I'll just step aside... I don't think anyone is hearing what I'm trying to tell them anyways.
Re-evaluating (prime universe) starship sizes.
- Thread starter Longinus
- Start date
Shaw, the difference in the shape of the secondary hull I am talking about is illustrated by this chart of yours:
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/shaw/jefferies_1964-sheet-3.jpg
As for the name of the class, if you go by TOS only, yes Starship-class would be more correct. However, if you go by Trek as a whole, spoked dialogue from TNG has to supersede an unreadable plaque. But that is only a matter of preference and chosen perspective.
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/good-stuff-2-schematics.php
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/shaw/jefferies_1964-sheet-3.jpg
As for the name of the class, if you go by TOS only, yes Starship-class would be more correct. However, if you go by Trek as a whole, spoked dialogue from TNG has to supersede an unreadable plaque. But that is only a matter of preference and chosen perspective.
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/good-stuff-2-schematics.php
Last edited:
So, I was comparing various blueprints, and noticed that the saucer thickness seems to vary quite a bit, from 5.5m to almost 7m. Both TOS-E and refit plans seem to display variance. A difference over a metre on the saucer rim will affect placement of the decks a lot...
(All measurements made in normally assumed lengths of 289 and 305 metres.)
(All measurements made in normally assumed lengths of 289 and 305 metres.)
Last edited:
Shaw,
How thick is the skin of the ship assuming those deck heights?
How thick is the skin of the ship assuming those deck heights?
And how final is that primary hull drawing?
"Starship Class" was used as more of a classification than as a class name, like "Constitution". You could have several Starship class vessels (like you could have several scout class vessels), which would then be broken up to ship classes like Constitution, Miranda, and so on.
You mean on this one?
QUOTE]
No, I mean this one...
If that's the final version of the pilot saucer, then I can at least proceed with a new cross-section.
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?
Exactly - if it's not visible, there's no reason to count it. This is like the putative model of the "Horizon" in Sisko's office: all that's really established onscreen is that he has a model of a globe-hulled ship in his office - not that it's called "Horizon" and certainly not that it's the slippery "Daedalus class" ship.
There are peculiarities about the 11-foot model of the TOS ship resulting both from the fact that the ship was doubled in supposed size after it was designed and the fact that internal lighting was added to the model after its initial construction. There may be internal structural reasons that some windows were placed other than where they logically ought to have been.
You mean on this one?
I can't wait for Shaw's 11' Jefferies-prise to be completed, it looks like a fantastic interpretation and the research is fascinating to read.
Who wants to bet that there's gonna be one crewman spitting over the side?
Boy, you guys don't make it easy to just walk away from a discussion. 
In a similar change, Jefferies liked the warp engines further apart but both models were built with them closer together. Jefferies continued to draw the Enterprise with the nacelles how he wanted them and ignored the changes to the models.
Of course even the nacelles themselves were a compromise for Jefferies. He had to have the design finished by the beginning of November 1964 and he was too pressed for time to move the overall shape from what was approved the previous August. But he thought that the engines he came up with for the Klingon ship were better visually than the ones on the Enterprise. So when he was asked to revisit the Enterprise for Star Trek: Phase II, the first thing to go were the nacelles.
He also was under the impression that no one was paying that close attention to the original models as all the fans were perfectly happy with Franz Joseph's version (which wasn't very close). So he took some liberties with the Phase II plans (made the primary hull wider, made the secondary hull thicker).
That image is basically this one...
And this is where I stopped to concentrate on finishing my model and make corrections/additions to my 33 inch Enterprise plans (which I am working on currently)...
But I didn't mean for any of this to hint at me returning to that work just yet. I'd rather not work on both the 33 inch model and the 11 foot model at the same time. Some of the parts are almost identical, and I want the two sets of plans to be independent of each other.
Okay, if that is what works for you.
When was the length doubled? What did it look like before it was doubled?
The change in size took place (as close as I can tell) in October of 1964. The original concept for the Enterprise (once the final arrangement was approved) looked something like this...
And of course the term doubled makes it sound like the previous version was half the size, when in actuality it was about half the length and about 1/8th the interior volume. The top view illustrates the size difference much better...
The 11 foot model wasn't effected by any of this as it was started on December 8, 1964.
The only model effected by this change was the 33 inch model. Richard Datin was given an early set of plans when he was asked if he could build the models. He started work on the 33 inch model on November 4, 1964 by farming out the turning of some of the parts (like the primary hull) because he didn't have the equipment needed to do that. Jefferies finished the final plans of the Enterprise on November 7, 1964... three days later.
But how do we know that the final plans were at the right scale? The bridge. The bridge on the models was intended to be to scale with the bridge set being built. Additionally, a few weeks later when Roddenberry saw the 33 inch model for the first time he requested windows be added. Jefferies drew the windows directly on the original plans and (for the most part) they faithfully were copied onto both models. The rows as drawn would have had two rows per deck if the model was intended to have been half the size.
Besides elements of the previous plans that survived, it seems that all the hull markings may have been drawn on an earlier set of plans. Some of the size callouts for the secondary hull ended on on the secondary hull of the 33 inch model (but not on the 11 foot model originally) before The Cage. They eventually found their way onto the 11 foot model by the second pilot (as Roddenberry was constantly asking for more detail).
There... now I'm leaving this thread.
Jefferies wanted a more curvy shape. Time constraints (and Roddenberry signing off on the 33 inch model) removed them from the 11 foot model. But that didn't stop Jefferies from including them in subsequent drawings.Longinus said:
In a similar change, Jefferies liked the warp engines further apart but both models were built with them closer together. Jefferies continued to draw the Enterprise with the nacelles how he wanted them and ignored the changes to the models.
Of course even the nacelles themselves were a compromise for Jefferies. He had to have the design finished by the beginning of November 1964 and he was too pressed for time to move the overall shape from what was approved the previous August. But he thought that the engines he came up with for the Klingon ship were better visually than the ones on the Enterprise. So when he was asked to revisit the Enterprise for Star Trek: Phase II, the first thing to go were the nacelles.
He also was under the impression that no one was paying that close attention to the original models as all the fans were perfectly happy with Franz Joseph's version (which wasn't very close). So he took some liberties with the Phase II plans (made the primary hull wider, made the secondary hull thicker).
This is about what I got looking at Jefferies Phase II plans...Longinus said:
I've always assumed between 6 to 8 inches... the only on screen evidence we had for thickness is the windows (the open ones). But it wouldn't seem like the thickness would need be any or or less thick that the skin of the shuttlecraft (it would just need larger structural members throughout).CuttingEdge100 said:
I haven't seen any need to change that image (other than the stand-in lower sensor dome platform), but I haven't had time to fully evaluate nearly 200 additional images I got towards the end of last spring (some of which have parts of the model photographed with rulers). So I'm still wanting to cross check most of my details.Captain Robert April said:
That image is basically this one...
And this is where I stopped to concentrate on finishing my model and make corrections/additions to my 33 inch Enterprise plans (which I am working on currently)...
Thanks!Mytran said:
But I didn't mean for any of this to hint at me returning to that work just yet. I'd rather not work on both the 33 inch model and the 11 foot model at the same time. Some of the parts are almost identical, and I want the two sets of plans to be independent of each other.
So let me get this straight... you are saying that the inclusion of a left-over model as a set decoration is (in your mind) equivalent to a graphic that (in the 1960s) required a laborious amount of work to make and was made for the express purpose of showing scale and was intended to be viewed full frame by the camera.Dennis said:
Okay, if that is what works for you.
It is interesting when people bring this doubling up because they usually get it out of context (specially in the XI forum).Dennis said:
When was the length doubled? What did it look like before it was doubled?
The change in size took place (as close as I can tell) in October of 1964. The original concept for the Enterprise (once the final arrangement was approved) looked something like this...
And of course the term doubled makes it sound like the previous version was half the size, when in actuality it was about half the length and about 1/8th the interior volume. The top view illustrates the size difference much better...
The 11 foot model wasn't effected by any of this as it was started on December 8, 1964.
The only model effected by this change was the 33 inch model. Richard Datin was given an early set of plans when he was asked if he could build the models. He started work on the 33 inch model on November 4, 1964 by farming out the turning of some of the parts (like the primary hull) because he didn't have the equipment needed to do that. Jefferies finished the final plans of the Enterprise on November 7, 1964... three days later.
But how do we know that the final plans were at the right scale? The bridge. The bridge on the models was intended to be to scale with the bridge set being built. Additionally, a few weeks later when Roddenberry saw the 33 inch model for the first time he requested windows be added. Jefferies drew the windows directly on the original plans and (for the most part) they faithfully were copied onto both models. The rows as drawn would have had two rows per deck if the model was intended to have been half the size.
Besides elements of the previous plans that survived, it seems that all the hull markings may have been drawn on an earlier set of plans. Some of the size callouts for the secondary hull ended on on the secondary hull of the 33 inch model (but not on the 11 foot model originally) before The Cage. They eventually found their way onto the 11 foot model by the second pilot (as Roddenberry was constantly asking for more detail).
I originally had the banister further back, but I worried about things being dropped on the people below.The Castellan said:Who wants to bet that there's gonna be one crewman spitting over the side?
There... now I'm leaving this thread.
There was, IIRC, an intermediary step from that original concept, something very similar to the final design, but done in about the same scale. I have never been able to find an internet source for it, but I recall a reference to it on a VERY old magazine (which has since disintegrated in a basement flood) as a Jeffries concept that removed the undercut from the saucer in favor of something that resembled (in shape only) the saucer of NX-01. That would have essentially simplified the deck counts: bridge, upper saucer, saucer rim, lower saucer, five decks altogether for the primary hull.It is interesting when people bring this doubling up because they usually get it out of context (specially in the XI forum).
When was the length doubled? What did it look like before it was doubled?
The change in size took place (as close as I can tell) in October of 1964. The original concept for the Enterprise (once the final arrangement was approved) looked something like this...
It was either this design or another one that ended up on the wall of the bridge as a silhouette next to the turbolift. And while I cannot recall WHEN the design was scaled up from this (such scaling involved a few minor adjustments, adding an additional level below the bridge and adding the visible deflector dish) I can recall that it was after Jeffries was told to add windows to the design but before he actually modified his designs to accommodate them.
Has anyone ever isolated the bridge turbolift area schematic?
It would be interesting to extrapolate from that schematic that the images show the "original original" Starship Enterprise, perhaps the Constitution-class prototype #2, constructed years before Pike assumed command...
It would be interesting to extrapolate from that schematic that the images show the "original original" Starship Enterprise, perhaps the Constitution-class prototype #2, constructed years before Pike assumed command...
^ That's it!
Looks quite a bit like Jefferies' early "final" design for the Enterprise, doesn't it?
When it comes to starship sizes, configuration and design evolution (overlapping issues, as I see them), I wonder if this would dovetail into my previously posted "Magna Carta" and "Declaration" notions. Here's what I'm getting at: let's assume, for sake of argument, that from the time the TOS Enterprise was first constructed to the time she was destroyed over the Genesis Planet, shipfitters may have reshaped the Enterprise significantly (as with the TMP refit) on more than one occasion. since the Enterprise has an registry of "1701" and folks seem attached to her sistership Constitution being "1700", maybe these ships were the first two prototypes of the Constitution-class. If we consider that the ship seen in the profile Shaw just posted may been what the 1701 Enterprise may have looked like at the time she was first built (the two turbolift foyer plaques would seem to fall in line with an historical touch, after all) then maybe the prototype Enterprise was "originally" first constructed using a mixture of parts crafted for the then "experimental" Connie, and some from a previous-generation starcruiser class (my "Magna Carta" notion). After the Consitution-class spec was finalized and the Federation approved construction of an all-new fleet of the cruisers, Constitution and Enterprise were refit to conform to the "final" spec, and from then on all the Connies looks like "Cage"/"Where No Man Has Gone Before"-style ships.
Note this would have implications for the overall size of the ships at any given time, but depending on how you approach and interpret these issues it could lead you to a variety of conclusions regarding the "official size of the Enterprise". From my point of view, it would be very interesting indeed to regard this colored schematic as an historic view of the 1701's past-as-a-cutting-edge-prototype, and judging from the looks of it, the overall length of the ship was originally shorter because of stubbier nacelles. (They do look shorter in length from the TOS-era nacelles, don't they? Seem shorter to me, especially next to that long secondary hull, anyway...)
I'm assuming in all of this that it is commonplace for starships to be constructed in space, then torn apart and refit with a large number of the components recycled in the process, and this would also explain how 1017 Constellation and 1371 Republic could still be in service in the TOS era as Connies; these ships may have been "rebuilt" through this same process to both rejuvenate their hulls and "reshape" them to conform to the new spec. (Much as Franz Joseph's Tech Manual listed Excelsior as a Connie, and her name was later transferred to the larger NX-2000 prototype...)
I figured that since there is such an emphasis in these forums to establishing a pattern regarding the works of Jefferies and FJ, I would just throw that out there. Sorry if it muddies the waters further for you. I actually find it quite interesting!
Looks quite a bit like Jefferies' early "final" design for the Enterprise, doesn't it?
When it comes to starship sizes, configuration and design evolution (overlapping issues, as I see them), I wonder if this would dovetail into my previously posted "Magna Carta" and "Declaration" notions. Here's what I'm getting at: let's assume, for sake of argument, that from the time the TOS Enterprise was first constructed to the time she was destroyed over the Genesis Planet, shipfitters may have reshaped the Enterprise significantly (as with the TMP refit) on more than one occasion. since the Enterprise has an registry of "1701" and folks seem attached to her sistership Constitution being "1700", maybe these ships were the first two prototypes of the Constitution-class. If we consider that the ship seen in the profile Shaw just posted may been what the 1701 Enterprise may have looked like at the time she was first built (the two turbolift foyer plaques would seem to fall in line with an historical touch, after all) then maybe the prototype Enterprise was "originally" first constructed using a mixture of parts crafted for the then "experimental" Connie, and some from a previous-generation starcruiser class (my "Magna Carta" notion). After the Consitution-class spec was finalized and the Federation approved construction of an all-new fleet of the cruisers, Constitution and Enterprise were refit to conform to the "final" spec, and from then on all the Connies looks like "Cage"/"Where No Man Has Gone Before"-style ships.
Note this would have implications for the overall size of the ships at any given time, but depending on how you approach and interpret these issues it could lead you to a variety of conclusions regarding the "official size of the Enterprise". From my point of view, it would be very interesting indeed to regard this colored schematic as an historic view of the 1701's past-as-a-cutting-edge-prototype, and judging from the looks of it, the overall length of the ship was originally shorter because of stubbier nacelles. (They do look shorter in length from the TOS-era nacelles, don't they? Seem shorter to me, especially next to that long secondary hull, anyway...)
I'm assuming in all of this that it is commonplace for starships to be constructed in space, then torn apart and refit with a large number of the components recycled in the process, and this would also explain how 1017 Constellation and 1371 Republic could still be in service in the TOS era as Connies; these ships may have been "rebuilt" through this same process to both rejuvenate their hulls and "reshape" them to conform to the new spec. (Much as Franz Joseph's Tech Manual listed Excelsior as a Connie, and her name was later transferred to the larger NX-2000 prototype...)
I figured that since there is such an emphasis in these forums to establishing a pattern regarding the works of Jefferies and FJ, I would just throw that out there. Sorry if it muddies the waters further for you. I actually find it quite interesting!
I think maybe a cross-reference between when the bridge set was completed and when the plans for the miniature were finalized...
That's it exactly. There was a preliminary Jeffries sketch along those lines, part of a series of 3 sketches where he was trying to decide what the final scale should be. The alcove graphic is similar but not completely identical to this.
