TOS Enterprise Internals

[yotsuya]

Well, that is the premise of my entire project with the TOS and TMP refit. For the internal structure my starting premise is that both the TOS Enterprise and the TMP Enterprise follow roughly The TMOST deck layout and Kimball's TMP cutaway poster. With almost no exceptions, Kimball's cutaway is identical to all of Andrew Probert's sketches. Also, the corridor layout for the TMP sets was directly patterned after the TOS sets which were being rebuilt for Phase 2. So other than the movement of certain rooms so other parts of the ship, the internal layout should be identical. In fact, what I found when I laid out both ships according to the cutaway poster, is that the enlargement of the saucer for TMP was exactly one extra ring of cabins. Since we are left with one ring corridor for the set, we don't really get a picture of how the other ring corridors would be laid out. I'm going off of the cutaway where all the doors face inwards except the innermost corridor where Kirk's admirals cabin faces outwards, just like the TOS sickbay sets did.

The changes in the secondary hull make a lot of sense when you place the engine room just after center on the hanger deck. They reposition the engine room forward on a higher deck, the same deck that feeds the warp plasma to the nacells, and install that into an existing part of the secondary hull, and when they tear the old one out it leaves a hole that they just incorporate into the hanger and cargo handling area.

As for the composition of the various pieces of the space frame, I could see where the core frame would be more expensive to manufacture, harder to assemble, and worth stripping off all the plating and rebuilding the ship. To turn back to my frequent example of the USS Constitution / Old Ironsides, her frame was made of live oak which was not supposed to ever be replaced whereas her planks were made of white oak which were made to replace every 10 to 20 years. For the starship, I can see the same thing. A space frame designed to last 50 to 100 years, with Hull plating designed to last at least 20 years. And if they want to change the shape of the ship, they peel off the hull plating and change just the ends of the space frame. In this case mostly adding more. I personally see the neck is being completely replaced as well as the pylons and the engines. And of course the backbone would have had to be rebuilt to accommodate the new engines, but that's a small piece of space frame compared to the entire ship.

 

[David cgc]

Has anyone tried to fit the shape/size of the corridors from TMP into the corridors from TOS, for example?

Actually, there's a photo of the Phase II corridors before they were converted into the TMP corridors, and the Phase II version was pretty similar to the large square TOS version, so it's literally the case that the TMP corridors were built inside of the TOS corridor cross-section. You can see the same thing on-screen as the curved sections were converted back to a square cross-section for TNG, and the straight section was also converted for VGR.

 

[publiusr]

That is such a great find.

 

[Mytran]

Perhaps it is the "keel"-like structure that is either very expensive or very hard to produce or very time-consuming to produce. That would explain such an extensive refit would be undertaken. If the nacelles and apparently the struts are able to be quickly changed, then maybe the nacelles have their own internal structure that can be affixed to the structure of the secondary hull.

I like this - it help justify the absurd lengths Starfleet went to in order to modify and re-shape the Enterprise rather than just building a new one from scratch.

Has anyone tried to fit the shape/size of the corridors from TMP into the corridors from TOS, for example?

In terms of floorplan, both corridor designs are 8 feet wide - it's just that the TMP ones have those octagonal "support" structures which intrude into the walkway. This makes the refit ship appear more cramped, almost as if it were a smaller ship than the original, leading us on to...

Alternatively, there has been a fan theory that the refit removed extras from the original ship and left a different shape underneath, and that the refit is smaller. If I recall, this theory takes Probert's 1000 feet for the refit as accurate, and upscales the TOS version to 1088 feet.

That was one of mine! Although I freely admit I may not have been the first or only one to come up with the notion over the years (only so many theories out there, right?).
I came to the conclusion by reasoning that SF wouldn't want to rebuild more of the saucer than they had to, since it was effectively fulfilling the same task (unlike the radical new secondary hull). So I centred the two saucers, fixed the undercut as an unchanging point and tried few different scales. 1,080' against a 1,000 refit worked pretty well and I imagine a 1,088' one would too.
Both the refit's saucer and most of the secondary hull nestle quite nicely inside the TOS original.

While this is totally not what Probert and the others intended, I am fond of the refit as a stripped down, sleeker and more powerful of the chunky old connie

 

[yotsuya]

I'm more fond of the way the interior structure carries over from the 947' TOS Enterprise to the 1000' refit Enterprise. The frame ends and hull plating are changed out, but the core structure stays the same.

 

[Mytran]

I'm more fond of the way the interior structure carries over from the 947' TOS Enterprise to the 1000' refit Enterprise. The frame ends and hull plating are changed out, but the core structure stays the same.

In some ways that lines up better, and I can certainly imagine the spokes of the secondary hull still lurking under the surface of the refit.
However, that radically rebuilt saucer undercut does make me ask "why would they bother?"

 

[ChallengerHK]

However, that radically rebuilt saucer undercut does make me ask "why would they bother?"

I've asked that question a lot. Since the refit is the only ship we see in TMP, I've wondered if she was a testbed for a new design, to be implemented and put into trials before other ships (not only Connies but destroyers, frigates, etc) are upgraded to the design. That doesn't really answer the question, but it does at least posit a reason for the change.

 

[Mytran]

I've asked that question a lot. Since the refit is the only ship we see in TMP, I've wondered if she was a testbed for a new design, to be implemented and put into trials before other ships (not only Connies but destroyers, frigates, etc) are upgraded to the design. That doesn't really answer the question, but it does at least posit a reason for the change.

The "testbed" solution does explain away many oddities about the redesign, not least why it became a training ship only a few years later.
Maybe it's because I'm a sucker for time travel stories, but a version of this theory which I'm extremely fond of was featured in one of @Christopher 's novels and featured even more behind the scenes shenanigans for the refit!

 

[Unicron]

FASA suggested the TMP refit was more extensive than originally planned, as the original Constitution design couldn't fit some of the new technology. Jackill has some of the other Class One ships being refitted later (the Saladin, Hermes, Federation and Ptolemy) and eventually being replaced with Excelsior family classes.

 

[yotsuya]

I took a lot of inspiration from the Heavy Cruiser design evolution prints. What I found was a nice symmetry of 3's. We have the TOS Enterprise design. The 11 footer and its 3 major versions. We have FJ's version and Mike Minor used that for his early version for Phase II. I also made a hybrid refit of the USS Constitution from FJ's plans with the TMP bridge, deflector, and hanger. Then the Phase II design, the 1701 refit, and the 1701A slight change (a couple of grid lines and a different hanger, closer to the TOS version). So there are 3 hull designs and 3 versions of each.

In my view, the Enterprise came back and was going to be the 2nd ship refit to the Phase II configuration (I have Kongo being the first). But Scotty had other ideas. They went with a newer nacelle design and warp core (probably experimental). So the hull changes were planned, but the engine changes were all on Scotty. The result proved that core/nacelle configuration was better and they switched to that. I see the Miranda Class and Reliant as a new build, not a refit. I think the refits were intended to bridge a gap between the TOS technology, which dates back to 2245 and the Excelsior/Constellation technology which dominated the next half century and was still able to keep up for another half century after that.

I think FJ's designs are all canon. I think fewer ships were built than he had listed (except maybe the transports) and only a few Dreadnaughts were built. They are in line with the Achernar subclass and were outdated by the Enterprise not long after they were completed. I just wish they hadn't pulled the very last registry from the class for the comm chatter in TMP. That makes limiting the number tricky, but not impossible. I think the FASA numbers are more reasonable, but I hate the FASA lists. Some nice name suggestions, but they had their own way of doing things. Maybe I don't like them because they marked the Constitution destroyed. I'm rather partial to that ship.

But getting back to the space frame, I think that can explain the refits and the odd NCC numbers. If they have a ship with a mostly complete frame and decide to cancel it, it would make a lot of sense if the frame is valuable to convert it to another design rather than scrap it. It also makes the refits make sense. If you can strip off the hull plating and remove the ends of the frame and add in extensions, but leave nearly all of the original framework intact, why would you build a new ship from scratch. So the reason the Enterprise then becomes a training ship and is scheduled to be decommissioned early is because of technology. She had a cutting edge main drive system in 2271, but by 2285 the Excelsior was coming online and the Constellation was in development, and who knows what other ships are out there (the Miranda and Oberth classes are more than capable of filling more minor roles). So the Constitution Class no longer is useful and is being pulled from service. I don't think any of them were being scrapped. Look at the Hathaway. I think old ships are "mothballed" and stored. They can be pulled out in emergencies or to replace unexpected losses. I think Ent B was retired and later pulled out and reregistered as Lakota. I think it was a one off ship. I think it was the second Excelsior class and had some experimental features that didn't perform as hoped so the ship had a short career and then was "mothballed" so Ent C could be built.

Anyway, that is how I see it in my personal head canon. How anyone else sees it is up to them.

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

I like this - it help justify the absurd lengths Starfleet went to in order to modify and re-shape the Enterprise rather than just building a new one from scratch.

In terms of floorplan, both corridor designs are 8 feet wide - it's just that the TMP ones have those octagonal "support" structures which intrude into the walkway. This makes the refit ship appear more cramped, almost as if it were a smaller ship than the original, leading us on to...

That was one of mine! Although I freely admit I may not have been the first or only one to come up with the notion over the years (only so many theories out there, right?).
I came to the conclusion by reasoning that SF wouldn't want to rebuild more of the saucer than they had to, since it was effectively fulfilling the same task (unlike the radical new secondary hull). So I centred the two saucers, fixed the undercut as an unchanging point and tried few different scales. 1,080' against a 1,000 refit worked pretty well and I imagine a 1,088' one would too.
Both the refit's saucer and most of the secondary hull nestle quite nicely inside the TOS original.

While this is totally not what Probert and the others intended, I am fond of the refit as a stripped down, sleeker and more powerful of the chunky old connie

I'm more fond of the way the interior structure carries over from the 947' TOS Enterprise to the 1000' refit Enterprise. The frame ends and hull plating are changed out, but the core structure stays the same.

In some ways that lines up better, and I can certainly imagine the spokes of the secondary hull still lurking under the surface of the refit.
However, that radically rebuilt saucer undercut does make me ask "why would they bother?"

Thanks for posting these diagrams! They really help create an image of the idea. I think that most of what is said in support of the NCC-1701-A being smaller (which is best explained by the image) and the refit being bigger (one row of cabins added, adding more cargo space) both make sense to me.

I took a lot of inspiration from the Heavy Cruiser design evolution prints. What I found was a nice symmetry of 3's. We have the TOS Enterprise design. The 11 footer and its 3 major versions. We have FJ's version and Mike Minor used that for his early version for Phase II. I also made a hybrid refit of the USS Constitution from FJ's plans with the TMP bridge, deflector, and hanger. Then the Phase II design, the 1701 refit, and the 1701A slight change (a couple of grid lines and a different hanger, closer to the TOS version). So there are 3 hull designs and 3 versions of each.

In my view, the Enterprise came back and was going to be the 2nd ship refit to the Phase II configuration (I have Kongo being the first). But Scotty had other ideas. They went with a newer nacelle design and warp core (probably experimental). So the hull changes were planned, but the engine changes were all on Scotty. The result proved that core/nacelle configuration was better and they switched to that. I see the Miranda Class and Reliant as a new build, not a refit. I think the refits were intended to bridge a gap between the TOS technology, which dates back to 2245 and the Excelsior/Constellation technology which dominated the next half century and was still able to keep up for another half century after that.

I think FJ's designs are all canon. I think fewer ships were built than he had listed (except maybe the transports) and only a few Dreadnaughts were built. They are in line with the Achernar subclass and were outdated by the Enterprise not long after they were completed. I just wish they hadn't pulled the very last registry from the class for the comm chatter in TMP. That makes limiting the number tricky, but not impossible. I think the FASA numbers are more reasonable, but I hate the FASA lists. Some nice name suggestions, but they had their own way of doing things. Maybe I don't like them because they marked the Constitution destroyed. I'm rather partial to that ship.

But getting back to the space frame, I think that can explain the refits and the odd NCC numbers. If they have a ship with a mostly complete frame and decide to cancel it, it would make a lot of sense if the frame is valuable to convert it to another design rather than scrap it. It also makes the refits make sense. If you can strip off the hull plating and remove the ends of the frame and add in extensions, but leave nearly all of the original framework intact, why would you build a new ship from scratch. So the reason the Enterprise then becomes a training ship and is scheduled to be decommissioned early is because of technology. She had a cutting edge main drive system in 2271, but by 2285 the Excelsior was coming online and the Constellation was in development, and who knows what other ships are out there (the Miranda and Oberth classes are more than capable of filling more minor roles). So the Constitution Class no longer is useful and is being pulled from service. I don't think any of them were being scrapped. Look at the Hathaway. I think old ships are "mothballed" and stored. They can be pulled out in emergencies or to replace unexpected losses. I think Ent B was retired and later pulled out and reregistered as Lakota. I think it was a one off ship. I think it was the second Excelsior class and had some experimental features that didn't perform as hoped so the ship had a short career and then was "mothballed" so Ent C could be built.

Anyway, that is how I see it in my personal head canon. How anyone else sees it is up to them.

These inferences make me wonder if, potentially, the movie-style designs actually came in two sizes. That is, Constitution-class ships that existed as TOS-style ships were refit to the larger size because it was necessary to have the room to make the changes/additions, but new-build ships built to "refit"-spec were the smaller version.

I'm going to suppose the Miranda and Constellation are nonetheless derived from the larger, 1000-foot version, since the Reliant would otherwise be quite small, and the Constellation's role in the fleet seems to be that of supporting a larger crew/labs and possibly more speed in roughly the same footprint.

 

[yotsuya]

The big issue with the 1701A being smaller than the refit 1701 is that the docking ports, egress hatches, and hanger are all the same size. Some of the things are hard enough to cram into the 1000' long ship and they wouldn't fit inside a smaller ship. And we see the hanger of the 1701A and it is, for a change, true to scale of the ship. Trying to cram that in a smaller ship is not possible. The 1701 refit cannot be smaller than 1000' because of the scale markers we see in TMP, including the bridge and hanger matte paintings. And the 1701A cannot be smaller for similar reasons. They have to be the same size ship, but 1000'. Unless you like over scaling it. If you go that route you part from my beliefs and can pretty much do what you like.

 

[Mytran]

The big issue with the 1701A being smaller than the refit 1701 is that the docking ports, egress hatches, and hanger are all the same size. Some of the things are hard enough to cram into the 1000' long ship and they wouldn't fit inside a smaller ship. And we see the hanger of the 1701A and it is, for a change, true to scale of the ship. Trying to cram that in a smaller ship is not possible. The 1701 refit cannot be smaller than 1000' because of the scale markers we see in TMP, including the bridge and hanger matte paintings. And the 1701A cannot be smaller for similar reasons. They have to be the same size ship, but 1000'. Unless you like over scaling it. If you go that route you part from my beliefs and can pretty much do what you like.

In the examples I posted upthread, I've kept the refit at 1,000' long. It's just the TOS Enterprise which (having a lot less scale markers) I have changed the size of

 

[yotsuya]

In the examples I posted upthread, I've kept the refit at 1,000' long. It's just the TOS Enterprise which (having a lot less scale markers) I have changed the size of

I'm saying that the 1701 refit and 1701A are both 1000' long. The parts we see on screen scale to that. One can't be shorter than the other. Even scaling one up and not the other doesn't work because of those matching exterior features which indicate scale. And it shares the docking port with 1701D. Not surprising since Andrew Probert worked on both and both ships are very precisely scaled.

 

[Mytran]

I'm saying that the 1701 refit and 1701A are both 1000' long.

While there's an argument to be made that the refit ought to be at least 1,164 feet long (in order to accommodate the size of the cargo deck seen on screen) I agree that they should be the same size due to the docking port details - I can't see a good reason for Starfleet to use 7' docking ports on some ships and 8' ones on others, that would be pure chaos!

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

And we see the hanger of the 1701A and it is, for a change, true to scale of the ship.

Wow. Now that is surprising. I would have thought that version was smaller than it should be. I thought Zimmerman said it was like 3/4 scale. Now I am beginning to really see where you are coming from on the idea that almost all set are too large to fit be exactly what was built in the studio building into the "real" version of the ship.

Regarding the docking ports, I'm content to imagine that those of NCC-1701-A would be proportionally bigger in real life to make up the difference, but I get that that is totally not what you are researching, and I really appreciate the fact that you are trying to go with as much fact as you can for this project and not "imagine" more than necessary.

 

[yotsuya]

Wow. Now that is surprising. I would have thought that version was smaller than it should be. I thought Zimmerman said it was like 3/4 scale. Now I am beginning to really see where you are coming from on the idea that almost all set are too large to fit be exactly what was built in the studio building into the "real" version of the ship.

Regarding the docking ports, I'm content to imagine that those of NCC-1701-A would be proportionally bigger in real life to make up the difference, but I get that that is totally not what you are researching, and I really appreciate the fact that you are trying to go with as much fact as you can for this project and not "imagine" more than necessary.

I'm only trying to reverse the Hollywoodification of the sets (bigger to fit the camera or smaller to save money).

I think in TFF that the hanger doors were squished in width, but I think in height they were accurate and that the back wall with the control booth and doors was the right size. It matches what I have for the TOS Enterprise in scale and design. I should use Gary Kerr's public version of that hanger to double check.

 

[publiusr]

That's an idea for a combo ship right there.

But the refit actually was larger, correct?
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/blssdwlfs-tos-enterprise-wip.119751/page-10#post-4260030

 

[Mytran]

That's an idea for a combo ship right there.

But the refit actually was larger, correct?
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/blssdwlfs-tos-enterprise-wip.119751/page-10#post-4260030

If you want the cargo deck to match what was shown on screen then the refit needs to be at least 1,164 feet long (as per Blssdwlf's excellent research). Such a size would also help fit in the long engine room corridor but it's not absolutely essential for that.
The downside of a 1,164' refit is that the airlock docking ports would be 8' in diameter instead of 7' and we see a lot more of the docking ports (both inside and out, in numerous movies) than we do the cargo deck.

 

[publiusr]

As far as different sized docking ports are concerned…it may not have to be that tight a fit…the doors will slide into the host ship just fine. On standard ports, the annular ring rotated in…in larger ports…iris out-that’s about two feet of leeway right there. I could even see a docking port wide enough to match the outer contour of the craft itself…rather like the more angular ports suggested at first perhaps?

I am thinking that the annular system probably has more moving parts than anything we have seen on screen…perhaps expanding enough for even damaged docking ports.