Is the bridge at a funny angle?

Plus one is a forced perspective side view which is demonstrably NOT how the final model was built!
For this reason I am only using it as a convenient sample size, since it is close to the 122' in length which the Flight Deck model is reported to be

 

One problem FJ was dealing with is that MJ's drawing is distorted as printed in TMOST. Years ago, when the actual artboard was up for auction, a clean scan of it was shown in the catalog. I pulled it out and, lo and behold, most of the projection "errors" and the proportions that didn't match the stated dimensions evaporated.

The 3-view suffers mainly from being a small scale drawing, prepared for the Series Writers' Guide. Jefferies was a good draftsman; every bit the equal of FJ. He just didn't make a detailed finished set of drawings.

And that is not to disrespect Franz Joseph. I'm a big fan of his work...

...even if my copy of his Booklet of General Plans has two of his viewports marked out because teenaged me noticed that they were blocked by interior bulkheads.

M.

 

Did you happen to keep the clean scan?

 

Yeah, since that MOST drawing is quasicanonical and the basis for many people's ship-math. If it was distorted to fit the book dimensions, that is big news! Like finding an error in an early New Testament source.

 

Common practice at the time to indicate material that isn't part of the book's text was to use something like all caps or italics. The Making of Kubrick's 2001 edited by Jerome Agel used indented italics at the beginning of its sections for Mr Agel's comments.

One thing ALL CAPS was not considered to be at the time was shouty text.

 

Derp, sorry, I probably didn't word my previous question very well. I had seen your previous post.

Maybe a better way would have been to ask, do we know if the shuttle model used with the hangar miniature is also 1/12 scale? In that case it would line up with the 1350 foot length. If it's larger or smaller than we'd have to adjust things accordingly, since it's the only thing that has a canonical dimension.

 

The length of the shuttle is not exactly canonical - Kirk calls it a "24 foot shuttlecraft" but the exterior model was more like 21 feet (according to Phil Broad's measurements) and the interior set represented a vessel that would have been 30 feet long at least.
It's probably best to go with the full size exterior model prop:

I have a photo of the shuttle miniature with a lens cap for scale (from the old Cloudster website)

Assuming that the lens cap measures 2½ inches in diameter, the width between the centre of the nacelles pretty much matches that of the full sized prop, at a scale of 1/12:

Suffice to say, the miniature shuttle was probably around 21" (maybe 22" as the nose was more pointy)

 

Didn't say it was good, I said the practice was common. Are you sure that you aren't judging the era before desktop publishing too harshly?

 

Aren't all caps used for some things in standard screenwriting practice? Maybe they borrowed from that.

It does take some getting used to, I admit. It was a big deal to this kid in the 70s though.

 

Speaking from memory, to me the all-caps passages did seem a little shouty and awkward in the early 1970s. Like it was hard to hear it in a normal tone of voice, because these words were booming and enormous.

 

Heh, I knew I should have probably put "canonical" in quotes. But I think it's probably acceptable to use a value closer to 24 feet than 30 - I'm ok with the interior perhaps being exaggerated for ease of filming.

Perfect. Thanks.

Like I said, in TOS the flight deck looks noticeably larger than in TOS-R, this just seems to be another data point that fits your previous post about the 1350 foot length.

 

I reached over to my bookshelf for that book and then found an example on line of what I was claiming about that book (that is, it used italics in addition to the offset of the text.) Not all caps but an example of an additional parameter used to differentiate the text. Two different authorships at two different publishing companies. Susan Sacket's Letters to Star Trek uses a 'typewriter font' to make the "fan letters" stand out but doesn't reduce the font size or indent on the left or right. Star trek Lives! is the only one of my 60s and 70s paperback books that adds no embellishment to the block quotes.
Heck, though many decades later, Inside Star Trek (by Solow and Justman) offsets the text of their comments on top and bottom but only slightly indents that text on the left (the text is right-justified to the same margin as the normal text.) And uses a bolded, sans serif font that is different than the serif font used for the normal text.

 

Was the 1/12th model used in the hangar model the same model used in filming space shots, or was there a third model for that?

 

I never heard of another miniature - and at nearly 2 feet long it would be plenty large enough to house the electronics - why make an extra one?

The model which appeared in Lonely Among Us looks about the right size, so presumably this is the same model.
https://tng.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x07/lonelyamongus_hd_296.jpg

 

Why no side door? The TOS model did have a door. Probably, the door was just painted on the side of the ship, and painted over for the TNG episode?

 

The new 1/32 Polar Lights shuttlecraft model uses a 29-foot length. Gary Kerr considered Jefferies' (?) statement that the "full sized" prop was actually 3/4 scale. Since reading Gary's rationale for the size many years ago, I decided that Kirk's "24 foot" comment was based on the interior cabin space, not the external length. YMMV.

 

Not just the door but the shuttle name and various other panel details are also missing in the model's TNG appearance.
I agree that they were probably paint jobs