The width and height of the room at the doors end, please
(ignore my figures in the pic below)
Is the bridge at a funny angle?
- Thread starter Mike Doyle
- Start date
(ignore my figures in the pic below)
Who marked that up and covered details with the text? And what's with "maquette" and "model kit"? Okay, maybe Datin called it a "maquuette" but In film a "maquette" is usually a miniature used to plan a set. In VFX parlance the ship and hangar are filming miniatures. And a one of a kind miniature is not a "kit".
I'm afraid I can't remember where I got it - I just kept it for the rare outside view of the Flight Deck
I'm sure he's referring to the 1/32 Galileo model kit that Polar Lights came out with last year - a commercial plastic model kit. Though someone thinking a commercial model kit of the hangar deck in 1/32 scale is even a possibility is crazy.
@Mytran, measured at those points in your image I'm reading 57'10" wide and 28'6" high on my model.
The width and height of the room at the doors end, please
(ignore my figures in the pic below)
Thanks for that!
Maybe there's hope of squeezing it into a 947' long Enterprise after all?
Thanks for that!
Maybe there's hope of squeezing it into a 947' long Enterprise after all?
You're welcome
Unfortunately, it will not fit in a 947' Enterprise if you include the side alcoves. It's snug but it does fit if you leave the alcoves off.
The biggest problem with extending the hangar deck forward of the pylons is that there is no way to structurally anchor the pylons. Perhaps they just "velcro" to the outer hull skin. If so, imagine the giant RRRIIIIIIPPPP sound when the nacelles are jettisoned... 
I spotted this improbability back when I first got the FJ Booklet of Plans.
Jefferies shows you how far the Hangar extends in his cross section drawing. Compare this with his Phase II cross section (which is more detailed) and you have a pretty good idea what he had in mind.
The drawing of the Hangar in TMOST is definitely a forced perspective rendering. The scale ruler is bogus, since the actual measure varies depending on what part of the image you are considering.
Datin did not build the set with forced perspective features. Whether he simplified it himself to make it easier to build, or the final construction drawings depicted a non-perspective version, we may never know.
Of course, the Enterprise of your imagination can be anything you want it to be...
M.
I spotted this improbability back when I first got the FJ Booklet of Plans.
Jefferies shows you how far the Hangar extends in his cross section drawing. Compare this with his Phase II cross section (which is more detailed) and you have a pretty good idea what he had in mind.
The drawing of the Hangar in TMOST is definitely a forced perspective rendering. The scale ruler is bogus, since the actual measure varies depending on what part of the image you are considering.
Datin did not build the set with forced perspective features. Whether he simplified it himself to make it easier to build, or the final construction drawings depicted a non-perspective version, we may never know.
Of course, the Enterprise of your imagination can be anything you want it to be...
M.
If the flight deck set as built can't fit in a 947' ship then the problem of structurally anchoring the pylons doesn't matter, right? If the ship is scaled up to fit the flight deck then you'll get the interior space to structurally anchor the pylons to at least as deep as the TMP Enterprise anchored them.
Isn't the Enterprise made of magical future metals that don't need any of that? Modern Trek even has magical unseen structural integrity fields to supplant even that.
Yes! The TNG era made it explicit that structural integrity force fields and inertial damping fields were required for starship operation. And that goes double for TOS, with its iconic but fragile-looking design.
Matt Jefferies might have just been thinking the outboard motor struts should defy gravity, because there's no gravity in space. But 23rd century technology comes to the rescue.
Franz Joseph has been criticized for the warp pylons that are not anchored, and the main deflector dish that "goes into nothing," but he was a professional industrial designer who knew what he was doing. We have the technology! FJ fixed MJ's scaling errors. And FJ was a frickin' awesome pioneer and mind-blowing genius who invented a now-huge genre of sci-fi technical art, and did a fantastic job while he was at it.
Last edited:
As for ejecting the nacelles, they could be ejected from the top of the pylon nearest the nacelle. The grey colored panels at this junction should be related to something, so why not the ejection point? The base of the pylon nearest the engineering hull shows nothing: no markings, no lines.
Out of curiosity, if hangar bay model is scaled to the shuttlecraft (since its size is more defined), and then the ship to the hangar, does anyone know how much larger that makes the ship?
I've noticed that for in TOS-R the hangar appears considerably smaller inside, therefore I assume they scaled their CGI model to a 947-foot Enterprise.
I've noticed that for in TOS-R the hangar appears considerably smaller inside, therefore I assume they scaled their CGI model to a 947-foot Enterprise.
Last edited:
Rather than risk a spamming infraction, I'll just quote my earlier post:
The fudge factor is that we don't know how much space the Flight Deck actually took up in the aft section of the the EnterpriseWe know from Datin's book that the flight deck miniature was 122" long and built at 1/12 scale
Curiously that almost exactly matches Matt Jefferies sketch which depicts the flight deck (of a different design) at 120 feet in length (from rear wall to doors) and would demand an Enterprise 1,350 feet long:
The extra 2 feet on the model would probably be for the short amount of deck outside the clamshells
So all Trek ships have magical shuttlebays, all the way back to day 1.
I just figure those peeps have childhood issues related to the droopy nature of a certain AMT model's nacelles that drive them to over-engineer any 3D models they make.
We know from Datin's book that the flight deck miniature was 122" long and built at 1/12 scale
Curiously that almost exactly matches Matt Jefferies sketch which depicts the flight deck (of a different design) at 120 feet in length (from rear wall to doors) and would demand an Enterprise 1,350 feet long:
The extra 2 feet on the model would probably be for the short amount of deck outside the clamshells
I just noticed the shape of the clam shell doors is very different between those two drawings. It calls to mind something Franz Joseph said in a 1982 interview, in this case about Jefferies' famous three-view drawing of the Enterprise:
"I started to make a layout of the ship but since the three-views didn't jibe with each other, the first thing I had to do was to generate an accurate set of loft lines. With these completed, I now had a set of line drawings in which I could make a cut at any plane, any deck level, and any cross-section. I now began the actual layout drawings of the ship and did this in the same manner it would be done in an aerospace design environment." [emphasis added]
Jefferies was a tremendous Hollywood artist, but there's enough play in his technical drawings that we shouldn't feel restricted by his measures of the Enterprise as a canon fixture.
Similar threads
