How big was the Enterprise?

[ZapBrannigan]

Certainly helps this diagram from the bridge make sense, with the saucer rim being only a single deck.

Good catch! That's not the bridge graphic that was created for "The Cage" small-Enterprise concept, that stayed in place for the entire series...

https://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/screencaps/season1/100-the-cage/the-cage-br-153.jpg

But I'd say it was pattered after the one-deck-thick original when it was re-drawn larger for "Day of the Dove."

https://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/screencaps/season3/311-day-of-the-dove/day-of-the-dove-341.jpg

 

[HotRod]

The thread was started in TOS forum—and not the GenTrek forum—so it would seem the question pertains to the Original Series E so I fail to see how SNW or the JJverse has any bearing on how big the Enterprise in being portrayed in TOS. Retcons are irrelevant to this discussion. Only the data points presented in TOS or created by the makers of that show matter.
IMO.

The size of the TOS Enterprise isn't a retcon if the size was never established canonically on screen. And when discussing the TOS Enterprise, it should be perfectly fine to take data points from other series pertaining to the issue. In A Mirror Darkly isn't a TOS episode, does that mean we can't discuss what was shown in the episode in relation to the Constitution class starship?

 

[BK613]

The size of the TOS Enterprise isn't a retcon if the size was never established canonically on screen. And when discussing the TOS Enterprise, it should be perfectly fine to take data points from other series pertaining to the issue. In A Mirror Darkly isn't a TOS episode, does that mean we can't discuss what was shown in the episode in relation to the Constitution class starship?

Don't see how any of that is relevant to what Matt Jefferies, Gene R, etc., were doing and thinking in the 1960s...

 

[Warped9]

The size of the TOS Enterprise isn't a retcon if the size was never established canonically on screen. And when discussing the TOS Enterprise, it should be perfectly fine to take data points from other series pertaining to the issue. In A Mirror Darkly isn't a TOS episode, does that mean we can't discuss what was shown in the episode in relation to the Constitution class starship?

Actually it was. During the third season a graphic does appear onscreen in “The Enterprise Incident” that while difficult to see does display the scale of the ship.

Don't see how any of that is relevant to what Matt Jefferies, Gene R, etc., were doing and thinking in the 1960s...

Exactly.

 

[blssdwlf]

Actually it was. During the third season a graphic does appear onscreen in “The Enterprise Incident” that while difficult to see does display the scale of the ship.

However... in HD you can read the scale but you can also see that the Enterprise is not correct as she has a different BC deck and the nacelles are much farther apart so you technically only have the scale for a version of the Enterprise that is not the one Kirk is currently on in "The Enterprise Incident".

And the SD version you cannot read the scale at all.

 

[Daedalus]

Actually it was. During the third season a graphic does appear onscreen in “The Enterprise Incident” that while difficult to see does display the scale of the ship.






Exactly.

I had to Google it, but I can see it on this article. I like learning new things.

Ex Astris Scientia - Variations of the TOS Desktop Monitor

All variations of desktop monitors in Star Trek: The Original Series

www.ex-astris-scientia.org

 

[Phaser Two]

I know most people won't care, but do we know how many decks the ship is? I always figured about 20-25. I remember when Voyager (series) was new, Voyager was said to be about the size of Kirk's ship. That might be true regarding general length/width/height, but due to the overall design of the ship, there has to be far more internal volume.

Hey - we care!! Great thread.

 

[BK613]

but you can also see that the Enterprise is not correct as she has a different BC deck and the nacelles are much farther apart so you technically only have the scale for a version of the Enterprise that is not the one Kirk is currently on in "The Enterprise Incident"

Makes you wonder if Matt saw the 11-footer as another approximation of his design, one compromised by the limits of a television budget. Because when GR asks him to revisit the design in the 70s for the aborted TV revival, what he comes up with evokes the diagram version more that the 11-footer, what with its curvier secondary hull and egg-shaped BC deck. And the cross-section view of the 70s version marries well with the cross-section as seen in The Making of Star Trek (TMoST).

 

[blssdwlf]

Makes you wonder if Matt saw the 11-footer as another approximation of his design, one compromised by the limits of a television budget. Because when GR asks him to revisit the design in the 70s for the aborted TV revival, what he comes up with evokes the diagram version more that the 11-footer, what with its curvier secondary hull and egg-shaped BC deck. And the cross-section view of the 70s version marries well with the cross-section as seen in The Making of Star Trek (TMoST).

I wonder also.

I treat the drawing seen in "The Enterprise Incident" as representing an earlier version of the Enterprise. What Matt drew is what he originally intended and as you point out, limitations of production ended up building a variant of it. In addition to the different BC decks and the placement of the nacelles we also can see that the primary hull has a beveled bottom edge to the saucer.

I think the same of the Constellation as being a variant of the original. I also like to think that in addition to Kirk's Enterprise and Decker's Constellation there is a version of the ship that looks exactly like the ship that Matt drew out exploring space.

Which goes back to sizing. If we use the HD screenshots we can size Matt's original version of the ship. But we cannot do that for Kirk's ship as seen. And if we use the SD screenshots then we are closer to the intent of the production which knew that the diagram was too low of a resolution to see any details or scale information over the TV.

If we also treat the Phase 2 cross-section as coming from the original designer intending to build upon the original design then it makes sense that it marries well with the cross-section from TMOST. However, the TMP version has a very different internal layout so it is hard to connect Matt's Phase 2 design with what we see actually built, IMHO.

YMMV.

 

[HotRod]

Don't see how any of that is relevant to what Matt Jefferies, Gene R, etc., were doing and thinking in the 1960s...

The question was "How Big is The Enterprise?" A question without a concrete answer. We can look beyond what was seen in the 60's to help us establish a size. Other productions have clearly contributed to the debate, hence their relevancy.

Actually it was. During the third season a graphic does appear onscreen in “The Enterprise Incident” that while difficult to see does display the scale of the ship.

It's not difficult to see, it's entirely impossible to see. Plus, I brought this up in my very first post in this thread.

Never mind that as far as I'm concerned, we're not discussing the intended size, but the actual, realistic size of the ship. The intended size was 150m, until it was suddenly 289m. Neither size works for what was seen on screen in both The Original Series or the films with the Refit.

If Roddenberry and Jefferies had no issue bumping up the size, I don't see why it's an issue, especially when it's never been firmly, 100% established in canon.

 

[Shaw]

The size of the Enterprise was finalized in October 1964, and did not change after that.

I outlined the history of the only size change in my 2016 reconstruction of the original Enterprise plans...

Click to view (sheet 1)


Click to view (sheet 2)​

And it is also covered in my history of the 33 inch model (here).


On the question of why the diagrams weren't accurate to the 11 foot model... the first reasonably accurate plans of the 11 foot model didn't exist until the mid 1990s. It wasn't as if Jefferies could just scan the 11 foot model to make a 3D representation and use that to make illustrations for the show back in 1968.

And as for the readability of illustrations from "The Enterprise Incident", the episode aired on September 27, 1968... the same month that those same illustrations were published in TMoST. That was the 1960s equivalent to HD screen caps or other behind the scenes details published on the internet today.

Some interesting aspects of the models...

The bridge dome on the 11 foot model was originally oversized compared to the plans. The original bridge on the 33 inch model was correct. Jefferies stated that he had nothing to do with the window added to the 11 foot model's bridge dome, he wasn't consulted on any of the modifications to the 11 foot model for WNMHGB.

For the series modifications, Jefferies requested that the bridge domes be shortened to better match the actual bridge set. To make the bridge dome the height Jefferies' wanted would have required making a new dome for the 11 foot model because of the window added for WNMHGB. The cost was too much for Roddenberry, so the original dome was cut off just above the hole for the window... making it shorter than Jefferies had intended. But the bridge on the 33 inch model was shorten to the height Jefferies' wanted in the series modifications of that model.


Does any of this matter? No. You guys can make up anything you want as far as the size... but the history of the production of the show from some 60 years ago isn't going to change, and all those artists are now dead so there isn't any point arguing with them. They don't care what size you think the Enterprise is.

But please don't complain when the 1/350 model kit doesn't build a 4 foot model.

 

[Daedalus]

The question was "How Big is The Enterprise?" A question without a concrete answer. We can look beyond what was seen in the 60's to help us establish a size. Other productions have clearly contributed to the debate, hence their relevancy.

It's not difficult to see, it's entirely impossible to see. Plus, I brought this up in my very first post in this thread.

Never mind that as far as I'm concerned, we're not discussing the intended size, but the actual, realistic size of the ship. The intended size was 150m, until it was suddenly 289m. Neither size works for what was seen on screen in both The Original Series or the films with the Refit.

If Roddenberry and Jefferies had no issue bumping up the size, I don't see why it's an issue, especially when it's never been firmly, 100% established in canon.

The trouble is, the 289m/947ft length has really stuck and just isn't going anywhere without a lot more effort from the show itself. You're going to need Spock spouting starship dimensions like an encyclopaedia if background imagery or barely visible plaques aren't good enough.

And I've spent an inordinate amount of time trying to find an external source for that 150m figure. Unsurprisingly, I keep finding myself back here.

Constitution Class Size(And size of Starships in General)

I would imagine most of us know the original Constitution specs to heart; Length of 289 meters, Width of 127.1 meters, Height of 72.6 meters. And to a know-nothing layman such as myself, that seems appropriate enough. Or is it? Given the overall role a Constitution Class was to function as, and...

www.trekbbs.com

I just want to find a book...

 

[blssdwlf]

The trouble is, the 289m/947ft length has really stuck and just isn't going anywhere without a lot more effort from the show itself. You're going to need Spock spouting starship dimensions like an encyclopaedia if background imagery or barely visible plaques aren't good enough.

And I've spent an inordinate amount of time trying to find an external source for that 150m figure. Unsurprisingly, I keep finding myself back here.

Constitution Class Size(And size of Starships in General)

I would imagine most of us know the original Constitution specs to heart; Length of 289 meters, Width of 127.1 meters, Height of 72.6 meters. And to a know-nothing layman such as myself, that seems appropriate enough. Or is it? Given the overall role a Constitution Class was to function as, and...

www.trekbbs.com

I just want to find a book...

IIRC, there is a mention of size in TMOST, page 134...

"The original series format called for a crew complement of 203 persons. Overall length of the Enterprise was originally estimated at approximately 200 feet. Now, however, with the Enterprise design firmly established, it became obvious these two points were no longer valid. According to Matt Jefferies' calculations, the full-size Enterprise would measure 947 feet overall. With that much room to play with, the crew complement was boosted to 430."

So an interesting idea is that the 200' is from "The Cage" so Pike's ship was tiny... and then Kirk's ship got rebuilt (or new build) as a larger 947' ship for the 2nd pilot episode which echos the differently sized Klingon BOPs we see. Since TMOST is only a point in time then there is room for the Enterprise to get upgraded post 2nd pilot which could account for differences in Matt's drawing and what is seen for the series...

Speaking of Matt's drawing of the Enterprise in TMOST, has anyone other than myself built a physical or 3D model of it? I've googled for it but there doesn't seem to be much modeling based specifically on his drawn version of the Enterprise.

 

[HotRod]

If we go by the rule that only what is seen or stated on screen is canon, how can we ignore this cutaway?

It's a screen used diagram that shows a ship significantly larger than 289m.

 

[Dukhat]

We’ve also seen MSDs for other ships that couldn’t possibly show an accurate scale, such as the DS9 Defiant and the Prodigy Dauntless. So MSDs should be taken with a grain of salt.

Gentlemen, scale has never been consistent in Star Trek. It is something that will be endlessly be debated, because nobody ever gets it right, or even cares to.

 

[blssdwlf]

If we go by the rule that only what is seen or stated on screen is canon, how can we ignore this cutaway?

It's a screen used diagram that shows a ship significantly larger than 289m.

We can ignore the cutaway's labels as those were never shown on screen

How does the Enterprise scale relative to the NX-01?

We do get a close-up of the diagram where you can see a person for scale though...

 

[Daedalus]

IIRC, there is a mention of size in TMOST, page 134...


So an interesting idea is that the 200' is from "The Cage" so Pike's ship was tiny... and then Kirk's ship got rebuilt (or new build) as a larger 947' ship for the 2nd pilot episode which echos the differently sized Klingon BOPs we see. Since TMOST is only a point in time then there is room for the Enterprise to get upgraded post 2nd pilot which could account for differences in Matt's drawing and what is seen for the series...

Speaking of Matt's drawing of the Enterprise in TMOST, has anyone other than myself built a physical or 3D model of it? I've googled for it but there doesn't seem to be much modeling based specifically on his drawn version of the Enterprise.

200ft...yikes.

I must be losing it, whats TMOST?

 

[blssdwlf]

200ft...yikes.

I must be losing it, whats TMOST?

It is a book first printed in September 1968. "The Making of Star Trek" by Stephen E. Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry.

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

We’ve also seen MSDs for other ships that couldn’t possibly show an accurate scale, such as the DS9 Defiant and the Prodigy Dauntless. So MSDs should be taken with a grain of salt.

Gentlemen, scale has never been consistent in Star Trek. It is something that will be endlessly be debated, because nobody ever gets it right, or even cares to.

Was the Defiant too big or too small? Been a while since I saw DS9. I always loved the shot of the Defiant tractoring a Runabout in S5, it showed how small the ship is. haha In Prodigy, I thought the Dauntless scaling was alright, but the Prodigy was sometimes shown as being smaller than it actually is.

How does the Enterprise scale relative to the NX-01?
We do get a close-up of the diagram where you can see a person for scale though...

I always loved seeing the NX-class (forget the ship's name) next to the Constitution-class Defiant. Neither were the Enterprise, but in a sense, it was like seeing the NX-01 and NCC-1701 side by side.

 

[Daedalus]

It is a book first printed in September 1968. "The Making of Star Trek" by Stephen E. Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry.

I see!! Damn that 200ft/60m puts everything into perspective.