BLSSDWLF's TOS Enterprise WIP

[Mytran]

Great find on the upper door! Now we can correctly plot Kirk's (extremely long winded) route around the upper level.

A stern corridor for the upper level is tempting, but would there be enough space back there to justifiy all the traffic of personnel that we see?

 

[blssdwlf]

Great find on the upper door! Now we can correctly plot Kirk's (extremely long winded) route around the upper level.

A stern corridor for the upper level is tempting, but would there be enough space back there to justifiy all the traffic of personnel that we see?

You're right, space gets tricky back there. I'll mock up something so you can visualize how much space there is sometime today.

 

[kennysmith]

don't any one know about what star ship they are talking about. the one they have here is not enterprise ncc1701< this one from the 1966 to 1969, it is the refix of the new one of the ncc1701+A old one.

Great find on the upper door! Now we can correctly plot Kirk's (extremely long winded) route around the upper level.

A stern corridor for the upper level is tempting, but would there be enough space back there to justifiy all the traffic of personnel that we see?

You're right, space gets tricky back there. I'll mock up something so you can visualize how much space there is sometime today.

 

[Robert Comsol]

@ kennysmith

When this thread started it featured the TOS television Enterprise. But once you start a thread here at the BBS under a certain title you cannot change it later. Most readers of this thread (myself included) don't mind that it has evolved into a "Kirk's Enterprise WIP" thread (i.e. featuring the television version and the movies' version).

Additionally, some of the movie Enterprise interiors could provide clues how the TV interiors might be arranged. Officially, the movie Enterprise is still a "refit" of the television Enterprise, after all.

Bob

 

[blssdwlf]

I've added that stern portside doorway to the upper level engine room and matched it to the screenshot. It's about 3' wide from my estimation.

I also rotated a copy of the upper level blue corridor around the vertical shaft so that it is on the stern (and offset to the port). On average, there is about 30' between the corridor to the outer hull (measured at the floor level, alot less by the ceiling.) I'd say you could have machinery and turbolifts running back there.

I've included a comparison of roominess between the 305m and 355m hulls.

Click to enlarge

 

[blssdwlf]

BTW, I didn't find in TMP the gap in the flooring where the horizontal conduit room bulkhead door came down in TWOK so I think the bulkhead door was added some time after TMP but before TWOK.

The stern upper level blue corridor would work in TMP since there isn't any evidence of the bulkhead door. But like the changed forward blue corridor in TWOK, the upper level stern blue corridor probably doesn't connect the same way in TWOK to the upper level engine room with the bulkhead door in the way, IMHO.

 

[Robert Comsol]

Great and interesting visualizations!

But I really do suggest you double-check the first frames of the scene in TWOK where Kirk "slides" down the engine room ladder. There is something noticably odd with the wall structure on the upper level, hinting a starboard stern door on the upper level, IMHO.

Update: The first frames of the scene with Spock descending the ladder clearly reveal the starboard door leading astern on the upper level.

If I'm not mistaken, Kirk's entering through that door in TMP (to arrive at the upper level) would be more "natural" and we wouldn't have to worry about the TWOK bulkhead door at all.

Bob

P.S.

Regarding the width of the connecting dorsal pylon I had previously relied on the accuracy of the Kimble blueprints.

However, the actual VFX model of the TMP Enterprise reveals that the maximal width of the dorsal is 59% of the maximal width of the torpedo bay section (which is wider than the Kimble blueprints suggest). According to my calculations the max. width of the dorsal on a 355 m O.L. Enterprise would turn out to be 8.4 meters (and not the 6.3 m I calculated previously, based on the inaccuracy in the blueprints).

 

[blssdwlf]

Great and interesting visualizations!

But I really do suggest you double-check the first frames of the scene in TWOK where Kirk "slides" down the engine room ladder. There is something noticably odd with the wall structure on the upper level, hinting a starboard stern door on the upper level, IMHO.

Update: The first frames of the scene with Spock descending the ladder clearly reveal the starboard door leading astern on the upper level.

I see the oddity there as it vaguely resembles a closed door. However, the vertical middle seam follows the wall seem below it and it appears too wide of a seem to be part of a door. You can compare that door seam and lack of framework to another actual closed door from TMP and see the difference.

Unfortunately, it's not a clear-cut door, IMO.

OTOH, the stern portside doorway in TMP does show a female crewman walking out of the doorway. That's a confirmed doorway. It could be argued that there might be a matching doorway on the starboard side since the intermix shaft is obscuring it but at this point it remains an unknown whether there was a stern starboard side door in TMP or TWOK.

If I'm not mistaken, Kirk's entering through that door in TMP (to arrive at the upper level) would be more "natural" and we wouldn't have to worry about the TWOK bulkhead door at all.

I'd prefer to think that there might be a matching stern starboard side door in TMP. TWOK, I'm not so sure as it looks more like a wall partition. As far as the bulkhead door in TWOK, clearly there were changes to the engine room like the addition of that stern starboard ladder, the bulkhead door, more machinery and the shorter forward blue corridor so having a new upper level entryway wouldn't be out of the question.

P.S.

Regarding the width of the connecting dorsal pylon I had previously relied on the accuracy of the Kimble blueprints.

However, the actual VFX model of the TMP Enterprise reveals that the maximal width of the dorsal is 59% of the maximal width of the torpedo bay section (which is wider than the Kimble blueprints suggest). According to my calculations the max. width of the dorsal on a 355 m O.L. Enterprise would turn out to be 8.4 meters (and not the 6.3 m I calculated previously, based on the inaccuracy in the blueprints).

On a 355m Enterprise, the dorsal width is 22.5' or 6.858m. The torpedo bay is approx 47' across. This is using the TMP CG Enterprise from Drexfiles as a base and scaling up. Also, be careful with using your screenshot as you need to account for perspective and camera distortion.

 

[Robert Comsol]

On a 355m Enterprise, the dorsal width is 22.5' or 6.858m. The torpedo bay is approx 47' across.

I did a size figure table yesterday, based on the Kimble blueprints and screencaps like this one from TUC. On a 355m Enterprise the navigational deflector casing would have a diameter of 19.8 m and the (max. / bow) width of the torpedo bay would indeed be 14.3 m or 47'.

Nevertheless the dorsal would be wider than 22.5', according to the screencap its width is 59% of the torpedo bay width, thus 8.4 m or 27.7'.

This is using the TMP CG Enterprise from Drexfiles as a base and scaling up.

And this is a basic and general problem, IMHO. The strange humpback on the torpedo bay notwithstanding () all of these exterior views rely on the original Kimble blueprints which have a few "issues".

This particular one for example has correctly repositioned the dorsal windows but doesn't address the issue of the actual and maximal dorsal width.

Also, be careful with using your screenshot as you need to account for perspective and camera distortion.

I'd like to think I pay attention and consider lens and perspective distortions. Since objects closer to our point of view appear larger than they are the TWOK screencap may be debatable.

However, that's different with the aforementioned screenshot from TUC where the max. dorsal width (visible) is behind the navigational deflector and the forward edge of the torpedo bay.

According to the enlarged section of the engineering hull built for TWOK and based on a 47' width of the forward torpedo bay edge the max. dorsal width would be 31.8' or 9.7 m!

Bob

 

[blssdwlf]

On a 355m Enterprise, the dorsal width is 22.5' or 6.858m. The torpedo bay is approx 47' across.

I did a size figure table yesterday, based on the Kimble blueprints and screencaps like this one from TUC. On a 355m Enterprise the navigational deflector casing would have a diameter of 19.8 m and the (max. / bow) width of the torpedo bay would indeed be 14.3 m or 47'.

Nevertheless the dorsal would be wider than 22.5', according to the screencap its width is 59% of the torpedo bay width, thus 8.4 m or 27.7'.

The problem with your screencap is that the widest part of the torpedo bay isn't obvious from that angle as it is towards the front and tapers to the back. The dorsal will appear wider from the stern.

The only known low-distortion view of the Enterprise is the one from Drexfiles' orthos and the dorsal width is only 48% of the torpedobay and not 59%.

This is using the TMP CG Enterprise from Drexfiles as a base and scaling up.

And this is a basic and general problem, IMHO. The strange humpback on the torpedo bay notwithstanding () all of these exterior views rely on the original Kimble blueprints which have a few "issues".

Where is your source for this? The Drexfiles ortho is from the CG TMP Enterprise that was accuratized Foundation Imaging for the TMP Director's Edition. Kimble's blueprints has it's own issues and I'm not using it.

Also, be careful with using your screenshot as you need to account for perspective and camera distortion.

I'd like to think I pay attention and consider lens and perspective distortions. Since objects closer to our point of view appear larger than they are the TWOK screencap may be debatable.

However, that's different with the aforementioned screenshot from TUC where the max. dorsal width (visible) is behind the navigational deflector and the forward edge of the torpedo bay.

Yes, but:
1. from that angle the dorsal is tapering already (top wider, bottom lower) and we can't ascertain how wide the bottom of the dorsal is when it connects to the torpedo bay,
2. and we can't tell the actual max width of the torpedo bay from that angle as the widest part isn't obvious as well.

 

[kennysmith]

can you tell me what is about the star ship from the 1966 tv show of the enterprise, see there is no info on what you are doing i do like the size you are doing from the refit.

On a 355m Enterprise, the dorsal width is 22.5' or 6.858m. The torpedo bay is approx 47' across.

I did a size figure table yesterday, based on the Kimble blueprints and screencaps like this one from TUC. On a 355m Enterprise the navigational deflector casing would have a diameter of 19.8 m and the (max. / bow) width of the torpedo bay would indeed be 14.3 m or 47'.

Nevertheless the dorsal would be wider than 22.5', according to the screencap its width is 59% of the torpedo bay width, thus 8.4 m or 27.7'.

The problem with your screencap is that the widest part of the torpedo bay isn't obvious from that angle as it is towards the front and tapers to the back. The dorsal will appear wider from the stern.

The only known low-distortion view of the Enterprise is the one from Drexfiles' orthos and the dorsal width is only 48% of the torpedobay and not 59%.

Where is your source for this? The Drexfiles ortho is from the CG TMP Enterprise that was accuratized Foundation Imaging for the TMP Director's Edition. Kimble's blueprints has it's own issues and I'm not using it.

Also, be careful with using your screenshot as you need to account for perspective and camera distortion.

I'd like to think I pay attention and consider lens and perspective distortions. Since objects closer to our point of view appear larger than they are the TWOK screencap may be debatable.

However, that's different with the aforementioned screenshot from TUC where the max. dorsal width (visible) is behind the navigational deflector and the forward edge of the torpedo bay.

Yes, but:
1. from that angle the dorsal is tapering already (top wider, bottom lower) and we can't ascertain how wide the bottom of the dorsal is when it connects to the torpedo bay,
2. and we can't tell the actual max width of the torpedo bay from that angle as the widest part isn't obvious as well.

 

[Robert Comsol]

The only known low-distortion view of the Enterprise is the one from Drexfiles' orthos and the dorsal width is only 48% of the torpedobay and not 59%.

I'm a little confused. Since when did the Thermians decide to rely on inaccurate third party recreations rather than the original (VFX) footage and photographs?

Here we see one of the more detailed front views of the actual and "real" ship.

Unlike the TOS Enterprise's rectangular (!) connecting dorsal, the refit Enterprise's dorsal has an "ovoid" (quote Andrew Probert) cross-section, i.e. it gets wider in the center and that width continues diagonally down towards the stern.

Because of its ovoid nature - opposite to a rectangular one - there is wiggle room in determining its actual width when not in a perfect and centered front view like the above shot.

What we do see in the shot is that the max. width of the dorsal is approximately 59% of the max. width of the torpedo bay and not 48%.

The Drexfiles ortho is from the CG TMP Enterprise that was accuratized Foundation Imaging for the TMP Director's Edition. Kimble's blueprints has it's own issues and I'm not using it.

I'm sorry, but I can't see anything "accuratized" but rather the introduction of new and/or different inaccuracies.

• Both Kimble and Foundation Imaging didn't get the width of the dorsal accurately reproduced
• Both Kimble and Foundation Imaging didn't get the forward torpedo launcher section correct. Kimble didn't show the relief of the torpedo bay towards the forward launcher, Foundation Imaging exaggerated it.
• Both Kimble and Foundation Imaging suggest a launcher opening that's too rectangular and betrays the noticable and original hexagonal shape
• Both Kimble and Foundation Imaging didn't get the shape of the forward sensor light (illuminating "NCC-1701") correct

But where Foundation Imaging made things really worse is their curvature of the torpedo bay "roof" (better and very noticable in the side views you often provide to visualize your engine component locations): its curvature is rather reminiscent of a fish or a banana and not compatible with the actual curvature of the "real" ship or VFX model.

Rather than siding for one or another inaccurate reproduction of the ship we should look for one that is truly accurate.

Didn't Tobias Richter (The Light Works) do such a CGI recreation?

Bob

 

[blssdwlf]

The only known low-distortion view of the Enterprise is the one from Drexfiles' orthos and the dorsal width is only 48% of the torpedobay and not 59%.

I'm a little confused. Since when did the Thermians decide to rely on inaccurate third party recreations rather than the original (VFX) footage and photographs?

1. That recreation appeared onscreen in the Director's Edition.
2. The amount of inaccuracies relative to other blueprints is very low.
3. It's the only undistorted orthographic view of an onscreen TMP Enterprise, AFAIK.

As a Thermian, the argument is simply this:
1. You cannot get an accurate sizing from the original footage using the filmed front and back angles due to the complex shapes and distortion involved.

Here we see one of the more detailed front views of the actual and "real" ship.

And again, due to foreshortening, the max width of the torpedo bay is obscured. I question any accuracy that you're able to get from that picture.

The Drexfiles ortho is from the CG TMP Enterprise that was accuratized Foundation Imaging for the TMP Director's Edition. Kimble's blueprints has it's own issues and I'm not using it.

I'm sorry, but I can't see anything "accuratized" but rather the introduction of new and/or different inaccuracies.

• Both Kimble and Foundation Imaging didn't get the width of the dorsal accurately reproduced

That's your opinion that is unfounded based on the images you are using.

• Both Kimble and Foundation Imaging didn't get the forward torpedo launcher section correct. Kimble didn't show the relief of the torpedo bay towards the forward launcher, Foundation Imaging exaggerated it.
• Both Kimble and Foundation Imaging suggest a launcher opening that's too rectangular and betrays the noticable and original hexagonal shape
• Both Kimble and Foundation Imaging didn't get the shape of the forward sensor light (illuminating "NCC-1701") correct

You'll need to illustrate these problems as I don't see the issue.

But where Foundation Imaging made things really worse is their curvature of the torpedo bay "roof" (better and very noticable in the side views you often provide to visualize your engine component locations): its curvature is rather reminiscent of a fish or a banana and not compatible with the actual curvature of the "real" ship or VFX model.

This I partially agree with. The hump of the ceiling should be moved forward as the FI version is too far behind the docking port. However, the real model does have a curve to it.

Rather than siding for one or another inaccurate reproduction of the ship we should look for one that is truly accurate.

Didn't Tobias Richter (The Light Works) do such a CGI recreation?

Bob

Didn't you just say not to side with one inaccurate reproduction and then you mention another 3rd party CGI model? How many cakes do you want to eat at the same time?

If you want a true width to that dorsal, get someone to measure it off the 8' ? model. Otherwise you're dealing with inaccuracy through visual distortion going through the visual footage using the front or back angles.

 

[Robert Comsol]

1. That recreation appeared onscreen in the Director's Edition.
2. The amount of inaccuracies relative to other blueprints is very low.
3. It's the only undistorted orthographic view of an onscreen TMP Enterprise, AFAIK.

I see. Although it contradicts the footage featuring the VFX model (e.g. torpedo bay humpback) in the same Director's Edition, the CG rendering takes precedence over this footage and the footage from the other 5 films.

One could apply the same kind of reasoning and insist that there is no docking port on the starboard side of the torpedo bay, because the closeup of the enlarged TWOK starboard section in ST III doesn't show it.

Didn't you just say not to side with one inaccurate reproduction and then you mention another 3rd party CGI model? How many cakes do you want to eat at the same time?

Since you are twisting my words this is the time where my favorite HAL 9000 quote would be appropriate.

You are implying nothing less that Tobias Richter's CGI reproduction is equally inaccurate (I haven't seen it in detail, yet, but usually Tobias aims at a higher than average accuracy in his works).

I don't need cakes, I'd just like to see one reproduction of the refit Enterprise that can truly claim to be accurate.

END

 

[Workbee]

Saw the above pic and it brought to mind another scene. Could this screenshot be of any help?

 

[Maurice]

One could apply the same kind of reasoning and insist that there is no docking port on the starboard side of the torpedo bay, because the closeup of the enlarged TWOK starboard section in ST III doesn't show it.

Ahhh! Make it go away. One of the most effed up Enterprise shots ever, from the missing docking port to the totally misaligned saucer and nacelle. Ugh!

 

[blssdwlf]

1. That recreation appeared onscreen in the Director's Edition.
2. The amount of inaccuracies relative to other blueprints is very low.
3. It's the only undistorted orthographic view of an onscreen TMP Enterprise, AFAIK.

I see. Although it contradicts the footage featuring the VFX model (e.g. torpedo bay humpback) in the same Director's Edition, the CG rendering takes precedence over this footage and the footage from the other 5 films.

Considering this is the only orthographic representation of the TMP E and that the model was used in the DE, then it has weight. Until you can come up with an undistorted view you have no basis to stand on. I thought you were in search of the truth and not what you think is right?

One could apply the same kind of reasoning and insist that there is no docking port on the starboard side of the torpedo bay, because the closeup of the enlarged TWOK starboard section in ST III doesn't show it.

That's a different reasoning - the docking port shutter hid the door, just like window shutters can hide windows on the TOS Enterprise.

Let's not try to change the subject of the difficulty of getting an accurate measurement from the VFX shots as shown on screen.

Didn't you just say not to side with one inaccurate reproduction and then you mention another 3rd party CGI model? How many cakes do you want to eat at the same time?

Since you are twisting my words this is the time where my favorite HAL 9000 quote would be appropriate.

You are implying nothing less that Tobias Richter's CGI reproduction is equally inaccurate (I haven't seen it in detail, yet, but usually Tobias aims at a higher than average accuracy in his works).

Whatever as it's still a 3rd party CGI model and not one that made it into a movie.

I don't need cakes, I'd just like to see one reproduction of the refit Enterprise that can truly claim to be accurate.

No, you just need to see an undistorted orthographic of the TMP Enterprise so you can be accurate. Can you even point out the widest point of the torpedo bay?

Saw the above pic and it brought to mind another scene. Could this screenshot be of any help?

Unfortunately Workbee, that screenshot suffers from the same problem.

The curvature of the torpedo bay makes it difficult to determine accurately it's max width as perspective will make the widest part appear narrower from the front or from the back. This is why Robert Comsol's measurement methodology is questionable.

The only way to really solve the measurement is to have someone go up to the physical model and measure it or to find a digital orthographic version of it.

 

[blssdwlf]

One could apply the same kind of reasoning and insist that there is no docking port on the starboard side of the torpedo bay, because the closeup of the enlarged TWOK starboard section in ST III doesn't show it.

Ahhh! Make it go away. One of the most effed up Enterprise shots ever, from the missing docking port to the totally misaligned saucer and nacelle. Ugh!

Damn Mutara Nebula distortion

 

[kennysmith]

i just don't under stand why you are talking about the star trek the movie, when i am asking about the tv show from the 1966s

One could apply the same kind of reasoning and insist that there is no docking port on the starboard side of the torpedo bay, because the closeup of the enlarged TWOK starboard section in ST III doesn't show it.

Ahhh! Make it go away. One of the most effed up Enterprise shots ever, from the missing docking port to the totally misaligned saucer and nacelle. Ugh!

Damn Mutara Nebula distortion

 

[Robert Comsol]

Saw the above pic and it brought to mind another scene. Could this screenshot be of any help?

Another shot that rather obviously documents that the width of the dorsal behind the torpdo bay is approximately 59% of the torpedo bay width, if not more. Thanks.

Bob