Re-evaluating (prime universe) starship sizes.

[Mytran]

You mean how they're either way too low or way too high in relation to their decks? From what I recall, the ship was originally going to be without windows of any sort - maybe that has something to do with them being "off", especially if it was someone other than Jefferies who came along later and put them in.

 

[Longinus]

You mean how they're either way too low or way too high in relation to their decks?

Yes. Excelsior has the exact same problem.

 

[Shaw]

We don't know what is actually happening inside the ship near those windows... they were never shown on the show.

But the placement of the windows on the 11 foot model's primary hull edge are off from the original 33 inch model's primary hull edge most likely due to time pressure. I'm sure you must be aware of the series of events in late 1964... but we'll review them anyways.

Desilu studios was given a small window in which to make the pilot. The 11 foot model wasn't even started until December 8, 1964, and was completed on December 29, 1964. Part of the reason for the model only having a single side was that it was faster to complete the model that way. There were a number of errors from Jefferies original plans, but we are talking about three guys building an 11 foot model in three weeks. By comparison, the 33 inch model, which was built by Datin (though he farmed out the turning of some of the parts) was done in two weeks, with an additional month to make changes/additions.

Maybe you've never built anything... but when put under time pressure, human beings end up being human beings.

As for why it wasn't corrected for the second pilot... the way the primary hull is built, there wasn't any easy way to get the windows higher.

But it should be noted that the model makers weren't told what the scale was... they were told to build the models as drawn on the plans. The first model was to be one-to-one with the plans, the second was to be 4x the size of the plans. Datin might have known just because Jefferies had to draw windows on the plans after the 33 inch model had been presented once for approval and Roddenberry asked for the windows.

Plus, these were veteran TV guys... everyone knew that there was a good chance the show would never even be picked up by NBC (and they would have been right, the pilot was rejected). But the key for everyone back then wasn't hyper-accuracy, it was meet the dead lines. And it seems that many fans have never faced those types of challenges (I have, so I look at the workmanship of these guys and marvel at it!).

Like I said before, if you need an in-universe explanation... I ask why you assume the decks are even all the way out to the edges? Specially on a design that takes a massive cut out of the lower edge deck on the underside. If there is a second deck on the outer edge, it is isolated from the rest of the deck towards the center.

I played around with the idea that at those four corners on the TOS Enterprise maybe there is a open commons area where the deck ends at a balcony.

There are infinite possibilities... you just have to attempt an intellectual exercise to find a solution that doesn't require starting over from scratch. Sadly, for some people that is too much exercise.

 

[Mytran]

That's not far from what I had in mind for the TOS ship myself (tho I make use of "half levels" to bring the windows in line with viewing height). Of course with the E-refit that's a LOT of balcony viewing lounges, but the refit isn't exactly known for its conservative use of space.

Anyway, always a pleasure to hear some more about the early days of the show. I've read lots of your stuff, and I think the historical work you've done in this area is terrific.

I think there's only TWO examples of portholes in the entire series run of TOS.

 

[Mytran]

Regarding the wierd "ring deck" on the outer saucer, I can't help thinking that it stems back to the earliest ship designs:

(I got this from www.ottens.co.uk/forgottentrek)
In this design, the crew have no choice - they have to walk round the ring, no shortcuts here!

 

[Longinus]

There are infinite possibilities... you just have to attempt an intellectual exercise to find a solution that doesn't require starting over from scratch. Sadly, for some people that is too much exercise.

There are infinite possibilities, one of which is adjusting the scale. I don't think there is anything wrong wanting to stick to the design numbers, that has to be the standard approach certainly. However, the intellectual exercise I proposed was specifically to forget that background information and look at the models as they actually are, to look for size cues and determine the scale by those. No one would ever assume existence of such a bizarre balcony structure you presented, if they hadn't previous knowledge what size the ship is "supposed" to be. Everybody would assume that the window rows imply decks.

 

[Shaw]

Anyway, always a pleasure to hear some more about the early days of the show. I've read lots of your stuff, and I think the historical work you've done in this area is terrific.

Thanks! Yeah, the history stuff has become a very interesting part of studying the technical aspects of Trek for me. It puts a lot of things into context.

I think there's only TWO examples of portholes in the entire series run of TOS.

There are three times we see windows that I can recall... The Cage/Menagerie, The Conscience of the King (which show that those windows are too low on the sides of the secondary hull on the model) and The Mark of Gideon.

There are infinite possibilities, one of which is adjusting the scale. I don't think there is anything wrong wanting to stick to the design numbers, that has to be the standard approach certainly. However, the intellectual exercise I proposed was specifically to forget that background information and look at the models as they actually are, to look for size cues and determine the scale by those. No one would ever assume existence of such a bizarre balcony structure you presented, if they hadn't previous knowledge what size the ship is "supposed" to be. Everybody would assume that the window rows imply decks.

Well, it is a good thing that the scale was actually given in the show then... so that solves that issue.

But might I ask why you would attempt this type of intellectual exercise on a science fiction space craft first? It seems to me that before testing your untried techniques of observation on something this abstract, that one would want to have first proven that the techniques are infact valid... by trying them on real world vessels.

Can you tell the sizes of things by looking at them, making some assumptions, and then end up with reasonable numbers? How would you know if you would end up with reasonable numbers until you've tried on things that have real world numbers to check against? That, to me, would seem like a more reasonable starting point for such an exercise.

It is actually an important skill... for example, the Japanese battleship Yamato was reported to be smaller than she actually was (to stay within treaty constraints).

For test, why not look at some of the U.S. Navy's airships. They are relatively unfamiliar to most people and would make for a good practice exercise (and control study).


And (not aimed at any one person) wouldn't it be nice if we started seeing some different people do the actual heavy lifting in these exercises? I'd really like to see some new work shown... this is a visual exercise, lets see some of those visuals.

Less talk, more illustration of ideas.

 

[Longinus]

Look, I have no desire to start guessing sizes of actual existing objects, which do have definite size unlike fictional starships. Background information is handy, but it is not actual canon. As far as I remember (not to be trusted), Sovereign is only major ship that has it's length referred in the dialogue.

As stated, the thing that make me ponder the subject in the first place, were the endless flamewars about the size of Abram's ship, and meticulous analysis of the structure of the vessel. As much I hate the new ship, I think Ryan Church was onto something at his original design length of 366 metres, many ways refit works better at that size as well.

Shaw, have you followed Cary's thread about 1080 foot TOS-E? I think it illustrates the larger size approach quite well.

As for the reasons why the window issue exists in the first place, yeah, I can see how it originally happened. It is still weird how they ended up repeating it on refit and Excelsior though.

 

[Shaw]

Look, I have no desire to start guessing sizes of actual existing objects, which do have definite size unlike fictional starships.

The point is that before you start applying your ideas of how to judge sizes on fictional objects, you should really make sure that they work at all. Otherwise there is no foundation and no point.

Background information is handy, but it is not actual canon. As far as I remember (not to be trusted), Sovereign is only major ship that has it's length referred in the dialogue.

Then you should go back and review all of TOS. Jefferies got the size on screen.

Shaw, have you followed Cary's thread about 1080 foot TOS-E? I think it illustrates the larger size approach quite well.

Cary's compromises are his own choice... but he hasn't shown why that size is needed, just that it works better for how he views things.

Like I said before, larger means one doesn't have to put as much thought into it.

So to answer your question... a little. But the thread became more of a demonstration of the software being used and ventured off into the computer hardware being used. Cary was also using his design to push ideas he has about warp/impulse drives (which I'm not interested in).

So while he illustrates quite well, his arguments for needing to venture from Jefferies' sizes aren't nearly as compelling.



But it sure sounds to me like you have already decided on a larger size without showing any intellectual exercise on your part. Where is your compelling argument? Where is your attempt at fitting this stuff together? Or are you actually armchair quarterbacking all this?

Cary has at least put effort behind his ideas... are you planning on doing the same? Show us your intellectual exercise.

I have a very long (and heavily viewed) thread where I show my work, you could do the same (others have).

 

[Mytran]

There are three times we see windows that I can recall... The Cage/Menagerie, The Conscience of the King (which show that those windows are too low on the sides of the secondary hull on the model) and The Mark of Gideon.

The window in The Cage...do you mean the one above Pike's bed in his cabin? The "window" actually pulses with a steady green light throughout that scene - odd behaviour for a porthole! The shade of green matches the small lamp device that the Doc switches on just after he enters the room and opens his med kit. Is it possible it's some sort of "relax-o-panel" instead?

Regarding the Conscience of the King's "observation deck" windows, not only do they contradict the windows on the model in location, but they're the wrong shape! The ones on the model are rectangular; these are square! Maybe these aren't those windows at all?

Finally, the viewport shown in the Mark of Gideon appears to have some sort of outer shutter, which moves out of the way as Kirk opens it. So there's no reason to definitely match it up with any exisiting window on the model either

Hmm, maybe we saw NO matchable windows during the series run at all?

 

[Mytran]

Then you should go back and review all of TOS. Jefferies got the size on screen.

I assume you mean this:

While we might know the original drawing from which is was taken (which does show the scale clearly), the image on the screen is too fuzzy to draw any in-universe conclusions. Anyone know what it's like on the HD version?

 

[Shaw]

The window in The Cage...do you mean the one above Pike's bed in his cabin? The "window" actually pulses with a steady green light throughout that scene - odd behaviour for a porthole! The shade of green matches the small lamp device that the Doc switches on just after he enters the room and opens his med kit. Is it possible it's some sort of "relax-o-panel" instead?

Possible... and that was also suggested as the purpose of the windows in the cabins (which were later covered over).

Regarding the Conscience of the King's "observation deck" windows, not only do they contradict the windows on the model in location, but they're the wrong shape! The ones on the model are rectangular; these are square! Maybe these aren't those windows at all?

If that is how exactly you need a matching window to line up... then maybe you are looking too closely at a 1960s television show. The point is what were those windows meant to imply. The windows on one side looked out into space and the other side onto the hangar deck.

Neither is a perfect match to either model (but pretty darn nice given the time and budget constraints), but I found that the set was quite useful...

Finally, the viewport shown in the Mark of Gideon appears to have some sort of outer shutter, which moves out of the way as Kirk opens it. So there's no reason to definitely match it up with any exisiting window on the model either

And we know what the other side of the shutter looks like how?

Then you should go back and review all of TOS. Jefferies got the size on screen.

I assume you mean this:

While we might know the original drawing from which is was taken (which does show the scale clearly), the image on the screen is too fuzzy to draw any in-universe conclusions. Anyone know what it's like on the HD version?

Well, you don't need HD... and didn't even back in 1968. Fortunately for Trek fans, the same month that that episode aired on TV, they could get a nice clear copy at their local book store (it was included in TMoST). So you could have had a copy sitting in front of you before that episode aired a second time that season to double check that it was indeed the same graphic.

But it seems like you're fighting this both ways (against an imperfect set and a nice graphic)... the thing about Star Trek (and any performance fiction) is that the audience is asked to work with the performers to help tell the story and set the settings. It is pointless to even watch if an audience member is going to look for every excuse to call foul. In this case the size was intended (by the makers) to be understood by the audience.

All this stuff is nit-pickable, but either you go with what they wanted to show you or spend your time being critical.

I lean towards celebrating their efforts. And see no good reason to undermine them.

 

[Mytran]

And we know what the other side of the shutter looks like how?

Haven't a clue - I simply meant that the window could have spent most of its time shuttered, thus rendering it invisible from the outside.

...All this stuff is nit-pickable, but either you go with what they wanted to show you or spend your time being critical.
I lean towards celebrating their efforts. And see no good reason to undermine them.

Nor do I. It's not an effort to undermine, more an attempt to more closely examine the thinking and construction that went into it. For instance, were the corridors really 10' tall? Would they need to be if the Enterprise was real? Would they had been on a true "Jefferies" ship? Should we take everything we see on screen at face value? Or simply use it as a guide for intent? Each answer concedes to a different viewpoint, each with its own conceits and objectives.

The graphic in The Enterprise Incident is not clear enough to make out the scale in feet - we know what it says because of the diagram in TMOST, but that information is not clear on screen, and there is other evidence (the width of the shuttlebay set for instance) which point to a 947' long ship being too small (even if we take the shuttle prop size at 21'). This sort of discrepancy it inevitable when on a TV show where you have many people's combined efforts and I embrace it fully - it's simply up to the individual viewer to place their own mark where they see fit.

 

[Shaw]

Well, here again we see what happens when 21st century people think of a 1960's show. If you don't understand the whys, then you start making bizarre assumptions.

The hangar set was a forced perspective miniature. Why? Because it was very hard to create depth with the cameras back then. It was the same reason they didn't just use the 33 inch model for the whole series. It didn't have anything to do with detail (the 33 inch had more detailing in The Cage than the 11 foot model, and most of the detail would have been lost on TV screens of the day)... it had to do with creating perspective. As the Enterprise got close to the camera, the other end of the model still looked far away. And you needed large models to do that back then.

The TMP model is nearly half the size of the TOS 11 foot model, but it was being filmed with better equipment.

So you are going to hold their work-a-round as... what? A standard? Basis for measuring everything else?

But at the same time the graphic which shows exactly what they want the ship to be seen as doesn't qualify for you?

Why fight the artists? If they actually had something in mind, attempted to the best of their abilities to be consistent, why fight them? Why exaggerate their errors and shortcomings when there isn't a good reason?

In the 1960s, the era of Irwin Allen SciFi TV, Star Trek was the most technically consistent SciFi show yet made. That consistency made non-fans like Franz Joseph spend a ton of time and effort on the technical side of things.

But today you would hold them to fault... and dismiss what they were attempting because it doesn't live up to your standards.



Okay... to each their own.

 

[Mytran]

...The hangar set was a forced perspective miniature...

Which is why I am using the width at the cross-section of the turntable as my measuring point, as detailed here:

http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?p=3411347#post3411347

If I were to use the width further down it would result in a smaller width because of the forced perspective, so I started as near to the camera as I could.
But it's a wide ol' room, no matter how you look at it!

 

[Shaw]

...The hangar set was a forced perspective miniature...

Which is why I am using the width at the cross-section of the turntable as my measuring point, as detailed here:

http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?p=3411347#post3411347

If I were to use the width further down it would result in a smaller width because of the forced perspective, so I started as near to the camera as I could.
But it's a wide ol' room, no matter how you look at it!

A forced perspective miniature isn't meant (and wasn't meant) to be used as a measuring rod.



But none of that matters to you... you want to use that even if it was never intended to be used in that way. Throwout everything else, what they worked to show, what they tried to show, etc., and see nothing else but this compromised miniature when looking at this.

It is bizarre to get so fixated on a shortcoming of the era, but knock yourself out!

For me, I tend to be more flexible because, as I've said before, I totally understand the type of environment they were working in at the time... which makes their efforts that much more impressive. Again... to each their own.

 

[Longinus]

Shaw, you are being unnecessarily touchy about this. Speculating about these things is not disrespecting the people who made the show. I do realise that for a TV show set in a fictional universe Star Trek was surprisingly consistent, and a lot of work was put in to achieving that. I also do understand why minor inconsistencies crop up in any production. Noticing them is not showing disrespect to Jefferies or anyone else.

I further do not get why the exact length of the ship is such a big deal, and why disregarding the length given is "throwing away everything."

BTW, if we apply same logic to Excelsior MSD than we do to that Connie & D7 schematic (i.e. accept details not visible on screen, that nevertheless were there), then Excelsior is indeed about 700 metres long. How about that!

 

[Longinus]

BTW, I was looking several TOS Connie blueprints, and they don't seem to agree with each other quite often. Especially the shape of secondary hull seem to vary a lot. This is probably caused by some blueprints being based of Jefferies' original plans, and some on the actual model (I have to say I like the shape present in the original plans more.) Which are most accurate blueprints? Sinclair's? How about the refit, what are the most accurate blueprints (various refit blueprints seem to at least be much more consistent than the TOS-E ones.)

 

[Shaw]

Shaw, you are being unnecessarily touchy about this. Speculating about these things is not disrespecting the people who made the show. I do realise that for a TV show set in a fictional universe Star Trek was surprisingly consistent, and a lot of work was put in to achieving that. I also do understand why minor inconsistencies crop up in any production. Noticing them is not showing disrespect to Jefferies or anyone else.

There isn't anything emotional (if that is how you were using touchy) about any of this for me. But when you take things that were done because of the constraints of the day and try to construct a Rosette Stone of scale based on them (to the exclusion of all of the elements that were intended to be used) you end up with pointless results.

Not that it matters here... no one is willing to put forward any amount of intellectual exercise in support of anything they are saying, so being mistaken isn't much of a hardship.

Other than trying to point out the obvious, I really don't care what anyone thinks... If people agree or disagree, makes no difference in my daily life. I figure it is really more your loss if you disregard my helpful advice.

I further do not get why the exact length of the ship is such a big deal, and why disregarding the length given is "throwing away everything."

The overall length isn't a big deal as the models are made up of 4 unique parts and weren't assembled to match the length properly. I get about 943 ft from my figures of the 11 foot model.

But what you guys are doing in focusing in on the shortcomings and conceits of production, outright avoiding the obvious (and purposely placed) clues, is to draw bizarre conclusions. If that was your goal, you guys have done a first rate job!

BTW, if we apply same logic to Excelsior MSD than we do to that Connie & D7 schematic (i.e. accept details not visible on screen, that nevertheless were there), then Excelsior is indeed about 700 metres long. How about that!

MSD aren't supposed to be accurate, they don't come with a scale, they are a generalized informational display.

Are you saying you don't know (or understand) the difference?

I've not studied the Excelsior, I've have no idea how it was designed or how (or when) the original scale was arrived at. So you can try to make all the comparisons you want between TOS and any other Trek... but I'll nail you guys down on the facts about TOS if you get them wrong. Someone else will have to step forward for the other production as I've never spent any serious time studying them.

The Jefferies scale in that 1968 diagram hadn't changed since November of 1964. It wasn't included haphazardly.

BTW, I was looking several TOS Connie blueprints, and they don't seem to agree with each other quite often. Especially the shape of secondary hull seem to vary a lot. Which are most accurate blueprints? Sinclair's? How about the refit, what are the most accurate blueprints (various refit blueprints seem to at least be much more consistent than the TOS-E ones.)

I use my drawings based on my studies of the models. I try to avoid other people's drawings as I'm trying to see all this stuff for myself rather than someone else's interpretation.

If you want the best publicly available plans of the 11 foot model, those would be Casimiro's in my opinion. Kerr's are the best, but aren't for public distribution.

But there isn't just one Enterprise in TOS. There were two models (33 inch and 11 foot) and they were both based on Jefferies' original plans (though parts of the 33 inch model were started before those plans were finished).

Which Enterprise are you interested in?



Also, in TOS, the Enterprise is a Starship Class... the name Constitution is from one of the small displays that REALLY wasn't visible on screen (much less than full frame for everyone to see).

Just FYI.

 

[Unicron]

Shaw, you are being unnecessarily touchy about this. Speculating about these things is not disrespecting the people who made the show.

Agreed. Could you please dial back the condescension a bit, Shaw? You're a smart guy and I always enjoy reading your perspective on these things, but I think you're inferring things that the other posters are not suggesting.