Bunk bed and desk - something like this? An interesting idea (in a suitably TOSified design of course) and solves the problem of both a work area and a roommate (plus an explanation of the extraneous door)
An open bathroom & closet room is a good option - the (opaque) mesh could be the edge of a sliding door that closes off for privacy.
However, I am much more spartan in my view of Enterprise living conditions and see no reason why everyone should get a personal bathroom, or even their own room. Yes they'd have to do the 23rd century equivalent of hanging a tie on the doorhandle when having a "friend" over and as Mario_de_Monti said this is a lot like a college student - but time and again (especially in Season 1) we see the male crewmembers acting like college students, so what's the problem?
The idea of everyone having their own room is lovely, but the biggest obstacle IMO is that its already been done - by Franz Joseph. Following Roddenberry's instructions in "The Making of Star Trek", FJ allocated a single bed to each of the 430 crewmembers (those sharing still had two rooms, so the ratio of each person having their own room still applies) The result: is deck after deck of bedrooms. Now, this is not a slight against FJ and I do not wish to derail the thread, but the fact remains that giving each crewmember their own private bedroom eats up a huge percentage of the Enterprise's interior volume, with very little space left for work areas and machinery.
Hence: cram them in, I say!!!
I don't know if I ever mentioned any of them before, but I've come up with very similar theories as Robert_Comsol with regards to Uhura's cabin being one of the few with a bathroom, public washrooms being the norm (as per Kirk's stroll) and even corridors having different widths throughout the ship. As I mentioned above, I think my interpretation of wash areas is a little stricter, but in parts of the ship solely devoted to accomodation (or just low foot traffic) why would corridors need to be wider than 4 feet?
Maybe water storage wrapping around the engineering hull core--like some of the rad shelters for NASA deep space craft that are to be found in the core of real ships on the drawing board.
I have re-read this thread a total of three times now, trying to get my full thoughts to coalesce into something that will resemble coherency. My inability to do so is either a compliment to Robert Comsol and company's thoroughness, or an insult to my mental faculties.
I wanted to briefly discuss methodology. My first question relates to TMoSt and how you are using it. Your OP states some facts gleaned from there, and I take it you have reviewed the text presented therein somewhat thoroughly.
Is it your intent to use this as your barometer for your overall project? If so, do you factor the Jefferies cross section of the Enterprise into the equation - and if so, how? Further, I'm curious what specifically prompted you to pick the 1080' feet figure instead of the more generally accepted 947'?
We know fairly conclusively that the curved corridor was a conceit to make the ship seem bigger than it was. We also know that it was considered advantageous since it corresponded with the curve of the saucer. However, I am not certain how much forethought placed in their staging of scenes, nor how much forethought was placed in the assignment of door numbers.
That said, mine any diamonds from the rough that you can - just remember that if something doesn't work out, it is not unreasonable to chalk something up to a production inconsistency.
I've mostly assumed that you are doing this without thinking too much of anything introduced from TNG or other series as far as the way technology works - in one post, I believe you (quite correctly) pointed out that the TOS tech could be quite different than anything in a previous era or later era. I wholly agree with this. I'm curious, though, how much thought you have given to trying to reconcile this with the previous or later series? Decks with inconsistent heights, for example, might be considered controversial by 24th century standards.
Using the yellow circular hatch as a way to allow curved corridors makes sense. I feel that your second revisions of the engineering hull are closer to what I expected from this methodology - curved corridors, yes, but not overabundantly so. I think they key here is balancing out onscreen interpretation with what would actually make sense, which I think you are doing so far. The one thing I might suggest we consider more is how would the ship actually be laid out? Do designers place the turbolifts and corridors first, or the rooms, and put the corridors in between? I think there's a happy medium to be found.
When it comes time to take the project back up, I think it would be logical to take all the WIPs so far and compare them, and perhaps derive a horizontal cross section from them. I'm concerned that you might get so stuck on trying to make the sets fit the available area that we might find they don't stack properly.
I wanted to touch briefly on the topic of the warp drive as well. Somehow, the Enterprise combines matter and antimatter, along with dilithium crystals, to make power. And the engine pods somehow warp space and move the ship. From TOS, we do know this. But what we don't know is exactly how it works. We have the "matter/antimatter integrator" in the floor of engineering in season two onward, which was maybe there all along, albeit another room. We have the energizer structures there all along. We have the dilithium room in "The Alternative Factor" which I'll get to in a minute. And we have the cathedral. Oh, and lest we not forget the crawlway Scotty used, in "That Which Survives" I think. That's pretty much all TOS tells us.
It's my assertion that it was initially thought that the "antimatter pods" were the warp nacelles, and were self-contained, aircraft-style engines. I think this changed as the series went on, and a more hands-on approach was needed. Plot seemed to necessitate the addition of the integrator, which presumable, does just that - uses dilithium to "integrate" matter and antimatter, resulting in power. Somehow, this probably goes through the cathedral and ends up in the engines. The energizers presumably steal power from the main reactor to power everything else.
I have yet to see a truly satisfactory answer for the "re-amplification" room in "The Alternative Factor." I had always assumed the Enterprise usually carried many backup crystals (lacking in "WNMHGB" and "Mudd's Women," to be sure) which had to be "rested" (but not recrystalized per TVH) through some arcane process.
The Making of Star Trek is the barometer unless altered and/or revised by contradicting (first grade canon) TOS onscreen information.
The Jefferies’ cross section / JCS (illustration above):
I’ve mentioned before that I believe there is sufficient evidence that the ship’s internal description was an early concept for one of the pilot film versions (still including a physical Main Deck 2). The text description mentions 11 main decks and 16 engineering decks.
Judging by the sphere at the nacelles’ end, the JCS has to have been drawn after the 11-footer VFX model had been altered for the regular series, thus it cannot come from the “pilot film stage” of production. Notice that Main Deck 2 appears to have been flattened by the lowering of the bridge module!
Where it gets confusing are the visible decks in the JCS. There are only 9 main decks (including the flattened # 2) and only 15 engineering decks (looks like one deck level may have been removed to allow for one taller engineering deck). I assume Jefferies tried to fix the original, early aforementioned description by taking the studio set deck heights into account, thus the 11 decks were reduced to 9.
In the JCS we see the three vertical main lines (usually mistaken for turbo shafts, IMHO) and a hint of the vertical engineering core in the engineering hull, but not necessarily an exact reproduction to be taken literally (as various other details in the JCS).
The whole deck plan idea started with my intention to illustrate Kirk’s (provisional) cabin on Engineering Deck 12 in “Mudd’s Women”. I realized I couldn’t fit the circular studio set corridor there unless I tweaked it.
To keep this at the absolute minimum I realized I’d have to go for a larger figure of the ship’s overall length. For various reasons – some also discussed in previous TOS Enterprise threads – I went for the 1,080 feet O.L. figure.
Most unfortunately there is a price tag, and that is the inability to properly align the command bridge, so we’d have to assume it to be somewhat larger than it actually was.
IIRC an O.L. of 987’ would enable a perfect match, and this was probably what Matt Jefferies used as a scale reference to come up with the “947 feet” figure (and possibly resulted in him reducing the original 11 decks to only 9 in his JCS).
My approach to apply “Occam’s Razor” is that “the concept that answers more questions than raising new ones, is probably the closest one to the truth”. YMMV, of course.![]()
Regarding the door signs (that will conflict in my deck plan drafts) I agree that we need a salt shaker here.
I’m doing my best to have these make sense as much as that may be possible (i.e. these also have an influence on the overall layout, so it’s not just about having a credible turbo lift network and character movements that make sense.)
Yes, in TAS it’s the Engineering Core, in TMP (and TWOK) the Intermix Chamber Coil and in TNG and beyond the Warp Core. I try not to mix lingo from the different Trek incarnations and try to only seek inspiration from post-TOS incarnations where TOS (or TAS) fails to provide the necessary answers.
Nevertheless I’m trying to accomodate TOS Enterprise rooms and corridors from TAS, DS9 and ENT as long as these do not contradict genuine TOS footage or layout suggestions.
The only excuse I’m able to offer is that I don’t pretend to know the intricate details of 23rd Century starship engineering. The circular arrangement inside the engineering hull might be a design feature improving warp drive performance, relieve structural pressure or something along these lines. The remaining challenge will remain to keep the (onscreen) circular corridors but arrange the surrounding areas in a manner that the whole ensemble will look and feel much better than it currently does.
The confusion you expressed earlier is something I accept full responsibility for, because unless I was done with the Main Deck 7 draft, I hadn’t thought that the “cathedrals” are most likely the enigmatic “energizers” referred to in “The Doomsday Machine”.![]()
The “matter/antimatter integrator” (what a euphemism considering nothing is integrated but everything annihilated instead) is a can of worms, but I assume it’s not where you believe it is.
The dialogue in “That Which Survives” is obscure at best and conflicting at worst. Nevertheless, blssdwlf and I seem to agree that it has to be at a location where the “jettison” scenario is feasible, and have accordingly concluded that it has to align with one of the bottom hatches of the engineering hull.
My take on it is that it is part of the Engineering Core (a predecessor of TMP’s intermix chamber coil) which essentially looks like a warp engine but, of course, is missing the warp coil elements.
I think dilithium crystals (my treatise “studying” possible energy amplifying characteristics) do more than that. Here’s my assertion:
“batteries” > dilithium crystals > ignite fusion reactors > dilithium crystals > ignite matter-antimatter reactors > dilithium crystals > boost power for warp drive. The cathedrals / energizers regulate and distribute the available energy, failure of these and you are stuck with battery and/or fusion power only (“The Doomsday Machine”).
Injection of fusion plasma into the matter-antimatter reaction product stream influences warp drive performance (“intermix formula”).
I think that’s in a nutshell what I came up with in trying to get a better idea how the energy plasma tubework inside could or should look like.
gree.
I think “re-amplification” is a strong hint that the crystals can loose their amplification properties and therefore have to be regenerated by some exotic process to regain their original and “full crystal [amplification] power”. While the warp engines occasionally needed to be “re-energized” (i.e. recharged) I don’t think that’s necessarily the case with the crystals where “draining” these, IMO, does not imply “discharge” but instead “degradation of amplification properties”.
The Jefferies’ cross section / JCS (illustration above):
I’ve mentioned before that I believe there is sufficient evidence that the ship’s internal description was an early concept for one of the pilot film versions (still including a physical Main Deck 2). The text description mentions 11 main decks and 16 engineering decks.
To be clear, do you mean you think the drawing reflects a smaller Enterprise, the kind that would've had 203 crew members? In turn, the text version represents the "real" size of the Enterprise settled on after the pilots but still fairly early on in production?
Regarding the "lowering" of the bridge module, here's where I apply the salt. We "know" to an extent that this was done to upsize the ship from a 203 crew vessel to a 430 crew vessel. I choose to, frankly, ignore the dome alteration for this reason. The bridge previously sat higher in a different dome, if you want, but I don't consider it to have any bearing on deck two.
I suppose, also, it matters whether the sensor platforms are "decks." Reading this, it sounds like you think that the bridge dome is the reason why there were more decks, and Jefferies revised this number downward when the bridge dome was enshrinkened? Jefferies' Phase II Enterprise cross section may bear scrutiny here, as it was mostly intended to represent the same ship, albeit with changed engine pods and bridge.
I'd urge you to not feel too beholden to these "other" rooms, especially if you're going for a true Jefferies-level vision.
Regarding the cathedrals, I'd also urge you to approach them consistently. That is, if you decide they are forced perspective or not, use them that way in all locations they appear. I have seen others not do so, and in my opinion it is selective thinking at best.
Surely there must be some form of ejectable component for the crew's safety, even if it's just a main chamber and fuel cells.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.