrates why I take the approach that TOS is an approximation of the fictional universe it depicts, and therefore there is an "idealized" version of the interior and exterior that includes elements from all models and sets, and why it pays to not get to pedantic about the details.

Corrected my "Day of the Dove" comment in another post. Thanks for catching that

Oh definitely agree that you can get an "idealized" version of the interior and exterior that's a fusion of different models and sets. In fact, there are some really good examples of this in the Fan Art section that shows how possible that is.

I'm just pedantic or like to be accurate and precise about the details because it's just interesting to see if it's possible (and for building models)

Regarding ship's batteries or emergency power cells, these are said to power basic life support, such as gravity and oxygen.
But here's a thought, are they related to the "impulse power packs" mentioned in "WNMHGB"?

In "Mudd's Women" they also supplemented ship's power including transporter operations at the beginning of the episode. By the end of the episode the ship is running exclusively on batteries - including sensors, life support, and propulsion on the last leg of the trip. Since the batteries were already being used very early on it's hard to gauge how much total battery power the Enterprise has.

So regarding powering the impulse engines, apparently the batteries can do that but it seems like there was a distinction in Kirk's dialogue between "Auxiliary impulse engines" and being on exclusively battery power.

Captain's log-- Stardate 1330.1. Position, fourteen hours out of Rigel 12. We're on auxiliary impulse engines. Fuel low, barely sufficient to achieve orbit over the planet.
...
FARRELL: Preorbital course locked in, sir.
KIRK: That's the last time I'm giving an order twice, gentlemen. We're down to battery power, and we're low on that.
SCOTT: It'll get us to Rigel 12, sir, but it'll be a shaky orbit.​

It also sounds like "emergency power cells" and "ship's batteries" are part of the "power reserves" as mentioned in "The Doomsday Machine" and "The Immunity Syndrome".

Of course, YMMV.

 

[TIN_MAN]

I'm just pedantic or like to be accurate and precise about the details because it's just interesting to see if it's possible (and for building models)

If one is documenting filming miniatures as such, or sets as such, then I agree one needs to be as pedantic as possible, but if one is trying to represent what the fictional starship might really look like based on contradictory dialogue, models, sets etc. etc. then I think one is free to mix and match as needed to make things work as best as possible.

I for one feel that we can take "Te Enterprise Incident" scale bar as a "canon" estimation of the size of the ship because even though we can't see it very well onscreen, we do know what it says because we have copies of the diagram available to us from both TMOST and the box of the AMT model kit, so it's not like say, the turbo lift diagram, where we never get a good look at it and we don't have access to the original or good copies thereof.

So regarding powering the impulse engines, apparently the batteries can do that but it seems like there was a distinction in Kirk's dialogue between "Auxiliary impulse engines" and being on exclusively battery power.

I've been thinking about this as well, it is possible that the term Auxiliary impulse engines and emergency impulse power (as used in "The Doomsday Machine") are being used as technical distinctions for some sort of redundancies to the "normal" (M/A-M powered?) impulse power/engines, whereby fuel consumption becomes a problem.

 

[yotsuya]

I call these sculptures artwork with nothing establishing its accuracy. And just how accurate are these sculptures when we know the E-B and E-C look nothing like their filmed versions?



Choosing to show only the illustrations is misleading.

How is it misleading? It is an accurate comparison. And the differences between the 33 inch, 11 foot, and 4 inch are clear to see on screen and all three are used to represent the Enterprise in flight. The AMT kit Enterprise is shunted to the background, but the AMT kit Constellation is front and center and all the sets exactly match the Enterprise sets.

Let me add some better context.

An interesting collection of images (including one CG image that isn't from the series or a recreation of any of the drawings in question). But how does that get your point across as the 4 inch is clearly identifiable as is the one shot of the AMT kit. Plus you failed to use any of the images of the 33 inch mode that appear on screen in effects shots. It really fails to make your point that these different (not as in size, but in specific configuration) models while all are used to represent the single Starship Enterprise, are hard to tell apart because the small ones are in the background. And the 4 inch and 33 inch are NOT just used by aliens. They are used in effects shots and are clearly identifiable due to their variations from the 11 foot model. The AMT kit is also substantially different, but the only way I can tell which shots it was used in are from the misaligned warp engines.

Thank you for a set of images that really makes my point - different models - same ship.

More accurately, the 11 foot model is the usual one representing the ship in space while the other smaller versions are usually used in distance shots where the differences in detail are less apparent due to lack of resolution.

When we do see close ups of the smaller versions, they're usually in the form of representations and stand-ins for the Enterprise. However, they're all creations of the alien of the week so to have inaccuracies in those models are not unexpected.

While we do see the 4 inch model in Catspaw (we actually see two as the other is encased in clear plastic and actually is more accurate to the design than the free 4 inch model) it is also used in The Doomsday Machine. So your argument that we only see the 11 foot is in error. The 33 inch model forms most of the shots of the Enterprise in The Cage (the 11 foot was only used for the opening shot which was reused in WNMHGB and a couple of other episodes). And then lets address how the 3 different versions of the 11 foot model are used interchangeably and how the 33 inch appears in every episode in the titles. So either the markings, lights, ports, deflector dish, and other features are constantly changing or we have to admit that they weren't going for consistency and let cost override accuracy by reusing the shots from the first two pilots in every episode. If you are going to be a stickler for accuracy, you have to explain this. If you count the differences in the effects shots, it ups the number of models we see from 4 to 7 and really makes things messy. And you can't explain it away when markings change, the bridge gets shorter and taller, the deflector dish gets larger and smaller, the spikes and balls come and go, and ports appear and disappear. Face it, the production was not consistent and all these different seeming Enterprises are supposed to all be the exact same ship at any given moment. You can't just arbitrarily say any one of them is a different ship and isn't supposed to be the Enterprise because they all are supposed to be the Enterprise.

The episodes where we see illustrations and diagrams are interesting. The one near the turbolift and the one shown in "Day of the Dove" sacrifice accuracy for readability as an infographic.

From the timing of set construction, filming, and model construction, the infographic is probably the oldest illustration of the Enterprise. It would have been commissioned before the 33 inch model. Then they just kept using the same drawing over and over throughout the series on various screens.

The MJ illustrations in "The Enterprise Incident" has two issues that keep them from being useful for dimensions.
1. In the SD version, the resolution is too low to see what the numbers are on the scale.
2. In the HD version, you can make out the numbers but then you can see the differences between the MJ version and the space version (11 footer). If you have ever modeled the MJ version you can see that it cannot be the 11' version.

You should watch some of the episodes you reference to get a better context of their usage.

Well, since the episode was aired and the TMoST came out within a short span, I think we can safely say that the scale was usable since those drawings with that scale were published and that establishes the scale of the TOS Enterprise. SD or HD matters not at all. It is all the same ship. That drawing is supposed to be the same ship as the 11 foot model.

Can you quote me where I seem offended? If I'm offending you in some way please let me know. I prefer to be as accurate as possible regardless of the source (or pedantic as @TIN_MAN might say) so perhaps that's a problem?

You argue and pick apart everything I post that even hits at using the sources I have chosen to rely on. My choice seems to offend you as you can't leave it alone and let us keep this thread on topic.

It's an admirable goal but saying it's "canon" when there are no sizes and dimensions shown on screen for either Enterprises seems very head-canon-y

Well, you are denying the very clear on screen scale for the TOS Enterprise and TMP has people walking on the hull so we can glean a scale from that as well as the airlocks. So saying there is no scale on screen isn't quite true, you just aren't accepting them. So my question is who has the more divergent head canon? You needn't answer that.

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

And you can't explain it away when markings change, the bridge gets shorter and taller, the deflector dish gets larger and smaller, the spikes and balls come and go, and ports appear and disappear

Choosing to show only the illustrations is misleading. Let me add some better context.

Why can't these parts of the ship be supposed to change? Spikes could retract, deflector contract, etc. based on a function. That would be really cool to see animated.

Where did you both get those diagram images from of the different versions of the ship? They are really cool, and I'd love to see different angles of the different models, plus having the four inch model moved to the bottom so the more common ones are together near the top.

 

[yotsuya]

As I pointed out, the markings and ports changed from pilot version to series version. You can't explain that away with moving parts (and to me the moving parts explanation is illogical for other reasons). David Shaw has many drawings chronicalling each version of the ship including the Phase II version we never got to see. His work is very accurate and his drawings of the 11 foot model are based on Gary Kerr's work. Most of what I have of his is about 10 years old, so there is newer information, but his work on the 33 inch model is the best out there. He also had some great ideas for the internal configuration. I can't say I agree with all his ideas, but his work was great. I wish he'd finished it.

I put the versions in that order based on when they were used. The infographic I believe is the oldest and is used quite often, but it isn't terribly accurate to Jefferies plans so I included it only for completeness.

 

[blssdwlf]

How is it misleading? It is an accurate comparison. And the differences between the 33 inch, 11 foot, and 4 inch are clear to see on screen and all three are used to represent the Enterprise in flight. The AMT kit Enterprise is shunted to the background, but the AMT kit Constellation is front and center and all the sets exactly match the Enterprise sets.
...
An interesting collection of images (including one CG image that isn't from the series or a recreation of any of the drawings in question). But how does that get your point across as the 4 inch is clearly identifiable as is the one shot of the AMT kit. Plus you failed to use any of the images of the 33 inch mode that appear on screen in effects shots. It really fails to make your point that these different (not as in size, but in specific configuration) models while all are used to represent the single Starship Enterprise, are hard to tell apart because the small ones are in the background. And the 4 inch and 33 inch are NOT just used by aliens. They are used in effects shots and are clearly identifiable due to their variations from the 11 foot model. The AMT kit is also substantially different, but the only way I can tell which shots it was used in are from the misaligned warp engines.

Showing illustrations at the same resolution is misleading. The screenshots clearly illustrate that you cannot easily resolve the details to tell them apart. For an accurate comparison, you should put up images of the ships as seen on screen and make it clear where you can see the different details between the 11', 33" and 4" models of the Enterprise. Just because you know what the models looks like from close-up prop photos does not mean it is visible at the resolution that it's televised.

And then lets address how the 3 different versions of the 11 foot model are used interchangeably and how the 33 inch appears in every episode in the titles. So either the markings, lights, ports, deflector dish, and other features are constantly changing

I would personally describe the Enterprise as having the ability to reconfigure - adjustable dome height, hidden viewport shutters, adjustable size main sensor dish, nacelle dome extendable spikes, shutterable impulse vents, nacelle aft slide out semicircle, etc. Of course, YMMV

Well, since the episode was aired and the TMoST came out within a short span, I think we can safely say that the scale was usable since those drawings with that scale were published and that establishes the scale of the TOS Enterprise. SD or HD matters not at all. It is all the same ship. That drawing is supposed to be the same ship as the 11 foot model.

"That drawing is supposed to be the same ship as the 11 foot model". Yet it is not when examined. You're trying to have it both ways: the ship doesn't match the 11' foot space ship but yet you still want to use the scale.

You argue and pick apart everything I post that even hits at using the sources I have chosen to rely on. My choice seems to offend you as you can't leave it alone and let us keep this thread on topic.

Nah, no offense taken and I hope you don't take offense. We're both replying to each other so there you go. I do post a separate on-topic response to keep it separate from this specific discussion.

Well, you are denying the very clear on screen scale for the TOS Enterprise and TMP has people walking on the hull so we can glean a scale from that as well as the airlocks. So saying there is no scale on screen isn't quite true, you just aren't accepting them.

As pointed out above, the "Enterprise Incident" graphic is either too illegible to read the scale at SD resolution or at HD resolution shows a different version of the Enterprise to match it to the one we see in space. Now if you are referring to the TOS Enterprise's flight deck to be used as a scale then I stand corrected. Yes that would be a usable scale since it is part of the physical ship (in-universe).

As to the TMP Enterprise, are you able to show what that scale is from using the people walking on the hull and from the airlocks without trying to connect them to an illustration? What does that look like?

So my question is who has the more divergent head canon? You needn't answer that.

How many sources do you use and how much do you discard from each source?

 

[blssdwlf]

Why can't these parts of the ship be supposed to change? Spikes could retract, deflector contract, etc. based on a function. That would be really cool to see animated.

I totally agree it would look cool animated. There is no particular reason why they can't change since it's still the base 11' ship that has the variations. The behind the scenes answer is the production folks reused footage as needed but it does make it interesting to think about it in-universe

Where did you both get those diagram images from of the different versions of the ship? They are really cool, and I'd love to see different angles of the different models, plus having the four inch model moved to the bottom so the more common ones are together near the top.

Alot of the illustrations you can find on cygnus-x1.net. Screenshots though are either from DVDs or Trekcore.

If one is documenting filming miniatures as such, or sets as such, then I agree one needs to be as pedantic as possible, but if one is trying to represent what the fictional starship might really look like based on contradictory dialogue, models, sets etc. etc. then I think one is free to mix and match as needed to make things work as best as possible.

Oh I totally agree and I think it's best to call it as such. So it's TIN_MAN's TOS Enterprise, BLSSDWLF's TOS Enterprise, MJ's TOS Enterprise, Original FX TOS Enterprise, etc to have a reference point. Otherwise it's hard to discuss details among each other without some misunderstandings happening

I for one feel that we can take "Te Enterprise Incident" scale bar as a "canon" estimation of the size of the ship because even though we can't see it very well onscreen, we do know what it says because we have copies of the diagram available to us from both TMOST and the box of the AMT model kit, so it's not like say, the turbo lift diagram, where we never get a good look at it and we don't have access to the original or good copies thereof.

Right - on one hand we do know that it says X feet on the scale because we have external copies of it yet we also know that the drawing isn't accurate. Does this mean that we substitute in live action a creation of the drawing to be consistent? Would this then be an MJ-On Screen Enterprise reference point?

I've been thinking about this as well, it is possible that the term Auxiliary impulse engines and emergency impulse power (as used in "The Doomsday Machine") are being used as technical distinctions for some sort of redundancies to the "normal" (M/A-M powered?) impulse power/engines, whereby fuel consumption becomes a problem.

I think so...
"Auxiliary impulse engines" is used in "Mudd's Women" with all the crystals and bypass circuits out of action. And then they go to batteries once out impulse power.
"Emergency impulse power" is used in "The Doomsday Machine" when the main energisers are out but they are implementing emergency procedures.

Could the loss of the main energisers in "Doomsday Machine" be more critical than "Mudd's Women" and deny the Enterprise the ability to engage auxiliary power and thus forcing it to run on emergency battery power for the impulse engines? Or perhaps it's short for emergency battery power plus impulse power? There was no mention of damage to auxiliary power systems (unless that was part of the main energisers?).

 

[TIN_MAN]

Could the loss of the main energisers in "Doomsday Machine" be more critical than "Mudd's Women" and deny the Enterprise the ability to engage auxiliary power and thus forcing it to run on emergency battery power for the impulse engines? Or perhaps it's short for emergency battery power plus impulse power? There was no mention of damage to auxiliary power systems (unless that was part of the main energisers?).

Another hint comes from "Tomorrow is Yesterday" when at the beginning of the episode they are (once again) without warp power and Spock says they are on "secondary systems" to which Kirk replies "what about auxiliaries" as if this is separate from "secondary systems".

So perhaps main (energizer?) power systems, in addition to warp power, include whatever normal impulse power they have, and then there's the 1st redundancy which would be the "secondary" (emergency?) power system, and then finally the 2nd redundancy which would be the "auxiliary" impulse engines which are powered -or supplemented with- batteries?

 

[Henoch]

"Auxiliary impulse engines" is used in "Mudd's Women"

I take the term as not that there are regular impulse engines and another set of auxiliary impulse engines, rather I think the description is that the only impulse engines are considered "auxiliary" to the warp engines.

For power systems, regardless of terms, there are: 1. main power/energizers (power from warp engines), 2. secondary/auxiliary power (power from impulse engines), and 3. emergency power (batteries). Three different systems are enough. Dilithium crystals are probably part of the main energizers which are key for converting main power from the warp engines, and later in the series, key for converting (more?) power from a possible third M/AM reactor.

 

[yotsuya]

Showing illustrations at the same resolution is misleading. The screenshots clearly illustrate that you cannot easily resolve the details to tell them apart. For an accurate comparison, you should put up images of the ships as seen on screen and make it clear where you can see the different details between the 11', 33" and 4" models of the Enterprise. Just because you know what the models looks like from close-up prop photos does not mean it is visible at the resolution that it's televised.

See, I think the drawings help to identify the differences. And the SD screen resolution is sufficient to tell them apart. I first noticed the 33 inch on VHS and the AMT Constellation. And Lincoln Enterprises was willing to sell frames to individuals. Some people ended up with quite the collection.

I would personally describe the Enterprise as having the ability to reconfigure - adjustable dome height, hidden viewport shutters, adjustable size main sensor dish, nacelle dome extendable spikes, shutterable impulse vents, nacelle aft slide out semicircle, etc. Of course, YMMV

Yes, I've heard that explanation and it makes no sense to me. And with the change in markings and windows it is illgoical.

"That drawing is supposed to be the same ship as the 11 foot model". Yet it is not when examined. You're trying to have it both ways: the ship doesn't match the 11' foot space ship but yet you still want to use the scale.

You are looking at it with the exacting eye of a 21st century fan. Instead, look at it with the eye of the 1960's production or a 1960's fan. It is the same ship within the tolerances for the day even if it is not by today's standards.

Nah, no offense taken and I hope you don't take offense. We're both replying to each other so there you go. I do post a separate on-topic response to keep it separate from this specific discussion.

I rarely take offense. Heated topics can be fun as long as they don't get out of hand.

As pointed out above, the "Enterprise Incident" graphic is either too illegible to read the scale at SD resolution or at HD resolution shows a different version of the Enterprise to match it to the one we see in space. Now if you are referring to the TOS Enterprise's flight deck to be used as a scale then I stand corrected. Yes that would be a usable scale since it is part of the physical ship (in-universe).

I disagree. The drawing of the ship is off by a minor amount for the level of detail in the drawing. The hangar drawing is drawn with a forced perspective and looks nothing like the model as built and seen in the series. It doesn't even have the same details and is only vaguely similar in configuration.

As to the TMP Enterprise, are you able to show what that scale is from using the people walking on the hull and from the airlocks without trying to connect them to an illustration? What does that look like?

Without using any illustrations it is virtually impossible, so you probably would not like to see what I'd come up with.

How many sources do you use and how much do you discard from each source?

I use a lot of sources. Mostly the episodes (80 TOS and 6 movies), but also TMoST, the works of David Kimble, photos of the models, work of others who have had better source material than I have. I look for consistence and discard what is not. Sometimes that is something seen on screen, but more often it is fan based work that is in error when I examine it compared to what is on screen.

 

[TIN_MAN]

I take the term as not that there are regular impulse engines and another set of auxiliary impulse engines, rather I think the description is that the only impulse engines are considered "auxiliary" to the warp engines.

For power systems, regardless of terms, there are: 1. main power/energizers (power from warp engines), 2. secondary/auxiliary power (power from impulse engines), and 3. emergency power (batteries). Three different systems are enough. Dilithium crystals are probably part of the main energizers which are key for converting main power from t
he warp engines, and later in the series, key for converting (more?) power from a possible third M/AM reactor.

It's not that there are separate impulse engines, just separate power sources available for the same set of impulse engines. And I agree that "auxiliary impulse engines" in "MW" was intended to mean "auxiliary to the warp engines" but then there's that line in "TIY" which implies auxiliaries are separate from secondary/impulse engines, which then opens the door to other interpretations.