I'm treating them as frame numbers - something that doesn't have to be evenly spaced. On a 947 foot long ship, the frames would be about 6 cm or 2-3 inches apart.
Are you referring to the elements that form the skeletal structure of the ship? I'm not familiar with the term.
Yes. They are common in ships and planes. With Jefferies background and the somewhat random nature of the numbers as they appear, that seems to be the best option. And it wouldn't be major frame elements, but the smallest framing elements. In aircraft they are called stringers and add strength to the fuselage.
In aircraft hulls, stringers and longerons run horizontal and not vertical. Frames and bulkheads run vertical. Also, as implied by its name, stringers are straight and are not curved. Nice try, but no.
I should have said like stringers. It all depends on the needs of the engineering. For modern aircraft, there is a need for a stiffener that ships did not require. Even thin hulled ships rely on the hull plating alone without any stringers. With age comes dents between the ribs. Submarines have smaller ribs called stiffeners. A space vessel has to keep the pressure in and with the given hull thickness of about a foot, who can say what 23rd century engineers have come up with for the ideal balance between hull strength and thickness. So, by any name, I am considering those numbers to be support rings rather than a distance measurement.
Ships have longitudinal frames (front to back) and transverse frames (side to side (the "ribs")). Naval frame numbers are derived from the transverse frames
Does this affect cabin number meanings like as discussed some time ago on one thread about the TOS Enterprise?
As nearly all cabins are in the saucer and the saucer would have radial framing, these 5 numbers have no bearing on cabin numbers.
As you assign spaces in the primary hull, you may want to allow some space for TMP's travel pods or other small craft to exit the ship. The reason I mention this is that we have discussed the purpose of the landing bay and surrounding areas in great detail; however, some ships do not have apparent shuttle bays, but must be able to support smaller craft of some kind in case of emergency. I assume that your project is treating the ship as modular to an extent, since Jeffries imagined it that way. I do not know if you are assuming that anything like the scouts from the FJSTM exist, but if they did, they would likely have a similar inter saucer layout. One solution could be that some feature on the saucer represents a hatch with travel pod connector rings underneath. A calendar did this, but on the secondary hull. Here are some thoughts I shared on the other thread about the role of the shuttlebay and undercut. ............. I don't see it so much as an undercut, as the "addition" of the shuttle/landing bay at the end of the hull, and then streamlining the hull around it. Related ship designs probably evolve in this regard. The Excelsior has a looooong "undercut," with the upper bay waaay back of the rest of the hull; the newer Ambassador, probably closely related to the Excelsior, has more space filled in in front of the upper bay, and thus a smaller "undercut." Aircraft have a certain shape because it once filled a function, so too the "undercut" must have once had a function, even if newer ships don't actually require one. Again, in-universe, I don't think it really is an "undercut" in the sense that the lower aft of the secondary hull was reduced in the design process. Rather, since shuttles are support craft, the aft of the ship was "added" onto to create the landing bay, the amount of space taken up by this feature depends on the needs of the ship. Since travel pods and smaller craft exist that can be dropped from smaller hatches (even from the primary hull perhaps), the shuttle bay extension at the rear is likely optional or reduced in some designs [maybe in Pike's time?], especially those that do not have a secondary hull.
There was quite a nice set of plans created for the scout/destroyer. It included hanger space on deck 8 for regular shuttles. I see the travel pods as a new idea in the early movie era. They aren't there any more in TNG. So I have no plans to include any travel pod docks anywhere. Just the main shuttle bay. The only place I'd consider is on the aft end of the deck 2/3 dome where there is something about the right size to be a covered airlock or dock.
Maybe a halfway craft between the Travel pod and the inspection pod they used in Enterprise. Just something with a big window for looking at the ship. Might even have them in the two diagonal sections on the underside of the saucer (were there are suppose to be landing gear, but on the refit those are airlocks behind large hull doors that can also handle travel pods)
I don't consider those landing gear. They are either part of the communication system or the transporters. I'm debating. As for the purpose of the undercut and what ships have it, the TMP refit has the deepest. The Excelsior has a completely different design from the Enterprise saucer. It had a narrow and shallow indented ring, but no undercut. The Ambassador (original design and Ent C refit) has not undercut. And the NX-01 has no undercut. I see it as just a piece of design that had a purpose. Possibly to enhance the warp field or just that they had to deepen the edge without adding too much mass (for better deflectors or sensors or something).
It doesn't matter that in real life the lounge wall set piece is a piece of the lower level of the rec deck set. In the movie there is no proof that they are the same size. Therefore the pieces of rec deck wall in the movie are not the more precise size that can be deduced from DeForest Kelly in the lounge scenes, but are the less precise and more vague size range that can be deduced from the sizes of the people in front of them in the rec room scene. And since this more vague size range will still be much larger than the corresponding windows on the outer rim of the model, It is probably necessary to deduce that the rec deck is actually buried deep in the thicker section of the saucer, and the "windows" in the rec deck should actually be viewscreens, all these viewscreens being set to show exteriors at the time of the rec deck scenes. And then the actual function of the "rec deck windows" seen on the outer rim of the model becomes a mystery.
The saucer's undercut might be there due to the size of the support systems or sensor pallets that fit in the rim of the saucer. Later designs might have had more room and no long needed the undercut, while older designed didn't have the systems installed or had a less advanced system that too up space elsewhere on the ship. The other undercut being discussed is the one on the secondary hull below the hanger deck. And that style has remained in Starfleet designs for a while.
"undercut" in this case was referring to the area under the shuttlebay in the secondary hull, not the undercut in the bottom of the saucer.
Certainly you can "interpret" that the Rec Deck set pieces are a little smaller than actually built - but the crewmen present still dictate that the walls & windows are going to be within a few inches of the actually built sizes. Then there's this sideways shot of the lower level, which does match the elements seen in the Officers' Lounge: http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tmp2/tmphd2014.jpg No more mysterious than the rest of the windows seen on the rim of the saucer the connecting dorsal or the entire Engineering Hull though
If we start adjusting a few inches, then there is no issue at all. I've measured those windows inside and out and the difference is minimal. Well within the tolerances of Hollwood and much closer than the oddities in TOS. So I see no issue with the windows lining up in a reasonable way. The exterior pattern is repeated inside including the two round windows to the side on the upper level. Plus the view lines up. It is reasonable to assume that the set was built a bit big in that respect to make it feel bigger on camera. Likely it is just a minor mistake, one of many in that set and not a mistake that is worth stressing about. I'm planning on fixing the set to make it fit as we see it. I'm assuming the middle of the room (where the floor rises up a couple more feet) is missing and that room is much longer than pictured and can accommodate the entire crew for such a presentation. And there really is no other place in the ship to put it. The between the hanger/cargo area, engineering, and the botanical seciton, there is no place to put it in the secondary hull. The core of the saucer is supposed to be filled with cabins and sickbay, not this rec deck. And the Kimble cutaway does call out that the rec deck is where those windows on the outside are, so to my mind the location is set in stone and the discrepancy between the inside and outside windows is minor compared to the lofty ceiling (a matte painting), the lack of rise in the middle of the floor, and the exposed turbo shafts that are more than 2 deck tall. It all fits by rescaling the set and making it longer, adding in the section where the deck is supposed to be higher. The most mysterious windows are on the Excelsior model. There are some ports that have nothing on the other side to accommodate people. My solution is that not everything we see as a window is one. Some are instrument ports instead of view ports. I see the ones on the bottom of the primary hull as prime examples. Their use for actual human viewing is questionable, but they are in an ideal place for instruments (sensors, cameras, other scientific devices, etc.).
If you are determined to keep the Rec Deck in the aft-starboard location then rebuilding the room in the way you suggest is the only option. The layout of the rectangular windows (and the two round ones) on the set maybe the same as the model, have the same proportions and match the 20' height of the saucer rim, but they are more than "a bit big" in comparison. Of course, I completely understand why the set was built that way - if the windows were kept at their original size, you'd never see them, especially if the floor level of the saucer undercut was preserved: And missing out on that amazing backdrop painting would be a shame Agreed. I've long been a proponent of some (or all) of the "windows" we see on starships being sensor ports instead - these vessels seem able to access a phenomenal amount of data from the surrounding areas, far more than those tiny "sensor domes" on each end of the saucer would allow for.
I have some issue with both Slade's drawings and with your placement of the floor. Slade's drawings shows the windows considerably smaller than they are on the model. I have rescaled them (maroon instead of the blue orginals), but I think Slade may have the right spacing and the windows just need to be taller. And the two levels should be equal, with the floor dead center on the outer hull between the windows. It places the lower windows and an excellent eye height for anyone standing and the upper windows at an excellent eye height for anyone sitting - making the upper level more of a lounge area. And this is true for the TOS, TMP refit, and Excelsior for all the edge of saucer windows. I think the windows were enlarged to show the $30k painting. I've spent a lot of time examining the various drawings of the refit and while Slade adds a lot of details, he gets some basic things wrong. The size of these windows is one. That's why I'm sticking to the Kimble drawings and fixing things to match the photos. I think he has the right size and arrangement for the saucer, neck, secondary hull, and pylons. The nacelles need a lot of work and are not positioned correctly. Slade fixed the alignment of the pylon and nacelle, but failed to noticed that the reason it was off is that the nacelle was moved down in relation to the rest of the ship from how Kimble had it. The nacelles were the last piece designed and went through revisions up through final assembly because Taylor wanted to get them just right. The Jackill drawings of the Refit seem to be the most accurate I've found so far.
Well the BW photo is at an angle whereas BigJim is a flat ortho so comparisons are tricky, but even so I can't profess to have studied the model as much as you, so I'm happy to concede you the benefit of the doubt regarding the slightly larger size (even if still not close). However, one thing is clear even from the screenshots - the floor is NOT in the centre. The upper windows are closer to the floor (the bases at knee height), the lower windows are higher up (more like waist height):