TOS Enterprise Internals

[Mytran]

All well and good, but a completely different process than I described.

I'm still not clear on what process you described - simply making the model longer to bring out detail or increase DOF would have the effect of showing the audience's TVs a physically larger Flight Deck, one that could never fit behind the pylons. This is not a trick of FP, it is REAL perspective!

In order to make the details stand out better when filmed, they might have made model longer.

Not only that but the viewing galleries, doorways and other elements would have to be lengthened and moved around, to avoid large blank areas of open space.

That might also be why they didn't make the side opening. Because it wouldn't look quite right to see the walls from the sides.

What wouldn't have looked right from a side view? The Datin model was built "true", without any FP elements or distortions. Are you suggesting that the longer viewing galleries would have looked too big or something like that?

Why would he suddenly make the hanger smaller? Unless that was the size he originally intended, which is what his cross section indicates.

I would guess that the reason he originally drew the larger hangar is because the description in the series bible says it is "large enough to house a fleet of airliners" and he was trying to reflect that as well as possible. The 112' long bay represented a compromise of differing factors and one that would fit into the rear of the Enterprise (whilst still looking sufficiently cavernous on TV), just not what Jefferies would have ideally preferred, which is what we saw on his cutaway and Phase 2 drawings.

And if you notice, my drawing is the only one that aligns to the ports for the observation deck. True they are round instead of square, but that is a minor point.

And it gives enough space between the hanger and the back of the engineroom for the hanger foyer we saw in Journey to Babel.

And there is plenty of room for several shuttles on both decks.

I have nothing to say against your cutaway, it is well laid out according to the criteria you listed for it

 

[publiusr]

And even at 1,283 feet, the nacelle supports are still dangling in the ideal case.

This is why I adore the TAS Enterprise. It is even drawn with a longer hanger *and* is scaled up both. Aridas did a version of this and called it the (lost) Defiant. And it is lovely.

 

[Mytran]

And even at 1,283 feet, the nacelle supports are still dangling in the ideal case.

It's certainly possible to fit the expanded MJ sketch behind the pylons but then the ship would have to be a massive 1,758 feet in length!
Also, the door curvatures do not match - maybe there were two sets of doors?

 

[yotsuya]

See, my issue is this constant need to scale things up. I don't agree with it. You're welcome to do it if you want, that's up to you. But I consider the length key to Canon. I'm not fixated on this particular drawing because this drawing is not canon. It never appeared anywhere in the series. It doesn't match the model in multiple respects. So I'm not tied to this drawing other than that it appears to be the draft for the hangar model. Same with the forward cross-section view of it. Both drawings have an obvious slant to the observation deck and control rooms. Something the model didn't have. At the end of the day if you look at my drawing in the cross section, you will see it doesn't match that drawing at all. I drew it from the hanger model and the details on the hanger model and the position and size that I believe Jeffries indicated on his two cross sections. So I really recommend not reading too much into this very problematic drawing and focusing instead on the model and the cross sections which are far more accurate indicators of how big and show the details of the hanger.

The 11-ft model, if we are to use that as the Canon exterior of the ship since it was the principal model used for all the exterior shots, shows us where the back of a hanger is. So the back of the hanger and the clamshell doors we can ignore from the model and this drawing because they are on the 11-ft model and are shown far more clearly and in much more detail. You have the bulkhead that surrounds the clamshell doors that is right underneath the leading edge of the upper dome. So any discussion about that end of a hanger really needs to be cut off and taken to the 11-ft model in the Smithsonian. Because that is what we saw from the exterior from multiple angles so that is the hanger exterior.
https://airandspace.si.edu/sites/default/files/media-assets/hangar-deck.jpg

The hanger model is the only Canon thing that we have seen. I have been trying to show from Jeffries drawing and the cross sections how I think he intended to fit in. And I believe that the dimensions of the hangar were designed so that all the details were clearly visible at that scale and to create a depth of field for the camera. I don't think that Jeffries intended that hanger model to be accurate to what he envisioned inside the back end of the secondary hull. So I use the drawings merely as a guide, a suggestion - because they're obviously preliminary. Instead I focused more on the space Geoffrey's left for the hanger and the details that Datin included in the model of the hanger.

So I'm completely comfortable with not changing the scale of any of it. Frankly, I think if you look at the scale of the model and the scale of the shuttlecraft miniature and the dimensions of the model you'll find that the dimensions of the aft opening match the dimensions on the 11-ft model. I'm not sure all the details do. But the dimensions do. The way my final drawing came out, those control booths look almost exactly like they do in Datin's model. True I didn't provide the length that Dayton's model has, but it is really hard to tell from what we see on screen of the hanger.

 

[publiusr]

the ship would have to be a massive 1,758 feet in length!

That really isn’t that large…considering you are on a ship light years from home. The hull and decks no longer have to be paper thin….the nacelle roots are firm and strong. Enterprise is still shorter than Galactica, Star Destroyers and Draconia. Scale up the D-7 similarly, and the cobra head-boom looks to be buildable. I even like two sets of doors. I’d feel quite safe and comfortable.

Seawise Giant’s 1,504 ft. record was shattered by the 1,601 foot PRELUDE FLNG constructed from 260,000 tons of steel. Though only 157 feet shorter than the Enterprise of 1,758, it is more of a Borg design than a swan and thus functionally larger…China’s 10,000 ton SPSS will be a kilometer or so. Even a 1,760 foot ship isn’t that large.

I would love some art of Prelude next to a 1760 ft Enterprise to show how, even now, ships are getting larger

 

[yotsuya]

I don't know what for parameters you guys are going for. But the way I'm doing it the decks are not paper thin and the hull is not paper thin. There's plenty of support structure for every part. Even if I was going by Jeffries deck layout like David Shaw did, there's still plenty of room for everything within the allotted space.

But I decided to work on something to put some of this discussion a little bit more perspective. Shouldn't take more than a day or two. And I think you'll find it very interesting.

 

[publiusr]

I look forward to seeing that.

I don’t have an artistic bone in my body…and always enjoy your drawings.

 

[Mytran]

That really isn’t that large…considering you are on a ship light years from home. The hull and decks no longer have to be paper thin….the nacelle roots are firm and strong.

I've never seen a cutaway with a paper-thin hull and the only reason for having such fragile decks on a 947' Enterprise would be if you insisted on 11 full height decks in the saucer as per TMOST.
However, as Aridas' excellent cutaway shows there are ways around this to make the final product more believably practical.

But I decided to work on something to put some of this discussion a little bit more perspective. Shouldn't take more than a day or two. And I think you'll find it very interesting.

Very intriguing! I look forward to that.
FWIW I think a slightly larger Enterprise works better if you want to include the sets as they appeared on our screens, but by introducing some "Hollywood reality" wriggle room (as per your project guidelines) there are plenty of ways to make a 947' Enterprise work, even if a 1,758' one might be more luxurious!

 

[Spaceship Jo]

I've always found the 947' Enterprise (or 1000' when it got there) to be far more dramatically interesting than doubling its size. "Realistically" could bigger ships exist or make some kind of sense? Absolutely. But the drama isn't that it's the dang biggest ship in space (nor the smallest, though both of those ideas have merit for different stories)!

It's big enough to tell the stories they wanted to tell, and small enough that it doesn't feel alien. And I don't mean alien like Klingons or ET, I mean alienating, the way truly massive real world HUGE THINGS do. The brain is impressed by insane scope, but it has trouble processing it. Many people's response to seeing the worlds biggest aircraft hanger or the biggest earth movers etc is to say "huh, it looks like a toy". And that could certainly make for great drama, but Trek's greatness was often about using shorthand for our comprehension, so being the size of a big boat makes all the sense in the world.

With MJ at the helm, metaphorically, the Enterprise made more sense than it had any right to. The pieces fit, at least well enough for TV sensibilities, and again, more than they had any right to, or certainly any expectations of at the time. Depending on what one feels the need to fit inside, just what we saw, or things that might be there because of TMOST etc, it can all fit in quite reasonably.

Part of the fun of TNG or DS9 being BIG is simply as a contrast to TOS, as different kinds of spaces, not that they are inherently interesting because they have more real estate. And being bigger in no way makes them more realistic, though it does make sense for DS9 in particular to be big because of what it is.

Very much looking forward to whatever Yotsuya is cooking up.

 

[yotsuya]

I decided to use Datin's scale and draw his hanger model per his dimensions, scale, and details. I got this. 12 pixels per inch to the model, 1 pixel per inch to the Enterprise per the scale.

It isn't finished, but enough to get the idea. And I left the rear gallery on the observation deck even though it is not on the model.

And then an in scale comparison to the Enterprise. Datin said the scale was 1"=1'0" So this should be accurate to the 947 Enterprise.

If you notice, the size is perfect, though the details do not fit at that scale. It is also the same scale as the shuttle.

If there is interest, I will fix it up and add a proper in-scale shuttle from an accurate source.

 

[Henoch]

One thing I assumed was that the dimensions Datin gave were for the outside of the model which included the wooden fringes around the model, especially the large flange at the front of the model. "Trimming" the flange off and getting down to just the inter hull shape matches up to the 11 foot model better.
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/is-the-bridge-at-a-funny-angle.306619/page-14#post-13719175

 

[BK613]

One thing I assumed was that the dimensions Datin gave were for the outside of the model which included the wooden fringes around the model, especially the large flange at the front of the model. "Trimming" the flange off and getting down to just the inter hull shape matches up to the 11 foot model better.
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/is-the-bridge-at-a-funny-angle.306619/page-14#post-13719175

Maybe, but in the quote from Datin, he says "flight deck" when giving the dimensions, and "model" everywhere else. So those figures could just be for the interior of the model.

 

[yotsuya]

One thing I assumed was that the dimensions Datin gave were for the outside of the model which included the wooden fringes around the model, especially the large flange at the front of the model. "Trimming" the flange off and getting down to just the inter hull shape matches up to the 11 foot model better.
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/is-the-bridge-at-a-funny-angle.306619/page-14#post-13719175

I assumed it was the outer dimensions. I used several photos to get the inner dimensions. The rest was just geometry. If you overlay Jefferies hanger drawing, you can see that Datin used the control booth height and applied that to the observation deck. I was surprised at how stretched out the interior feels when you see it in plan view. It feels so much shorter in all the photos and FX shots.

 

[Mytran]

I decided to use Datin's scale and draw his hanger model per his dimensions, scale, and details. I got this. 12 pixels per inch to the model, 1 pixel per inch to the Enterprise per the scale.

It isn't finished, but enough to get the idea. And I left the rear gallery on the observation deck even though it is not on the model.

And then an in scale comparison to the Enterprise. Datin said the scale was 1"=1'0" So this should be accurate to the 947 Enterprise.

If you notice, the size is perfect, though the details do not fit at that scale. It is also the same scale as the shuttle.

If there is interest, I will fix it up and add a proper in-scale shuttle from an accurate source.

Your timing is uncanny, I was thinking of doing the exact same thing!
Great work. It's fascinating to see the two versions side by side - Datin's design doesn't extend as far into the secondary hull as I would have thought.

One thing I assumed was that the dimensions Datin gave were for the outside of the model which included the wooden fringes around the model, especially the large flange at the front of the model. "Trimming" the flange off and getting down to just the inter hull shape matches up to the 11 foot model better.
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/is-the-bridge-at-a-funny-angle.306619/page-14#post-13719175

I thought this topic of conversation seemed familiar!
My thoughts at the time are pretty much unchanged - it's a reasonable assumption that Datin would quote the measurements for the outer flange (at the door end) since it would match up pretty well with the outer wall of those 4 alcoves. Of course, the outside of the model was pretty uneven but the biggest issue is that width/height ratio of 60/29 (at the doors end of the model) only really works if the inner walls are used - using the extremes of the outer flange (at the doors end), the width/height is more like 60/33.
Here's what I found:

Measuring inner walls only

Measuring from (estimated) outer walls:

Measuring from outer walls

Obviously there's a margin of error when using non straight-on shadowy screencaps in this manner, but there is a general pattern nonetheless.

 

[yotsuya]

Your timing is uncanny, I was thinking of doing the exact same thing!
Great work. It's fascinating to see the two versions side by side - Datin's design doesn't extend as far into the secondary hull as I would have thought.
I thought this topic of conversation seemed familiar!
My thoughts at the time are pretty much unchanged - it's a reasonable assumption that Datin would quote the measurements for the outer flange (at the door end) since it would match up pretty well with the outer wall of those 4 alcoves. Of course, the outside of the model was pretty uneven but the biggest issue is that width/height ratio of 60/29 (at the doors end of the model) only really works if the inner walls are used - using the extremes of the outer flange (at the doors end), the width/height is more like 60/33.
Here's what I found:
Obviously there's a margin of error when using non straight-on shadowy screencaps in this manner, but there is a general pattern nonetheless.

Ah, but there is one photo that clearly shows the aft end sans doors. And If you examine it closely, you can see where the doors fit, both in the end wall and in the hanger deck. If you ignore the height of the model and just focus on the width, it is 60 inches wide, making the deck that extends beyond the aft wall 30 inches. The difference between the height and the width is that the base that the model is sitting on is thinner than the side walls of the hanger itself. The forward end has a more uneven edge so I assumed that it stuck up as far as it went down and again used the width. So half the two width dimensions are how high the model is above the deck. We can see only a small slice of the forward end of the model and I used that thickness for the wall thickness of the hanger. This feels like the right depth for the 4 alcoves.

And the issue with screen caps really shows up with the observation deck details. Because they are on an arched wall, there is no good way to correct for the perspective distortion. Fortunately we have some photos that have all or part of each end and Datin's measurments for the distance between. The photos of the ends give us the height and profiles of the observation deck and the control rooms as well as the ceiling details (which I have not included yet.

Basically if you want to insert Datin's model at scale into the ship, all you have to do is fix the height of his observation deck and control booths. You can use Jefferies drawing to see what the height should be at that scale. It agrees with the 22 foot scale for the shuttle. Then the hanger just goes forward under the pylons just as Franz Joseph drew it. and with the very thick hull in that area, there might be enough room for some fairly robust supports and a way to pipe things to and from the nacelles.

But after having to stretch the details of the observation deck to fit Datin's size, I am more convinced that ever that the hanger was intended to be shorter, but was built longer for better depth of field when filming.

 

[Mytran]

Ah, but there is one photo that clearly shows the aft end sans doors. And If you examine it closely, you can see where the doors fit, both in the end wall and in the hanger deck.

As far as I know I've seen all the available pictures of the Flight Deck miniature and I don't recall one like you describe.
I know there's these two:

Both pictures show a groove around the perimeter of the arch, the pic on the right more clearly.
But the pic on the left clearly shows that the groove on the floor and the vertical groove do not meet

Of course, you may be referring to a completely different photo - I really hope so, there's precious few pictures of Datin's model around!

If you ignore the height of the model and just focus on the width, it is 60 inches wide, making the deck that extends beyond the aft wall 30 inches. The difference between the height and the width is that the base that the model is sitting on is thinner than the side walls of the hanger itself. The forward end has a more uneven edge so I assumed that it stuck up as far as it went down and again used the width. So half the two width dimensions are how high the model is above the deck.

The side walls were certainly thinner on the forward (non door) end of the model:

Compare that to the door end, where there is room to spare either side of the arch (my first 2 pics).
However, that thinness does not extend to the top of the forward end of the model, as we see here:

All this unevenness (plus the issues with the ratio of measurements) is why I think that Datin's stated measurements refer to the inner surface of the model, not the exterior.

But after having to stretch the details of the observation deck to fit Datin's size, I am more convinced that ever that the hanger was intended to be shorter, but was built longer for better depth of field when filming.

This is entirely possible, but I am more interested in the actual dimensions for Datin's model than the changes that would be needed in order to squeeze it into the area aft of the pylons.

 

[yotsuya]

As far as I know I've seen all the available pictures of the Flight Deck miniature and I don't recall one like you describe.
I know there's these two:

Both pictures show a groove around the perimeter of the arch, the pic on the right more clearly.
But the pic on the left clearly shows that the groove on the floor and the vertical groove do not meet

Yup, the one on the right is it. You can see that everything is clear from the area, and to the left side you an see part of an arcing line that is in the correct location for the door edge.

Of course, you may be referring to a completely different photo - I really hope so, there's precious few pictures of Datin's model around!

The side walls were certainly thinner on the forward (non door) end of the model:

Compare that to the door end, where there is room to spare either side of the arch (my first 2 pics).
However, that thinness does not extend to the top of the forward end of the model, as we see here:

Cool! I didn't have these two. I will revisit the back.

All this unevenness (plus the issues with the ratio of measurements) is why I think that Datin's stated measurements refer to the inner surface of the model, not the exterior.
This is entirely possible, but I am more interested in the actual dimensions for Datin's model than the changes that would be needed in order to squeeze it into the area aft of the pylons.

Yes, that is why I'm trying to faithfully render Datin's model. If you have any other photos that show either end or the interior, please share.

 

[BK613]

I hadn't seen this photo before. Thanks for sharing. Any others that haven't popped up in this thread?

 

[yotsuya]

I thought I'd just post every hanger/shuttlebay image I have that was useful.

(3D renders by Petri Blomqvist)

(3D render by Petri Blomqvist)

(3D render by Petri Blomqvist)

If anyone has better copies of any of these, I'd really appreciate it.

 

[BK613]

@yotsuya Be advised that the color images 3, 4 and 5 that appear to be from a magazine are in fact 3D renders by Petri Blomqvist.
See this post and thread for more info:
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/pho...ck-studio-miniature.34793/page-7#post-8622472