TMP Enterprise rec deck, engine room and torpedo bay

[Robert Comsol]

This is just a heads up because in two other threads various TMP Enterprise issues are being discussed (but the thread titles don't suggest that):

In Praetor's tech thread dealing with the Excelsior the TMP deck heights and especially the Recreation Deck had been discussed: http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=223039&page=29 (starts at post # 429)

In blssdwlf's TOS Enterprise fan art thread there's another look at engineerung hull deck heights, a footage compliant location of the intermix shaft, the numbering of the docking ports and the torpedo bay "riddles":
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=119751&page=54 ("starts" at post # 803, other TMP Enterprise related posts in this thread can be located through an index).

Enjoy!

Bob

 

[F. King Daniel]

So why didn't they just do the math, work out how big the classic movie Enterprise neededed to be in order to fit the actual sets and use that number? Was 305m just plucked from someone's ass and endlessly used in technical manuals for 30+ years?

 

[drt]

More that the set designers ignored Probert's objections - I believe the comment said something like the audience won't be bringing slide rules, little did they know...

With regard to the TMP Enterprise, I don't think it was ever intended to have a torpedo room where the crew would be loading big black cannonballs manually.

 

[F. King Daniel]

So, once they had access to those set plans, why weren't the numbers revised? They've had 35 years to fix it, yet the manuals continue to spout wrong numbers

Yes, Trek is all make-believe and many fictional buildings and whatever are bigger on the inside than on the outside, but to stick with size numbers that are impossible to reconcile with what we see, in a technical manual-type publication (which exist specifically for the kind of fans who would notice this kind of thing) makes no sense at all.

 

[T'Girl]

So why didn't they just do the math, work out how big the classic movie Enterprise neededed to be in order to fit the actual sets and use that number?

Maybe it's like everyday TV drmas and sitcoms, the "rooms" aboard the Enterprise aren't actually that big.

If you've ever watched Big Bang Theory, Lenard's and Sheldon's apartment would probablybe half to a third the size of the shooting stage. Which would make it hard to get lights, cameras and such into position.

If everything is tighter and snug, everything then fits. Low ceilings too.

 

[Maurice]

Hal Michelson was right. Detail obsessed fans aside, most audiences do NOT notice if the sets fit in the exterior, especially for an object that's the size of an aircraft carrier. That's not to say they shouldn't have done it right, but 99.99% of audiences don't notice or care.

 

[R. Star]

Maybe that's why Abrams bloated up all his ships so none of the fans could nitpick him over things like set sizes.

 

[Melakon]

I think they only bloated up the NuShips so they could fit a brewery in there.

 

[anh165]

So, once they had access to those set plans, why weren't the numbers revised? They've had 35 years to fix it, yet the manuals continue to spout wrong numbers

It was well into the TNG/DS9/VOY era and there was no point re-billing the old ships of Kirk's era larger as it would make the likes of the Enterprise D less impressive.

If you look at what happened to the Ent-A and Excelsior in TUC, the powers that be ensured even on screen to the casual viewer they were even more primative and cramped tin cans in space.

 

[Mytran]

The arrival of TNG was really the problem, since the tech on screen wasn't that much more advanced than ST4's - certainly not 78 years more advanced! Okudagrams were already widely present on the ST4 sets, and the Enterprise-A even featured Okudagram style control panels - stylistically, ST5 and TNG could have existed in the same timeframe with nothing out of place. The changes in ST6 were sorely needed to properly differentiate between the two eras

 

[Peach Wookiee]

Except... they didn't change the warp core.

 

[anh165]

The arrival of TNG was really the problem, since the tech on screen wasn't that much more advanced than ST4's - certainly not 78 years more advanced! Okudagrams were already widely present on the ST4 sets, and the Enterprise-A even featured Okudagram style control panels - stylistically, ST5 and TNG could have existed in the same timeframe with nothing out of place. The changes in ST6 were sorely needed to properly differentiate between the two eras

Absolutely, the bridge and the sets on the Ent-A in ST5 were very plush and not far off those on the Ent-D.

I just did not like how the designs of the Ent-A and Excelsior interiors in ST6 regressed even compared to the sets on ST2 & 3

I seen Klingon interiors look more inviting that those.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Maybe that's why Abrams bloated up all his ships so none of the fans could nitpick him over things like set sizes.

Ignoring the gangways over the sheer drop down into the bowels of the ship, because that's a good idea

 

[trevanian]

Maybe that's why Abrams bloated up all his ships so none of the fans could nitpick him over things like set sizes.

Ignoring the gangways over the sheer drop down into the bowels of the ship, because that's a good idea

Not that I'd ever DEFEND Abrams, but NEMESIS has got something like that as well, which makes the TFF elevator shaft seem like a modest gaffe by comparison. Viceroy 'falls' from the bottom deck of the ship for hundreds of feet to his presumed death, y'know. Or he has climbed hundreds of feet straight up and then done the same thing.

 

[The Old Mixer]

I just had a goofy idea to rationalize that. Is it possible that it was a reverse-gravity area of the ship, and the shaft actually went "up"?

 

[F. King Daniel]

So, once they had access to those set plans, why weren't the numbers revised? They've had 35 years to fix it, yet the manuals continue to spout wrong numbers

It was well into the TNG/DS9/VOY era and there was no point re-billing the old ships of Kirk's era larger as it would make the likes of the Enterprise D less impressive.

If you look at what happened to the Ent-A and Excelsior in TUC, the powers that be ensured even on screen to the casual viewer they were even more primative and cramped tin cans in space.

Actually the TMP blueprints were out in '79. But why continue to publish these inaccurate numbers decades later? I don't see how upping the classic movie ship to 450m (or whatever) would affect the majesty of the 650m Enterprise-D.

If they cant make up numbers that fit, the technical manuals really are nothing but pretty diagrams for suckers (said as someone who never gave a thought to questioning those numbers until the ridiculous fanrage over the new movies started)

Maybe that's why Abrams bloated up all his ships so none of the fans could nitpick him over things like set sizes.

Ignoring the gangways over the sheer drop down into the bowels of the ship, because that's a good idea

Easily the most visually interesting corridor set in Trek history (and a great fit behind the bridge and down the core of the saucer at 725m)

 

[Mytran]

I have to agree with this - an interesting and original use of the space under the twin domes. But WHY OH WHY did he then decide to make the corridor under the circular dome OVAL shaped?

 

[Avro Arrow]

Maybe that's why Abrams bloated up all his ships so none of the fans could nitpick him over things like set sizes.

Ignoring the gangways over the sheer drop down into the bowels of the ship, because that's a good idea

Not that I'd ever DEFEND Abrams, but NEMESIS has got something like that as well, which makes the TFF elevator shaft seem like a modest gaffe by comparison. Viceroy 'falls' from the bottom deck of the ship for hundreds of feet to his presumed death, y'know. Or he has climbed hundreds of feet straight up and then done the same thing.

Yeah, but it was stupid in Nemesis too. A dumb idea doesn't become less dumb just because others are doing it...

 

[Maurice]

I have to agree with this - an interesting and original use of the space under the twin domes. But WHY OH WHY did he then decide to make the corridor under the circular dome OVAL shaped?

Cause it's the same shape as the bridge.

 

[Mytran]

But it's not under the Bridge, it's behind the Bridge, under the circular dome. Architecturally and logically, it does not fit.