Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

[Praetor]

Backtracking slightly, I've been bothered about my supposed recollection that the scale of the Enterprise was changed between 'The Cage' and 'Where No Man Has Gone Before,' so I've dug out my copy of 'The Making of Star Trek' and I think I've figured out where I got the idea.

First, from the series format - not dated, but it notes Robert April as the Captain, page 24:

The U.S.S. Enterprise:
Cruiser Class - Gross 190,000 tons
Crew Compliiment - 203 persons
Drive - space-warp
Range - 18 years at light-year velocity
Registry - Earth, United Spaceship

(Amusingly, on page 26, the format notes: 'The cruiser itself stays in space orbit, rarely lands upon a planet.' (emphasis mine)

So we have a starting crew of 203 and a mass of 190,000, before any design work had been done.

Next, in a memo dated August 24, 1964, in the chapter called 'A Blueprint for Starflight,' from Gene Roddenberry to those concerned, page 89:

It seems to me the scale of the miniature U.S.S. Enterprise is a little large. We anticipate a final design might see the ship at 200 feet in length, and thus even 1 1/2 inch scale would give us quite a huge miniature.

Later, in the chapter about the second pilot ('The Second Time Around'), from Whitfield's text, page 134:

The original series format called for a crew compliment of 203 persons. Overall length of the Enterprise was originally estimated at 200 feet. Now, however, with the Enterprise design firmly established, it became obvious those two points were no longer valid.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 compliment was boosted to 430.

(Mass afficionados also take note: the 190,000 weight ship appears to correlate to the 200 foot ship, not the 947 foot ship, even though it is subsequently attached to the 947 foot ship on page 171.)

This is what in turn led me to believe that the alteration to the bridge dome was a reflection of this scale change, and that it had occurred between pilots. Could Gene have been unaware of the predicted size of the ship the design of which he had approved, and just taken this long to correct it?

What does this all mean?

 

[Shaw]

(Mass afficionados also take note: the 190,000 weight ship appears to correlate to the 200 foot ship, not the 947 foot ship, even though it is subsequently attached to the 947 foot ship on page 171.)

I don't see the correlation.

The original crew compliment was for a smaller ship (of undefined design) and was part of the original script. The Enterprise went through a number of design changes and reached 947 ft and 190,000 tons at the end of October of 1964. The Cage was filmed in December of 1964 and both models received windows scaled at the final length that same month (at Roddenberry's request). April was still the name of the captain when the final size was determined.

The original crew size was still based on the original (mono-hull) Yorktown with a length of 200 feet. It wasn't addressed as an issue until September of 1965 as I recall.

Whitfield's book is a time-line nightmare... things are completely out of order, and the things we care about today weren't even on his mind back then. But for me, I decided to set iCal back to 1964 and make notes on things as I found them (a small sampling I posted here).

So April, 203 person crew and 190,000 tons all exist at the same time in November 1964 (when the length of 947 ft of finalized).

 

[Praetor]

(Mass afficionados also take note: the 190,000 weight ship appears to correlate to the 200 foot ship, not the 947 foot ship, even though it is subsequently attached to the 947 foot ship on page 171.)

I don't see the correlation.

The original crew compliment was for a smaller ship (of undefined design) and was part of the original script. The Enterprise went through a number of design changes and reached 947 ft and 190,000 tons at the end of October of 1964. The Cage was filmed in December of 1964 and both models received windows scaled at the final length that same month (at Roddenberry's request). April was still the name of the captain when the final size was determined.

The original crew size was still based on the original (mono-hull) Yorktown with a length of 200 feet. It wasn't addressed as an issue until September of 1965 as I recall.

Whitfield's book is a time-line nightmare... things are completely out of order, and the things we care about today weren't even on his mind back then. But for me, I decided to set iCal back to 1964 and make notes on things as I found them (a small sampling I posted here).

So April, 203 person crew and 190,000 tons all exist at the same time in November 1964 (when the length of 947 ft of finalized).

I just found it interesting in retracing why I thought what I thought, that among other things they stuck to 190,000 tons after upsizing the ship. But I figured the timeline was suspect, and you'd have all the info.

 

[Shaw]

I just found it interesting in retracing why I thought what I thought, that among other things they stuck to 190,000 tons after upsizing the ship. But I figured the timeline was suspect, and you'd have all the info.

Strangely enough, I haven't had a copy of Whitfield's book in nearly 15 years, but bought another copy on ebay a few weeks ago... and it is very hard to get information out of it in the order in which it happened.

But yeah, I just finish going through it again and noted a lot of what you said while reading it.



But in Whitfield's defense, that book was incredible given the fact that it came out while Star Trek was still on the air! I just wish FJ hadn't used the cropped images of the phaser (which included the shadow) for his Technical Manual.

 

[Praetor]

Well, keep in mind a lot of it was fed to Whitfied from the Great Bird himself. Even Whitfield acknowledges the man's ability to talk the talk.

 

[TIN_MAN]

I just wish FJ hadn't used the cropped images of the phaser (which included the shadow) for his Technical Manual.

Amen to that! It's the one major unforgivable mistake in the Tech Manual, and my major gripe personally. I mean, some of the other minor mistakes I can understand, but this should never have happened, any cursory look at the series or TMOST easily reveals what the phaser really looks like. And this after FJ said in interviews that he searched thousands of film clips as referances, yeah right!

 

[Albertese]

...

I decided to set iCal back to 1964

...

Whoa! I didn't know you could do that!

--Alex

 

[Shaw]

Whoa! I didn't know you could do that!

It definitely helps. Now my wife wishes I would use that app for keeping an appointment schedule too.

__________________​

I've started on the build of that section of nacelle. Below is the four sections arranged together, with spacers holding them apart, glued together (using the spacers) and being held in alignment by wrapping a paper tube around them. The sheets of poster board have been cut out and are awaiting their fitting to the sections (once they are finished drying).

And this is having put together all the major elements except the ramp.

I'll finish getting these parts into their final form before attempting any ideas of how the ramp itself might work.

On an interesting side note, I now have a reference for just how big the Enterprise model was in DS9's "Trials and Tribble-ations" (which was built at half scale to the original).

 

[Shaw]

I'm still in the construction phase of the main elements (I need to get these just right before attempting the ramp itself), but here is my progress so far.

I have been playing a little with the ramp... and considering the nature of this part of the model. I'm not sure the ramp is completely flat... or that that part of the nacelle is perfectly cylindrical.

Either (or both) could be at play creating an effect that isn't replicatable using ideal shapes with a computer. Plus it wasn't like they had to get this effect more than once, as there is nothing like this on the other nacelle.

 

[Praetor]

I don't have much constructive to add to your thorough analysis, but it does seem you're doing a good job so far.

 

[Maurice]

I have been playing a little with the ramp... and considering the nature of this part of the model. I'm not sure the ramp is completely flat... or that that part of the nacelle is perfectly cylindrical.

At a glance, I'm not even sure that the sloped areas above and below the grill are flat. If they are curved (like concave) and only the bit that the grill is on is flat, then the apparent curvature on the edges of the ramp would be to make the ramp fit to the curve, while the ramp itself was flat.

 

[uniderth]

You're building a model?!

You should but all your reference pics in one file and share 'em. Unless you already have and I'm just behind ths times.

 

[Shaw]

At a glance, I'm not even sure that the sloped areas above and below the grill are flat. If they are curved (like concave) and only the bit that the grill is on is flat, then the apparent curvature on the edges of the ramp would be to make the ramp fit to the curve, while the ramp itself was flat.

You're quite right, that area is quite irregular. But what I think Tallguy's issue was with was the curve on the end of the trench itself... it looks to be a nice semi-circle. But if that curve had been generated by how a plane parallel to the ramp had intersected the nacelle (and how one would go about modeling something like this in most 3D programs) you end up with something that isn't a nice circular curve (more like the red dotted line in the image below).

The solution (though not entirely visible in any of the images of that section I have) might be what Tallguy is using on his models (and how this feature was done on the 33 inch model), which is that rather than flat, the ramp might be concave so it meets that existing seam nicely.

One place to get a feel for that is covered up by the vent housing that was added later in the models life.

Even with a physical mock-up the solution isn't readily apparent right now (because on all the images I have of the 11 foot version it look like the ramp is flat).

 

[Shaw]

You're building a model?!

Well... yes and no.

This part of the 11 foot model I don't have a strong enough feel for to just put the lines to the page and feel comfortable with it. The solution seemed obvious to me... build a half scale replica of that small section of the nacelle and see how the builders might have approached that issue.

On the other hand, I am in the middle of building a two-third scale model of the 33 inch Enterprise (as if I didn't already have enough on my plate ) based on my plans of that model. This is how it is coming so far...

Click to enlarge​

You should but all your reference pics in one file and share 'em. Unless you already have and I'm just behind ths times.

All the images relating to this thread are in this directory on my site. In another page or so I'll post an updated reference list of diagrams I feel are most useful.

As for all the images that I personally have collected that I use for these studies... that folder of images is at about 320 MB. Right now, this thread alone is responsible for three-quarters of the bandwidth of my site, so I'm stretching my abilities to share stuff as it is. But some great images of the model were recently posted here if that helps at all (in some cases they are better images than I've had of some areas)

 

[USS Mariner]

Niiiiiiiiiiiiiice material, on both sites.

 

[Shaw]

Niiiiiiiiiiiiiice material, on both sites.

It explains a lot more about some aspects of the model's history. For example, I had assumed (wrongly) that the bridge was plastic and that holes were cut into that plastic for WNMHGB, and the dome was cut down to remove those holes. It always seemed like a lot of work for a plastic piece, but now that I've found out it was nearly solid wood that was cut into, the choice to shorten it to remove the holes is more understandable (rather than just a lazy solution).

______________​

So I've been playing around with my mock-up and have found something interesting... I introduced a small curve to the ramp piece (which made it a mild shoehorn shape) and tried test fitting it as both convex and concave. I expected the concave version to work best because that is how that detail is addressed on the 33 inch model. What I found was that the convex arrangement set in place much nicer (even without me having to hold it down).

I took some images of that arrangement (after I introduced lines on it because I found out you can't see the curve in the images otherwise).

I'm a little surprised by this and will continue to look at both options, but at some point I'll glue it down and attempt to create a more reasonable finish like that of the original model.

 

[aridas sofia]

Do you have any information on what that part of the model was made from? The exterior of the cylinder in that area is sheet metal, right? I assume it is built over and attached to some sort of frame. This inset area is likely set into that frame as well, and what it -- and the frame -- are made from would tell us a lot about what shaping possibilities were available.

I'm assuming both the inset and frame are made from some sort of wood, but you might have better information than I do. Obviously, you can do different things, and do them easier, with one material or the other. I assume expediency would be a major determinant in deciding what shape ended up on that nacelle.

 

[Shaw]

I had been making some assumptions in this area... I believed the framing was wood, that the base shape of the trench is also wood, that the surface was sheet plastic (though now that you bring it up, sheet metal would work much better), and that the ramp itself was a sheet of plastic covering the opening where the trench went under the nacelle surface.

There is a seem where the surface meets itself which meets the edge of the trench, so I'm assuming that they (the surface and the ramp) are different pieces. Cutting the trench out of wood would be best done without having to worry about how the ends would be dealt with... and in fact it seems that that piece of the trench ends before it meets up with the solid wood front third of the nacelle because the edges along the bottom soften at about that point (disappearing altogether by the time they reach the front end which is all rounded off). That is why I have those edges disappearing on my current nacelle sketches at about that point.

The 33 inch model was much easier... it is just wood. And the easiest solution for making that area was the one they seemed to employ. Only on that model they went too far back with the trench.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Something I noticed on one of those restoration WIP pics that might solve an age-old debate....

Consider that the model as we know it is in its mid-40's, and has been subject to bright studio lights, general neglect by the studio warehouse shmucks, varying degrees of mishandling by the Smithsonian folks, and one very heavy-handed "restoration" by Ed Miraecki, not to mention of just plain old time in the open air and the oxidation that goes with it, and apparently, it wasn't until Ed got ahold of it that the bridge was removed, which means that the paint underneath had been protected from all of the above factors.

So, I put it to this august body, is that battleship gray the true original color of the Enterprise?

 

[Shaw]

You are most likely correct about that being the original color... but sadly gray is a notoriously hard color to nail down (specially in a scanned photo).