BLSSDWLF's TOS Enterprise WIP

[Albertese]

I would place the "Mark of Gideon" windows on deck 2 or 3, as the curved wall could be related to the superstructure just below the bridge dome. It's been a while since I watched the episode, but didn't Kirk and his girlfriend basically just tool around the primary hull? I recall scenes on the bridge, and in in his cabin, and in sickbay. Did they go down to engineering at any point? I can't remember. But anyway, deck 3 or so would allow a primary hull possibility.

--Alex

 

[TIN_MAN]

^^^That's a good suggestion, either that or in the secondary hull somewhere? The hull is definatly intended to be curved though, we can see this even in the early concept sketches... http://www.trekcore.com/specials/thumbnails.php?album=3&page=12
(Top row, center column and 4th row, 1st column)

 

[T'Girl]

From the way they enter the room with the window, it would seem not to be the observation corridor overlooking the flight deck. Are there any other windows in the secondary hull that have that angle?

 

[Mytran]

Do you mean because they enter from the same side as the wall with the windows on?
The hull is built at an angle at that point, there could well be room to fit a doorway or corridor there.

As for MOG, the presence of an exterior hatch means the porthole could be located anywhere. Since they were near Kirk's quarters at the time, why not have it on the upper saucer slope somewhere?

 

[blssdwlf]

Also, they could have been looking out another window before they walked back into the doorway and proceeded to the observation room. Before that, we don't know where they entered from

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Then again, that's the same reason why there are no window matches to "The Conscience of the King". The windows at the back of the secondary hull are rectangular when they need to be square to match up. For the purposes of my project, these windows are there but normally shuttered and thus blended into the hull.

The problem with this approach is that you then have to explain why the windows which we know are ACTUALLY IN THAT LOCATION are not visible in the episode.

It's easier, and more logical, to treat this as what it is... a small production "snafu"... and that the windows seen there are intended to be the same windows seen on the model. After all, it's not very likely the the Enterprise's auditorium, gymnasium, and even a starbase's computer center are built in rooms which are identical to the Enterprise's engine room, is it?

If you focus too much on the small mismatch in window shape, and ignore the clear INTENT that these two windows seen there are intended to be the same two windows seen in that location on the hull exterior... you're going too far, IMHO. Then again... I'd never dream of making the Enterprise into an "Autobot" either... sooo...

The "Mark of Gideon" could be matched up to the curve of the secondary hull, but again it might go to a window not normally visible in external shots when shuttered.

and

And I expect that the window we see in "Gideon" is in the dorsal... probably the starboard side (port shown here, by the way), second row from the top, near the aft edge of the dorsal:

I don't think it would work for the neck as the scene shows a curvature to the wall suggesting somewhere in the secondary hull while the neck is vertical. (You are looking at the posted reference shots, right?)

Except that, of course, the hull there isn't "vertical" as you seem to be thinking. I chose that particular spot for a reason, you see. There is a gentle curvature which very nearly perfectly matches the on-screen shot in the specific location I mentioned. there is no other place on the ship that matches it quite so well, though it's true that there are a couple of secondary hull spots which come reasonably close as well.

If I'd suggested one of the windows further forward, they would be nearly vertical. And if I chose one of the ones way forward in this region, they'd be on an outwards-sloping section of wall... as you can see here, for example. You're looking forwards, by the way. Most of the windows are mainly vertical, but notice the ones most to the front.

Now, there are two places where I think that this shot would be likely to have taken place, both in the dorsal. Either the aftmost room on the second deck in the dorsal (which I refer to as deck 9D) or the fourth one down (deck 11D). In MY model it would have to be on 11D, because I've got a Jefferies tube structure and the entire dorsal keel in the region aft of the window on 9D, but you wouldn't HAVE to do that.

On either location, the window will be in a section of hull which slopes slightly outwards as it goes from the ceiling to the floor. It will not be a "parallel" slope, of course... but it works remarkably well in either location, I think.

I just like the idea of those rooms in the dorsal being INTENDED for "recreational relaxation" purposes, and thus would be the most likely spot for Kirk (or anyone else) to go in order to stargaze.

 

[blssdwlf]

Then again, that's the same reason why there are no window matches to "The Conscience of the King". The windows at the back of the secondary hull are rectangular when they need to be square to match up. For the purposes of my project, these windows are there but normally shuttered and thus blended into the hull.

The problem with this approach is that you then have to explain why the windows which we know are ACTUALLY IN THAT LOCATION are not visible in the episode.

Watching the series we are never close enough to the hull and given enough TV resolution to resolve the seam of a closed hatch or discover where the phaser and photon ports are. Having some shuttered windows that blend into the hull doesn't appear to be out of the ordinary, IMHO.

It's easier, and more logical, to treat this as what it is... a small production "snafu"... and that the windows seen there are intended to be the same windows seen on the model. After all, it's not very likely the the Enterprise's auditorium, gymnasium, and even a starbase's computer center are built in rooms which are identical to the Enterprise's engine room, is it?

LOL - my project is pretty much "What Would The Thermians Do?". The auditorium is the same room as the gym (you can see the exercise gear) so it's a good re-use of space. And if Starfleet went through a period of re-using internal structures for starships and starbases to standardize equipment, there you go

I just like the idea of those rooms in the dorsal being INTENDED for "recreational relaxation" purposes, and thus would be the most likely spot for Kirk (or anyone else) to go in order to stargaze.

I'm not so sure that the "Mark of Gideon" room would fit in the neck though. Kirk and Odona wind through a hallway before making it into that room and I suspect that when I model that out, it won't fit in the neck. I'll test it out though.

One of the driving ideas here is to see if everything fits as filmed. Not necessarily as the "designer intended", although there are some good projects of this nature out there

On re-watching "The Mark of Gideon", did anyone else catch that there are TWO shutters at work? The inner lid that slides up and the outer lid that parts open. I had not noticed that before!

 

[blssdwlf]

^^^That's a good suggestion, either that or in the secondary hull somewhere? The hull is definatly intended to be curved though, we can see this even in the early concept sketches... http://www.trekcore.com/specials/thumbnails.php?album=3&page=12
(Top row, center column and 4th row, 1st column)

@Albertese and TIN_MAN - they spent time up in his quarters but there is a cut between them walking down the hallway and then coming down a totally different looking hallway to the observation room. They could've gone up to the B/C teardrop or down to the secondary hull. I think it'll boil down to exactly how much room I need to fit the sets into the hull

@Mytran - you know, I never thought of the upper slope of the primary hull but I might try it anyway and see how it fits. That second set of shutters (the outer lid) that parts open does indicate a certain kind of curvature though... We'll see

 

[Mytran]

Leaving aside the square/rectangular designer's intent controversy for a moment, when I did my first ever Thermian-style design back in college, it turned out that the 2 windows which were meant to correspond to the observation deck were actually too low down to be anywhere near it, hence I went for the "shuttered" approach to the windows, the same as blssdwlf.

However, that's for a standard 947' vessel.

If the Enterprise were actually closer to 1500 feet in length (as suggested by an earlier post when fitting the shuttlebay set into it), maybe that is no longer the case, so the rectangular windows could just be further on down the corridor!

 

[Redfern]

When Ptrope modeled his Poser ready Pike's quarters set, he and I half jokingly wondered if the stateroom might have fit somewhere within the "B-C" deck bulge, thus explaining that porthole-like recess above his bunk. Of course, I'm sure you guys can site a hundred reasons and provide structural diagrams as to why that would be patently impossible, but as I said, Ptrope and I were just having a bit of casual fun.

Sincerely,

Bill

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Leaving aside the square/rectangular designer's intent controversy for a moment, when I did my first ever Thermian-style design back in college, it turned out that the 2 windows which were meant to correspond to the observation deck were actually too low down to be anywhere near it, hence I went for the "shuttered" approach to the windows, the same as blssdwlf.

However, that's for a standard 947' vessel.

If the Enterprise were actually closer to 1500 feet in length (as suggested by an earlier post when fitting the shuttlebay set into it), maybe that is no longer the case, so the rectangular windows could just be further on down the corridor!

There are a ton of issues with the 947' length... a big part of why my ship isn't 947' is that the ship simply didn't work at that length (I initially tried). Of course, 1080' is much closer but there were still some issues that didn't quite work with that. I eventually arrived at 1067' as you may recall. This was driven by a bunch of "spacing" issues, not the least of which was trying to get windows to line up properly with deckplanes.

In my version, the landing bay observation gallery is literally on the same deck plane as the rest of that deck, and the windows match up very closely.

If you stick with 947' the problems are pretty severe, however.

 

[blssdwlf]

@Mytran - that's an interesting thought, although my preliminary scaling came in at around 1143' so it might not be that much of a difference. I am re-doing that section though, so it could change

@Redfern - if I were going all Thermian on the TOS-R version of the Enterprise, then I would just explain it away as a part of the hull that did not need to be reinforced (or armored) to explain for the hull thinness Thankfully, the original version just had that green plate

@Cary L Brown - 947' is pretty tight, but seems to be workable (so far).

I do see two versions now, a 947' and a larger version scaled to the flight deck It'll be fun!

 

[Mytran]

Whoops, I was relying on my memory for the length and I got it way off! 1143' was the length I had in mind, that you worked out.

CLB - I do indeed recall the length you arrived at, and how. It's interesting that at that scale, the observation windows are a non-issue! I still maintain they could be present alongside the square windows though

Or maybe (since we rarely saw the port side of the Enterprise model) the windows are simply square on that side of the shuttlebay?

 

[TIN_MAN]

^^And/or there's a rectangular piece of tinted (anti-glare?) transparent aluminum, or whatever, covering both square windows from the outside, thereby effectively hiding the seperation between the two smaller square windows?

 

[Mytran]

Bingo! All window size inconsistencies solved

 

[blssdwlf]

Hmm.. the two square windows being part of the larger rectangular one from the outside...? Must go try this as it might work (if the deck lines up with the internal flight deck balcony)

 

[Psion]

Perhaps you're being a little too primitive with your mechanical transformations. Intel (and others) are working on technology they call "programmable matter", and while it's hardly as advanced yet as depicted in this somewhat deceptive CNN video, imagine if some components of your ship were made of this stuff.

 

[blssdwlf]

@Psion - I've thought about something like that or some other type of material but lean more towards a mechanical approach to stay more in line with how things were presented in TOS.

 

[Psion]

How many moving parts did we see on the Enterprise besides doors? And even those might have been an application of programmable matter depicted in 1960s tech with two guys hidden behind the walls pulling pocket doors open.

Don't get me wrong, it's your project and your vision. But keep in mind that you might be doing the equivalent of using a Victorian perspective to see steam technology in the engine room and wondering how they'll shovel coal in the 23rd century.

Why don't we see bolts and rivets anywhere on the Enterprise? How come there aren't any signs of valves? What about TOS makes you think there's a mechanical approach to starship engineering, all those grease stains on Scotty's uniform?

EDIT TO ADD:
blssdwlf, take the above as good-natured ribbing and not a serious criticism of your design process or ideas. Is programmable matter a superior approach to mechanical? Only if it were my project, and we can count the number of finished projects I have on one hand of a guy with no arms!

 

[blssdwlf]

How many moving parts did we see on the Enterprise besides doors? And even those might have been an application of programmable matter depicted in 1960s tech with two guys hidden behind the walls pulling pocket doors open.

Well there is Sulu's pop-up viewer on the helm console. The slider controls on the transporter console. The various knobs and slide-out machinery. Are they "geared" machinery, who knows? But they do not exhibit the SG-1 "Replicator" ability to morph between shapes.

Don't get me wrong, it's your project and your vision. But keep in mind that you might be doing the equivalent of using a Victorian perspective to see steam technology in the engine room and wondering how they'll shovel coal in the 23rd century.

No worries, Psion. The perspective I'm taking is to recreate what is aired on screen, with a touch of TMP/TWOK to have a place to "upgrade" into and chanting, "What Would The Thermians Do?"

As quaint as the thinking appears to be for TOS, their equipment did *alot* in a "vacuum-punk" / "transistor-punk" way... even more so than the later TNG presentation of similar systems. If I find a shred of evidence that "programmable matter" or something similar like it could explain a piece of machinery or effect I'd incorporate it or seriously lean towards it

Why don't we see bolts and rivets anywhere on the Enterprise? How come there aren't any signs of valves? What about TOS makes you think there's a mechanical approach to starship engineering, all those grease stains on Scotty's uniform?

Check the image below for samples of screws, rivets, and wrench (for bolts most likely). Fasteners most likely are NOT seen because they are hidden behind panels, walls, coverings, etc.

As to "valves" they are referred to:

"The Galileo Seven" SPOCK: Perhaps if you were to channel the second auxiliary tank through the primary intake valve.

"The Changeling" NOMAD: Inefficiency exists in the antimatter input valve. I will effect repair.

"By Any Other Name" SCOTT: I have opened the control valves to the matter-anti-matter nacelles. On your signal, I will flood them with positive energy.

"That Which Survives" SCOTT: Watkins, check the bypass valve on the matter/antimatter reaction chamber. Make sure it's not overheating.

But... it would seem that they use high tech tools to adjust valves and other power devices which require no physical contact or does so via some kind of wireless control (which could suggest valves with control motors.)

EDIT TO ADD:
blssdwlf, take the above as good-natured ribbing and not a serious criticism of your design process or ideas. Is programmable matter a superior approach to mechanical? Only if it were my project, and we can count the number of finished projects I have on one hand of a guy with no arms!

LOL. I'm still working on this and it's been years