Donny's TOS Enterprise Interiors

[Professor Moriarty]

Yes, but as pointed out earlier, the Enterprise herself (as well as her sister Constitution-class starships) had a swept-back strut--the interconnecting dorsal between the primary and secondary hulls. (Well, in this case swept forward).

Hmm... maybe that would be the "connection" (pun intended?). Would your objection be satisfied if the rollbar connected to the main hull with a swept-forward strut reminiscent of the Enterprise interconnector?

 

[Donny]

Okay, I've mocked up several other roll-bar/pylon configurations and just focused on that for the moment since I'm pretty set on the basic shape of the deflector pod.

You may want to click on the image to be taken to my Flickr page, where you can then click on the image again to zoom in for a closer look/


A. Is what I settled on last night, which I still think is my favorite, for the reasons I'll list below.
B. Is last night's initial exploration, with secondary pods on the corners where the pylons meet the roll bar. This one is most like TMP Miranda.
C. I basically did this straight pylon configuration just to show why it doesn't work. If the pylons are going to connect to the sides like this, this straight configuration just doesn't "grip" the sides very well, nor is it particularly attractive.
D. A requested "swept forward" pylon, which I don't believe works or is as striking as the "swept back" look.
E. Straight aft edge of pylon with swept forward look, which again I don't believe works particularly well.
F. @aridas sofia's suggested "Klingon D7 Pylon Configuration", with straight angles without any bends.
G. @Rekkert's "Original Shuttle Concept Pylon Configuration". It's not bad, but I just don't think that shape language jives with the rest of the ship very well.

As of now, I'm leaning towards "A", "B", or "F". Honestly I like "A" the most, but I may be biased since it's what I want it to look like . "F" isn't bad, but I think the hard-angles clash with the rest of the ship a little too much, and the smooth bend at the corners of A complement the soft lines of the primary hull a bit more. "B" isn't bad either, but the pylons angles are almost exactly the same as the TMP Miranda, which is why I prefer A because it's a slight departure with it's straight upper aft angle. Actually, "B" is closest to the TMP Miranda of all these. If I go with "B", I'll replace the roll bar with a straight one rather than one with the slight bend, as pictured. I could take or leave the smaller pods on the corners. "C", "D", and "E" are all out. I'm glad I explored "G" a bit but it was very hard to make that shape work and the resulting roll bar is too wide. Even though the pylon has a very "Jefferies" shape to it, I don't feel like it shares the same shape lineage as the Enterprise.

Man. I'm really itching to move past this part of the process! I have to say iteration is not as fun as I want it to be!

 

[StarCruiser]

How about this: Variants...

It's pretty rare - in the real world - for sister ships to be absolutely identical.

 

[Donny]

How about this: Variants...

It's pretty rare - in the real world - for sister ships to be absolutely identical.

Ha, very true. But I'm only going to take one to completion!

 

[Rekkert]

Wow, you really went all in with giving each iteration a chance, and thus understanding the shapes rather than talking hypothetically about why you like/dislike each one. Kudos for that!

I agree A and F end up looking the best, and while I agree with @aridas sofia's reasoning regarding F, and how it probably would be the way it would've been built in the 60's, it just doesn't look as smooth and "natural" a shape as A. It ends up looking like a low poly version IMO.

 

[137th Gebirg]

It’s a toss-up between A and F for me, but I think I’m leaning towards F. I like the D7 angled look. I agree that the rollbar curvature of A is a little too TMP. Curious how that whole thing looks kind of barren without the megaphasers, but I also agree that B is a little too anachronistic for TOS aesthetics.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

"A", but with the four vents from your earlier iteration. Or, I dunno, something to add visual interest. But I really liked those vents.

 

[Donny]

Wow, you really went all in with giving each iteration a chance, and thus understanding the shapes rather than talking hypothetically about why you like/dislike each one. Kudos for that!

I agree A and F end up looking the best, and while I agree with @aridas sofia's reasoning regarding F, and how it probably would be the way it would've been built in the 60's, it just doesn't look as smooth and "natural" a shape as A. It ends up looking like a low poly version IMO.

I appreciate you recognizing that!

 

[Rekkert]

I don't want to give you more work or anything, but just FYI this is how I'd imagine the shuttle concept shape brought into the design, just changing that aft section away from the angular TMP design language.

 

[BK613]

The version I described in my post earlier would have the back edge of the rollbar/strut assembly belonging to C but the front edge of of the rollbar/strut assembly belonging to A (or F.) So the strut part narrows as it approaches the warp nacelle, with the attach point being nearer the size of the Saladin/Hermes.

 

[Donny]

The version I described in my post earlier would have the back edge of the rollbar/strut assembly belonging to C but the front edge of of the rollbar/strut assembly belonging to A (or F.) So the strut part narrows as it approaches the warp nacelle, with the attach point being nearer the size of the Saladin/Hermes.

Gotcha. Like this?

 

[penguin44]

I love the variety. Helps me see what we are all talking about. I like a and f. Or A with the mini pods from B.

 

[BK613]

Gotcha. Like this?

Yep, that's the general idea. So would that be H?

 

[Henoch]

Angles of the Models A, B, F engine struts: are they similar to the Enterprise dorsal-neck angles by any chance?

 

[Donny]

Angles of the Models A, B, F engine struts: are they similar to the Enterprise dorsal-neck angles by any chance?

They weren't exact in the mock-ups, no. But I'm matching the angles now on my (hopefully) final model of the roll-bar

 

[Donny]

Okay, I've settled on "A" but have made a few slight changes and refinements.




https://flic.kr/p/2h7bFDd
Notes:
A) The width and cross-section of the pylons/rollbar is identical to that of the Constitution's pylons.
B) The forward and aft angles of the lower pylons are identical to that of the Constitution's dorsal.
C) I've abandoned the nacelle blister completely, as I feel it was reaching too hard into the TMP-era.
D) I've abandoned the smaller pods at the corners of the roll bar for now. I may bring them back in later, and kill the bend of the roll bar if so, opting for an angled corner instead.
E) I will add more visual interest in the form of decals or medium-sized details later, if needed.

I'm gonna sleep on it one more night. I may opt to remove the bend on the corners.

 

[Workbee]

Gotcha. Like this?

@Donny --- sorry was late to the party -- took me a while to get this picture posted. What about something like this?

*Edit* can't seem to get this picture to post correctly so I sent you a message via flickr. Here is a link:

https://flic.kr/p/2h79s7o

*Edit Again* Looking at your new renders - I like your direction better. What if you put a slight taper on the strut so it is a little more narrow at the point it meets the nacelle -- as a way of visually referencing or evoking the taper of the neck of the TOS Enterprise?

Visual illustration here: https://flic.kr/p/2h7bPCJ

Edit again:
At this late hour, it occurred to me that I should put some kind of notice that this was not my work and to credit you. I put a brief note on the image but If there is a different way you would prefer I do so, please let me know and I adjust accordingly.

Edit # 493
Ok I think this is my last addition to this post - what if you drop the nacelles lower so they are further away / below the main hull?

- it occurred to me that when I look at the TOS E and TMP E side by side, the TOS E appears more “spindly” to me where the refit is better “integrated” where the different components appeared engineered to go together. As opposed to appearing more like disparate that we’re just attached together- a neck attached to a saucer attached to a tapered cylinder. A couple support struts with cylindrical nacelles attached. For Reliant, they doubled down on “integration” aesthetic - making the components even more embedded in each other than the refit E.

To go TOS it needs to go the other direction and somehow be more spindly with more disparate parts. Making the nacelles lower might achieve this - providing the appearance that like the TOS E, the connections look like they shouldn’t be strong enough to hold the parts together.

 

[aridas sofia]

I like your choice Donny. A looks good. I think B maybe even more so. I think F is what they would have built, but why be limited to that when the alternative is more attractive?

 

[Rekkert]

All this talk of letters reminded me of a certain Starfleet engineer...

 

[The Lensman]

I think all of them look good, but I can't help feeling that what they would've actually done is have the roll bar and struts be two separate pieces. The roll bar struts ending further in, with the warp struts just jutting from the bottom of the hull at an outward angle evoking the Enterprise. The Miranda is definitely an 80's design. That's my two cents. I'm sure whatever you end up with will be fantastic as usual.