Another take on the Original Enterprise...

[Cary L. Brown]

I've decided to share a little bit of what I've been working on recently. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the "rebooted" Enterprise design, by the way, and is only related to the "real" Enterprise.

Some of you may recall my work on other ships. I generally don't try to do a movie-quality photorealistic model... I'm more interested in form and function... how things fit together and what they're there for. And I've begun doing that for the classic 1701.

Let me start off with saying that I started off trying to make things work properly with the 947' foot number, and nearly immediately was forced to drop that. The main driver for my (largely pre-assumed) conclusion on that matter was the bridge. I then upsized things to the largely accepted 1080' size, which worked fairly well, but as I've gone forward, I've downsized things very slightly to get the best practical fit. So, my version of the 1701 is 1067' in length, and so far everything seems to be working out very nicely.

While I've done a lot of layout work in both hulls, I've only done physical modeling of the primary hull. My "secondary" criteria have been making external features line up, and my tertiary criteria was to try to stay with established elements (like the 11-deck p-hull, the 10' ceilings in corridors, etc). I'm also considering a few "tossed-out" lines here and there... like VIP guest quarters on deck 2, from "Enterprise Incident," for instance.

Here are a few images to whet your appetite and stir conversation. I'll start the thread with full-size images, but later posts will use thumbnails, most likely, linked to the full-size ones.

Here's the primary hull top, seen from the front.

And a bit closer view...

And seen from inside:

Now, that bridge is based upon the McMaster blueprints. I don't intend to give it more detail... since its main purpose is to "look right" through the dome.

Here's another of the rooms I intend to "dress up" a bit. This is the starboard-side VIP cabin on Deck 2. This would be where the Romulan Commander was berthed after her capture. You can get the sense of the space here, along with the windows which I'm sure you've seen many times before. Obviously, there will be more detail here eventually, but this is a good start.

Finally, a couple of images from within the CAD software I'm using. This next image is a quick version and will be better-populated later, but it should give you an idea of where I'm going with this.

Here's a scale comparison... this one from the 1080' vs. 947' version I was with before. Again, I've downscaled very slightly now to get the fit "perfect"... so I'm at 1067' now.

And the beginning of a deck-by-deck breakdown.

 

[MadMan1701A]

WOW. I can't believe you've actually got decks modeled inside this thing.

You'll be able to create some amazing cutaway images with this.

 

[TheSeeker]

Very interesting stuff.

I don't have anywhere near the knowledge that you or others here on this forum have of the Enterprise blueprints, but I've always liked your practical approach to starship modeling. It gives a sense of realism to them even if you don't render them photo-realistically.

I look forward to seeing more of this!

 

[Wingsley]

Very interesting work.

I have been curious about the "1080-feet" school-of-thought for some time now, but I never waded more than ankle-deep into that discussion.

Have you considered what this would do to interior space in the aft of the saucer rim (impulse engine room)? What kind of space could be found there for impulse engineering? (One of the confusing asides in "The Day of the Dove" was that the Klingons controlled Deck 6 and part of Deck 7, which would've made "the final battle" take place in a much smaller impulse engine room "near reactor number three".)

 

[Arlo]

I'm mostly a lurker around here, but I had to chime in. This is the coolest, most original and fascinating (sorry) project I have seen on this board in a long time. Amazing work.

 

[Racer_X]

Cary, could you elaborate on your thoughts regarding the bridge not being able to fit into a 947' ship? As you may recall, last year I completed my model of the bridge in Google Sketchup (As discussed here: http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=44981), and was able to fit the bridge into Jefferies' cutaway sized up to 947'.



The one difference I see is that you appear to be assuming that Deck 1 does not drop into the space of Deck 2, whereas I assumed that, just as Jefferies' drawing shows, Deck 1 does drop into the space of Deck 2. With this assumption, I got the bridge into the dome with no problem.

 

[TIN_MAN]

I've been following the scale debate for some time now, without an axe to grind one way or the other, some aspects apeal to me while others do not. But I have to say, you almost make a believer of me, even with just what you've shown so far! FWIW the difference in the size of the turbo lift interior with the external diameter of the shaft seen behind the bridge dome, might be explained, if we assume a triangular 'inner' buttress between the outer larger diameter shaft and inner smaller dia. T/L, like we saw in ST:TFF? When I first saw this, I was like, WTF? but then, after seeing how Shane Johnson put the idea to good use in his proposal for updated plans, I realised how much sense it made, allowing as it does, for ladder wells in the "corners" while reinforcing the intire shaft. Anywho, it's something to think about, Keep up the good work!

 

[sojourner]

It will be interesting to see how your project compares to http://www.3dbuzz.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=175366 , since this guy seems to be going straight from the FJ plans.

 

[Shaw]

Sinclair's bridge is larger than the model's and his turbo lift shaft is nearly a third taller, so for what you are wanting to do, those plans were the best choice... specially if you decided to use the McMaster's bridge plans, which are about 14% larger than the original set plans.

So to get a bridge that is 14% larger into the Enterprise, I can see where having the Enterprise be about 14% larger as well would solve a ton of issues. And avoiding Casimiro's plans (which have the correct dimensions for the bridge dome and turbo lift shaft compared to the actual model) also side stepped issues that would have been a problem even after scaling up the overall dimensions. Plus Casimiro has done a better job on matching the original window placement, which again would be inconvenient (and best avoided).

You're doing a great job so far (better than those based on Joseph's plans, but I'm bias) and I look forward to seeing how this turns out. These types of projects are always my favorites to follow.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Cary, could you elaborate on your thoughts regarding the bridge not being able to fit into a 947' ship? As you may recall, last year I completed my model of the bridge in Google Sketchup (As discussed here: http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=44981), and was able to fit the bridge into Jefferies' cutaway sized up to 947'.



The one difference I see is that you appear to be assuming that Deck 1 does not drop into the space of Deck 2, whereas I assumed that, just as Jefferies' drawing shows, Deck 1 does drop into the space of Deck 2. With this assumption, I got the bridge into the dome with no problem.

Actually, there are two main issues with the 947' take. First is the "deck elevation" of the bridge, and you're correct, you can compensate for that by setting the deck level down a bit.

The problem is, you can't compensate for the lift-shaft location that way. I'm using McMaster's bridge plans, here. I know that there are some minor issues which have since been found with his work (mainly that the wedges on the real set weren't EXACTLY 18 degrees all around, which is something I'm assuming here, because it makes more "real life" sense to me). But I'm taking his lift location number as canon.

I saw your sketchup model of the bridge (and have a copy on my hard drive). Forgive me if I'm mistaken here, but you didn't model the lift car, did you? If you did... did you notice how much farther aft it has to be, beyond where the "on-the-model" tube is? That was actually my PRINCIPLE scaling decider... I didn't want to do what a few other folks have done (and set the bridge a deck lower) and I wanted the lift tube to, in fact, be the lift tube. That is the ONLY hard-and-fast scaling feature on the entire ship, as far as I can see. There is a clear distance between the centerline of the primary hull and the centerline of the lift tube, and that results in the scale I eventually determined to be the "best fit."

Of course, my "on the model" centerline locations are based upon third-party drawings (in my case, I've been doing a bit of a synthesis between Synclair's and ... oh, geeze, I'm blanking here at the moment but most of you know the other "really accurate" set out there.... ). Is it possible that these aren't really 100% accurate to the model? Of course. So I'm also being a bit flexible in that regard.

It just turns out that with the 947' version, the lift tube doesn't even remotely line up with the "real set" location of the lift tube. That, and the hangar deck stuff, are really my two major "beefs" with the 947' number.

Make sense?

One other thing... if you look closely, my bridge DOES "sink into deck 2." However, I only have it doing so in the central region of the bridge (captain, helm, navigation) which are setting on top of the computer core. That was really one of two reasons I wanted to put the core in that location... you can have a reduced ceiling height in a two-level "core" area without any real impact - plus, the bridge really ought to be directly wired into the computer core, I think.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Sinclair's bridge is larger than the model's and his turbo lift shaft is nearly a third taller, so for what you are wanting to do, those plans were the best choice... specially if you decided to use the McMaster's bridge plans, which are about 14% larger than the original set plans.

Interesting... I know that you got ahold of a really good set of Desilu studio plans at some point... I don't have access to those (care to share?) I like the McMaster plans, and honestly, I think that when I "walk around" in my little bridge here, it really does feel like the same room we saw in the series. I recall that it was either you who determined, or you who pointed out in this forum, the little "every section isn't exactly 18 degrees" thing, wasn't it? And you know I appreciate the work you've done, too... though I still like my approach better.

So to get a bridge that is 14% larger into the Enterprise, I can see where having the Enterprise be about 14% larger as well would solve a ton of issues. And avoiding Casimiro's plans (which have the correct dimensions for the bridge dome and turbo lift shaft compared to the actual model) also side stepped issues that would have been a problem even after scaling up the overall dimensions.

I'm not entirely convinced that either one is "more right" than the other in every regard. In fact, in my CAD model, I'm keeping a "style guide" view of both up, and using both as references (turn one on, then turn the other on, and see which makes the most sense to me). There are a ton of differences, but all are very subtle. And short of doing a laser-scan of the original model (which, by now, has probably "drooped" a lot anyway) I'm not sure we have any real way to tell, other than by seeing which one looks most like the visual effects shots from the original show when "filmed" in an equivalent fashion.

For me, the models based upon the Sinclair version "look more right." But that's as much perception as anything else. However, I'll take you (who've clearly spent a lot more time than I have in recent months studying this very issue) as probably being "more right."

I know you've been trying to squeeze everything into a 947' hull... and I've been following your work with great interest. Doesn't matter which one is "right"... as long as neither one ends up using a brewery or an apple store or the corridors from "The Andromeda Strain" inside!

Plus Casimiro has done a better job on matching the original window placement, which again would be inconvenient (and best avoided).

Windows, in particular, are going to be different on my ship than on EITHER of those plans. Very very close to both, certainly, but I'm going to try to get a consistent "eye level" centerline for the windows, which I don't believe can really be achieved with ANY of the versions we've seen so far.

It's worthwhile to note one assumption I'm making here. Square shapes are actually windows. But circular ones are SENSOR WINDOWS or other non-sightseeing-purpose aperatures. For instance, I've got the two little guys in front on Deck 2... which are too low to be windows... as something entirely different. Unlike FJ, who made them "torpedo tubes," I've made them extendible elements of the subspace transceiver array. This comes from an idea I came up with for the TMP Enterprise... that the odd little "inset ring" around the B-C-deck superstructure was actually really the main subspace transceiver antenna. So for the pre-refit ship, that's also in the same region of the ship. This is unsupported, really, but it's an idea I've had for a long time and I really like it. (FYI, this makes the "helm wheel room" from ST-V be at the front of B-C-deck on the 1701-A... which puts it adjacent to the tranceiver array.)

Speaking of "conceits" (or personal influences, unsupported by on-screen evidence), I have two other things you'll notice on my bridge.

First, I've replaced the steps from the "real" bridge with solid steps. I just don't see any advantage to having them be done as they were on the original set, if they were real (on the other hand, having them done that way on a "wild set" makes perfect sense... easier for a single teamster to pick 'em up and carry them out of the way).

Second... you'll notice that the big display panels above each station don't have the one, or two, "inner displays" present. This is because I've ALWAYS looked at these big screens as just that... big screens. It just so happens that Kirk always like having a pair of display "windows" up on that screen at any given time, for each station. But there's no reason that they couldn't be configured any way that you wanted. They're just huge, rectangular screens.

I've also left out all the display panels or control panels or so forth. That's an area where, within the realm of reasonability, I have no issue with altering what the bridge looks like. Instead of a board of backlit jellybeans on either side of the main viewscreen, for instance, I'd rather have a pair of big rectangular "secondary display screens" which can display ANYTHING (but normally show ship's status displays).

In other words... what you see in my "bridge set" here is what would be kept from the original if a "real" update were done... the features that should be completely consistent between both "old" and "new." Make sense?

 

[ancient]

Well, I can't really argue anything... I like it. Though I tend to sink the bridge anyway.

About the deck size: Here are two corridor shots.

Obviously they just threw a little bit of white roofing onto the set without bothering for any particular measurement. But that's the official canon. For about two more weeks.

 

[Shaw]

I recall that it was either you who determined, or you who pointed out in this forum, the little "every section isn't exactly 18 degrees" thing, wasn't it?

No, that was MGagen who discovered that aspect of the bridge.

I'm not entirely convinced that either one is "more right" than the other in every regard...

I look at both as two different views of the same object. Where the two agree tends to not be very interesting, but where they disagree, it is great to go back to the model if possible.

Both got things right and both got things wrong, but in the end the more sources you have to work from, the more likely you are to have the correct details at hand (even if they aren't completely obvious to begin with).

Windows, in particular, are going to be different on my ship than on EITHER of those plans. Very very close to both, certainly, but I'm going to try to get a consistent "eye level" centerline for the windows, which I don't believe can really be achieved with ANY of the versions we've seen so far...

That is a fair modification... specially getting rid of the port holes as windows as we never saw a port hole shaped windows in the series.

I noticed that you were making the bottom decks of the primary hull removable... I had thought of the same idea back in 1991 when I did some plans of the Constellation. Of course the rationale for me was that that part of the Constellation model was missing in the episode (when viewed from behind).

But yeah, at this late date I doubt that there is really a right way of doing any of this, which is why I love seeing everyone's versions.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

Cool! I love cutaways.

 

[Ziz]

Cary, can you change some of those pics to thumbnails/links? I'm running 1680 x 1050 and even with the browser maxed, I STILL have to scroll from New York to Los Angeles to see the whole thing.

 

[Gepard]

Cary, can you change some of those pics to thumbnails/links? I'm running 1680 x 1050 and even with the browser maxed, I STILL have to scroll from New York to Los Angeles to see the whole thing.

I'll do you one better--I'm at 1920x1200 and still get massive page stretching.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Okay, I've gone a step further, with a little bit of input from David Shaw (thanks!) in determining some details of the internal configuration of the ship.

The primary hull has some circular corridors, obviously. Not every corridor will be the same diameter, but they were all portrayed by just one corridor set in TOS. We have to acknowledge that this was a "cheat" and was never really intended to be a 100% accurate representation of the interior of the ship... don't you agree?

Well, I've done some basic cleanup on the studio plans (manually) and have created a section with dimensions. It's interesting to note just how crude the studio plans really were... lines aren't straight, curves aren't true arcs, etc... they're really hand-sketches, and I'm sure that the carpenters had a fun time figuring out how to make everything fit together! There's just enough information to serve as guidance, but nothing to the level of a true, dimensionally-accurate blueprint.

Still, the general information is there. One element that was given, explicitly, was the interior wall diameter for the briefing room set. So, from that one detail, and the "cleaned-up" drawing, I was able to create the following.

My "stake in the sand" is the 55' 7" radius from the centerline of the primary hull to the interior wall of the briefing room set. I scaled the set-drawing to match a real feature in my model at that diameter. And here's what I got.

What's interesting here is that the walls are actually far, far thicker than even I'd been assuming - 0.735m, or 29". (The yellow line represents my original, presumed "minimum wall thickness," by contrast). This actually makes a bit of sense, when you consider that they would have to put a guy inside that wall on either side of a doorway in order to pull the doors open or push them closed. Still, it's a serious chunk. And by reviewing the other set drawings, it becomes clear that this is a fairly typical wall thickness.

Also, I've determined that the corridor we're familiar with seeing is exactly 2.5m wide (98.5", or 8' 2 1/2"). Other bits I've extracted include the fact that, yes, the sets were 10' 0" tall overall, with each double-pocket door being 6' 6" tall and 4' 2" wide. There's a 5" distance between the top edge of the door and the reduced-height in the interior of the door alcove. As I've stated before, I really didn't feel obligated to keep the 10' number, as much of that is simply extended above the "set details" to prevent shooting of the rafters, I think, but I've permitted a full 10' from one deck to the next deck anyway, and I'm pleased with my choice.

How do you guys feel about the full 10' number? Anyone have a real argument against reducing that? It seems that, with the walls being so much thicker than I'd originally assumed, there's a lot of internal structure there already... but I still like having some internal structure between the deck and the next ceiling level down.

Just so you know, I plan to have an identical corridor matching the set on every deck where it will fit (in the primary hull), and that will drive my general internal design.

 

[TIN_MAN]

I'd say ignore the 10' hieght, as that's just the standard hieght of the "flats" used to build the sets, so it has no relation to haw high the decks were actually supposed to be.

 

[Psion]

Cary, I've gotta say [jog, jog, jog to the right] that this model is fantastic. [jog, jog, jog back] And the ten foot deck height [jog, jog, jog back out to the right] seems perfectly reasonable and [jog, jog, jog once more to the left] even leaves room for goofiness like Jefferies tubes [walk, walk, walk to the right] between decks if one assumes the tubes run like [walk, walk walk back to the left] duct work over working spaces.

(Just let ... me catch ... my breath ... a minute.)

Also, let me congratulate you [limp, limp, limp to the right] on creating a thread that burns calories. Could you please put in some turbolifts? 'Cause I'm done going back and forth and plan to stay right here for the remainder of the discussion otherwise.

 

[Shaw]

My general view of the deck heights is that for the corridors, they need to be tall enough to support the periodic cross-panels, and the other rooms can be lower (specially the ones that include structural members). This would mean that if you had to cut through the floor to get to the next deck, you'd want to do it where you'd have a corridor below.

I can't recall off hand, but I seem to recall a small opening between decks in some of the early episodes (like Charlie X) that some crew members were working with. Those showed a minimum deck thickness in the corridors of 6 to 8 inches (of course there wasn't actually another deck below on set).