I've received repeated advice and requests, on and off this thread, to continue to contribute to it. So I will do so while keeping my own research ("content") posts in my own thread. I've been
excessively busy of late so a backlog of comments has built up. Interestingly enough I discovered that there is a 24113 character limit on posts. I'm not entirely sure that was there before... So like King Solomon I will split it in half. Feel free to skip as much as you want.
+++++++++
It's interesting you've decided to integrate FJ's deck layout into MJ's external scheme. I've long nursed the idea of doing just the opposite. Someday, when I get around to it, I want to "Matt Jefferies-ize" the FJ Constitution design. FJ's external arrangement, and an internal deck arrangement based on the one drawn up by Matt Jefferies.
That's certainly do-able, though I have a long winded article in my head about the relationship to "MJ" versus "FJ" ideas about 1701. This ship is a buffet, if not a full smorgasbord, when it comes to its true nature.
That way I can deal with some of the things that have always irked me about the BGP. Like that swimming pool right behind the deflector housing, and the hangar deck/pylon arrangement.
I suppose there are a number of ways this could be bothersome. Assuming you are concerned about radiation, etc., actually, having recreational areas next to the Main Deflector (MD) isn't a bad idea. These areas aren't likely to be inhabited during alert conditions so any "surges" would be minimized in terms of casualties. The real problem then is he secondary hull "bridge". But its more likely that you mean deflector 'machinery'. I'm rather neutral on the topic: should or shouldn't it be there. I believe that FJ interpreted the squiggles at the front of the secondary hull as compartments and gangways instead of machinery -- otherwise he would certainly have put the appropriate mechanics in there. To me, MJ probably meant it as machinery -- but I have no real proof of that, and its always possible that this interpretation is wrong.
The alternative view is that MJ designed the ship so that components either were inside the main hull (and presumably serviceable) or were external to it (and requiring EVA or dock repairs). I think that's how FJ looked at the MD: that it was a major component, that any control circuitry was inside the ship and serviceable, but that the actual unit itself consisted of massive components (perhaps even solid components) that were beyond the crew to do major repairs on without a support facility.
But what about the TNG MD cross-section, it seem really complicated and big by comparison? Well, its had the benefit of a hundred years of technology, its probably much more powerful than 1701's MD because its on a much more massive ship (even if its not that much faster), and its entirely possible that a much more complicated but serviceable unit was desirable as a design trait. The main issue is that 1701D's MD is sunk into the secondary hull, whereas TOS 1701's is external. If you sunk the TOS MD into the secondary hull, you would have a lot of MD machinery "inside the hull" as a consequence (as in TMP presumably).
+++++++++
It has been a long time since I've looked at FJ's deckplans for the Enteprise, but my lasting impression is that most of the stuff you actually need to run a starship is crammed in as an afterthought. Most of the decks look like a hotel floorplan. And there is, as I recall, a serious lack of lab space in a ship that was suppossedly on the leading edge of scientific exploration. There is no need whatsover for there to be an individual toilet and shower for each person assigned to a cabin, nor for there to only be two-person cabins for that matter - just a really bad use of space in an environment where you'd think space is at something of a premium. There is also a decided lack of access points to the ship as a whole. Other than the shuttlebay, you pretty much gotta crawl in through a window to get in, it seems. And I think the dorsal levels need ot be more strucural reinforcement and utility umbilical runs and less lounges full of chairs.
Dave Shaw has dealt with structural reinforcement in this and other threads, and if anything needs it the Primary Hull is what is lacking in FJ's plans. In terms of the pylon to hanger bay arrangement, it could be worse. Over the years I've seen FJ repeatedly criticized that he didn't understand that the hanger drawing in TMoST was a forced perspective drawing, and that the actual design would be much longer. In actuality, I've yet to see (or at least notice/remember, corrections welcome) anyone come up with a hanger bay design longer than FJ's in any proposed plans or cross-sections -- usually they are shorter. FJ's seems to be longer than MJ's various cross-section plans. So you can't have it both ways: that FJ is wrong in having the hanger bay too short and wrong in placing the pylons "through" the hanger bay. He did the best he could, and somebody, somewhere, got something else "wrong". Or our assumptions are wrong.
As to the ship's layout, Tin_Man is correct that many of these complaints go back to FJ's primary source material, "The Making of Star Trek" (which used the original writer's guide) and the aired TV episodes. The show depicts single person cabins. FJ shows them and dual person cabins. Yes it would be possible to install bunk beds and increase the crew capacity but that would decrease the quality of living. Same goes for the bathrooms, people are stuck for months on these vessels -- and its by choice not necessity -- so minor luxuries help morale. The ship is big enough to house the crew in this way, and have a reasonable amount of equipment and storage (if recycling or replication is taken into account). How people live on a modern aircraft carrier, especially the people billeted under the catapult, and don't go insane is hard to grasp.
In terms of external access points, that goes back to the studio model, and ultimately MJ. As to hatches, you forgot FJ's observatory doors. There are some details on the model that might or might not be hatches, some of which are about man-sized (there placement isn't great for docking, if I remember right). The yellow circle on the bottom might be a gigantic cargo hatch. The white squares on the top of the Primary Hull might be gangway hatches (like seen in ST:TMP) requiring massive airlock umbilicals (like at a starbase?). The turbolift shaft behind the bridge might be used to move people in and out of the ship (FJ's scheme for starbase docking). Other people have proposed docking hatches in various places. I've conceived of a scheme where the three small sensors or deflectors at the front of the Primary Hull flip up and create a docking point complete with airlock. Some of these schemes are not inconsistent with FJ.
As depicted in TOS, 1701 is not primarily a research ship, it performs defense, patrol, (minor) supply, scouting, and survey duties (only the last of which emphasizes the use of labs). FJ put labs where TMoST pretty much told him they should be, which is where the writers were told they would be (whether they listened or not). At one point I counted the labs in either the FJ or derivative FASA plans and there were (if I remember correctly) 14 of them (including a few medical labs, which certainly could do biological studies, at the least). Unlike labs in our world, these would be manned by three shifts all days of the week, so comparatively that triples the amount of work that can be done. Of course, while the labs appear small. Of course, 300 years of technical advancement would also hopefully make them much more efficient, and research doesn't have to always be done in a lab -- once any raw data has been entered into the computer system most of the rooms on the ship have data terminal access. Additionally FJ gives a roster of 80 Science staff (incl. 2 Yeomen, one of which might be assigned to Medical), 56 Medical (under the Science department, which makes sense for planetary survey work), leaving Command with 55 personal, and Engineering with 239. So, from FJ's perspective true science seems the second most important role of the ship in terms of manpower, second only to keeping it running.
+++++++++
Agreed. When interpreting the shape of the Enterprise, like it or not, one must assume that form follows function and what we find within is logically responsible for how the ship looks on the outside.
I wonder if FJ was operating from a standpoint that the ship's hull itself was sturdy enough (or made of sturdy enough materials) that it, in conert with the decks and bulkheads themselves, would provide a lot of the structural strength of the ship with minimal thickness or internal support? I've personally always suspected that ship's hulls do provide a degree of structural 'shaping' in concert with actual structural load members, of course, which his plans seem to lack.
My own perspective was that the ship would have a thick outer hull, strong decks and frames, and not need any structural framework (or even design) beyond that (call it the "egg" model of hull design, though its actually an internally braced "egg"). Until Dave pointed it out, I hadn't noticed that FJ provides a structural framework inside the hull, other than on the first Secondary hull deck. When I was a kid I conceived of a massive hull, perhaps a meter thick. Today, we've seen a few examples of destroyed outer hulls at close view and that's perhaps highly excessive. So, for the sake of argument, lets say that the hull is a foot thick and composed of Tritanium (21.4 times as hard as diamond). The decks and frames are also composed of this, but probably less thick. Key bulkheads, struts, and other critical structural members may be composed of cast Rhodinium (the hardest material known in TOS). Certainly bases would probably use these materials, and if someone wants to suggest Duranium that's OK -- shuttle in TOS are made of it. As described on screen, these materials must be incredibly durable by our standards and probably very dense. Which is one reason, after years of (rabid) resisting, I've had second thoughts about the TNG style ship-mass scheme. But that's the subject of another, long-winded, post.
The one thing that's hard to reconcile is the dilithium 'pedastal' in main engineering. The dilithium 'drawer' room that Masters manned in 'The Alternative Factor' could be explained away as a number of things.
I wonder about the viability of making the whole setup in the secondary hull an elaborate alternator of sorts that draws power from the engines and converts it for ship use?
There are four possibilities for the Tube Room I can think of.
1. M/AM Reactor
2. Impulse Engine Housing (FJ solution)
3. Auxillery Power Reactor (as in Star Fleet Battles)
4. Power converter (would probably be called the "Main Energizers")
#1 is possible, but I'd hate to do it in the Primary Hull. I'd hate to be in the Secondary Hull if it blew up.
#2 & 3 are possible, and might be visually identical (two rooms for one price).
#4 is possible and could explain what the dilithium pedestal is doing there. Might explain the fireworks in "The Paradise Syndrome" (or is it "The Tholian Web"?). That the gigantic tube room is a power converter seems a bit much.
Its also possible that the dilithium pedestal is an upgrade meant to amplify or convert power, from/to whatever the tube room is (another "addition" was made in TAS, for example, an upright clear tube off to the side). The use and health of those crystals might or might not be related to other locations where dilithium is used. Yes, this all gets slippery... to avoid long-windedness I will stop here. To me, in TOS, dilithium is used to channel or amplify the product of the M/AM reaction. In the TNG tech manual, if I remember correctly, the dilithium is essentially the M/AM reaction site (the matter and antimatter "mingle" inside the crystals)... which makes absolutely no sense to me.
To be continued...
Great stuff! I mentioned you're work upthread, I like the way you combine FJ's plans with elements and details we actually saw onscreen! As for my math skills, they suck,
so no go there. I hope you will be a regular contributer to this thread and/or site as you've definately got something that most of us would really like to see more of! BTW, what are you're thoughts as to (eventually?) detailing areas of the ship we never saw onscreen? I always thought it was fun to speculate on what some of these areas would look like in 3D, and I'd very much like to hear your thoughts on the matter.
so maybe I'll be of some use yet? Keep up the great work! 
