Public Resource Enterprise.
- Thread starter KirkTrekModeler
- Start date
KirkTrekModeler
Commander
Brilliant post, I just had to tell you that. Thank you.
Paging Dr. MGagen, please report to the third floor nurses station...
There is little doubt that the smaller model was intended to be 1/48th scale, both from the details of the model itself and the "load line marks" on the side of the secondary hull. What is unsupportable (based on what I've seen -- and I have spent more than a few months researching this topic) is the assertion that the model was rescaled to 1/96th when it was rebuilt. It would make sense, sure. Except for the fact that the person that drew the one set of plans for the ship that appeared onscreen -- who also happened to be the same person that designed the model -- put a scale bar on his plan that indicated a 950 foot ship. And then told the guy writing "The Making of Star Trek" that the ship was supposed to scale out to 947 feet long. And did a cross section based on the 947 foot length. And later used that same cross section to expand upon the design for Phase 2.
The logical thing -- that the ship was simply halved in scale, and thus is meant to represent a design that is 96 x the above-mentioned 134 inches (or 1072 feet) just doesn't fit with the circumstantial information we know. It is probable that the key to understanding the discrepancy is that cross section -- which is why I used it as my Rosetta Stone when exploring the size of the ship. I believe that Jefferies felt, after doing that cross section, that the decks fell in a more sensible way at a size slightly smaller than 1/96 would indicate. I can't say that with certainty, but once you extrapolate upon that cross section at 947 feet you do get a reasonable result. And a hangar bay that fits almost perfectly with the one detailed in the Phase 2 cross section.
In the end, you can believe what you want. But the evidence of the designer's intent seems to pretty strongly indicate he intended that 11 foot model to be 1/84.8th scale, and not the more-acceptable 1/96th.
The logical thing -- that the ship was simply halved in scale, and thus is meant to represent a design that is 96 x the above-mentioned 134 inches (or 1072 feet) just doesn't fit with the circumstantial information we know. It is probable that the key to understanding the discrepancy is that cross section -- which is why I used it as my Rosetta Stone when exploring the size of the ship. I believe that Jefferies felt, after doing that cross section, that the decks fell in a more sensible way at a size slightly smaller than 1/96 would indicate. I can't say that with certainty, but once you extrapolate upon that cross section at 947 feet you do get a reasonable result. And a hangar bay that fits almost perfectly with the one detailed in the Phase 2 cross section.
In the end, you can believe what you want. But the evidence of the designer's intent seems to pretty strongly indicate he intended that 11 foot model to be 1/84.8th scale, and not the more-acceptable 1/96th.
KirkTrekModeler
Commander
I wish as much energy went into actually working on this project as does debating the size... LOL. There's got be an end to that debate some time, I mean it's been forty years. What was Matt's last word on the issue? I thin Waugh make some valid points, especially about the bulkhead numbering. I've always been a 947' guy, but I'm at least open to facts and things like established background information. 
You 947' guys should read the pdf available only on my forums at:
http://helipad.benchmark-avionics.com
I request that it not be reposted without permission.
http://helipad.benchmark-avionics.com
I request that it not be reposted without permission.
I get an error after downloading that says the viewer cannot decrypt the document. What now? I'd like to see it...
KirkTrekModeler
Commander
I looked around, but I'm just not seeing it....????
Once I downloaded Reader 8.1.0 the file opened fine.
Thanks again.
KirkTrekModeler
Commander
Would you mind pointing me in the right direction? How am I missing this, has it been removed?
Doh! Found it.
Doh! Found it.
KirkTrekModeler
Commander
Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant! You have taken the scientific method, used actual measurements, common sense, basic drafting techniques and made perfect logical sense!
I love it.
I especially like the way you handled the facts. The statement about "A theoretical starship..." Man, that sounds just like me.
Thank you for that. Really thanks!!!!!!!! WHOOT!
I love it.
I especially like the way you handled the facts. The statement about "A theoretical starship..." Man, that sounds just like me.
Thank you for that. Really thanks!!!!!!!! WHOOT!
This is an interesting argument, and one that has been put forth on this BBS many times before. The gist is that because the drawings in TMoST do not exactly replicate the lines of the model, then the dimensions stated in the book, and the matching scale bar, are also wrong.
The problem is, that's like saying that because my Coke isn't in the properly shaped Coke bottle, it can't be sixteen ounces. The shape of the bottle has nothing to do with its capacity, since a bottle of a different shape can have the same capacity. The same goes for those illustrations -- just because the illustrations don't precisely match the model, it doesn't make the dimensions wrong. The book was published during the second season of the show -- it was well known what the model looked like by that time, and yet the dimensions were still given. They weren't a set of dimensions for that drawing, but for the ship depicted in the show. Sure, the scale bar is with the drawing, but the dimensions are given in even greater detail in the text, which is accompanied by... photos of the model.
As far as the relationship between the starship and the nuclear carrier Enterprise, once again a comparison is given. The ship is shown with the carrier, revealing it to be in proportion only if it is about 950 feet. It is nowhere near the length of the carrier, which at the time was only a little bigger than the 1072 feet purported for the starship.
And this illustration was done by Matt Jefferies.
The starship was originally envisioned not as a carrier, but as a cruiser. And cruisers are generally in the 500-600 foot range. At the time of the series' production, I don't believe any cruiser built had surpassed 850 feet in length, so the "space cruiser" that was envisioned was indeed very big in comparison with its naval counterpart once re-imagined as a 947 foot long ship. Any bigger, and it would have ceased to have the relationship to the "heavy cruiser" that they seemed bound to create.
Like I've said, people can believe what they like. And yet it's one thing to say the ship is a certain length because you have new evidence of the intent of the producers of the show, or the people that designed or built the model. That is not the case here. This is a restatement of an old argument that amounts to "the ship is bigger because it has to be in order to fit a wing of aircraft inside", and "because the drawing in the book doesn't exactly match the model". It depends on the oversized, misshapen hangar deck miniature to have reflected in any way the intended size of the ship, and not the need to stick a camera inside. It avoids all the evidence of intent -- that Jefferies told us the length, that Roddenberry signed off on it, that it was put in the Writers' Guide, and distributed to the public in a trade paperback AND a promotional material available from Roddenberry's Lincoln Enterprises. It avoids the fact that at 947 feet it matches perfectly with the Phase 2 cross section completed by Jefferies, right down to the details of the hangar deck (which he intended to be smaller than something that could hold an entire fleet of aircraft). And it avoids the fact that the distance between the center of the bridge set and the center of the turbolift set exactly match the distance between the bridge dome and the center of the turbolift cylinder -- if the ship is 947 feet.
OTOH, the 1072 foot figure appears for the first time... online. On the Internet. Four decades after the show ceased production.
Honestly, everyone should treat this fictitious spaceship as they like. But personal preference should not take the place of research, or the history of the show's production. The painstaking research into the actual dimensions of the NASM model are to be lauded, but they tell us nothing about the intended length of the ship. Unless, of course, you want to use the size of the model's windows in comparison to those on the observation deck set to get an idea of scale.
And guess what? Do that and you are right back in that 540 foot zone.
You completely missed the arguement as you didn't work through the math, but this is no surprise.
And, if you take the 947' figure as "correct", then the other figures on the diagram are incorrect. In other words, the diagrams dimensions are worthless in creating a scale model. If you wish to accept it as the length (which was inaccurate) then you must suspend belief in all the other dimensions. Yet, the SINGLE dimension that does match a standard scale, and a dimension of the actual physical studio model confirms the larger measure. None of the other measurements are in any agreement with the physical model.
So, it boils down to either a) the studio model is definitive, or b) you not only ignore the dimensions of the physical model because it is "wrong", but you also then ignore that fact that these other diagrams have no "internal validity".
I consider the studio model cannon, and not a set of arbitrary dimension thought up after the fact that have no internal validity.
The main point is that you CAN NOT build the model on that diagram. It is IMPOSSIBLE. If you had actually built the model as I have (not a kit), having to measure and scale everything you would understand this simple fact.
I challenge you to create a physical model of the ship that is consistent with that diagram.
I rest my case. =)
I do applaud you for reading and intelligently discussing this, and you are right on about the windows. Those presented a bit of a problem, and frankly are way to large on the order of 6' x 28" is what we ended up using as a bit of a compromise.
Patrick
And, if you take the 947' figure as "correct", then the other figures on the diagram are incorrect. In other words, the diagrams dimensions are worthless in creating a scale model. If you wish to accept it as the length (which was inaccurate) then you must suspend belief in all the other dimensions. Yet, the SINGLE dimension that does match a standard scale, and a dimension of the actual physical studio model confirms the larger measure. None of the other measurements are in any agreement with the physical model.
So, it boils down to either a) the studio model is definitive, or b) you not only ignore the dimensions of the physical model because it is "wrong", but you also then ignore that fact that these other diagrams have no "internal validity".
I consider the studio model cannon, and not a set of arbitrary dimension thought up after the fact that have no internal validity.
The main point is that you CAN NOT build the model on that diagram. It is IMPOSSIBLE. If you had actually built the model as I have (not a kit), having to measure and scale everything you would understand this simple fact.
I challenge you to create a physical model of the ship that is consistent with that diagram.
I rest my case. =)
I do applaud you for reading and intelligently discussing this, and you are right on about the windows. Those presented a bit of a problem, and frankly are way to large on the order of 6' x 28" is what we ended up using as a bit of a compromise.
Patrick
KirkTrekModeler
Commander
OK, I have built a physical scale model and I cannot begin to tell you the number of problems I ran into as far as refs go. The windows were another BIG problem. A friend of mine can tell you just how nuts I became over this issue. The window issue and the dimensions over all are contradictory in the extreme! It seems for awhile that every dimension I got contrdicted the one before it.
And....... When you try to start a thread like this, to get valid information, you run into the same thing.
There is no math to work through. Only the assertion that because the drooping nacelles on the model happen to match the desired 1/96th scale if one accepts the distance between the nacelles stated on the TMoST illustration, that 1/96th must be the correct scale. So... you accept that one distance stated on the TMoST plans but dismiss all the others? What makes that "304 feet" so special?
Because by your reckoning they vary from 83.3 to 84.8? Less than 1.8% difference. Between the planned dimensions and the built model.
I think that's pretty damned good for a wood, fiberglass and metal model that has gone through a radical revision in scaling.
So, you are saying we need to accept the plan's distance between the nacelles as gospel and indicative of the 1/96th re-scaling, ignore the other numbers, ignore the comparison to the carrier, ignore the cross section and the discrepancy with the hangar deck, and ignore the relationship between the bridge set and the model at 947 feet?
Says who? Where does it say that the model was rescaled to 1/96th? Why, if that was the case, does everything written disagree with that number? Find something, somewhere that says it was halved in scale, please.
This is cherry-picking evidence. One number matches the desired result, which itself contradicts everything else. So, we throw out all the other numbers, all the other evidence, and accept the number that was picked going in as the predetermined result? And this is supposed to stand the test of scrutiny?
Look... I agree the studio model is definitive. But the most reasonable way to go about this is to link the 134" length of the model to the stated 947' length of the "real" ship, and let the other "real" numbers emerge from the measurements of the model. That would at least fit with intent, the model, the relationship between the model and bridge, and the only evidence of length given onscreen (the diagram's scale bar).
Or canon, as the case may be.
Why? What you can't do is make the diagram exactly match the model as built. You can build a model that matches the diagram, or you can build a model based on the dimensions given in the diagram. They would be three subtly different models, but you can do it.
But who says the diagram must exactly match the model? Not me. It is a design document, indicative of the intent of the designer. Things got tweaked as the model was built, but nowhere did anybody in the process say the model was being rescaled to 1/96th scale. They said it was being rescaled to 947 feet. And that does fit with the diagram.
To teach yourself why it would be impossible to build the model as dimensioned in that diagram would require you to build one to scale. But, as that would require more effort than simply understanding this engineering fact from the diagram staring you in the face, you should give up now. =)
Interesting that originally you contended that the diagram wasn't "wrong", as how could producers be wrong, but now you conceed that, in fact, it has no internal validity (look it up, it's a phd thing).
Now at least you see that just because it was published doesn't make it so. Moreover, the dimensions on the diagram are either intentionally incorrect to protect their copyright, or pretty darn inaccurate.
After all, if they wanted to do as you say and simply scale the model so that it would be 947', then wouldn't your infallible publishers have done so? Then, all the measurements would have been to that scale, EVEN if they didn't match the studio model because they had decided to evolve it further. However, that is clearly not the case, hence there can be only one conclusion, and again we must return to the studio model as definitive evidence despite the erroneous data that propogated.
If it is not clear to you why the center line distance between the engines is a special number, I would suggest studying engineering or drafting, or attempting to build a physical model from those dimensions using the producers model to help guide you as it did them.
As Tarter once said, "To know is to do". Go build one as I have and then see what you think. =)
Interesting that originally you contended that the diagram wasn't "wrong", as how could producers be wrong, but now you conceed that, in fact, it has no internal validity (look it up, it's a phd thing).
Now at least you see that just because it was published doesn't make it so. Moreover, the dimensions on the diagram are either intentionally incorrect to protect their copyright, or pretty darn inaccurate.
After all, if they wanted to do as you say and simply scale the model so that it would be 947', then wouldn't your infallible publishers have done so? Then, all the measurements would have been to that scale, EVEN if they didn't match the studio model because they had decided to evolve it further. However, that is clearly not the case, hence there can be only one conclusion, and again we must return to the studio model as definitive evidence despite the erroneous data that propogated.
If it is not clear to you why the center line distance between the engines is a special number, I would suggest studying engineering or drafting, or attempting to build a physical model from those dimensions using the producers model to help guide you as it did them.
As Tarter once said, "To know is to do". Go build one as I have and then see what you think. =)
The condescending tone inhibits constructive discussion, but I'll give it a shot.
Where, exactly, did I "contend that the diagram wasn't wrong"? I only recall characterizing your contention that your discovery that the model at the NASM was in fact 1/96th scale is in fact tired and tread-worn and without basis. I don't believe, nor have I ever believed, that the plans in TMoST accurately depict the exact shape of the 11 foot model. Unfortunately, your contentions about your own work not withstanding, absolutely accurate plans of the 11 foot model have yet to be drawn. Or at least made public.
What is of value in that old and disparaged book is the stated intent that the ship is meant to be 947 feet long. That length puts a lot of other information -- all of which you've ignored BTW -- into perspective. It adds immeasurably to our understanding of such thorny issues as the bridge, the hangar deck, the relationship between the TOS and TMP ships, and the overall size of the ship. But only if you are willing to consider the evidence, and not start off with the preconceived answer that it's all wrong.
As for your modelbuilding skills, and your knowledge of drafting, I'll let them speak for themselves. Nothing I could say could add or subtract from what you've already said and done. Versus my own meager work? Oh... I wouldn't dare compete with someone that has figured all this out. As anyone that posts on this BBS can tell you, it's all way over my head.
Best of luck! :thumbsup:
EDIT: A far more talented draftsman than I has done considerable work in the area of discerning the size of the various models used to portray the Enterprise. Interested parties keen to learn a thing or two should check out his work:
http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx/trek_stuff/1701_dimensions.pdf
Revealing, huh?
Where, exactly, did I "contend that the diagram wasn't wrong"? I only recall characterizing your contention that your discovery that the model at the NASM was in fact 1/96th scale is in fact tired and tread-worn and without basis. I don't believe, nor have I ever believed, that the plans in TMoST accurately depict the exact shape of the 11 foot model. Unfortunately, your contentions about your own work not withstanding, absolutely accurate plans of the 11 foot model have yet to be drawn. Or at least made public.
What is of value in that old and disparaged book is the stated intent that the ship is meant to be 947 feet long. That length puts a lot of other information -- all of which you've ignored BTW -- into perspective. It adds immeasurably to our understanding of such thorny issues as the bridge, the hangar deck, the relationship between the TOS and TMP ships, and the overall size of the ship. But only if you are willing to consider the evidence, and not start off with the preconceived answer that it's all wrong.
As for your modelbuilding skills, and your knowledge of drafting, I'll let them speak for themselves. Nothing I could say could add or subtract from what you've already said and done. Versus my own meager work? Oh... I wouldn't dare compete with someone that has figured all this out. As anyone that posts on this BBS can tell you, it's all way over my head.
Best of luck! :thumbsup:
EDIT: A far more talented draftsman than I has done considerable work in the area of discerning the size of the various models used to portray the Enterprise. Interested parties keen to learn a thing or two should check out his work:
http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx/trek_stuff/1701_dimensions.pdf
Revealing, huh?
We'd all like to think the technical details were worked out to the nth degree, like the later Trek shows were, but the fact is they weren't. They put more effort into it than any other show to that date, to the point that a surprising amount of it still stands pretty well, but there were more than a few details that they let slide, because, after all, it's just a tv show! No, the diagram in "The Making of Star Trek" doesn't match the filming minature. For that matter, the actual blueprints used to build the models (3-footer and 11-footer) don't match the models as built, just as the two models aren't consistent with each other.
It's also been established that the intent was for the bridge to face forward. Yet, the turbolift housing was mounted directly aft on the hull, most likely to maintain symmetry for those shots utilizing the reversed decals (as it was, that technique was barely used, and then only from lower angles, but at least they were prepared). So, yeah, we've got a scale problem, just like we have a scale problem with the interior and exterior of the shuttlecraft mockups.
Guess what? It's a mid-60s sci-fi show. Roddenberry and his merry band of troubadours put a lot more work into the details than, say, Irwin Allen and his bunch (try running these tests on the Jupiter 2 or the Seaview), but it doesn't change the fact that Star Trek was a mid-60s sci-fi show, produced under a tight budget and even tighter schedule, which left only so much time to work certain things out. They barely made their airdates as it was.
And ya wanna know a dirty little secret? The later shows didn't always work out the sniggling little details, either.
This ain't NASA. It's television. Deal with it.
It's also been established that the intent was for the bridge to face forward. Yet, the turbolift housing was mounted directly aft on the hull, most likely to maintain symmetry for those shots utilizing the reversed decals (as it was, that technique was barely used, and then only from lower angles, but at least they were prepared). So, yeah, we've got a scale problem, just like we have a scale problem with the interior and exterior of the shuttlecraft mockups.
Guess what? It's a mid-60s sci-fi show. Roddenberry and his merry band of troubadours put a lot more work into the details than, say, Irwin Allen and his bunch (try running these tests on the Jupiter 2 or the Seaview), but it doesn't change the fact that Star Trek was a mid-60s sci-fi show, produced under a tight budget and even tighter schedule, which left only so much time to work certain things out. They barely made their airdates as it was.
And ya wanna know a dirty little secret? The later shows didn't always work out the sniggling little details, either.
This ain't NASA. It's television. Deal with it.
KirkTrekModeler
Commander
^^^OMG Thank you BOB! Sorry are you gonna get miffed if I call you Bob?
Look, everyone has their own oppinions. The whole reason for this thread was to share what "WE" know and produce a set of blueprints for everyone.... FREE!
Look, everyone has their own oppinions. The whole reason for this thread was to share what "WE" know and produce a set of blueprints for everyone.... FREE!
Similar threads
