Script blunders!

[Warped9]

Since you scaled up your shuttle exterior to fit the filmed shuttle interior why not do the same for the filmed flight deck and scale up the Enterprise for consistency?

I thought about that, but then it’s a whole other set of issues. And as aridas said the cutaway in TMoST suggests Jefferies’ real intention so I took that as my guiding principle.

This project was several years ago and there were quite a few people contributing their insights, suggestions and opinions so I didn’t do it wholly on my own in terms of thought process. I was trying trying to create a “real” shuttlecraft and hangar rather than simply recreating television props and sets.

Another problem with a too large shuttlecraft is the step up access becomes problematical.

 

[blssdwlf]

I thought about that, but then it’s a whole other set of issues. And as aridas said the cutaway in TMoST suggests Jefferies’ real intention so I took that as my guiding principle.

This project was several years ago and there were quite a few people contributing their insights, suggestions and opinions so I didn’t do it wholly on my own in terms of thought process. I was trying trying to create a “real” shuttlecraft and hangar rather than simply recreating television props and sets.

Another problem with a too large shuttlecraft is the step up access becomes problematical.

I agree, a too large shuttlecraft doesn't work too well either (step up and for those exterior shots with the shuttle in it).

It is definitely a challenge to pick what approach to go with when building these in 3D (or 2D) in determining what to adhere to or takes precedence: Screen accurate? Dialogue accurate? Prop/Set accurate? Concept drawing accurate? BTS blueprint accurate? Your own vision? Only certain timeframes apply? Etc...

No easy choices or right answers. But it's always good to know what approach and references were used to be able to have a common reference point to discuss from.

 

[Warped9]

If I’m not mistaken I started my shuttlecraft project (2D schematics) in March 2008.

 

[TIN_MAN]

No easy choices or right answers. But it's always good to know what approach and references were used to be able to have a common reference point to discuss from.

Agreed, My feeling is that it does little good to "scavenger hunt" deck references from the series unless one first decides on an overall scale and how may decks the Enterprise has, especially regarding the primary hull, because it greatly effects how one interprets the available clues.
I also think it's a mistake to limit oneself to just one "primary source" to the exclusion of all others, since mistakes and contradictions abound across the board, regardless of whether one uses just the onscreen "canon" such as dialog or visuals, or "behind the scenes" sources such as the writers guide, scripts, or TMOST etc.

 

[BK613]

Interestingly if you take the nacelles and the rear landing gear off my model you end up with a main hull of about 24ft.

That's actually consistent with how small watercraft like ship's boats are measured. Appendages like bowsprits, handles, rudders and outboard motors are not part of the legal length.

 

[aridas sofia]

Warped made the shuttlecraft body 24’ just as stated in the episode.

In “Day of the Dove” the TMoST Enterprise is shown in comparison with the Klingon battlecruiser with a scale bar. So there is onscreen evidence it is 947’.

Warped’s 24’ shuttlecraft and a 947’ ship match the onscreen evidence, at least as far as I can tell. Better than anything else I have seen, actually.

 

[Warped9]

I was not trying to make a 24ft. shuttlecraft—that wasn’t my goal. My objective was to create a credible integrated shuttlecraft that checked off as many boxes as possible. The fact the main hull came out to about 24ft and some inches was pure coincidence.

I took the fullsize exterior (mostly) as it appeared onscreen as the template. I then scaled it up bit-by-bit. I also took the fullsize interior set and tightened it up in overall length and height. Eventually I came out with a shuttlecraft about 27ft. in length overall.

I did not want to change the proportions too drastically. The only major thing I did to the exterior was straighten up what looked to be a sagging forward hull that obviously didn’t match the shuttlecraft miniature. The interior cabin was shortened with less distance between seats and the ceiling was lowered so that someone 6ft. tall might have to stoop a bit, which is very much like what we often saw the actors doing onscreen. I left the cabin width pretty much intact.

The exterior is proportionately wider than the interior was neatly allowed for mechanicals and such between the inner and outer hulls. The longitudinal contour of the exterior hull also allows for mechanicals between it and inner ceiling and floor—just like what we saw onscreen.

I simply had to address the discrepancy in the angle of the forward bulkhead. The interior bulkhead is angled more steeply than the exterior bulkhead. And there is no way whatsoever to match up the three inner “windows” with the three panels seen on the forward exterior. My solution was to make the three inner “windows” actually display screens, much like those seen on the Enterprise bridge.

When I was making a 3D model from my drawings I discovered a slight error in the overall length of the main hull. The error became apparent when fitting my interior into my exterior—I was a bit too short in length. To correct it I lengthened my model just a few inches to make it work.

 

[blssdwlf]

In “Day of the Dove” the TMoST Enterprise is shown in comparison with the Klingon battlecruiser/ with a scale bar. So there is onscreen evidence it is 947’.

Yep, that's the beauty of using a reference point as we can look and validate. The TMoST Enterprise isn't the TOS Enterprise as onscreen evidence shows that the drawing and the filmed TOS Enterprise have some remarkable differences. The most you can say is that the TMoST Enterprise is ~950'.

Warped made the shuttlecraft 24’ just as stated in the episode.

Warped’s shuttlecraft and Jefferies’ Enterprise match the onscreen evidence, at least as far as I can tell. Better than anything else I have seen, actually.

I'd have to disagree about them "matching onscreen evidence". Jefferies' Enterprise (the TMoST Enterprise) doesn't match at all with the TOS Enterprise as the nacelles are in different positions and the primary hull, B-C teardrop and engineering hull all have a different shape.

Warped9's shuttlecraft exterior is larger (24' versus the mockup's 22-23') and a tighter fit in his version of the flight deck so again I'd have to disagree that his version matches onscreen evidence. His version is however one of the best hybrid modifications of upscaling the exterior mockup and downscaling the interior to fit inside and works for his vision of what the shuttlecraft should look like, IMHO.

Agreed, My feeling is that it does little good to "scavenger hunt" deck references from the series unless one first decides on an overall scale and how may decks the Enterprise has, especially regarding the primary hull, because it greatly effects how one interprets the available clues.
I also think it's a mistake to limit oneself to just one "primary source" to the exclusion of all others, since mistakes and contradictions abound across the board, regardless of whether one uses just the onscreen "canon" such as dialog or visuals, or "behind the scenes" sources such as the writers guide, scripts, or TMOST etc.

It doesn't have to be limited to a single "primary source" as you would probably rank which takes precedence. As long as you're consistent with your application and upfront about what they are it's a whole lot easier to discuss and validate.

 

[aridas sofia]

I think it is clear the TMoST Enterprise is shown compared to the Klingon battlecruiser because it is meant to represent the ship they are on. Much as the ship illustrated by the bridge turbolift, however different it may appear, is meant to represent the ship that bridge is on. So, whatever its appearance, they are saying that is the size comparison between the ship they are on and the Klingon attacker. That scale bar is the only pertinent bit of information shown other than the appearance, so if the appearance varies, the size must be meaningful or there would be no reason to share it in the briefing. I mean, otherwise, they are showing a different ship and why in the world, in a crisis, would they be comparing a different ship to the ship their ship is facing?

As for Warped9's shuttlecraft exterior, it exactly matches the size stated in the script:

“And out there somewhere, a twenty-four-foot shuttlecraft, off course, out of control. Finding a needle in a haystack would be child's play.”

 

[blssdwlf]

I think it is clear the TMoST Enterprise is shown compared to the Klingon battlecruiser because it is meant to represent the ship they are on. Much as the ship illustrated by the bridge turbolift, however different it may appear, is meant to represent the ship that bridge is on. So, whatever its appearance, they are saying that is the size comparison between the ship they are on and the Klingon attacker. That scale bar is the only pertinent bit of information shown other than the appearance, so if the appearance varies, the size must be meaningful or there would be no reason to share it in the briefing. I mean, otherwise, they are showing a different ship and why in the world, in a crisis, would they be comparing a different ship to the ship their ship is facing?

I didn't remember it being in "Day of the Dove" and found the scene where the TMoST schematics are shown in "The Enterprise Incident". The screens were actually used to compare the design of the Romulan ships to the Klingon ships. The Enterprise diagram was not pertinent to the dialogue.

SPOCK: Intelligence reports Romulans now using Klingon design.
...
KIRK: The design of the ship is the same. Mister Spock, you said you had a theory on why your sensors didn't pick up the new ships until they were upon us.​

You can see in the screenshot below that the nacelles are further apart than on the TOS Enterprise but more interestingly the scale provided puts the TMoST ship onscreen as seven feet shorter in length at 940' and not 947'.

As to the practice of displaying an older version of the Enterprise in an emergency or alert situation... remember Star Trek III?

As for Warped9's shuttlecraft exterior, it exactly matches the size stated in the script:

“And out there somewhere, a twenty-four-foot shuttlecraft, off course, out of control. Finding a needle in a haystack would be child's play.”

That unfortunately is only a partial onscreen match. I agree that we can count the body length of 24' to match the dialogue. However the overall length of Warped9's exterior is 27' (he posted that before my post). There would be no way that it would match what was also shown on-screen (think any of the Galileo 7 scenes on the planet or the shuttle while it is on the flight deck.) The shuttle is basically a trick question that you could never create something to match onscreen evidence. The Enterprise however, has enough unknowns that you could. IMHO.

 

[aridas sofia]

“The screens were actually used to compare the design of the Romulan ships to the Klingon ships. The Enterprise diagram was not pertinent to the dialogue.

“You can see in the screenshot below that the nacelles are further apart than on the TOS Enterprise but more interestingly the scale provided puts the TMoST ship onscreen as seven feet shorter in length at 940' and not 947'.”

Are you saying you believe the ship illustrated in comparison with the Romulan battlecruiser is not meant to be the Enterprise? And when I use that scale bar I get much closer to 950’ for the ship in question- the one with “NCC-1701” on the saucer.

 

[blssdwlf]

Are you saying you believe the ship illustrated in comparison with the Romulan battlecruiser is not meant to be the Enterprise?

Nope. I'm saying the ship illustrated (the TMoST Enterprise) in comparison with the Klingon Battlecruiser in "The Enterprise Incident" is not the current TOS Enterprise. The illustrated ship is most likely an earlier version of the Enterprise. It isn't the only time a past version of the Enterprise is shown on a screen while they are on a different version of the Enterprise. Screen example from Star Trek 3:

Also, you'll note that in "The Enterprise Incident" it is a Klingon Battlecruiser displayed and not the Romulan Battlecruiser. The crew is looking up the Klingon Battlecruiser design to compare to the Romulan Battlecruisers surrounding them. That's another reason to see the diagrams they are looking at as historical ships and not current ships.

EDIT: On the HD version of the episode you can kind of make out the Klingon logo on the Romulan Battlecruiser so at the minimum the TMoST Enterprise is the historical ship. I haven't tried to check how accurate the Klingon Battlecruiser diagram is to the filming model so my comment might change back if they are different.

And when I use that scale bar I get much closer to 950’ for the ship in question- the one with “NCC-1701” on the saucer.

I'm curious to see your image of the measurement. I've shown my work in the screenshot above and it is coming up short 940'.

 

[Warped9]

You are never going to satisfy everyone’s idea of what the shuttlecraft’s size is supposed to be. There are camps that insist the onscreen interior as seen is the indisputable baseline. Others will say it’s the fullsize exterior mockup. And both camps ignore that going one way or the other creates irreconcilable discrepancies.

Thats why I refused to stay in either of those camps.

This becomes a game of treknical archeology—determining which bits of evidence are to be given more weight than others.

In the end I was guided more by what I believed to be Matt Jefferies’ intent regardless of what others did with his ideas. He understood there would be production compromises to whatever he did.

But I knew 30-31ft. L.O.A. (to accommodate the onscreen interior as seen) would be too big and 22ft. (the fullsize exterior mockup) was definitely far too small. I quickly learned 24ft. L.O.A. was also too small. I ended up with about 27ft. L.O.A. and about 24ft. and change if you subtract the nacelles and aft landing gear. It’s just an interesting coincidence that supports the onscreen dialogue even though I wasn’t trying to do that.

 

[blssdwlf]

You are never going to satisfy everyone’s idea of what the shuttlecraft’s size is supposed to be. There are camps that insist the onscreen interior as seen is the indisputable baseline. Others will say it’s the fullsize exterior mockup. And both camps ignore that going one way or the other creates irreconcilable discrepancies.

Thats why I refused to stay in either of those camps.

This becomes a game of treknical archeology—determining which bits of evidence are to be given more weight than others.

In the end I was guided more by what I believed to be Matt Jefferies’ intent regardless of what others did with his ideas. He understood there would be production compromises to whatever he did.

But I knew 30-31ft. L.O.A. (to accommodate the onscreen interior as seen) would be too big and 22ft. (the fullsize exterior mockup) was definitely far too small. I quickly learned 24ft. L.O.A. was also too small. I ended up with about 27ft. L.O.A. and about 24ft. and change if you subtract the nacelles and aft landing gear. It’s just an interesting coincidence that supports the onscreen dialogue even though I wasn’t trying to do that.

Yeah, that's why I replied that saying there was no way to claim the shuttle matched onscreen evidence. If you match by dialogue (24') you won't match visually to the 22-23' full-size. If you leave it at 22-23' full-size you won't match the dialogue. Hence that it is a trick question.

But you can definitely say that you adhered to either the dialogue or the visual or your own vision.

 

[aridas sofia]

I don’t want to seem too picayune but this one says “NCC-1700”. If we went strictly by the image we’d be left to think USS Constitution was on security alert.

I get what you are saying and it is a valid point though I would never count a graphic by even so esteemed a source as Franz Joseph, Lee Cole, or Mike Minor the same as a graphic by rhe guy who designed the ship. If the drawing in “The Enterprise Incident” was good enough for him to represent his design, it’s good enough for me. It’s something else entirely if someone else does it.

You’re right about the shuttlecraft, too, though again we have a Matt Jefferies drawing to go by that has a man standing next to it for scale. So we know how big HE thought it was. In that case however, it was only loosely based on his design- that was really Thomas Kellogg and Gene Winfield’s work. And we have an explicit statement in an episode saying that in some way, the thing can be considered 24’ long. I think in this case, it’s a bit like how we have a four inch, eighteen inch, three foot, and eleven foot model that are all shown in one or two episodes (“Doomsday Machine” and “Trouble With Tribbles”) representing the Enterprise - all of which differ widely in their details. Jefferies obviously meant them all to represent the same ship - as he did that drawing. In that case however, the only explicit indication we have of size is that scale bar - however you want to read it. 940’ or 947’, it’s all good. But to take us all the way back to the original question then, we have a 24’ shuttle in a 940’-947’ ship. We have one Jefferies drawing of a hangar so distorted its galleries taper, so we know that has been altered for some reason. And we have the Phase II drawing, which just about fits in the blacked out space of the TMoST cross section. It thus seems to me like Jefferies is telling us what he intended if one believes that scale bar.

 

[Warped9]

The most glaring of production compromises stares us in the face in every single episode: the offset bridge.

The bridge should be facing directly forward, but in that event the turbolift does not line up with what is supposedly the turbolift housing seen on the exterior of the bridge. The turbolift should be directly aft of the command chair, but for dramatic licence it was offset some thirty or so degrees. So now if you line up the turbolift the bridge is offset to the port side.

Over the years people have argued the ship has to be larger than 947ft. to allow the bridge to be oriented directly forward. Others have argued that with highly advanced antigravity and inertial dampener technology the bridge doesn’t really need to face directly forward. And some have even suggested lowering the bridge within the dome just enough to allow for the turbolift to be offset.

Jefferies evidently intended the bridge to face forward given later for Phase II he opted for two turbolift housings on the back of the bridge dome to keep the bridge facing forward. On the TMP refit they added an entire docking port housing to clean up the look, but retained Jefferies’ two turbolift idea.

It would be interesting to see if there were any early drawings of the bridge showing the turbolift directly aft before it was decided to construct the bridge with the turbolift offset. And note that in that initial zoom-in shot in “The Cage” it looks like they’re trying to show the bridge facing directly forward and the turbolift obviously doesn't line up with the housing at the back of the bridge dome.

Yeesh!

Another related error is how often it was apparent the helm/nav console wasn’t properly lined up with the main viewscreen when it’s supposed to be facing directly forward. We turn a blind eye to it, but it’s there.

*Sigh*

 

[blssdwlf]

I don’t want to seem too picayune but this one says “NCC-1700”. If we went strictly by the image we’d be left to think USS Constitution was on security alert.

You're not. Just pointing out that any illustrated version of the Enterprise, even a NCC-1700 (could the Enterprise have started out as NCC-1700? ) can represent the current Enterprise in a display. I just wouldn't use it as a reference for making the current Enterprise in the episode/movie knowing that historically the display illustrations are not current or accurate to the ship from an onscreen accuracy perspective.

I get what you are saying and it is a valid point though I would never count a graphic by even so esteemed a source as Franz Joseph, Lee Cole, or Mike Minor the same as a graphic by rhe guy who designed the ship. If the drawing in “The Enterprise Incident” was good enough for him to represent his design, it’s good enough for me. It’s something else entirely if someone else does it.

You’re right about the shuttlecraft, too, though again we have a Matt Jefferies drawing to go by that has a man standing next to it for scale. So we know how big HE thought it was. In that case however, it was only loosely based on his design- that was really Thomas Kellogg and Gene Winfield’s work. And we have an explicit statement in an episode saying that in some way, the thing can be considered 24’ long.

Right, you're approaching it from a behind-the-scenes/creator-intent angle and I'm looking at it strictly as onscreen evidence. But knowing your approach I can discuss with you and Warped9 using your references.

I pulled out my TMoST copy and for grins remeasured everything using the scale on the page.
p177 - TMoST cross-section Enterprise = 933'
p178 - TMoST Enterprise top view = 960' (the dimension call out does say 947' so that scale bar is suspect)
p180 - Width of flight deck at elevator (outer hull to outer hull) = 73'
p181 - TMoST shuttle on the flight deck = 22'
p182 - TMoST shuttle with ~6'2"person = 21.8' (excluding tailgear)
p184 - TMoST Enterprise with Klingon BC top view. Enterprise = 956'
p185 - TMoST Enterprise with Klingon BC side view. Enterprise = 940'

Since the scale bars were all over the place in the book the only specific value is the 947' dimension from page 178 (I'm not going into the ship specs written in the book as that is another topic on differences between dialogue and book). You could calibrate all of the other illustrations scale bars to get the Enterprise to measure at 947' but the shuttle and flight deck would be tricky as they are independent of the Enterprise illustrations. The flight deck as drawn on p180 is too wide to fit in the space allocated to it by the cross-section on p177 since the engineering hull aft of the pylons start at 71' wide and taper down. You also wouldn't want to use the dialogue to scale the shuttle up to 24' as then the flight deck would be even larger.

But looking at it you could make the Jefferies (TMoST) Enterprise with some judicious removal of illustrations and scale bar corrections. It certainly wouldn't be using all of the behind-the-scenes illustrations though. So more accurately an interpretation of the Jefferies TMoST Enterprise.

In that case however, the only explicit indication we have of size is that scale bar - however you want to read it. 940’ or 947’, it’s all good. But to take us all the way back to the original question then, we have a 24’ shuttle in a 940’-947’ ship. We have one Jefferies drawing of a hangar so distorted its galleries taper, so we know that has been altered for some reason. And we have the Phase II drawing, which just about fits in the blacked out space of the TMoST cross section. It thus seems to me like Jefferies is telling us what he intended if one believes that scale bar.

Yeah approaching it as a behind-the-scenes/creator-intent accuracy you'd have to figure out what source is your reference (apparently Jefferies over FJ, etc) and ignore the onscreen stuff as more often than not it will get in the way (24' dialogue vs 22' drawing).

You may think 7' isn't much but it can mean the difference of something fitting or not fitting in a 3D model if it is modeled with screen accuracy. But if you're making it according to Jefferies' illustration it doesn't matter what was onscreen.

I think in this case, it’s a bit like how we have a four inch, eighteen inch, three foot, and eleven foot model that are all shown in one or two episodes (“Doomsday Machine” and “Trouble With Tribbles”) representing the Enterprise - all of which differ widely in their details. Jefferies obviously meant them all to represent the same ship - as he did that drawing.

In that case you're using behind-the-scenes information instead of onscreen evidence. If strictly going by onscreen evidence the smaller distance ships are not close enough to discern detail that would make them different ships.

The most glaring of production compromises stares us in the face in every single episode: the offset bridge.

The bridge should be facing directly forward, but in that event the turbolift does not line up with what is supposedly the turbolift housing seen on the exterior of the bridge. The turbolift should be directly aft of the command chair, but for dramatic licence it was offset some thirty or so degrees. So now if you line up the turbolift the bridge is offset to the port side.

Over the years people have argued the ship has to be larger than 947ft. to allow the bridge to be oriented directly forward. Others have argued that with highly advanced antigravity and inertial dampener technology the bridge doesn’t really need to face directly forward. And some have even suggested lowering the bridge within the dome just enough to allow for the turbolift to be offset.

Right. In this case you are also applying behind-the-scenes/creator-intent references over onscreen references. And since there are competing sources of behind-the-scenes information it becomes your vision on how you end up making the bridge fit into the Enterprise.

Jefferies evidently intended the bridge to face forward given later for Phase II he opted for two turbolift housings on the back of the bridge dome to keep the bridge facing forward. On the TMP refit they added an entire docking port housing to clean up the look, but retained Jefferies’ two turbolift idea.

And with later movies production kept moving those turbolifts further forward on circle to the point where they could not fit in a 1000' ship unless you lowered the bridge into the deck below or enlarged the Enterprise...

It would be interesting to see if there were any early drawings of the bridge showing the turbolift directly aft before it was decided to construct the bridge with the turbolift offset. And note that in that initial zoom-in shot in “The Cage” it looks like they’re trying to show the bridge facing directly forward and the turbolift obviously doesn't line up with the housing at the back of the bridge dome.

If you watch the whole sequence the bridge interior also floats vertically as well as slides in position. It's almost like it isn't fixed in place. A neat feature of Pike's Enterprise. With Kirk's Enterprise it looks like the ship was modded to have that dome to be able to extend and lower by half its height into the tear-drop structure below. (This is all from an onscreen perspective )

Another related error is how often it was apparent the helm/nav console wasn’t properly lined up with the main viewscreen when it’s supposed to be facing directly forward. We turn a blind eye to it, but it’s there.

Or it could mean that the lower bridge can rotate.

 

[Warped9]

Another problem with the illustrations in TMoST is that they’re reduced reproductions of larger illustrations reprinted on essentially newsprint paper. You’re going to get distortions. If you try copying and enlargen those images they’ll get even more distorted. They become essentially useless except for rough references and comparisons.

Bar scales are also pretty much useless except for rough referencing. It’s why you include specific dimensions on your drawings because a barscale simply can’t give you any reasonable accuracy.


Here is one for you. What is the most accurate version of the Enterprise exterior?
- 33in. miniature
- 4in. miniature.
- 11ft. miniature.
- AMT model
- Bridge schematic by turbolift
- Illustrations seen on briefing room viewscreen in episodes.

All the above appeared onscreen. All are different from each other yet they are all meant to represent the same ship.

You could argue the 11 footer is the most seen and the most accurate, but the 11 footer is also incomplete with an unfinished side. So in a sense it doesn’t truly represent what the actual Enterprise would look like. It also has some rather rough production compromises to it you would never see on the real ship.

The most accurate Enterprise exists solely in our imaginations and that will vary to some degree in each of our individual minds. In terms of a physical representation I could argue the Polar Lights 1/350 scale TOS E model kit can represent the most accurate version because it’s meant to represent the actual ship rather than a studio filming prop.

 

[TIN_MAN]

At the risk of adding fuel to the fire, in regards the intended scale of the Enterprise, there's an early version of the K7 space station drawn by MJ with a scale reference to a thousand ft. so he wanted his ship to be somewhere in the neighborhood of that estimate, but the exact scale was, like so many other things in the series production, left a little vague so as to give a little wiggle room when it came to imagining how all this might fit together, and as was mentioned earlier, we have to constantly remember that nobody thought this stuff would be analyzed so minutely, so broad tolerances were the name of the game.

 

[blssdwlf]

Here is one for you. What is the most accurate version of the Enterprise exterior?
- 33in. miniature
- 4in. miniature.
- 11ft. miniature.
- AMT model
- Bridge schematic by turbolift
- Illustrations seen on briefing room viewscreen in episodes.

All the above appeared onscreen. All are different from each other yet they are all meant to represent the same ship.

From a strictly onscreen or screen-accurate perspective, the 33", 4", 11' and AMT models all are the Enterprise. The question is what details are measurable in the context when these models are used as the Enterprise in space that can be seen on-screen? You'd be surprised at what details on those smaller models that you cannot see when viewed as the Enterprise in space.

Now, regarding the bridge schematic and other diagrams seen in the briefing room meant to represent the Enterprise (but excluding the Enterprise-Klingon BC screen in "The Enterprise Incident" as I've already answered that in a previous post.)

I look at the bridge schematic and other diagrams meant to represent the Enterprise the same way I see the diagram of NY Subways below. The diagram is not made physically accurate so it can convey specific information to the user. The bridge schematic and other diagrams are not and do not need to be physically accurate.

You could argue the 11 footer is the most seen and the most accurate, but the 11 footer is also incomplete with an unfinished side. So in a sense it doesn’t truly represent what the actual Enterprise would look like. It also has some rather rough production compromises to it you would never see on the real ship.

That's approaching from a model/set-accuracy perspective. That is not the same as being screen-accurate since the unfinished side of the 11' has been shown onscreen (through the magic of vfx). If you want to be screen-accurate you would model what you see onscreen. If you want to be model-accurate then you'd model one side of the 11' unfinished and then make separately the other models with the behind-the-scene details available. If I were modeling from a screen-accuracy perspective I would incorporate what can be seen from the 4", 33", AMT and 11' versions when they are onscreen as the Enterprise in space.

The most accurate Enterprise exists solely in our imaginations and that will vary to some degree in each of our individual minds. In terms of a physical representation I could argue the Polar Lights 1/350 scale TOS E model kit can represent the most accurate version because it’s meant to represent the actual ship rather than a studio filming prop.

I agree on that. But it is alot easier to discuss when you're transparent and consistent with the precedents of reference material you used to get the Enterprise that is "real" to you.

At the risk of adding fuel to the fire, in regards the intended scale of the Enterprise, there's an early version of the K7 space station drawn by MJ with a scale reference to a thousand ft. so he wanted his ship to be somewhere in the neighborhood of that estimate, but the exact scale was, like so many other things in the series production, left a little vague so as to give a little wiggle room when it came to imagining how all this might fit together, and as was mentioned earlier, we have to constantly remember that nobody thought this stuff would be analyzed so minutely, so broad tolerances were the name of the game.

And that is using behind-the-scenes illustrations/creator-intent which after looking through the TMoST drawings you kinda have to do as those aren't consistent to begin with.