Well, gee thanks! It's so nice to be appreciated. You've no idea! I was thinking about putting a series of "How-To" videos up on YouTube on just how to build Parametric VRML Models. I would love to inspire some Trek fans to do more than build 2-d drawings. Every time I built a part of this ship, I wondered how to detail it. Kept me awake at nights - waiting for sales at IKEA for bedroom furniture - this ship is just so damned big! Deck 6 is 3 acres. Same with Deck 7. You should see the Entertainment Centre on Deck 8 - it's just a HUGE space crying out for detailing - and it would be a showcase for doing grass, bushes and flowers in VRML (some people are already doing this BTW). But I decided to include a pic of the Security area on deck 7 - you never really see it in the show - it would be interesting to detail, especially the force fields and the sound!!! So cool. You can see a bigger pic here: In this pic you can also see the Deck 7 Briefing room (upper left) and part of Sick Bay and some labs (centre to upper right). Sick Bay and the labs would be awesome to detail! I have nothing for decks 2 and 3 either - they're all labs as well. Got any ideas?
I like the central core concept a bit better. How many years does a plane have to go before landing? I really think that if there was a plane designed not to land for five years, they would build the engines into the hull a bit more so they could be worked on in-flight. They don't seem easy enough to get to in the Enterprise design. If the nacelles are more like props and the engine hull is more like the engine area, that's how I'd rather think of it. Either way could work, but the TMP way just seems more user friendly.
A starship is supposed to be a closed, self-sustaining unit, out of touch with support bases and facilities for months, or even years, at a time. A design that follows a naval vessel model makes a lot more sense by that criteria than an aircraft model.
Well, I always thought that FJ's security section was inspired by the cell block from "Whom Gods Destroy" so you might want to check out some screencaps of that set to get a 'feel' for what such an area might look like in 3D, then modify it to match FJ's specs and Starfleet aesthetics? As for the labs, I've been thinking about those over the years myself. On the one hand, I like to let TOS inspire me, and use (re-use) props and set pieces as much as possible, and within reason of course, as this keeps things within the same 'art direction' and 'feel' of what's already been established. A good example of this would be the detail for the chemistry lab, FJ evidently was thinking in terms of a standard 20th century style chem lab? So I would suggest starting with the a look at the set pieces for the lab used in 'Miri" because evidently thes were lying around the paramount lot for some time, and were used in the background of some of the early puplicity stills of Spock holding glass retorts and whatnot, so this is something that Jeffries might have used if he had ever needed to design an shipboard chem lab set? But of course, we'd want to spruce it up a bit with various futuristic props and decorations so it wouldn't look too contemporary. And I always felt for some reason that Flint's lab from 'Requeum for Methuselah' had potential for 'apropriation' as a shipboard lab, same for the 'back room' in George and Aurelan's home in 'Operation Annihilate', these could give you some good ideas anyway, if mixed and matched in various ways? You could also consider some of Jeffries production sketches that for one reason or another never made onscreen? Also, the details from the botany lab we saw in 'The Man Trap' would flesh out FJ's deck 3 botany lab quite well, and screen caps of the 'rec room' from 'And the Children shall lead' will help with FJ's deck 18 botany section On the other hand, having said all that, I realise part of the fun in a project like you're undertaking is that you don't have to be constrained by time or budget constraints (as Jeffries was) and so you can let you're imagination run wild! And of course you can always use other Trek or sci-fi series/movies for inspiration? Anywho, let me know what you think, if you don't find these suggestions helpful, then I've got plenty more to choose from, so maybe I'll be of some use yet? Keep up the great work!
I agree, and would specifically say the best model from the naval arena is the submarine. You've got pretty much the same sort of requirements in a submarine that you would in a spacecraft - closed-system environment, self-sustaining for long periods, dependent on sensors for most of your info on the universe around you, etc.
But you guys are proceeding from a false assumption - that you can't "work on the engines" if they're in the nacelles. There's absolutely no evidence to support a belief that nobody can go into the nacelles at any time. And there's plenty of evidence to support the idea that you CAN go in there: Windows on the nacelle pylons - kinda pointless if nobody ever goes up that way. The interior of a nacelle being shown (in the animated series, with people in it) The interiors of nacelles being shown in TNG, and ENT (I don't know if it happened in Forager, and doubt it happened in DS9) So... the "you need to be able to get access to the engines for maintenance" argument falls flat on that basis. ON THE OTHER HAND... It seems to me that if the power is coming from a reactor, it makes plenty of sense for that reaction (with all the unpleasantness that comes from that - and I'm not JUST talking about radiation, mind you) would be kept a safe distance from the inhabited areas of the ship, doesn't it? Think of it in real-world terms. Suppose you, personally, were going on the first interstellar mission (hey, it could happen within our lifetimes, if we just get off our collective butts and do it!). You're on a fusion-powered vessel. Would you: Want to live right next to the reactors and the fusion thrust systems? Want to live as far away from those as practical? I know which I, personally, would choose. But maybe you guys LIKE the idea of growing a second head!
^^Also, there's the matter anti-matter inegrater seen in TOS, we're not told where it was, but the fact that Scotty says it was not meant to be entered while the reactors running (or words to that effect) seems to indicate that Mandell was right to locate it in the nacelle(s) as his plans have have it, and this is in keeping with Jeffries original take on the engines, otherwise inabited portions of the ship would be in danger? I for one, never liked the idea that anti-matter would be kept within the hull of the ship, this makes no sense to me, and defeats jeffries intention!
The one thing that's hard to reconcile is the dilithium 'pedastal' in main engineering. The dilithium 'drawer' room that Masters manned in 'The Alternative Factor' could be explained away as a number of things. I wonder about the viability of making the whole setup in the secondary hull an elaborate alternator of sorts that draws power from the engines and converts it for ship use?
That's what I'm saying, of course. And if you really look at it, well... compare the size of the "engineering set" in TOS to the size of the nacelles. It's TINY by comparison. Even if you disregard the real physical size and assume the larger size inferred through forced-perspective. And remember, there are two nacelles, so the scale is even further offset by that. The engineering set really is... well, compare the nacelles to your big V8 in a pickup truck, and the "main engineering" set isn't even as large as the alternator. It's more like the breather valve. I've always found it odd to say that something like the "reactor chamber" on the 1701-D was producing, with people standing right next to it, sufficient power to drive that entire vessel. To me, that always felt like a lack of grasp of the real power we're talking about. It was, what? About the size of a hot-tub??? I have no choice but to accept that latter-day Trek went down this path... little tiny "main reactors" which power everything (including nacelles the size of ocean liners themselves yet which have no built-in generation capability). But there's no substantive argument I've seen or heard to convince me that TOS had to have followed the same (to me) nonsensical tact.
Oh. I must be being extra-slow lately. On a slightly related topic, Timo made this suggestion in another thread, which actually somewhat fits this scheme: I of course played devil's advocate and my subsequent remarks probably aren't that relevant, but I'd say his are, and tend to reinforce what you're saying, Cary.
If you guys have 3d glasses, come see the video I made walking around my VRML TOS Enterprise Bridge - it's posted on YouTube.
I've received repeated advice and requests, on and off this thread, to continue to contribute to it. So I will do so while keeping my own research ("content") posts in my own thread. I've been excessively busy of late so a backlog of comments has built up. Interestingly enough I discovered that there is a 24113 character limit on posts. I'm not entirely sure that was there before... So like King Solomon I will split it in half. Feel free to skip as much as you want. +++++++++ That's certainly do-able, though I have a long winded article in my head about the relationship to "MJ" versus "FJ" ideas about 1701. This ship is a buffet, if not a full smorgasbord, when it comes to its true nature. I suppose there are a number of ways this could be bothersome. Assuming you are concerned about radiation, etc., actually, having recreational areas next to the Main Deflector (MD) isn't a bad idea. These areas aren't likely to be inhabited during alert conditions so any "surges" would be minimized in terms of casualties. The real problem then is he secondary hull "bridge". But its more likely that you mean deflector 'machinery'. I'm rather neutral on the topic: should or shouldn't it be there. I believe that FJ interpreted the squiggles at the front of the secondary hull as compartments and gangways instead of machinery -- otherwise he would certainly have put the appropriate mechanics in there. To me, MJ probably meant it as machinery -- but I have no real proof of that, and its always possible that this interpretation is wrong. The alternative view is that MJ designed the ship so that components either were inside the main hull (and presumably serviceable) or were external to it (and requiring EVA or dock repairs). I think that's how FJ looked at the MD: that it was a major component, that any control circuitry was inside the ship and serviceable, but that the actual unit itself consisted of massive components (perhaps even solid components) that were beyond the crew to do major repairs on without a support facility. But what about the TNG MD cross-section, it seem really complicated and big by comparison? Well, its had the benefit of a hundred years of technology, its probably much more powerful than 1701's MD because its on a much more massive ship (even if its not that much faster), and its entirely possible that a much more complicated but serviceable unit was desirable as a design trait. The main issue is that 1701D's MD is sunk into the secondary hull, whereas TOS 1701's is external. If you sunk the TOS MD into the secondary hull, you would have a lot of MD machinery "inside the hull" as a consequence (as in TMP presumably). +++++++++ Dave Shaw has dealt with structural reinforcement in this and other threads, and if anything needs it the Primary Hull is what is lacking in FJ's plans. In terms of the pylon to hanger bay arrangement, it could be worse. Over the years I've seen FJ repeatedly criticized that he didn't understand that the hanger drawing in TMoST was a forced perspective drawing, and that the actual design would be much longer. In actuality, I've yet to see (or at least notice/remember, corrections welcome) anyone come up with a hanger bay design longer than FJ's in any proposed plans or cross-sections -- usually they are shorter. FJ's seems to be longer than MJ's various cross-section plans. So you can't have it both ways: that FJ is wrong in having the hanger bay too short and wrong in placing the pylons "through" the hanger bay. He did the best he could, and somebody, somewhere, got something else "wrong". Or our assumptions are wrong. As to the ship's layout, Tin_Man is correct that many of these complaints go back to FJ's primary source material, "The Making of Star Trek" (which used the original writer's guide) and the aired TV episodes. The show depicts single person cabins. FJ shows them and dual person cabins. Yes it would be possible to install bunk beds and increase the crew capacity but that would decrease the quality of living. Same goes for the bathrooms, people are stuck for months on these vessels -- and its by choice not necessity -- so minor luxuries help morale. The ship is big enough to house the crew in this way, and have a reasonable amount of equipment and storage (if recycling or replication is taken into account). How people live on a modern aircraft carrier, especially the people billeted under the catapult, and don't go insane is hard to grasp. In terms of external access points, that goes back to the studio model, and ultimately MJ. As to hatches, you forgot FJ's observatory doors. There are some details on the model that might or might not be hatches, some of which are about man-sized (there placement isn't great for docking, if I remember right). The yellow circle on the bottom might be a gigantic cargo hatch. The white squares on the top of the Primary Hull might be gangway hatches (like seen in ST:TMP) requiring massive airlock umbilicals (like at a starbase?). The turbolift shaft behind the bridge might be used to move people in and out of the ship (FJ's scheme for starbase docking). Other people have proposed docking hatches in various places. I've conceived of a scheme where the three small sensors or deflectors at the front of the Primary Hull flip up and create a docking point complete with airlock. Some of these schemes are not inconsistent with FJ. As depicted in TOS, 1701 is not primarily a research ship, it performs defense, patrol, (minor) supply, scouting, and survey duties (only the last of which emphasizes the use of labs). FJ put labs where TMoST pretty much told him they should be, which is where the writers were told they would be (whether they listened or not). At one point I counted the labs in either the FJ or derivative FASA plans and there were (if I remember correctly) 14 of them (including a few medical labs, which certainly could do biological studies, at the least). Unlike labs in our world, these would be manned by three shifts all days of the week, so comparatively that triples the amount of work that can be done. Of course, while the labs appear small. Of course, 300 years of technical advancement would also hopefully make them much more efficient, and research doesn't have to always be done in a lab -- once any raw data has been entered into the computer system most of the rooms on the ship have data terminal access. Additionally FJ gives a roster of 80 Science staff (incl. 2 Yeomen, one of which might be assigned to Medical), 56 Medical (under the Science department, which makes sense for planetary survey work), leaving Command with 55 personal, and Engineering with 239. So, from FJ's perspective true science seems the second most important role of the ship in terms of manpower, second only to keeping it running. +++++++++ My own perspective was that the ship would have a thick outer hull, strong decks and frames, and not need any structural framework (or even design) beyond that (call it the "egg" model of hull design, though its actually an internally braced "egg"). Until Dave pointed it out, I hadn't noticed that FJ provides a structural framework inside the hull, other than on the first Secondary hull deck. When I was a kid I conceived of a massive hull, perhaps a meter thick. Today, we've seen a few examples of destroyed outer hulls at close view and that's perhaps highly excessive. So, for the sake of argument, lets say that the hull is a foot thick and composed of Tritanium (21.4 times as hard as diamond). The decks and frames are also composed of this, but probably less thick. Key bulkheads, struts, and other critical structural members may be composed of cast Rhodinium (the hardest material known in TOS). Certainly bases would probably use these materials, and if someone wants to suggest Duranium that's OK -- shuttle in TOS are made of it. As described on screen, these materials must be incredibly durable by our standards and probably very dense. Which is one reason, after years of (rabid) resisting, I've had second thoughts about the TNG style ship-mass scheme. But that's the subject of another, long-winded, post. There are four possibilities for the Tube Room I can think of. 1. M/AM Reactor 2. Impulse Engine Housing (FJ solution) 3. Auxillery Power Reactor (as in Star Fleet Battles) 4. Power converter (would probably be called the "Main Energizers") #1 is possible, but I'd hate to do it in the Primary Hull. I'd hate to be in the Secondary Hull if it blew up. #2 & 3 are possible, and might be visually identical (two rooms for one price). #4 is possible and could explain what the dilithium pedestal is doing there. Might explain the fireworks in "The Paradise Syndrome" (or is it "The Tholian Web"?). That the gigantic tube room is a power converter seems a bit much. Its also possible that the dilithium pedestal is an upgrade meant to amplify or convert power, from/to whatever the tube room is (another "addition" was made in TAS, for example, an upright clear tube off to the side). The use and health of those crystals might or might not be related to other locations where dilithium is used. Yes, this all gets slippery... to avoid long-windedness I will stop here. To me, in TOS, dilithium is used to channel or amplify the product of the M/AM reaction. In the TNG tech manual, if I remember correctly, the dilithium is essentially the M/AM reaction site (the matter and antimatter "mingle" inside the crystals)... which makes absolutely no sense to me. To be continued...
Do I ever get the final word? I think I'm pro FJ's blueprints! If for no other reason, than that it looks nice when you put them together... If you want to see a larger version, click here.
Nobody's saying that you couldn't get to the workings up in the nacelles. It's getting to them in a timely manner if there's an emergency. I'd like to find out more about John Meredyth Lucas' background, since it's his scripts where we get the most specific information about the layout of the engines, specifically "Elaan of Troyius" and "That Which Survives".
So here's something you don't see everyday: 3d anaglyph and transparent TOS Enterprise rendered in VRML... If you squint, you can almost see the deck 4 briefing room... If you want a larger pic, click here.
OK I have a question for you... Does the Star Wars Millennium Falcon fit inside the TOS Enterprise Shuttle Bay? WITHOUT checking your databases and secret caches of books and geeks, put your answers here and I'll show you a picture of the Falcon in the Shuttle Bay!!
I think it is clear that the main power for the ship comes from the Engineering deck. In Elaan of Troyius, damage to that dilithium pedestal caused the ship to be reduced to impulse power. If the main M/AM reactors were in the nacelles, then why would damage to the "converter" in the Enginnering deck create problems?
That all depends. The two ship's dimensions are widely debatable in the first place. The biggest allowable shuttlebay might be able to hold the smallest allowable Falcon but somehow I doubt it. The simplest answer is that the equipment in "Main Engineering" is in some way critical to the operation of the power generators in the nacelles. In what way? Who knows? My personal pet theory is that there are three reactors, one in each nacelle and the third in the secondary hull. (Where Chekov claims the creature was near "reactor number three" in "Obsession" -- or wait, maybe it was "Day of the Dove", one of those I'm pretty sure) Reactors one and two, one in each nacelle, power the warp engines themselves. These things are beasts for sure and require vast amounts of juice to keep going so it makes ence to keep the generators right up there with them. The third reactor powers the ship, but uses a major portion of that energy to fire up to each nacelle to "prime the pump" so to speak. Without the central reactor (or control reactor if you prefer) to keep both nacelle reactors synchronized, the ship cannot activate warp drive without tearing itself to pieces. Therefore the central reactor is the weak link in the chain that, if sabotaged by secret suicide agents or mysterious holographic dead women, can cause majors plot problems with the function of the warp drive. This is actually a very hotly debated subject. Next to "does the TOS bridge face forward or 30-odd degrees to the left" the reactor arrangement of Kirk's ship is perhaps the most polarized subject of trek-nological debate. The arrangement I described here does satisfy all the on-screen references to the power systems of the Enterprise. Trust, me, I've watched and rewatched the episodes over and over looking for just such references. Like a lot of us here, it's something of a hobby for me. However, arguments can be made for either model. It usually boils down to how you interpret some specific word like "pod" and what that might mean in any given context. Your milage may vary, of course. --Alex
Okay, I'll bite. I don't think the Falcon would fit inside the TOS shuttle bay. By the way your VRML Enterprise is very cool. You should start your own thread about it!