Actual Size of Ships in Star Trek

[BK613]

I'm not sure what inconsistency you mean - {snip} as a GNDN door adjacent to the cabin disappears in between Enemy Within and Little Girls, the latter of which also has a unique wall configuration by the Turbolift (seen when Spock crouches by the Jefferies Tube).

The GNDN door was what I was referring too. Should have been more explicit. The GNDN piping colors above appears consistent between the two though. And different in the EoT corridor.

As to why Kirk feels the need to keep moving cabins, who knows? The search for the perfect bathroom, maybe?

LOL. Nice.

 

[Mytran]

Thanks for clearing that up. Despite the GNDN door being present on the original Briefing Room corridor setplans, in the end it only featured in the first 4 production episodes. By the time of the 5th (Naked Time) it had been replaced with a couple of plain wall panels. I'm not sure why, but aesthetically the plain wall helps to balance out the cabin doors one side and the BR doors & EEP alcove on the other side. 5 doors in such close proximity is a bit much, IMO.

Here we see the GNDN door in its final appearance in The Man Trap, open and being used!

In this sequence you'll also see not one but two females wearing trousers (for the last time as well) and just after this we get an unused clip from WNMHGB, complete with crew in the pilot style uniforms!

Finally, the shot of Kirk running down the corridor to sickbay when Spock gets attacked is in fact a clip from the following episode, The Naked Time (Kirk is actually running towards the Engine Room door)

The Man Trap is a cornucopia of set-related gems!

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Mytran

While this is an odd question, was the measurement based on the TOS pilots or the series itself?

 

[Mytran]

Sorry, you lost me - which measurements? I checked back on this this page and the last and we seemed to mostly be discussing toilets!
Ah, those were good days...

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Mytran

You had a set of dimensions measured in inches which had to do with ship dimensions: I'm curious if the lengths taken were for the pilots or the series.

 

[blssdwlf]

Inches? Like measurements of the filming models?

 

[Mytran]

I've checked back through this thread and can't see the reference to ship dimensions in inches.

However, since the exact same models were used for both pilots and series (only a few surface decorations were added) then the length, height and width would not have altered.

There is a post where I reasoned that the original intended fictional length was 540' but that had nothing to do with the length of the model. Certainly by the time they came to filming in The Cage the 540' length had been scrapped.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

http://s757.photobucket.com/user/Mytran77/media/TABLE_OF_DIMENSIONS_zps45531fb5.jpg.html

 

[Mytran]

Ah, thanks. That chart was drawn up by Phil Broad from his now defunct website, cloudster.com
As I mentioned earlier, the pilot and series models themselves were no different to one another in terms of the size of their modular components.
However, the plans as originally drawn were what Phil used to compile his charts. The plans in a 1:1 scale were what was used to make the smaller 33" study model. For the full size prop the plans were simply upscaled by 1:4 but in doing so a few minor errors were made and I believe the overall length came out an inch short (134"). The saucer also turned out smaller (59.5" diameter) and not perfectly circular. These were likely unintentional and just a limitation of the model making techniques of the time.

In conclusion, if you want a regular "realistic" starship Enterprise you are probably better off using the plans instead of the finished model

 

[Shaw]

There is a post where I reasoned that the original intended fictional length was 540' but that had nothing to do with the length of the model. Certainly by the time they came to filming in The Cage the 540' length had been scrapped.

Part of the reason I've stopped posting actual data, drawings and history of the Enterprise models is that it was pointless the first time around.

For the record... the 540' length was not the actual length of the original design, it was conjecture based on if the original design was the same as the final design. It was not.

In October of 1964 Jefferies had finished the plans for the smaller design and Roddenberry changed his mind, opting for a larger vessel. Jefferies was given a few weeks to redesign the Enterprise, but the general sizes of the models (just under three feet and just under twelve feet) had already been budgeted. The idea that Jefferies would have used a real world scale at this point has been disproven time and again, he was only concern with drawing the plans to fit on the page (24"x36") with roughly the same dimensions on the page as the original plans because he had to give those to Datin to start the 33 inch model while he finished the final plans. Some things on those plans could be used, but Jefferies made tons of notes on which things shouldn't be used by Datin...

But none of this is new to any of you, so what is happening here? Selective amnesia?

I provided all the measurements anyone could need 8 years ago... and they have been available everyday since. Are you guys hoping that by ignoring the facts you'll be given new ones that better fit what you want to see?

I had been going through and fleshing out my original reverse engineered Jefferies plans...

Click to Enlarge​

But stuff like this is why it seems pointless to release anything. You guys don't really want to know what happened... you want to not know. The closer to actually getting all the puzzle pieces in place, the harder some of you guys seem to work to scramble them again. At first I thought it was because you wanted a different outcome, but what you really want is no outcome.

This thread is a fight to keep the mystery alive, even at the cost of actual facts and data. Rehashing zombie theories from decades ago that really should have stayed dead and gone, just to have something to argue?



Threads like this remind me of a dog chasing it's tail... a pointless endeavor that is mildly entertaining to watch for a few minutes every couple years.

 

[Mytran]

For the record... the 540' length was not the actual length of the original design, it was conjecture based on if the original design was the same as the final design. It was not.

Didn't I just say something like that in post 129? I had tried to emphasise that the model was just the model (no "real world" scale required) but in any case, you said it with diagrams which is always preferable. The previous post which I alluded to about the 540' length speculation is repeated here in full (along with the watermark justification, which does match up with a shorter Enterprise).

The original length of the model was supposed to be 540' before it was enlarged during production of The Cage. This length can be seen in the number marks on the secondary hull, which correspond to the distance measured from the front of the dish housing (in inches).

For whatever reason, the "official" length was set at 947', but from a draughtsman's perspective a 1:96 ratio from the size of the miniature itself seemed more logical, and the 1,080' length was posited as an alternative several years ago (it may have been by McGagen, I forget exactly).

Work carried out by other individuals more recently (among them Shaw I think, although don't quote me on it!) showed that in fact the model makers did not work from a scaling ratio of the suggested length of the ship, but instead by scaling up the construction plans themselves (which had been sized to fit the paper they were drawn on rather than any particular fictional length).

Nevertheless, the length of 1,080 remains popular among many fans - given the lack of concrete evidence in the show itself, it's not hard to see why!

I'm not seeing the real contradiction here, sorry. However, those updated plan reconstructions are great, thanks!

 

[GNDN18]

This is all new to me, Shaw, so I am grateful for the rehash that brought to light your work.

 

[Mytran]

Indeed. Rehashes of old conversations may be annoyed to some (understandably so!) but they do benefit those people who weren't involved the first time round.

 

[SicOne]

Did anyone do any measuring or pixel-related research (or whatever that's called...) to see if 23 ten-foot decks would indeed fit into a 947-foot starship? Jeffries tubes or utility ducts aside, didn't another poster say the sets were ten feet tall?

Sorry to come in late to the thread...

 

[Mytran]

The sets were made up of flats that were 10 feet tall (or taller in the case of the Engine Room). This was fairly common practise in the 1960s where sets could not have ceilings due to all the lighting equipment that was needed. 10' walls (along with a few "support struts" across to block the view over the top) were a production necessity in TOS but should we interpret them literally? What about the space between the decks, which would add another foot or two? All this has been the subject of protracted debate ever since

As for 23 decks, the short answer is no. Shaw has done extensive research on this subject though and it's littered all over the BBS. Here is a link to his work on 10' decks inside a (roughly) 947' ship

Really, it is more like 20 decks. Franz Joseph really had to squeeze them in there!

Matt Jefferies original cutaway sketch shows around 20 decks as well.

 

[SicOne]

^ Ahhhhh, there we go. That's what I was looking for, Mytran, thanks much!