Yeah, he could have said nothing, built it at the crazy scale he's doing and most likely no one would have noticed—and those that did would have chalked it up to the sheer size of the model.
I'm building the entire Starship Enterprise interior at 1:25 scale
- Thread starter Mike Nevitt
- Start date
This is a fascinating project and one he has put a lot of thought into.
My biggest concern is his choice of materials. While they work in short term test builds, I think if he does build the ship full deck and layout it could collapse
My biggest concern is his choice of materials. While they work in short term test builds, I think if he does build the ship full deck and layout it could collapse
Yes, he's going to have to figure out what the actual model will weigh, and come up with some kind of scaffolding that holds it up without ruining the view. NASM uses clear plastic supports under the 11-footer, IIRC.
Another thing: he is learning so much from the many test builds, I hope he is writing it down in detail. It would be wildly inefficient to learn a lesson in test mode, forget it, and then repeat the mistake in full-build. I hope he's writing himself a technical journal as he goes along.
I wonder how this can be displayed in its final full glory. If you have three decks you only see the outside edges of the lower two. If you gap the stacking to see between and down to the decks the saucer would look very odd.
Somebody once wanted to commission me to build a replica based on the FJ deck plans. I worked the pre-planning to have it stack deck by deck on rods hidden as turbolift shafts and you would lift it apart to view a particular deck. The project was just too unwieldy even at that small scale..
Somebody once wanted to commission me to build a replica based on the FJ deck plans. I worked the pre-planning to have it stack deck by deck on rods hidden as turbolift shafts and you would lift it apart to view a particular deck. The project was just too unwieldy even at that small scale..
Maybe I am missing something. If he is building based on year 4 or 5, why not FJ plus TAS?
Bottom line: he is building it as he thinks it should have been done.
Last edited:
It seems like he's started from the FASA and FJ blueprints and then started to add things that makes more sense for him. Just recently, he added more to the bridge module and got fixated in trying to fit it but apparently didn't consider other options like sinking the bridge down a deck or using a different shape for it. So now he is thinking of resizing the saucer to make everything fit... which in this case the bridge not fitting is of his own doing instead of something that came from the aired episodes...
There are things that indeed don’t make sense for an actual real ship, but thats not surprising given they were designing it for television production and not reality. But the fun is trying to make it work, and rationalize what doesn’t, within the confines of what we were actually shown. Altering the design beyond what we were actually shown does not remain faithful to Matt Jefferies’ intent.
When I was working out the shuttlecraft I, like many others, was trying to reconcile the disparities between the oversized interior set and the undersized exterior mockup as well as the undersized miniature seen on the oversized flight deck. Each of them were in contradiction to the others. My overall objective was to remain as true as possible to what things looked like on the screen while trying to understand what Matt Jefferies actually intended.
Sticking with the shuttlecraft alone I accepted the exterior mockup largely as is in terms of what the exterior should look like regarding shapes, proportions and detail. Everything had to fit in that framework without altering the exterior appearance. The only thing I changed was the scale of the exterior while keeping everything proportionately the same. But I also understood the exterior had to remain within a certain size so that four of the craft could actually be berthed and handled within the confines of a 947ft. ship. To accomplish that goal I reasoned out the interior we saw onscreen was not truly consistent with what Jefferies had intended—the onscreen interior was too long and too tall to fit within the confines of the exterior.
Everything related to the shuttlecraft, including the hangar deck, was a production compromise in service of contradicting goals. The exterior mockup was too small to allow it to be transported and manhandled on stage. The interior was oversized to allow for the bulky filming equipment of the era. The hangar deck miniature was made to convey the idea of a vast interior area even though, critically, it was inconsistent with the available space within a 947ft. ship. And TAS really exaggerated that idea even further.
The entire exercise became a matter of detective work and speculation to understand what could have been Matt Jefferies’ real intent before the demands of television production took it out of his hands. What was he aiming for?
In the end “my” shuttlecraft looks exactly like what we saw onscreen with some slight exceptions. The exterior is proportionately correct, but it is a bit larger than as shown. The interior looks right, but it’s not quite as long or as tall as shown. And the exterior looks larger on the hangar deck even though it still fits comfortably within the confines of the available space. This is what it would have looked like if Jefferies had had the final say as opposed to the creative and filming staffs. And nothing I did violates or contradicts the exterior design and appearance of Jefferies’ 947ft. starship as he intended it.
This is where Mr. Trek and I differ. I understand he wants to depict a “real” starship, just as I wanted to depict a “real” shuttlecraft, but he is going beyond the creator’s intent to suit his own objectives rather than trying to stay true to the creator’s intent.
Jefferies reasoned everything could fit within the confines of the ship we saw on the screen. And to date I have seen nothing to outright contradict that intent. So the onus is on us to figure out how to make it work as he intended rather than ignore or throw away what one finds inconvenient. We also have to realize that certain knowledge and considerations we have today might not have existed when Jefferies originally designed the ship and its interiors.
When I was working out the shuttlecraft I, like many others, was trying to reconcile the disparities between the oversized interior set and the undersized exterior mockup as well as the undersized miniature seen on the oversized flight deck. Each of them were in contradiction to the others. My overall objective was to remain as true as possible to what things looked like on the screen while trying to understand what Matt Jefferies actually intended.
Sticking with the shuttlecraft alone I accepted the exterior mockup largely as is in terms of what the exterior should look like regarding shapes, proportions and detail. Everything had to fit in that framework without altering the exterior appearance. The only thing I changed was the scale of the exterior while keeping everything proportionately the same. But I also understood the exterior had to remain within a certain size so that four of the craft could actually be berthed and handled within the confines of a 947ft. ship. To accomplish that goal I reasoned out the interior we saw onscreen was not truly consistent with what Jefferies had intended—the onscreen interior was too long and too tall to fit within the confines of the exterior.
Everything related to the shuttlecraft, including the hangar deck, was a production compromise in service of contradicting goals. The exterior mockup was too small to allow it to be transported and manhandled on stage. The interior was oversized to allow for the bulky filming equipment of the era. The hangar deck miniature was made to convey the idea of a vast interior area even though, critically, it was inconsistent with the available space within a 947ft. ship. And TAS really exaggerated that idea even further.
The entire exercise became a matter of detective work and speculation to understand what could have been Matt Jefferies’ real intent before the demands of television production took it out of his hands. What was he aiming for?
In the end “my” shuttlecraft looks exactly like what we saw onscreen with some slight exceptions. The exterior is proportionately correct, but it is a bit larger than as shown. The interior looks right, but it’s not quite as long or as tall as shown. And the exterior looks larger on the hangar deck even though it still fits comfortably within the confines of the available space. This is what it would have looked like if Jefferies had had the final say as opposed to the creative and filming staffs. And nothing I did violates or contradicts the exterior design and appearance of Jefferies’ 947ft. starship as he intended it.
This is where Mr. Trek and I differ. I understand he wants to depict a “real” starship, just as I wanted to depict a “real” shuttlecraft, but he is going beyond the creator’s intent to suit his own objectives rather than trying to stay true to the creator’s intent.
Jefferies reasoned everything could fit within the confines of the ship we saw on the screen. And to date I have seen nothing to outright contradict that intent. So the onus is on us to figure out how to make it work as he intended rather than ignore or throw away what one finds inconvenient. We also have to realize that certain knowledge and considerations we have today might not have existed when Jefferies originally designed the ship and its interiors.
Last edited:
Some years ago I had a chance to visit the B-17 Memphis Belle, not the actual one but the one backdated and used in the film of the same name. No way the interior filmed could fit inside, they widened the fuselage to allow decent camera angles and framing.
If you watch the old Jimmy Stweart film Flight Of The Phoenix you know the interior set of that plane could never have fit into the actual plane. Same with pretty much any submarine movie you ever saw—the interior sets are distinctly oversized.
Last edited:
So I'm curious - if you modeled the Phoenix would you have enlarged the exterior like you did for the shuttle? Or kept it the same size and shrunk the "oversized" interiors?
I should have been more specific. I was referring to the plane the characters initially crash landed in rather than the makeshift plane they cobbled together and called the Phoenix. The crashed plane was meant to be an actual real life aircraft, although I don’t know the specific make and model. The interior set we see in the film could never have fit within the real aircraft.
I was thinking about this more over dinner (sloppy joes). A number of people have said that when they visited the reproduced TOS sets in Ticonderoga NY or Kingsland GA they’ve said the sets feel smaller than what they look like onscreen. That actually makes a measure of sense given we know the interiors of real submarines and naval ships are often more constricted than how they’re usually depicted in film and television. Why should spacecraft, even futuristic ones, be any different?
Ah. I checked imdb and it is a Fairchild C-82 Packet. Did you ever consider to just make the interior of the shuttle fit the exterior instead of the other way around?
Sure, the sets look bigger onscreen with the wide-angle lens frequently employed although no one has tried to reproduce a full-size flight deck
If you ever get a chance to visit naval ships you'll find that some spaces are constricted and others alot more roomier than you could imagine. With the Enterprise considered a cruiser-type ship, the spaces on a capital ship like a battleship or carrier are pretty roomy.
I don’t want to totally derail this thread so I’ll try to be concise.
The exterior mockup of the TOS shuttlecraft was only about 22ft. long—thats damn small. There is absolutely zero way to make the standing interior we saw onscreen fit into a 22ft. vehicle.
If we go the other way and make the exterior big enough to hold the interior as we see it onscreen we get a vehicle of about 32ft. Thats just too big (remember you also have to consider height and width) to be properly accommodated within the Enterprise’s hangar facilities, and you have to accommodate four such vehicles. Having a 32ft. shuttlecraft also complicates step-up height for entrance and exit of the craft.
So the truth, the “real” shuttlecraft, has to be somewhere between the two extremes.
There remains an onscreen clue to the original intent for the shuttlecraft’s interior size: the chairs. The chairs are set low and unusually close to the deck. And in an interview with Stephen Whitfield, who built the shuttlecraft for TOS, he claims the original set was to have a lower ceiling. But while it was being constructed the decision came down to raise the ceiling to accommodate/hide overhead filming lights, the bulky cameras of the day and to allow the actors to stand more comfortably. Even so note how often some of the characters stoop as if the ceiling were actually lower. Anyway, by the time the decision was made to make the ceiling higher the low set chairs had already been ordered.
This info was very helpful. It gave me the idea to see how much smaller I could make the interior without drastically altering its familiar appearance. So while I retained the width of the interior set I was able to shorten the cabin length by eliminating extraneous space between the seats and a bit of the aft compartment. I did keep the angle of the forward bulkhead even though it doesn’t match the angle of the exterior forward hull. I also raised the seat height a bit to help eliminate some of the space between the chairs and to make the seating position more natural and comfortable.
When I had a workable interior I then scaled up the exterior to accommodate it. When it fit lengthwise I then lowered the interior’s ceiling until it all fit within the confines of the now enlarged exterior hull.
The exterior is proportionately wider than the interior, but that was fine because it could accommodate the between hulls mechanicals the interior set suggested. My shuttlecraft had a believable inner and outer hull. Same above the ceiling and below the deck. It all fit with what we saw on television.
The end result was a shuttlecraft 27ft. long with an interior ceiling of about 6ft. So most people would have to stoop a bit inside, which is what we saw some characters doing. And a note of interest: if you take away the nacelles and the aft landing strut you’re left with a main hull about 24ft. long—an interesting coincidence (which I wasn’t aiming for) with Kirk’s reference to “a twenty-four foot shuttlecraft.”
There does remain one glaring inconsistency: there is absolutely no way whatsoever to match up the interior “windows” with the exterior panels on the forward hull. It’s impossible because the interior is not wide enough and the angle of the forward bulkhead is steeper than the forward exterior hull. Nothing works. In the end I simply rationalized the interior “windows” are actually overhead viewscreens similar to those we see on the Enterprise’s bridge. It’s just as well because those “windows” are simply set too high for anyone to see out of when seated. There is no way those “windows” could be used for actual visual piloting.
Now back to our regularly scheduled thread subject.
Last edited:
IDK the fuselages of those planes are massive.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/C-82.jpg/1001px-C-82.jpg
Last edited:
I sat in a DeLorean once- it makes a '72 Corvette seem roomy. Those gull wing doors are massive and the center spine wedges you in. I think Doc Brown's interior was also upscaled for filming,
The TOS shuttle windows always bothered me, just like the one in 1999 Eagle. They are shown to be windows, the shuttle even has retractable covers, but they cannot be used as such be ause of placement.
Instead of viewscreens my head canon had them composed of a special material which bend light like a prism. The pilot may look up, but the light bends 30° to make the view forward.
The TOS shuttle windows always bothered me, just like the one in 1999 Eagle. They are shown to be windows, the shuttle even has retractable covers, but they cannot be used as such be ause of placement.
Instead of viewscreens my head canon had them composed of a special material which bend light like a prism. The pilot may look up, but the light bends 30° to make the view forward.
I agree. My treknobabble is that it is a safety "glass" that bends visible light wavelengths but blocks harmful, penetrating photons like x-rays and gamma rays. When radiation is too intense for the safety glass, they raise the duranium window panels.
Shuttlebay sizes are a perennial problem the the franchise.
