• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Engine Room(s) on the TOS Enterprise (revisited)

Per my above sketches of the TAS nacelle, it would be sketch B. I wonder which came first, TAS or the Mandel drawing? Both have the 8 vertical pipes attached to the matter-antimatter integrator. The cartoon's pipes must be force-perspective. :shifty: There seems to be a lot of empty space, so, I assume the voids are filled with unexciting equipment not worth being in the drawings, except the room air conditioner - very important on hot days. :techman: The hatch were Scott and Kirk place the antimatter is not present in the Mandel drawing, but there are antimatter operations is a room behind the hatch - must have been dumbed down for cartoon consumption. Based on the Mandel drawing, all the warp action is done by the rear magic sphere labelled "space-warp generator" - nice and compact. This drawing must have done before the concept of the TNG warp coils. Overall: :barf2:
 
@Mytran More like 19th century engineering, like the equally overbuilt Brooklyn Bridge.
@Henoch The faux-stardate on the bottom left would indicate 1979 (Feb 1.) They sold calendars in the 1970s with the format YYMM.DD as stardates (IDK, maybe they still do).
 
@Henoch The faux-stardate on the bottom left would indicate 1979 (Feb 1.) They sold calendars in the 1970s with the format YYMM.DD as stardates (IDK, maybe they still do).
Now that I look closer, the Mandel date is actually 7802.1. It was loosely based off Franz Joseph's small cutaway window of a nacelle in the blueprint package which has a copyright date of 1973. The TAS episode was aired Sept. 22, 1973. Timeline: 1) FJ; 2)TAS; 3)Mandel.
 
Now that I look closer, the Mandel date is actually 7802.1. It was loosely based off Franz Joseph's small cutaway window of a nacelle in the blueprint package which has a copyright date of 1973. The TAS episode was aired Sept. 22, 1973. Timeline: 1) FJ; 2)TAS; 3)Mandel.
I'm confused about your timeline there. Franz Joseph's Booklet of General Plans (FJ's BoGP) and the Tech Manual (FJTM) were both published in 1975. FJ's warp nacelle in the Tech Manual was dated 7309.21, but TAS "One of Our Planets Is Missing" was first aired literally the very next day, so would have to have been completed much earlier.

Can you clarify what blueprint package of Franz Joseph's that you are referring to? I'm unaware of any cutaway nacelle by Joseph at all, only one by Mandel from 1978. I'm also unaware of blueprints by Joseph copyright 1973. Can you check to make sure you aren't looking at Mandel's work copyright 1978? I know Cygnus-X1.Net has Mandel's work mixed in with Joseph's and presented kind of like as a bonus 13th page of the BoGP [https://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/star-trek-blueprints.php]. Zoom in on page 13, and you'll see it's by Mandel from 1978.
 
I'm really not fond of (A) if you're going to stick to the door-centred TAS design.
Conduits of different lengths are not that much of a problem, are they? The nacelles themselves taper from front to back, so it's not like everything is equal up there anyway

I don't think the different lengths are a problem. I was just noting that they were possibly different lengths (if we were to model them :) )

I think whatever the Enterprise's technology is, it must be strong enough to hold together the nacelles to the ship even when the Enterprise slams unshielded into a planet-sized gelatinous amoeba and when squeezed from all directions by a force-field shaped hand. :)
 
What I'm saying is not to rely on the TMP design, but the TMP design came from the three seasons and 2 pilots of TOS. So if we know what the TMP design is, we can know which of the episodes they were basing it on. I think the two designs share similarities that aide in understanding each. I would say of all three seasons that That Which Survives has the most detailed information on the TOS system and it parallels the TMP system. I believe it was Mike Minor who came up with the new vertical engine core. He also was just going to replace the warp nacelles, pylons, and deflector dish and leave the rest of the ship the same. That is kind of where the design went, but they kept changing more with each iteration (Jefferies, Taylor, then Probert). They pulled the mystery elements out of the shadows and put them on full display as the main focus of the engine room. Far better than the mystery pipes they never explained. And as someone had pointed out, the TMP design was lacking in several areas that we can pull from TOS to flesh that out.

And one of the things to bring up is the cross section that Jefferies did that was included in TMOST.
2uy17rt.jpg


I colored in three areas. Red would be main engineering. Gold the pipes structure (assuming it isn't highly forced perspective, which he really didn't leave space for). The blue is an odd structure. It is a short vertical section with a big box on it that sticks into the deck below. I have decided it is a horizontal plasma conduit, but it could be the pre-cursor to the vertical shaft we see in Phase II/TMP and onwards. Of course there is that larger vertical shaft that goes clear through the engineering hull that could be that as well (though the engine room doesn't fit in front of it). This was the first thing I looked at when trying to figure out this ship. In analyzing the layout, I determined that the scene where we meet Sarek and Amanda in Journey to Babel could not take place on either side of the hanger so it must be in front of the hanger. The set design agrees as the back wall is blank (looking down the length of the hanger you would see the doors and for a set that wasn't nearly big enough, just being blank works). That is also the only deck Jefferies left that the engineering room would fit in the entire ship. I put a red box around the area engineering is often put to highlight that there is no room there. Jefferies would have included one of the most important sets. Now I won't claim it has to be the red area I picked, but it would be that deck according to his plans. And in case you are thinking that is just a rough sketch of what Jefferies envisioned....

r8z3p1.jpg


He kept a virtually identical internal layout as he worked on the Phase II Enterprise a decade later. So the room spaces are not an accident. Between Taylor and Probert, the engine room move up and forward. But at this stage it was still Jefferies work and we can see that much of the internal layout is the same. I consider this to be more significant that the text in TMOST for a lot of things, especially considering designer intent. And Jefferies did work on TOS right through the final episode. I feel confident that the season 3 episodes we have been discussing were cleared with him. He probably designed the set redress for the crawl-way for TWS.

Anyway, that is some of where I am coming from. I love blueprints so when I learned how simiar these two were before Phase II became TMP, I decided to base my decision a lot of Jefferies original cross section (with the hanger from the Phase II).

Could it run along the centreline of the secondary hull, behind the main dish structure?

That makes sense. In the diagram above, it could be the room behind the room marked in blue, and then when they put it behind the door, a lift takes it up the shaft marked in the the nacelle pylon. I know the poster of the image does not count TAS as fully accurate, but in this case, I think it and that diagram might work at the same time.

Since it's a cartoon, you can make it fit. It's just a cartoon distortion of what the "real" room would be like.

Highly possible that it is not in proper porportions.
 
I'm confused about your timeline there. Franz Joseph's Booklet of General Plans (FJ's BoGP) and the Tech Manual (FJTM) were both published in 1975. FJ's warp nacelle in the Tech Manual was dated 7309.21, but TAS "One of Our Planets Is Missing" was first aired literally the very next day, so would have to have been completed much earlier.

Can you clarify what blueprint package of Franz Joseph's that you are referring to? I'm unaware of any cutaway nacelle by Joseph at all, only one by Mandel from 1978. I'm also unaware of blueprints by Joseph copyright 1973. Can you check to make sure you aren't looking at Mandel's work copyright 1978? I know Cygnus-X1.Net has Mandel's work mixed in with Joseph's and presented kind of like as a bonus 13th page of the BoGP [https://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/star-trek-blueprints.php]. Zoom in on page 13, and you'll see it's by Mandel from 1978.
He is referring to these:
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Star_Trek_Blueprints
Which have a copyright date on them of 1973 (bottom of the first sheet, under the paragraph titled "Federation Classified". Visually verified on my copy here at the house. )
edit to add: sheet 11 of those plans shows the nacelle/strut cross-section, viewed from the front.
And @Henoch yep you are right about 1978.
 
He is referring to these:
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Star_Trek_Blueprints
Which have a copyright date on them of 1973 (bottom of the first sheet, under the paragraph titled "Federation Classified". Visually verified on my copy here at the house. )
edit to add: sheet 11 of those plans shows the nacelle/strut cross-section, viewed from the front.
And @Henoch yep you are right about 1978.
Got it, thank you. That's the Booklet of General Plans that I was talking about. I, too, see Copyright 1973, and Franz Joeseph dates the work as having been completed by 7312.14. But they were first published in 1975, according to the Memory Alpha page you've linked to. Amazon agrees with first publication in 1975: https://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Blueprints-Enterprise-Constitution/dp/0345244710

Alright, yeah, on sheet 11 there is a "cutaway" view of a warp nacelle, but the only thing internal to it that is shown is the "longitudinal inspection corridor." Everything else is a blank space.
 
The 1975 date is the second edition. The first edition was 500 sold (with permission) at a convention in 1974. The drawings were completed in 1973 and I am not aware of any changes. I doubt FJ was watching TAS as none of the oddball things from it are in any of his work. FJ's work is all TOS based.
 
I've been rethinking (yes, very dangerous) my engineering hull and engine room layout. The engine room deck is staggered 2 feet above the flight deck. I decided to use the vertical external hull lines to indicate internal pressure hulls and arrange the engine room between those positions. Magically, the lines line up near perfectly for the engine room, straight hall in front of the engine room, and a good spot for the pipe cathedral aft of the room. I've settled on a full pipe size of 33 feet to fit into the space which seems reasonable:
Pipes.png

S3-ER-Deck-Elevation-Plan-Henock.png
 
That's so beautiful! Again, the most immediate impression I get from the remarkable symmetry of the graphic is that the setup could be mirrored, twice: another room with another cathedral towards the bow, on the other side of the transverse (and curved) corridor, neatly sitting atop the reactor and its bottom hatch, and then inverted cathedrals below the ones shown, for a big center-axis cylinder that at the extreme bow might also be our TAS "antimatter engine" space. Five rows of pipes aft, six forward, of course...

Timo Saloniemi
 
I've been rethinking (yes, very dangerous) my engineering hull and engine room layout. The engine room deck is staggered 2 feet above the flight deck. I decided to use the vertical external hull lines to indicate internal pressure hulls and arrange the engine room between those positions. Magically, the lines line up near perfectly for the engine room, straight hall in front of the engine room, and a good spot for the pipe cathedral aft of the room. I've settled on a full pipe size of 33 feet to fit into the space which seems reasonable:
Pipes.png

S3-ER-Deck-Elevation-Plan-Henock.png
Very beautiful. Though I may be biased because your ideas are so close to mine (plus your drawing skills are supurb). Though I have to point out that Casimiro is the only one that has the hanger below the centerline. Sinclair, Shaw, Covin, and Gary Kerr himself all have the hanger deck right at the centerline so you would not need the steps down. Also, those grid lines are from the 91-92 restoration and are inspired by the Phase II grid lines, not by anything even remotely TOS related.
258ny8h.jpg
 
not by anything even remotely TOS related.
I didn't know these important tidbits. If the lines are not canon then, oops. At least it fits and there is room for some curved corridors. Still working slowly on the overhead deck plans. Thanks for the data. :)
 
Very beautiful. Though I may be biased because your ideas are so close to mine (plus your drawing skills are supurb). Though I have to point out that Casimiro is the only one that has the hanger below the centerline. Sinclair, Shaw, Covin, and Gary Kerr himself all have the hanger deck right at the centerline so you would not need the steps down. Also, those grid lines are from the 91-92 restoration and are inspired by the Phase II grid lines, not by anything even remotely TOS related.
258ny8h.jpg
So is the hanger deck supposed to be on the center-line or below?
 
According to Sinclair, Shaw, and Kerr, it is supposed to be on the center-line. That agrees with Jefferies and FJ as well.
 
So is the hanger deck supposed to be on the center-line or below?
Good question. I was under the impression that the Casimiro secondary hull was the most accurate, hence why I choose it as the foundation of my design. :shrug:
 
I have overlayed all of them. Kerr and Shaw agree almost exactly. Sinclair is slightly off, but pretty much the same. Art Covin's drawings (see the blueprint database) stretch things out with his engines going longer. Casimiro's drawings have shorter engines and the hanger deck is dropped. As Gary Kerr is the only one whose drawings were made directly from the real thing, I think it is safe to say that Casimrio's have a flaw. The best I have of Kerr's actual drawings are just pieces with a full profile courtesy of the Smithsonian (someone took an excellent picture of a printed drawing). The CG images in his article on the color (https://culttvman.com/main/a-modelers-guide-to-painting-the-starship-enterprise-by-gary-kerr/) were not done by him, but conform to his specifications and agree with Shaw's drawings.
 
Last edited:
According to Sinclair, Shaw, and Kerr, it is supposed to be on the center-line. That agrees with Jefferies and FJ as well.
After reviewing several drawings and photos of the 11 foot model (see below), I'm in agreement that the flight deck is on the centerline. Casimiro steered me wrong. :censored: Downloads of the sideview picture is locked up from that site, so, I can't get a copy of the photo to use, I'm switching to the Sinclair drawing and any other Kerr stuff I can find. Thanks, @yotsuya . :techman:
Hangar-Photo-External-from-Rear.png
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top