How big would this Enterprise be?

[Gagarin]

Hello everyone,

Everytime I looked at the model and drawings of the Enterprise and Consitution class ships - I always thought the primary hull would be three decks deep from the main decks (brim of saucer) until the command center (bridge and science labs). That meant 4, 5, and 6 were on the sloping saucer decks.

But every deck chart I've seen has this area only 2 decks tall.

People have bantered back between a 947 and a 1000(?) foot-ish 1701 Enterprise.

I mocked up this breakdown using some schematics I found.

The rationale is that decks 4, 5, and 6 are shorter decks than the 'work area' decks on 7 and 8, and the technican, cargo and phaser spaces on the underside of the saucer. And it still gives a 'full deck heigth' area even on the saucer under-cut.

But how big would this make the Enterprise? (at least the one I'm 'drawing') =)

 

[Christopher]

People have bantered back between a 947 and a 1000(?) foot-ish 1701 Enterprise.

Have they? The TOS Enterprise was listed as 947 feet long in Matt Jefferies' own blueprints (see p. 178 of The Making of Star Trek; also p. 171 of same). The refit Enterprise was listed in the David Kimble blueprints as being 304.8 meters, which is exactly 1000 feet.

Remember, the TMP refit E was still just NCC-1701; it was its near-identical replacement from TVH onward that was called 1701-A. So NCC-1701 was initially 947 feet, and then refitted to 1000 feet. Maybe that's the source of the confusion.

 

[Gagarin]

Yes, they've bantered -esp. on the art forum. People making deck plans and schematics, anyway. Enough so that they've made comparisons... most people use the canon/official 947.

Yes, yes, I have all those books and know all those references. I have Making of Star Trek right next to me right now - I've read it about 8 times. As much as official trek can re-imagine and re-think what's come before, I thought I'd have some fun by trying to make the ship work on paper the way I've always thought about it in my head - and maybe get it out there to share it.

 

[Shaw]

Well, I obviously haven't spent much time thinking about this subject, but I would guess that a good starting point should be to figure out why and where your basic assumptions are coming from. What makes you think that science labs are where you think they are? What is your assumed full deck height? When we watched the series, were decks 4, 5 and 6 shorter than other decks?

Most bantering on this subject assumes that none of this was well thought out, but research by a number of people has shown that Jefferies had a pretty clear vision of the major aspects of the Enterprise during the series original production run.

Sure, one could say that those art forum people have no idea what they are talking about. But from what I've seen there is a mistaken assumption by people unfamiliar with this subject that because 60's shows like Lost in Space and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea approached technical details (such as scale) with little respect, that Star Trek must have done the same.

But your problem here, in figuring out the ship as you envision it, is pretty straight forward... figure out what your deck heights are, and then apply that scale to the rest of the ship.

And as long as you are working out how it was in your head, you could take the time to make sure that your exterior shapes are right too. If other people's ideas about the insides are off in your perspective, what makes you think that their exterior drawings are any better?

There is lots of reference material to work from for all of this type of stuff... material that lets you make up your mind without injecting opinions or assumptions of others.



Of course that might turn the whole endeavor into a massive project that could take months (or years) to finish.

 

[Timo]

Then again, there's always the fact that the best intentions of mice and dedicated and detail-minded art designers are thwarted by real-world complications. Or by the work of contributors who aren't dedicated or detail-minded.

The Jefferies take on the Enterprise remained basically valid throughout TOS, but the Probert take on the refit is more or less impossible to reconcile with what we see of the interior sets in the movies. And the movies are the "reality" of Trek, not the drawings made by the designers. So in retrospect, it would be a pretty good idea to junk those assumptions made by Probert (and consequently Jefferies) that are in gross conflict with the "reality" of Trek. Which in this context would mean dumping the idea of a thousand-foot-long refitted ship in favor of something like a 1,300- to 1,500-footer.

The reason for that is pretty obvious, too, and already hinted at by Gagarin: there's stuff in the saucer that won't fit there if the ship is a thousand-footer or smaller. However, the limitations set by the stuff that doesn't fit are not particularly exact, and thus it doesn't necessarily take years of dedicated toiling to come up with something that works much better than the intentions of Jefferies and Probert. Of course, such dedication does help, as Robert April here might testify...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Gagarin]

Well, I obviously haven't spent much time thinking about this subject,

Shaw, your posts have long been favorites of mine - along with Cary Brown and Timo, and aridas sofia, I've been lurking a long time. It was here I first learned about people thinking the old grey lady was 1000 feet, and thinking about why they thought that.

but I would guess that a good starting point should be to figure out why and where your basic assumptions are coming from. What makes you think that science labs are where you think they are? What is your assumed full deck height? When we watched the series, were decks 4, 5 and 6 shorter than other decks?

Page 180 on The Marking Of Star Trek, basically, it does deck by deck, that's where it puts research labs. Other than that I've always looked at drawings and models and saw the windows and eyeballed lines where I thought levels would be. I was just a kid who fell in love with this world like you did.

Most bantering on this subject assumes that none of this was well thought out, but research by a number of people has shown that Jefferies had a pretty clear vision of the major aspects of the Enterprise during the series original production run.

Sure, one could say that those art forum people have no idea what they are talking about. But from what I've seen there is a mistaken assumption by people unfamiliar with this subject that because 60's shows like Lost in Space and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea approached technical details (such as scale) with little respect, that Star Trek must have done the same.

Are you lumping me in?
I used the word bantering, Shaw, because I wanted to give all of you guys credit. Actually one could probably use the word ARGUMENT or CRUSADE or WITCH HUNT very easy when looking at posts in these forums, but I wanted to give benefit of the doubt because people take these forum things too seriously on the Internet but I imagine don't nessesarily 'get angry' about it.

I see most disagreements online as bantering because a debate about fictional worlds is ridiculous. Discussion is fun. Bantering is fun.

I only really go to the Art forum and the Tech forum because you all know what you're talking about.

It's not that I think you're uninformed and that Jefferies was stupid or something. I love how you're approaching that work.

But your problem here, in figuring out the ship as you envision it, is pretty straight forward... figure out what your deck heights are, and then apply that scale to the rest of the ship.

I don't know why you bolded you. That's... what all the art forum and tech forum do...

And as long as you are working out how it was in your head, you could take the time to make sure that your exterior shapes are right too. If other people's ideas about the insides are off in your perspective, what makes you think that their exterior drawings are any better?

There is lots of reference material to work from for all of this type of stuff... material that lets you make up your mind without injecting opinions or assumptions of others.

Well - the variations of the different exterior shapes is insteresting, and they always all look right, but I'd probably just pick one, because I wouldn't do any better with that. And the assumptions and opinons of others are a great resource. I loved what you guys have done with the engine room placement on the original Enterprise.

Of course that might turn the whole endeavor into a massive project that could take months (or years) to finish.

...and... (wtf?) I guess I wouldn't be able to join your club then or something?

I just don't know or understand your tone here, Shaw.

I guess another reason for my post was asking 'Hey, did anyone else ever watch Trek and then get a look at the cutout drawings and think 'hey, I imagined it a littler bigger than this?'.

Thanks for your reply, Timo.

 

[Shaw]

The Jefferies take on the Enterprise remained basically valid throughout TOS, but the Probert take on the refit is more or less impossible to reconcile with what we see of the interior sets in the movies. And the movies are the "reality" of Trek, not the drawings made by the designers. So in retrospect, it would be a pretty good idea to junk those assumptions made by Probert (and consequently Jefferies) that are in gross conflict with the "reality" of Trek. Which in this context would mean dumping the idea of a thousand-foot-long refitted ship in favor of something like a 1,300- to 1,500-footer.

It is fiction. So I'm not sure where anyone can define reality for everyone else. Some people include TAS, others don't. Some people include the films, others don't. Some people include the novels, others don't. And it would be sad if we had fans running around acting as thought police trying to enforce their views over others. So I have no problem with you seeing the TOS/film Enterprise as being the same size as the TNG Enterprise... to each their own.

As you said, the Jefferies take on the Enterprise worked for TOS, and for those of us interested in TOS that works out great. While aspects changed some for TMP, the validity wasn't horribly marred by that film either (though if it was or wasn't hasn't really been all that interesting to me anyways). The first time things start really falling apart for the scale (that I can recall) was in STV.

The reason for that is pretty obvious, too, and already hinted at by Gagarin: there's stuff in the saucer that won't fit there if the ship is a thousand-footer or smaller.

Such as?

I'm not trying to dissuade you from envisioning a mammoth Enterprise, just curious as to some examples of things that have lead to your conclusions. Who knows... maybe there are things that I haven't considered before in this area. I would have hoped that someone would have pointed out these gross conflicts of stuff that doesn't fit to me by this point, but maybe you've seen something that the rest of us have missed.

I'm sure that April will be happy to know your a fan of his work. But there are lots of different takes on the TOS Enterprise. MGagen has view, so does aridas sofia and myself. Lots of views of how the TOS Enterprise might come together.

Which one is right? Which one best represents reality?

As I said before, it is fiction... so take your pick. I'm sure that my contributions to this don't even show up on most fan's radar, which is fine. And while I don't agree (technically) with much of the Joseph plans, they are still the benchmark of quality workmanship and the measure by which the work of everyone else's work is considered.

__________________​

Page 180 on The Marking Of Star Trek, basically, it does deck by deck, that's where it puts it. Other than that I've always looked at drawings and models and saw the windows and eyeballed lines where I thought levels would be. I was just a kid who fell in love with this world like you did.

Which is a great starting point. Reverse engineering based on exterior hull details can often times be over looked (and was part of the reason I stopped working on my interiors until I finalize my exteriors).

The Star Trek Encyclopedia and Joseph plans also has science labs there, which was part of why I asked.

Are you lumping me in?

No... I was talking about the general public (and many sci-fi fans). There are going to be people who think that such endeavors for Star Trek are a waste of time because of this.

So having started this, you couldn't be lumped in with them.

...and... (wtf?) I guess I wouldn't be able to join your club then or something?

There is a club? No one pointed this out to me!

I was simply talking about how this type of thing can become addictive. I know that both April and aridas sofia have put tons of time into their work (way more than me... which might be why they haven't offered me a place in that club yet).

And the only reason I brought up the exterior stuff was because that is the stuff I'm working on right now. And that was originally a completely separate project until Cary Brown suggested that I join the two (as I started out thinking about the interiors of Jefferies' original plans).

I just don't know or understand your tone here, Shaw.

I think your reading too much tone into what I'm saying here... I'm always interested in other people's take on the Enterprise. Yours included.

In my opinion, it is a state of the human condition that we are blind to many things that are right in front of us. Things that we haven't seen and thus will not see. And that given this state, seeing things through the eyes of others is the best way to see what we have missed.

So no matter how much effort you end up putting into this, your views on the subject are important to me.

The suggestions I've made are important ones to keep in mind. For example, I was going to put sickbay on deck 7 of my plans. Why? An old assumption that I hadn't thought to challenge until someone else asked the why question. At which point I realized that it was an old assumption that didn't match my guidelines for information on my project.

That is a perfect example of both me having a bad assumption and needing someone else to make me see it.

So when you stated that you were doing your vision of this, it seemed that providing some of what I've learned from my experiences would be helpful. And I'm interested in seeing what you end up with as a final scale given that some people have reached in the neighborhood of about 1070 feet working with your constraints.

Again, don't read to much tone into this... other than being a little playful, I'm very interested in your ideas here. After all, I don't post a lot, and only in threads I'm genuinely interested in. If I didn't take you seriously, I wouldn't have posted in the first place.

Thanks for your reply, Timo.

I guess Timo's input is more what you were looking for, so I'll bow out here (though I do hope that Timo will point out those gross conflicts for us).

 

[Timo]

The "gross conflicts" would be the long corridor ahead of Main Engineering (which requires us to rethink the internal arrangement of the secondary hull, although won't be helped much by simple rescaling), the excessive height of the Rec Deck (which either requires us to reposition it in the middle of the saucer, with the windows redefined as mere viewscreens, or calls for the 50% size increase), and the freely repositioning turboshafts across the movie series (which either require the bridge to be placed lower down than intended, or the ship to be enlarged those 50%, to keep the shaft upper ends from protruding outside).

If one ignores TMP, one can live without most of the corrections. If one ignores all the movies, even the bridge exterior vs. turboshaft issue becomes moot (but this issue requires us to believe in the off-centerline bridge orientation or the enlarged ship in TOS anyway). One can also ignore bits and pieces of any episode or a movie and let pass the things that would be impossible in the reality we know.

But I do think there is clear, implicit preference for an interpretation that presents no onscreen conflict over all the interpretations that present such conflict, as the former is a superior form of fiction in requiring the least suppression of disbelief.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Gagarin]

I think your reading too much tone into what I'm saying here... I'm always interested in other people's take on the Enterprise. Yours included.

In my opinion, it is a state of the human condition that we are blind to many things that are right in front of us. Things that we haven't seen and thus will not see. And that given this state, seeing things through the eyes of others is the best way to see what we have missed.

So no matter how much effort you end up putting into this, your views on the subject are important to me.

The suggestions I've made are important ones to keep in mind. For example, I was going to put sickbay on deck 7 of my plans. Why? An old assumption that I hadn't thought to challenge until someone else asked the why question. At which point I realized that it was an old assumption that didn't match my guidelines for information on my project.

That is a perfect example of both me having a bad assumption and needing someone else to make me see it.

So when you stated that you were doing your vision of this, it seemed that providing some of what I've learned from my experiences would be helpful. And I'm interested in seeing what you end up with as a final scale given that some people have reached in the neighborhood of about 1070 feet working with your constraints.

Again, don't read to much tone into this... other than being a little playful, I'm very interested in your ideas here. After all, I don't post a lot, and only in threads I'm genuinely interested in. If I didn't take you seriously, I wouldn't have posted in the first place.

Hey, Shaw, thanks for clearing it up. You do amazing work and I can't wait to see more. Getting some tools and some time will be in order for me to try and make a crude cross section and a few deck layouts.

I'll try not to make this addictive... =)

I'm curious - as you've put a lot of work in the 33 inch model, and the Phase II ship - I would have thought you'd have created a 'best fit' lines for your Enterprise based on the two - but you'r going off the 11-foot as-built lines. Have you ever thought about using the 33 inch or Phase II lines (where you thought Jefferies would think them 'unchanged'?). This is more couriosity as anything else.

My particular favorite thing about your work, Shaw, is taking Jefferies very seriously - especially the way he shown structural elements in his sets, and how you use that as a template for other places. It makes nuts and bolts sense - and makes any area you draw feel like it will fit.

See PM.

 

[Captain Robert April]

And now, the Republican response.

I think it's best to remember that Star Trek was, as Herman Zimmerman put it, a pioneer effort with regards to art direction and technical design. The innards of the ship were thought through a lot more than any of the other shows on the air around the same time (name your favorite Irwin Allen show at this point), but that doesn't mean it was fully, completely, 100% fleshed out. Otherwise, we wouldn't have that drawing in TMoST, working blueprints for the model, a three-foot model, and an eleven foot model, none of which match with each other! We wouldn't have a forward facing bridge with the turbolift off to one side while the exterior turbolift housing evident on the hull being placed directly to aft, or a long curving corridor leading to Main Engineering, which, more often than not, is described, either directly or indirectly, as being, not up in the broad saucer section, but in the much narrower secondary hull.

Yes, they put an extraordinary amount of thought and analysis into the designs, but they still let some significant "whoopsie's" slip in, some for dramatic reasons, like the placement of the turbolift on the bridge, some for real life technical reasons, like that long curving corridor leading to the Engineering set, but a lot of them simply because they didn't have the time or money to work them out to the nth degree, because, despite the relative brilliance compared to its dimwitted brethren, Star Trek was still a mid-60's sci-fi show on a very tight budget and even tighter schedule.

Another factor is, as Shaw pointed out in an earlier analysis of Jefferies' various depictions of the Enterprise, that Jefferies himself didn't appear to feel constrained by the Enterprise "as built", either in three-foot form or eleven-footer, since neither his press kit layout (the one that was shown in TMoST), nor the Phase II "refit" match up with either model.

Bottom line is that I'd still like to see if it's possible to get everything to fit inside a 947' hull, simply because it makes the final product easier to explain and reconcile, but I'm very cognizant of the possibility that we may be looking at a much larger scale version of the Galileo's TARDIS-like interior.

Also, keep in mind that a lab doesn't necessarily have to be a large, expansive space. Certain subjects might only require a converted broom closet and a warning sign on the door.

 

[Gagarin]

Also, keep in mind that a lab doesn't necessarily have to be a large, expansive space. Certain subjects might only require a converted broom closet and a warning sign on the door.

LOL - reminds me of the University I attended. =)

 

[sojourner]

Also, keep in mind that a lab doesn't necessarily have to be a large, expansive space. Certain subjects might only require a converted broom closet and a warning sign on the door.

LOL - reminds me of the University I attended. =)

And the cruise ships I worked on! As the ships got older more and more officer positions were developed and we lost more and more closet space to "offices".