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

[yotsuya]

It would of been better if the dialogue was not this:

KIRK: This is the observation deck. That's the flight deck down there with the shuttle craft.

but this:

KIRK: This is the observation deck. We just came from the flight deck down there. See that shuttle craft? We can take it for a little flight around the planet. No one would miss us



Sure, there are many ways to do this. How are you accounting for the different shapes of the ports? The external ports are clearly rectangular but the interior are squares.

Also, the hangar bay/flight deck prop model was in no way a straight cylinder. You must have looked at the photos that are out there and seen it can't be. Here's a reminder showing that it is a tapered cylinder that narrows towards the stern of the ship.

That miniature was designed and built with forced perspective so trying to pull the design off it is pointless. If we are correcting the pipes we need to correct the hanger. I go off the two cross sections by Jefferies (the cross section of the hanger proves it was designed to be forced perspective) for the correct shape and position of the hanger.

 

[blssdwlf]

That miniature was designed and built with forced perspective so trying to pull the design off it is pointless. If we are correcting the pipes we need to correct the hanger. I go off the two cross sections by Jefferies (the cross section of the hanger proves it was designed to be forced perspective) for the correct shape and position of the hanger.

The flight deck/shuttle bay is not built with forced perspective. It is matching the form of the secondary hull. Building it in 3D would have revealed the forced perspective nature - which it did not.

Also, not everyone is correcting for the forced-perspective pipes. Some folks choose to keep the pipes as built, others choose to "straighten them out".

Go to this page, 3rd row down, 2nd column to see the sketch.

http://www.trekcore.com/specials/thumbnails.php?album=3&page=9

Though upon reviewing it I see I miss-remembered and was thinking of the set from The mark Of Gideon, but still, the "A" frame would still work in the observation Gallery.

Thanks @TIN_MAN. Too bad they kept the coffin-style frame from the BOP set instead of subbing in the A frame for Kirk and Lenore to walk through.

 

[yotsuya]

Ah, problem solved. Here is the image I created earlier. You might have to download it and zoom in to see the ports and how they line up with the observation deck.

 

[yotsuya]

The flight deck/shuttle bay is not built with forced perspective. It is matching the form of the secondary hull. Building it in 3D would have revealed the forced perspective nature - which it did not.

Also, not everyone is correcting for the forced-perspective pipes. Some folks choose to keep the pipes as built, others choose to "straighten them out".

Thanks @TIN_MAN. Too bad they kept the coffin-style frame from the BOP set instead of subbing in the A frame for Kirk and Lenore to walk through.

That is fine and dandy, but that does not fit how Jefferies allocated the space. The drawings of the hanger, which match the proportions of the miniature, clearly show a forced perspective. It was deliberately wider and taller in the front for camera work. Now I can't say whether Mr. Datin contructed it exactly according to the drawings, but the drawings show intent for it to be forced perspective. The same person designed the exterior, gave us the cross section, the hanger details, and the Phase II cross section. I think it is clear that the hanger miniature was intended to be forced perspective and the proportions are skewed in that direction. Several on screen graphics agree that there is a bulkhead immediately behind the pylons that preclude this hanger design and favor adusting for the forced perspective that Jefferies intended.

 

[blssdwlf]

That is fine and dandy, but that does not fit how Jefferies allocated the space. The drawings of the hanger, which match the proportions of the miniature, clearly show a forced perspective. It was deliberately wider and taller in the front for camera work. Now I can't say whether Mr. Datin contructed it exactly according to the drawings, but the drawings show intent for it to be forced perspective. The same person designed the exterior, gave us the cross section, the hanger details, and the Phase II cross section. I think it is clear that the hanger miniature was intended to be forced perspective and the proportions are skewed in that direction. Several on screen graphics agree that there is a bulkhead immediately behind the pylons that preclude this hanger design and favor adusting for the forced perspective that Jefferies intended.

How MJ allocated the space in his illustration isn't always how things are built in production. The filmed version is clearly not forced perspective. It's deliberately wider and taller towards the bow of the ship because of the shape of the hull. What we do know is what was built and it wasn't how MJ illustrated it.

Let me ask you this: in MJ's drawing the primary hull has a prominent bevel to it. Also the secondary hull is drawn with a barrel bulge at the bottom. Those features are not on the filming model of the Enterprise. Are you saying that Enterprise model is wrong also? Clearly the on screen model differs from what is drawn.

You can build a mish-mash of the Enterprise and that's your prerogative. However MJ's illustrations are not accurate to what's built and filmed. That's just the way it is.

 

[yotsuya]

Several of MJ's drawings appeared on screen and establish the size of the ship. The pressure compartment drawings were also used on screen. The hanger miniature was designed with forced perspective. Have you looked at the drawings recently? They March the shape of the model. And if you go by Jefferies drawings, then yes, both studio miniatures of the ship weren't done exactly to his specification. But in the case of the hanger the model as built is never seen in a way that counters the other things we do see on screen. TOS is full of little things that don't quite fit as we see them and we have to pick one way to fullfill the design to make it workable. I think looking at the intent behind the design is the best way to find the solution and the hanger drawings clearly show a forced perspective intent to the design. We don't have a detailed drawing of MJ's hanger until a decade later, but it fits all the period sources better than a sloped and elongated hanger does.

 

[Henoch]

I think we all agree that nothing really fits. Concept Drawings do not equate to Exterior Models do not equate to Interior Sets, and vice versa. @blssdwlf uses a 22' shuttle in a 1084' ship, and it looks great! For me, trying to stuff a 24' shuttle (Kirk dialog) into a 947' ship (viewer graphic) with the entire hangar bay behind the pylon looks like crap with a lot of compromises. (I wonder where the script writer got the 24' dimension for a shuttle?) Oh well, that's my ship conditions at this point. Image matching the hangar model using a 24' shuttle, the ship would balloon to 1120' or larger. Angling the observation deck to run parallel with hull was an option (Shaw did that), but IMHO, it's ascetics are not as good than straight interior hangar walls giving the flaring observation deck corridor.

Square windows into round portholes? Meh. I think the two adjacent square windows from the interior set could represent one large rectangle window on the hull exterior; the interior framing (or anything inside the ship) are not seen from the outside. Or the intent of the set designer was to capture the dual windows seen in the aft hangar bay on the external hull, but it's execution was less than perfect.

As for the COTK location of the observation deck, when Lenore looks down, I assume she is seeing the big yellow circle in a big red square, probably with a shuttlecraft sitting on it. It's most logical that she is viewing out of one the hangar model established windows. COTK was production order 13, while the Galileo Seven was order 14, so, I assume the model was finished by COTK (maybe film in the can was still working for TGS).

KIRK: This is the observation deck. That's the flight deck down there with the shuttle craft.​

If this is the case, would you put a red security fence/gate to restrict access to the high value control booth (starboard side location), or put the gate to restrict access back into the general ship (port side location)? I would keep unauthorized personnel out of the control booth where, with a push of a button, you can evacuate the air in the bay, spin the shuttle, drop the elevator, or possibly open the hangar doors to space with personnel in the bay. This layout would fit even better in a bigger ship.

 

[blssdwlf]

Several of MJ's drawings appeared on screen and establish the size of the ship.

No, the drawings shown on screen establish the size of MJ's drawing of a ship that is not accurate to the studio filming model. Even you posted up a comparison between MJ's drawing and the filming model with significant differences. Windows don't match. Primary hull shape is different. B-C structure is different. Secondary hull is different. At best we can argue that was a version of the Enterprise before Captain Pike's time. But you can't argue that it's the same ship (and size) of Kirk's Enterprise with all those physical differences.

The pressure compartment drawings were also used on screen.

Which doesn't tell us much about internal decks given the inaccuracy of the shape of the ship in the diagram.

The hanger miniature was designed with forced perspective.

Then why isn't it built with forced perspective?

And if you go by Jefferies drawings, then yes, both studio miniatures of the ship weren't done exactly to his specification.
But in the case of the hanger the model as built is never seen in a way that counters the other things we do see on screen.

If you acknowledge that the built filming models differed from MJ's drawings then to be consistent, the flight deck as built is just as valid as the filmed Enterprise model.

TOS is full of little things that don't quite fit as we see them and we have to pick one way to fullfill the design to make it workable.

Of course. We each choose something that can fit within our own head canon.

I think looking at the intent behind the design is the best way to find the solution and the hanger drawings clearly show a forced perspective intent to the design. We don't have a detailed drawing of MJ's hanger until a decade later, but it fits all the period sources better than a sloped and elongated hanger does.

On the contrary. You can build a screen accurate Enterprise. Or one according to FJ's plans. Or MJ's plans since you're pointing to designer's intent. But if you go by designer's intent then just stick with MJ's plans and leave the filmed stuff out. Arguing that the designer intended this when it was built and filmed a different way is just incoherent and contradictory, IMHO. If you're building something that is a mish-mash of sources then it's really by your intent and that's fine as long as we're all clear on where it's coming from.

Of course, YMMV

 

[CorporalCaptain]

This is all like proof that Star Trek was a collaborative process.

 

[yotsuya]

No, the drawings shown on screen establish the size of MJ's drawing of a ship that is not accurate to the studio filming model. Even you posted up a comparison between MJ's drawing and the filming model with significant differences. Windows don't match. Primary hull shape is different. B-C structure is different. Secondary hull is different. At best we can argue that was a version of the Enterprise before Captain Pike's time. But you can't argue that it's the same ship (and size) of Kirk's Enterprise with all those physical differences.

No, like the models, the drawings were adjusted for the series configuration. That is the series Enterprise Jefferies was drawing.

Which doesn't tell us much about internal decks given the inaccuracy of the shape of the ship in the diagram.



Then why isn't it built with forced perspective?



If you acknowledge that the built filming models differed from MJ's drawings then to be consistent, the flight deck as built is just as valid as the filmed Enterprise model.

Well, when I look at the series as a whole, there is a design consistency and there is a consistent variation from the design. Expediency and cost are the governing factors. That is why nothing really matches 100%, but everything generally fits together within certain tolerances. While the exact shape of the Enterprise filming model isn't 100% in line with Jefferies drawings, it is far closer than say the AMT model kit (which was used on screen twice). And it isn't like TOS was the only Trek to do that. Some stuff you just have to ignore and I consider the hanger model to be one of those. It doesn't fit in the ship as well as you believe. the angel is a convenient forced perspective trick.

Of course. We each choose something that can fit within our own head canon.

I try to stick with what works best all around.

On the contrary. You can build a screen accurate Enterprise. Or one according to FJ's plans. Or MJ's plans since you're pointing to designer's intent. But if you go by designer's intent then just stick with MJ's plans and leave the filmed stuff out. Arguing that the designer intended this when it was built and filmed a different way is just incoherent and contradictory, IMHO. If you're building something that is a mish-mash of sources then it's really by your intent and that's fine as long as we're all clear on where it's coming from.

Which screen accurate version is that? According to sources I trust, the Enterprise was 947 feet when the first plans were delivered to Mr. Datin to build the 33 inch model. So the size on screen (the scale is visible on the Enterprise/D7 comparision drawings) matches that. Most of the sets were built big to fit the bulky 60's cameras. The shuttle is a prime example with the 22 foot exterior being what Jefferies used to plan the interior (and they then built the set bigger). And Jefferies knew how big the ship was and designed the sets accordingly. He even sank the bridge when they lowered the exterior dome. The pressure compartments align with where Jefferies put the hanger bulkhead (the cross section was never seen on screen). So if you want to be screen accurate, you have to take into account all those factors as well. In my mind, if you resize it, it is not longer screen accurate. If you push the hanger bunkhead forward, it is no longer screen accurate. So the question is which pieces do you change to get what you consider a screen accurate version. I change the height of the sets, the configuration of the hanger, the location of the sets within the ship, and keep the exterior to the designed size and make sure all the parts fit inside. You have to ignore something.

 

[Henoch]

I change the height of the sets, the configuration of the hanger, the location of the sets within the ship, and keep the exterior to the designed size and make sure all the parts fit inside. You have to ignore something.

Just watched Return to Tomorrow: I choose to ignore the 10' high walls in sickbay and empty space above them as seen on-screen. Ditto on the room where Sargon "dies".

 

[uniderth]

Just watched Return to Tomorrow: I choose to ignore the 10' high walls in sickbay and empty space above them as seen on-screen. Ditto on the room where Sargon "dies".

Huh?

 

[blssdwlf]

No, like the models, the drawings were adjusted for the series configuration. That is the series Enterprise Jefferies was drawing.

The Enterprise Kirk and Pike command are different from the one that MJ drew up. It's pretty clear the two ships are different.

Well, when I look at the series as a whole, there is a design consistency and there is a consistent variation from the design. Expediency and cost are the governing factors. That is why nothing really matches 100%, but everything generally fits together within certain tolerances. While the exact shape of the Enterprise filming model isn't 100% in line with Jefferies drawings, it is far closer than say the AMT model kit (which was used on screen twice). And it isn't like TOS was the only Trek to do that. Some stuff you just have to ignore and I consider the hanger model to be one of those. It doesn't fit in the ship as well as you believe. the angel is a convenient forced perspective trick.

Ignoring the flight deck/shuttlebay miniature is different than claiming it must be forced-perspective because MJ drew a version of it that appears to be forced-perspective that differs from what was built.

The only interior that ties to the exterior of the Enterprise is the flight deck/shuttlebay and since the filmed Enterprise never had her dimensions called out on screen the size is of the ship is not fixed to 947'.

Using the excuse of "compromised by expediency and cost" also doesn't fall under "designer intent" or "screen accuracy". Either MJ's vision was built or something different was built and filmed. "Compromised by expediency and cost" is basing decisions on your own head canon - which again, we all do - but let's be upfront and consistent about it.

Which screen accurate version is that? According to sources I trust, the Enterprise was 947 feet when the first plans were delivered to Mr. Datin to build the 33 inch model. So the size on screen (the scale is visible on the Enterprise/D7 comparision drawings) matches that. Most of the sets were built big to fit the bulky 60's cameras. The shuttle is a prime example with the 22 foot exterior being what Jefferies used to plan the interior (and they then built the set bigger). And Jefferies knew how big the ship was and designed the sets accordingly. He even sank the bridge when they lowered the exterior dome. The pressure compartments align with where Jefferies put the hanger bulkhead (the cross section was never seen on screen).

947' applies to a ship illustration in a computer display that is not physically accurate to the filmed Enterprise. The in-universe dimensions of Kirk's Enterprise that we see on screen is never stated in TOS. That's "screen accurate".

What you're trying to do is invoke designer's intent.

 

[yotsuya]

The Enterprise Kirk and Pike command are different from the one that MJ drew up. It's pretty clear the two ships are different.

Ignoring the flight deck/shuttlebay miniature is different than claiming it must be forced-perspective because MJ drew a version of it that appears to be forced-perspective that differs from what was built.

The only interior that ties to the exterior of the Enterprise is the flight deck/shuttlebay and since the filmed Enterprise never had her dimensions called out on screen the size is of the ship is not fixed to 947'.

Using the excuse of "compromised by expediency and cost" also doesn't fall under "designer intent" or "screen accuracy". Either MJ's vision was built or something different was built and filmed. "Compromised by expediency and cost" is basing decisions on your own head canon - which again, we all do - but let's be upfront and consistent about it.



947' applies to a ship illustration in a computer display that is not physically accurate to the filmed Enterprise. The in-universe dimensions of Kirk's Enterprise that we see on screen is never stated in TOS. That's "screen accurate".

What you're trying to do is invoke designer's intent.

The ship we see and drawings on the screens in the series veries very little from the 11 foot model as built. It has the same components, the same basic shapes, the same proportions. What we see on screen even has the shorter bridge and lack of engine spike like the series Enterprise. So I think considering it a different ship is kind of silly considering it was actually on screen and supposed to be the same. And in real life situations some of those things are often stylized. A drawing needed for pressure compartments doesn't have to be a precise drawing and it tells you what you need to know. And I compared the drawings (since we don't have the model to take actual measurements on) of the hanger to accurate drawings of the 11 foot model and the line does not line up. The line on the hangar model is a completely different angle than the back of the secondary hull. And whichever way you do it you have to do something to make everything fit inside and line up. If you take the ports on the side of the model as accurate and you try and place everything based on that the ship doesn't have to be bigger. And how many decks you stick in the saucer is kind of irrelevant you can either shorten the sets and keep the decks consistent with the what Roddenberry intended or you can make the decks higher and follow Jeffries cross section. But no matter what you do you have to make some concessions somewhere. And my big goal for designing inside of the TOS Enterprise is to create something that transforms seamlessly into the refit Enterprise and doing it in a way that fits TOS. So sticking to MJ's design carries the screen accurateness over to the refit. I think that is more important than focusing only on TOS. In canon it is the same ship after all and shares the same core designer. And in TMP MJ got his way with the curvier secondary hull.

 

[BK613]

This is the TOS forum; focusing on TOS is what is done here.

 

[Henoch]

Huh?

Yep, couldn't believe it, either. The H&I network is playing all Star Trek series. This episode had the new CG effects. They must have used the original film to digitize it and gave us everything on it without the later framing to hide the set edges. I even paused and rewound on my DVR to show them to my wife for a good chuckle. I checked, and none of the episode set mistakes I saw are on the TrekCore screen caps. No kidding.

 

[yotsuya]

This is the TOS forum; focusing on TOS is what is done here.

But if we are talking canon, it is more than just TOS. It is worth trying to keep things consistent even if we are focusing on TOS. From my point of view, the TMP refit was created from the bones of what Matt Jefferies did for Phase II, which was an extention of TOS. The refit was very grounded in TOS sources and when I put the two together (following The Making of Star Trek), TOS sourced information tends to force the TMP Enterprise to match the TOS Enterprise more than the other way around. The TMP design went into areas we hadn't seen before and David Kimble's cutaway provides some good guides that fit the TOS ship. So nothing I'm doing is pulling from TMP directly. Phase II is an intermediate phase and a lot of that ship would have looked very familiar to TOS fans. The cross section Jefferies drew for Phase II has most of the same features as his TOS cross section. The extent to which TMP has impacted my choices has been which of the ways to fit the TOS sets in the TOS Enterprise fits better with Phase II and TMP. The choices are all based in TOS sources and valid even if you ignore everything after TOS.

 

[BK613]

^^But we are discussing this in the TOS forum and not the General, Tech or Art forum, aren't we?

 

[Henoch]

Getting back to engine rooms, I've been rethinking the two engine room scenario, one in each hull and both the same design and have a new spin to investigate. Are the Season 1 engine room(s) completely gone in both hulls? All evidence says, yes, they are gone. In the Ultimate Computer (Season 2), there is a very long curved corridor which suggests one is in the saucer. Day of the Dove (Season 3) suggests one is in the secondary hull. On the Exeter, there are clearly two near identical engine rooms. New spin:

Would both rooms have an Emergency Manual Monitor (EMM), or just one and which one? I'm going to look at the transcripts again to see if I can ascertain the activities associated with the EMM. My latest data mine:

All EMM Appearances:

1. S2 Mirror, Mirror (on ISS Enterprise)

• • SCOTT: I'll have to tap the power we need from the warp engines and balance it for the four of us.
  • SCOTT: We have to lay in the automatic transporter setting, but when we interrupt engine circuits to tie the power increase into the transporter, it'll show up on Sulu's security board.
  • SCOTT [OC]: We're ready to bridge power from the engines to the transporter.
  • (Scotty does the power transfer from a Jeffries Tube and not in the EMM)
• The EMM has something to do with warp engine power allocation and/or transporter controls. More so with transporter controls.

2. S2 I, Mudd

• • Norman runs all over the place including Auxiliary Control, the EMM and the engine room. Net result:
  • NORMAN: I am in total control of your ship. I have connected the matter-antimatter pods to the main navigational bank. A trigger relay is now in operation. Any attempts to alter course will result in immediate destruction of this vessel.
    SPOCK: Confirmed, Captain. He's taken out all the override controls. If we tamper without knowing where the trigger relay is, we could extinguish ourselves.
• I assume navigation aspects are in Auxiliary Control. Unsure about M/AM pods, maybe done in the engine room. Taking out override warp engine controls sound like something the EMM would be associated with.

3. S2 The Immunity Syndrome

• • EMM with huge control console in it.
  • SCOTT: We lost five percent of our energy reserve, sir. Our deflector shields are weakened.
    
  • KIRK: Scotty, channel all the impulse and warp power into one massive thrust forward.
    
  • SCOTT [OC]: It's no good, sir. The best we can do is to maintain thrust against the pull and hold our position.
    
  • KIRK: Maintain thrust, Scotty.
• Scotty can monitor energy levels (duh), but mainly, he is actually manually controlling the thrust levels of the engines. Both impulse and warp engines are in use, together.

4. S2 By Any Other Name

• • TOMAR: Engineering is secure. (Then he pushes buttons.)
    
  • SPOCK: I've located their power source, captain. It's installed in Engineering.
    
  • (There is a rounded metal object on the console.)
    SCOTT: This is it. Now all we have to do
    SPOCK: Whatever it is we must do, it is impossible.
    SCOTT: Why?
    SPOCK: This material surrounding the projector is the same as I discovered on the planet. Readings indicate it is impervious to any of our weapons. We cannot penetrate the casing to get to the machine.
• The Kelvins install a power source that is a power projector machine on the EMM console to help the ship to go faster. The Kelvin's power is added into the ship's power in the EMM.

5. S3 Is There In Truth No Beauty?

• Nothing there.

6. S3 The Tholian Web (on USS Defiant)

• Nothing there.

7. S3 The Lights of Zetar

• • Captain's log, With us is specialist Lieutenant Mira Romaine. She is on board to supervise the transfer of newly designed equipment directly from the Enterprise to Memory Alpha. (Tools on top of console in EMM.)
    
  • KIRK: As soon as we're within viewing range of Memory Alpha, you and Lieutenant Romaine will go to the emergency manual monitor. You'll prepare for direct transfer of equipment.
  • KIRK: Mister Scott, check emergency manual monitor for transporter control.
• This direct transfer sounds like something to do with a delicate or special transporter operation to beam equipment from Enterprise to Memory Alpha, possibly to install it in place in their facilities. There is an EMM for transporter control.

Summary on EMM functions:

1. Monitor energy/power levels.
2. Allocate power from warp engines.
3. Access transporter controls.
4. Override warp engine controls.
5. Manually control both impulse and warp engines.
6. Allocate outside power source to warp engines.
7. Access to transporter controls for precision installation of equipment.
8. Access to transporter controls for trouble-shooting.

I see two main functions for the EMM. One for warp engine control. One for transporter control. Two EMMs or One? Would transporter circuitry be controlled from the secondary hull? If so, there could be one EMM. If not, then there could be two EMMs, probably one in each hull. One is for warp engine control in the secondary hull, and the other for transporter control in the saucer. Star Trek is rarely easy.

 

[yotsuya]

^^But we are discussing this in the TOS forum and not the General, Tech or Art forum, aren't we?

The choices are all based in TOS sources and valid even if you ignore everything after TOS.