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

[yotsuya]

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.

I see 2 engine rooms and one EMM. I see the main function of the saucer engineering as backup. Most functions would be duplicated but the main function is when the ship separates so the other systems would be less detailed backups with the main controls in main engineering in the secondary hull. Someone like Scotty would be equally comfortable in either room and could do virtually the same work.

 

[blssdwlf]

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.

Are you referring to these two shots?

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:

5. S3 Is There In Truth No Beauty?

• Nothing there.

6. S3 The Tholian Web (on USS Defiant)

• Nothing there.

The EMM does show up briefly in ITITNB. There is no dialogue specific to what Scott is doing up there though.

In "The Tholian Web", Chekov climbs up to what looks like an EMM (you can see the grille and a part of the engine room). We are not sure if it was "life support" or just a general part of engineering that he visits.

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.

There are probably at least 2 EMM-type rooms if not more. Any thought to why an EMM exists when the controls also work down in the engineering area or on the main or aux bridge? Is it in case radiation leaks out into the engine room?

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.

I think we just have different definitions of being "screen accurate". "Screen accurate" is just what is shown on screen/video. If we were to magically create a version of what you believe MJ (and or Roddenberry) intended would it match exactly what was shown originally on screen?

 

[BK613]

I'm curious to know what scenes in "Return to Tomorrow" @Henoch is referring to as well.

 

[Henoch]

I'm curious to know what scenes in "Return to Tomorrow" @Henoch is referring to as well.

You gotta watch the episode to see it. It was crystal clear. The video is squarer than the rectangle photos. Here's a screen cap from TrekCore (which doesn't show the void above the wall in sick bay; it looks like they cropped or shadowed it out):

 

[yotsuya]

I think we just have different definitions of being "screen accurate". "Screen accurate" is just what is shown on screen/video. If we were to magically create a version of what you believe MJ (and or Roddenberry) intended would it match exactly what was shown originally on screen?

My point is what are you going to change to make things fit. You have to change something. Just because we disagree on what to change, doesn't mean we both aren't changing something. You don't see what you are changing as a big deal and I don't see what I'm changing as a big deal. They used a finite set to create a large ship. They redressed sets to stand in for different areas. Some sets changed over time. They were limited by space, time, and money as to what they could build for the interior. So engineering stood in for the gym and the briefing room stood in for the rec room. There was one quarters for everyone. One transporter room. One engineering room at a time. And they didn't seem to care much about continuity because they would change a set for a story and just as quickly change it back or change it again if the next story called for something else. Some changes were never reversed. And we only saw one ring corridor regardless of what deck they were supposed to be on. They had no long straight corridor, only little pieces. It is a big ship and not every corridor can be curved.

I'm just ignoring those production restrictions and sticking to a set of parameters that carried over from TOS to TMP for the scale, internal and external configurations. It's not like those weren't shown on screen in a way we can read or weren't published in a much more readable format back in 1968. I'm following what was shown on screen. 947 foot length, 417 foot width, 22 foot shuttle, and following TMoST for the internal configuration as it is the most comprehensive description and nothing in it was regularly contradicted by dialog (the dialog is pretty inconsistent about locations). That it also happens to agree with the TMP data I'm going by is just a plus that lets me design two internally matching ships. I'm just chucking the inconsistancies (and not duplicating rooms, except Engineering, which is really a completely different set for season 2) and allowing the small number of sets to show us the vastness of the ship. They may have reused sets, but they were supposed to be showing us completely different areas of the ship. And there are a lot of places we never got to see. I'm putting in as many sets fully intact as possible and the only change I'm making to most is just lowering the ceiling to a more reasonable 8'. Not like the sets even had ceilings, except engineering.

What I am really interested in is some accurate renderings of the TOS engineering sets (season 1 and seaons 2&3) because I want to stick as close as possible to the original layout. I really should post my sketches to see if the group concurs with the size of the original sets. Unless I am mistaken, there are no existing elevations to show exactly how tall that set was.

 

[BK613]

You gotta watch the episode to see it. It was crystal clear. The video is squarer than the rectangle photos. Here's a screen cap from TrekCore (which doesn't show the void above the wall in sick bay; it looks like they cropped or shadowed it out):

Just watched it on Blu-ray. Didn't see anything out of the ordinary. Looks just like the screen caps at Trekcore all the way through. Maybe the channel is using one of the other formats (HD-DVD, DVD) and it appears on one of those...

 

[Henoch]

Just watched it on Blu-ray. Didn't see anything out of the ordinary. Looks just like the screen caps at Trekcore all the way through. Maybe the channel is using one of the other formats (HD-DVD, DVD) and it appears on one of those...

The sharpness was remarkable, so, I assume it is HD-DVD. I could even see defects in the uniform fabrics; fuzz balls, seams, etc. The H&I network doesn't have "On-Demand", so, I can't play it back and take a picture of it off the TV. I don't have the resources to dig into it anymore than what I saw.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[BK613]

The sharpness was remarkable, so, I assume it is HD-DVD. I could even see defects in the uniform fabrics; fuzz balls, seams, etc. The H&I network doesn't have "On-Demand", so, I can't play it back and take a picture of it off the TV. I don't have the resources to dig into it anymore than what I saw.

Not doubting what you saw. The version of HD I own is just not the source of what you saw.

-------------------------------
In regards to the size of the Enterprise, the clearest size marker visible in the 1960s is this screenshot:
http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/1x16/The_Galileo_Seven_014.JPG
The 24' shuttle craft is shorter than the red square and the shuttlebay width at the red square is 3x the size of the red square so the Enterprise secondary hull is at least 72' wide at that point. I'll leave it as an exercise to the readers to work out the size of the ship.

 

[Henoch]

I just reviewed the episode on Netflix, and it is there, too. I took a photo of my screen to show it. Bam!

 

[Henoch]

The 24' shuttle craft is shorter than the red square and the shuttlebay width at the red square is 3x the size of the red square so the Enterprise secondary hull is at least 72' wide at that point. I'll leave it as an exercise to the readers to work out the size of the ship.

I'm clocking in at 47 feet in my sketch sized for a 24 foot shuttle and a 947 foot Enterprise. Memory-Alpha has the following info:

Jefferies took care that he designed the shuttlebay in-scale with the Class-F shuttle model with which the maquette was to interact. After tenders went out, it was Richard Datin, who got the 1966 commission to build the maquette. He recalled,
"The original estimate was $2,100. In the end I invoiced them for $1,800, then I charged them an additional $163 for decals and another $175 for labor, making a total of $2,138. The scale of the model was one inch to the foot, while the drawing was drawn to a scale of 1/8 inch to the foot. According to my figures (the model) was 10'-2" long, 6'-4" wide by 3'-2" high at the inboard end and 5'-0" wide and 2'-5" high at the outboard end, where the clamshell doors were located. The model was based on drawing No.6149-14, perhaps drawn by Matt, or better yet, someone under his supervision.​

So, Datin says the widest part of the hangar model was 76" or 76 feet based on his scale. It narrows down to 60" or 60 feet at the doors. I assume these are all inside dimensions and not external (with wood framing). Matt Jeffries must have changed the ship's size after production started. The 947 foot ship in the graphic must have been an earlier concept similar to the 540 foot Enterprise, or maybe the on-screen graphic was made by someone else, ie. not Matt Jeffries.

 

[blssdwlf]

Not doubting what you saw. The version of HD I own is just not the source of what you saw.

@Henoch and @BK613 ...weird. Is the New CG version using too much of the film frame or was the DVD version stretched vertically to cut out the empty spot at the top? It's not very noticeable unless you adjust the levels or increase the brightness though.

-------------------------------
In regards to the size of the Enterprise, the clearest size marker visible in the 1960s is this screenshot:
http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/1x16/The_Galileo_Seven_014.JPG
The 24' shuttle craft is shorter than the red square and the shuttlebay width at the red square is 3x the size of the red square so the Enterprise secondary hull is at least 72' wide at that point. I'll leave it as an exercise to the readers to work out the size of the ship.

Here you go (Click to expand below). Quick summary: the flight deck is at least 78' wide at the turntable for the live action Enterprise in "The Galileo Seven". Pulling up the accurate Petri Blomqvist verison and measuring that area I find a 947' ship too small to hold that flight deck.
For grins, I also took the MJ illustration of the flight deck and using it's own scale measured it at 90' wide at or near the turntable. Using MJ's illustration of the Enterprise at 947' it is also unable to fit it's own flight deck width-wise. Length-wise it also doesn't fit.

For both the live action and illustrated Enterprises the ship would need to be scaled up. Fortunately the size of the live action ship as y'all know is never explicitly stated onscreen... The illustrated version of the Enterprise that isn't exactly the Enterprise does have rough dimensions although using it's own scale is closer to 940' on the display.

My point is what are you going to change to make things fit. You have to change something. Just because we disagree on what to change, doesn't mean we both aren't changing something. You don't see what you are changing as a big deal and I don't see what I'm changing as a big deal.

Well, in a strictly Thermian approach, I haven't had to change anything (yet ) because in my personal project I'm choosing to be as screen accurate as possible for all things seen in live action and only conjecturing on things that are not seen.

If you go back to my prior replies, I was primarily pointing out:
1. The flight deck maquette is not forced perspective.
2. I did add that IMHO, you're doing more than applying "designer's intent" by picking and choosing other elements into your project and there is nothing wrong with that. I'm not disagreeing with your changes in your project because it's your project.

However for this thread, I just like the discussion and information exchange even if we have different approaches

 

[Henoch]

Make it bigger.
No, must keep it at 947'.
Make it bigger.
It does look like MJ scaled it bigger. But, I don't know...
Make it bigger.
Oh, I'm so confused.
Make it bigger.
I'm tired. I'm going to sleep on it.

 

[yotsuya]

Here you go (Click to expand below). Quick summary: the flight deck is at least 78' wide at the turntable for the live action Enterprise in "The Galileo Seven". Pulling up the accurate Petri Blomqvist verison and measuring that area I find a 947' ship too small to hold that flight deck.
For grins, I also took the MJ illustration of the flight deck and using it's own scale measured it at 90' wide at or near the turntable. Using MJ's illustration of the Enterprise at 947' it is also unable to fit it's own flight deck width-wise. Length-wise it also doesn't fit.

For both the live action and illustrated Enterprises the ship would need to be scaled up. Fortunately the size of the live action ship as y'all know is never explicitly stated onscreen... The illustrated version of the Enterprise that isn't exactly the Enterprise does have rough dimensions although using it's own scale is closer to 940' on the display.

Well, in a strictly Thermian approach, I haven't had to change anything (yet ) because in my personal project I'm choosing to be as screen accurate as possible for all things seen in live action and only conjecturing on things that are not seen.

If you go back to my prior replies, I was primarily pointing out:
1. The flight deck maquette is not forced perspective.
2. I did add that IMHO, you're doing more than applying "designer's intent" by picking and choosing other elements into your project and there is nothing wrong with that. I'm not disagreeing with your changes in your project because it's your project.

However for this thread, I just like the discussion and information exchange even if we have different approaches

Well, there are a couple of issues with your measurements. First, the shuttle. MJ used a 22 foot shuttle. Second, the two drawings from TMoST of the hanger ARE 100% FORCED PERSPECTIVE. So measuring something on one end is pretty meaningless. That hanger drawing is not meant to fit in the ship because it was drawn for another purpose. The model as built is closer to the right scale. I maintain it was even built to forced perspective, though not as drastic as the drawing from TMoST. But if you use a 22 foot shuttle and accurately measure the 11 foot model, you get 67 feet just in front of the pylon with 45 x 21 doors. If you take it to the front of the pylons, you get 72 feet. To properly measure the picture, you need to correct for perspective distortion on the shuttle. So the 22 foot shuttle that Jefferies favored makes the distance that you have at 78 feet much shorter than that.

And the shuttle is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. You either have to resize the exterior or the interior. You have to pick one, but which and why. I favor resizing the interior based on my knowledge of how 1960's Hollywood operated. Also, that is the way Jefferies went in his drawings.

And we really are arguing apples and oranges because as far as I'm concerned, the hanger set is forced perspective and built way too long and wider at one end to accommodate a camera. You are taking that model as gospel for the design of the hanger and I am taking the 11 foot model as gospel for the scale of the hanger and Jefferies cross section for how to fit it in. Also, the TMoST drawings of the Enterprise that appeared on screen were the one with the Klingon D-7. When I compare that to the scale I get 951 and 420, well within the margins of error for a drawing of that size. So you really aren't doing anything to convince me because we are talking about very different approaches. I don't believe the scale of the ship needs to be resized because I believe the sets need to be resized to fit inside. So I see plenty of room for the hanger to fit in behind the pylons within the 67 foot tapering to 58 foot by 77 foot long area.

If you look at other sets built by Hollywood in that time, there is a tendency to make them big, to forgo logic in where the walls are, and build them for bright studio lighting. That is markedly different from how they shoot most things today. From TMP through Enterprise, most of the sets had ceilings and they used more designed in set lighting rather than stage lighting. My approach is what would TOS have looked like if they had built the sets to modern standards instead of 60's standards. So I give the sets and 8 foot ceiling but otherwise they remain unchanged (well, I changed the corridor curve as well because that was a random radius to fit the stage). So I keep the exterior of the ship exactly as we see it, including the scale. I keep the exterior of the shuttle exactly as we see it. It works for me.

And I am also taking the TMoST deck descriptions literally because that agrees with the Kimble TMP cutaway poster. I could easily change and use Jefferies own cross section which features higher decks and not have to cut down the height of any of the sets and be even more screen accurate. But that is a choice I am making to follow the TOS/TMP canon of the refit being the same ship (and with my approach it largely is). But both the deck descriptions and the cross section only appear in TMoST and not anywhere in the series. So using either one comes with risks of not being quite screen accurate, but has the benefit of MJ's design expertise.

 

[yotsuya]

Anyway, let's get back to the original topic... the engine room. I have been working on the two engine rooms and this is what I have come up with.

For season one I have the length as 24 feet, the width as 22, and the height as 17. For season two and three I have 20 foot long, 23 wide, and 20 height. The length and width are according to the set plans (both the ones I used had a wall in the corner to the right of the pipes). Corrections would be greatly appreciated.

 

[blssdwlf]

Well, there are a couple of issues with your measurements. First, the shuttle. MJ used a 22 foot shuttle.

I used the scale as given on the illustrations (as written above). The 22' shuttle isn't a factor in this case. However, I went back and looked at the hangar deck from the profile and a more exact point at the turntable yields 80' across (outer hull to outer hull) which is still too large to fit in the illustrated 947' MJ Enterprise.

Second, the two drawings from TMoST of the hanger ARE 100% FORCED PERSPECTIVE. So measuring something on one end is pretty meaningless. That hanger drawing is not meant to fit in the ship because it was drawn for another purpose.

Let's say the illustrations are "forced perspective". They should still be able to represent a point in space on the ship. Why include the exterior of the ship with the illustration? If you claim it's meaningless then why bother to reference MJ's illustrations at all?

The model as built is closer to the right scale. I maintain it was even built to forced perspective, though not as drastic as the drawing from TMoST.

The model/maquette is not forced perspective. Forced perspective models have vanishing point(s) only in the direction it was meant to be filmed in order to create the proper illusion (perspective). The maquette from the reverse direction has vanishing point(s) which would be impossible in a forced perspective model.

But if you use a 22 foot shuttle and accurately measure the 11 foot model, you get 67 feet just in front of the pylon with 45 x 21 doors. If you take it to the front of the pylons, you get 72 feet. To properly measure the picture, you need to correct for perspective distortion on the shuttle. So the 22 foot shuttle that Jefferies favored makes the distance that you have at 78 feet much shorter than that.

Agreed that you'd get a flight deck that can fit if you use a 22' shuttle. @BK613 requested a check against a 24' shuttle and that's what came out of it. For the record, way back when, I used a 22' shuttle and who knows, one day I'll model it against a larger shuttle

And the shuttle is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. You either have to resize the exterior or the interior. You have to pick one, but which and why. I favor resizing the interior based on my knowledge of how 1960's Hollywood operated. Also, that is the way Jefferies went in his drawings.

Or optionally not model the shuttle interior

Anyway, let's get back to the original topic... the engine room. I have been working on the two engine rooms and this is what I have come up with.

For season one I have the length as 24 feet, the width as 22, and the height as 17. For season two and three I have 20 foot long, 23 wide, and 20 height. The length and width are according to the set plans (both the ones I used had a wall in the corner to the right of the pipes). Corrections would be greatly appreciated.

Actually looks pretty good. Most of the dimensions seem reasonable. The EMM in ITITNB is about right but in LOZ its farther out.

 

[yotsuya]

Well the EMM set was movable so it isn't surprising it was in a different place. I was drawing the wall based on the highest quality set drawings I have. The season 1 plan isn't labeled. The other is Journey to Babel. My plan is that once I have accurate drawings, to mirror the ceiling and 4th wall along the centerline of the pipes and pipe opening.

And is the only way into the EMM by that ladder or does anyone enter from the other side?

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

I know that this is in the TOS forum, but I really don't have a problem using information from TMP to fill in gaps in info not given in TOS. I don't agree completely with either side of the discussion on this, although the information presented is fascinating. But in terms of the forum itself, I think TMP information could be considered for the purpose of getting an educated guess on a room location. That being said, is it not one version of interpreting canon that offscreen, official, information is canon, so long as onscreen information does not contradict it? (i.e. Miranda class coming from Star Trek: The magazine, or Crewman Jurot from Voyager being a female Betaziod coming from Elite Force?)

So engineering stood in for the gym and the briefing room stood in for the rec room. There was one quarters for everyone. One transporter room. One engineering room at a time.

That it also happens to agree with the TMP data I'm going by is just a plus that lets me design two internally matching ships.

See above.

So, Datin says the widest part of the hangar model was 76" or 76 feet based on his scale. It narrows down to 60" or 60 feet at the doors.

So if this is true, what is the ships total dimension? In one modified drawing in the thread, it looked like it was scaled with a 200 foot saucer width?

I don't believe the scale of the ship needs to be resized because I believe the sets need to be resized to fit inside

Though I don't agree with many your conclusions,this premise is logical, if debatable.

And I am also taking the TMoST deck descriptions literally because that agrees with the Kimble TMP cutaway poster.

Once again, I see no problem deferring to TMP information if TOS information on the subject is not complete.

 

[Henoch]

Well the EMM set was movable so it isn't surprising it was in a different place. I was drawing the wall based on the highest quality set drawings I have. The season 1 plan isn't labeled. The other is Journey to Babel. My plan is that once I have accurate drawings, to mirror the ceiling and 4th wall along the centerline of the pipes and pipe opening.

And is the only way into the EMM by that ladder or does anyone enter from the other side?

I've only seen entry by ladder, and I've researched it to death. I also think that the EMM is centered on the ladder across the room. I've not done any detail measurements, but based on visible perspectives I see, it looks mostly centered on the ladder. Now, there could be two engine rooms each with its own EMM as discussed previously, accounting for some differences in location. Also, I understand the need to move it toward the foyer if you think there is a panel/access path to move the big batteries in and out of the engine room. I just push the EMM back to make the room wider and put the access panel next to the pipe cathedral. You also eliminated the side room that is used in several episodes.

I used the scale as given on the illustrations (as written above). The 22' shuttle isn't a factor in this case. However, I went back and looked at the hangar deck from the profile and a more exact point at the turntable yields 80' across (outer hull to outer hull) which is still too large to fit in the illustrated 947' MJ Enterprise.

To get these dimensions, we need a 30% increase in size from the 947, or ~1231 feet!! Plenty enough room for any size pipe cathedral you want, and as many as you want. Nah, too big?

Or maybe, the Enterprise model itself was built with forced perspective to make the aft end look longer when filmed from the front. I heard the port nacelle is smaller than the starboard one which also implies FP. If you un-force perspective it, then there is less tapper such that the aft end of secondary hull is naturally longer and bigger in diameter. Nah?

 

[Maurice]

...weird. Is the New CG version using too much of the film frame or was the DVD version stretched vertically to cut out the empty spot at the top? It's not very noticeable unless you adjust the levels or increase the brightness though.

If course, all this would be in the "overscan" area of the TV of time and outside the "safe" region of the frame. This is why so many mics and stuff that never showed up in original broadcast now show on modern TVs.

 

[yotsuya]

I've only seen entry by ladder, and I've researched it to death. I also think that the EMM is centered on the ladder across the room. I've not done any detail measurements, but based on visible perspectives I see, it looks mostly centered on the ladder. Now, there could be two engine rooms each with its own EMM as discussed previously, accounting for some differences in location. Also, I understand the need to move it toward the foyer if you think there is a panel/access path to move the big batteries in and out of the engine room. I just push the EMM back to make the room wider and put the access panel next to the pipe cathedral. You also eliminated the side room that is used in several episodes.

I didn't eliminate it... The set drawing didn't have it and I just drew in the walls. This is still a work in progress. I need some more sources.