TOS Enterprise Internals

[Mytran]

I believe Jefferies drawings were accurate to the miniature. Forced perspective makes a lot of sense when dealing with a camera and a miniature like that. It corrects for flaws that can crop in when shooting something like that. Jefferies cross section is quite clear as to the limits of hanger and when you adjust it to that it looks pretty good. But I think it is also clear that engineering is on the same deck as the hanger. That agree with Day of the Dove, though that episode has it all the way in the front rather than in the middle. Most of the newer cross sections I've found put it there.

Although the overall shape of the Flight Deck minature was slightly conical (presumably to match the gradient of the aft secondary hull) these photos show that the galleries themselves are parallel with the floor, thus eliminating the possibility of any forced perspective.

There also a quote from Datin in the Star Trek Communicator magazine, regarding the dimensions:
"According to my figures, (the model) was 10'-2" long, 6'-4" wide by 3'-2" high at the inboard end and 5'-0" wide and 2'-5" high at the outboard end, where the clamshell doors were located."

Datin also mentions the scale of the model was one inch to the foot, ie 1:12

 

[yotsuya]

From what can be seen of the miniature for the TOS Enterprise flight deck it doesn't have any forced perspective in it.

Well, it isn't something you can really see in photos if they did it right.

Although the overall shape of the Flight Deck minature was slightly conical (presumably to match the gradient of the aft secondary hull) these photos show that the galleries themselves are parallel with the floor, thus eliminating the possibility of any forced perspective.

There also a quote from Datin in the Star Trek Communicator magazine, regarding the dimensions:
"According to my figures, (the model) was 10'-2" long, 6'-4" wide by 3'-2" high at the inboard end and 5'-0" wide and 2'-5" high at the outboard end, where the clamshell doors were located."

Datin also mentions the scale of the model was one inch to the foot, ie 1:12

According to the dimensions you just posted, it is an exact match for the forced perspective drawing. I do not see why the drawings would be forced perspective (which they very obviously are) and the model not be. And the only way you would be able to tell positively if the model was or was not constructed in forced perspective is by taking measurements on it directly. A well done forced perspective model will look perfect in photographs. By the nature of how this model was built it is impossible to post pictures of it to prove it isn't. All we have to indicate whether it is or not are the drawings.

These original drawings clearly show how the hanger set was intended to be forced perspective; https://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/uss-enterprise-space-cruiser.php

 

[Mytran]

A well done forced perspective model will look perfect in photographs. By the nature of how this model was built it is impossible to post pictures of it to prove it isn't. All we have to indicate whether it is or not are the drawings.

Well, sorta. A well done forced perspective model will look perfect from ONE ANGLE ONLY.
Want an example? Look no further than the Engine Room's large tube structure behind the grill. In Enemy Within it conveyed the idea of a huge tunnel extended 100 feet back into the guts of engineering. In Space Seed, the shot from the ceiling revealed the shortening tubes for what they were.

As for the Flight Deck, the intended angle of filming was from the back, looking towards the clamshell doors. Any other angle would instantly reveal the FP trickery, if it was there.

 

[yotsuya]

But regardless of the miniature for the hanger, the hanger in Jefferies drawings does not fit in the area he left in the cross section unless it is adjusted. When I adjust it to fit the area and then check the size based on the figure in the observation deck, the scale of the figure to the hanger gives 79 and the scale of the hanger in the cross section is 75 (that is from the back wall to the outside overhang at the top - not the deck which is too long on the hanger model and drawings compared to the full ship drawings and models).

So this drawing shows the original drawing in red and the drawing adjusted to fit in black (with the detailed shuttle added to confirm scale). I added some blue guide lines to be sure everything is square. But even adjusted the drawing still doesn't quite line up. While the bottom of the observation/control tower deck is closer, the top of those structures is not. And the clamshell doors are completely wrong so I ended up deleting them.

 

[Mytran]

But regardless of the miniature for the hanger, the hanger in Jefferies drawings does not fit in the area he left in the cross section unless it is adjusted. When I adjust it to fit the area and then check the size based on the figure in the observation deck, the scale of the figure to the hanger gives 79 and the scale of the hanger in the cross section is 75 (that is from the back wall to the outside overhang at the top - not the deck which is too long on the hanger model and drawings compared to the full ship drawings and models).

So this drawing shows the original drawing in red and the drawing adjusted to fit in black (with the detailed shuttle added to confirm scale). I added some blue guide lines to be sure everything is square. But even adjusted the drawing still doesn't quite line up. While the bottom of the observation/control tower deck is closer, the top of those structures is not. And the clamshell doors are completely wrong so I ended up deleting them.

Yep, this inconsistency has been a problem since the images were first released:

 

[yotsuya]

Well, sorta. A well done forced perspective model will look perfect from ONE ANGLE ONLY.
Want an example? Look no further than the Engine Room's large tube structure behind the grill. In Enemy Within it conveyed the idea of a huge tunnel extended 100 feet back into the guts of engineering. In Space Seed, the shot from the ceiling revealed the shortening tubes for what they were.

As for the Flight Deck, the intended angle of filming was from the back, looking towards the clamshell doors. Any other angle would instantly reveal the FP trickery, if it was there.

Well, the only other angle is from the doors and the forced perspective, because it isn't all that much, won't really show up from that angle either. You need a good side view. But the dimensions you posted EXACTLY match the shape of the drawing which IS forced perspective. Why would Datin not build it according to plan?

The engineering set forced perspective is extreme. But you also have to be at the right angle to see the distortion. I don't think any of the pictures of the hanger miniature are at the right angle to show any distortion from forced perspective.

But the design of the set really has no bearing on this project. How it was drawn is clear and how it needs to be adjusted to fit in the ship is clear. It needs to fit the allotted space and needs to be altered considerably to do so. I will be evening out the observation/control booth deck and ceiling. Whether Mr. Datin followed Jefferies plans or not is irrelevant. My concern is what Jefferies intended, not how a miniature set or any full sized set was constructed. Some projects are trying to fit the sets as built inside the ship. I'm taking the ship and trying to fit the sets inside the ship as it was built. Hollywood has a lot of space (especially upwards) when building a set and a good starship design should conserve as much space as possible. I feel the TMP and TNG designs follow this pretty well and Probert and Sternbach did a great job. But TOS was in a different time and they were more concerned about the camera getting the shots than if the set was practical for a starship. I want to restore that practicality to the internal design.

Also, I have no intention (at least not at this time) of making full deck plans, only the deck layout and the major engineering systems.

 

[Mytran]

Well, the only other angle is from the doors and the forced perspective, because it isn't all that much, won't really show up from that angle either. You need a good side view. But the dimensions you posted EXACTLY match the shape of the drawing which IS forced perspective. Why would Datin not build it according to plan?

The engineering set forced perspective is extreme. But you also have to be at the right angle to see the distortion. I don't think any of the pictures of the hanger miniature are at the right angle to show any distortion from forced perspective.

But the design of the set really has no bearing on this project. How it was drawn is clear and how it needs to be adjusted to fit in the ship is clear. It needs to fit the allotted space and needs to be altered considerably to do so. I will be evening out the observation/control booth deck and ceiling. Whether Mr. Datin followed Jefferies plans or not is irrelevant. My concern is what Jefferies intended, not how a miniature set or any full sized set was constructed. Some projects are trying to fit the sets as built inside the ship. I'm taking the ship and trying to fit the sets inside the ship was it was built. Hollywood has a lot of space (especially upwards) when building a set and a good starship design should conserve as much space as possible. I feel the TMP and TNG designs follow this pretty well and Probert and Sternbach did a great job. But TOS was in a different time and they were more concerned about the camera getting the shots than if the set was practical for a starship. I want to restore that practicality to the internal design.

Also, I have no intention (at least not at this time) of making full deck plans, only the deck layout and the major engineering systems.

Quite so! You are building the idealised version of the Enterprise after all, so Jefferies' sketches (which may have belonged to a much bigger Enterprise, if the original series Bible of a 20 deck saucer is to be believed) and the actual miniatures built (within the limitations of 1960s technology) should only be signposts on the way, not the final result itself

 

[yotsuya]

Yep, this inconsistency has been a problem since the images were first released:

To start with the doors are all wrong. The drawing is for a forced perspective miniature and none of the lines are parallel to the deck. Jefferies was drawing a 947 foot Enterprise and he was trying to fit the 10 foot sets inside. The deck layout makes this clear with many of the decks having 10 foot ceilings. More for the engineering area. If you undo the forced perspective by squishing the hanger detailed drawing to fit the space, the scales line up perfectly. The size of the hanger is 75 feet from back wall to aft arch (not including the incorrect clamshell doors). That lines up perfectly with the 947 length.

My goal is to use the 947 length and the 11 foot model details to place the decks and use this cross section to place the components inside. I am not willing to debate that aspect of this project. It is set in stone.

 

[yotsuya]

Quite so! You are building the idealised version of the Enterprise after all, so Jefferies' sketches (which may have belonged to a much bigger Enterprise, if the original series Bible of a 20 deck saucer is to be believed) and the actual miniatures built (within the limitations of 1960s technology) should only be signposts on the way, not the final result itself

Jefferies pick the 947 length and his cross section fits that precisely. It does not fit where the ports were placed in the hull so I am adjusting the deck placement to match. And if we want to talk scale, how about the much smaller scale both miniatures were likely built to back when the ship was only supposed to hold around 200 crew. My sources are the 1968 Making of Star Trek and the 1979 Kimble cutaway poster, both which agree that the saucer has 11 decks. I fail to see why you are trying to change my mind about the parameters of my project. It is my project and my intention is to make a TOS Enterprise that agrees with the TMP Enterprise and could be the result of an upgrade. To do that it must be 947 feet long and have 8 foot ceilings on the decks in the saucer. It is rather pointless to argue about that goal. I'd rather discuss more interesting things like where certain features should be located. If the ship should have 2 engine rooms or just one.

 

[Mytran]

I am not trying to change your mind on the project - you have picked your parameters and that is your prerogative.

The story of the size of the Enterprise is a long one (see Shaw's threads on the subject) and the eventual length of 947' was far from cut and dry from the offset. It was an evolving process, but by the time we ended up with the classic shape of the Enterprise miniature we know and love, it was always supposed to represent a vessel around a thousand feet long. 500' and 200' ships were in the distant past by that stage in development.

Don't get distracted by the actual size of the sets, or the scale attached to early sketches. Focus on the project.

 

[yotsuya]

I'm just saying that what appeared in print in 1968 in The Making of Star Trek (and the Trek bluprint site has an excellent copy of the drawings) has Jefferies very consistent from the ship to the hanger to the shuttle drawing that the ship is 947 feet. Jefferies didn't attempt to reconcile the ports with decks and then Franz Joseph got involved and went by the text in the The Making of Star Trek where it very specifically says 11 decks in the saucer and Andrew Probert went off that for TMP (he might not have been the one to first reference the FJ plans but definitely was following that line of thinking from the results). So I have never seen any evidence of a larger ship. There isn't much difference between 947 and 1000 feet and the cross section Jefferies drew both for TOS and Phase II is consistent with the established size. And I am very familiar with David Shaw's work and from what I've seen, he has maintained the 947 length and Jefferies deck heights. I'm just cutting down the deck height to match TMP and align the decks to the ports and in the process subtracting the excessive height of the sets that really was more to accomodate Hollywood than because they were intended to be that way.

 

[Mytran]

I certainly don't want to derail this thread further (honest!) but since you asked:

The possibility of the 1,080' long Enterprise seems to have arisen from the belief that the plans sent to the model makers were drawn with a specific scale in mind (instead of just drawn to fit the size of the paper). For example, the length of the miniature (on paper) was 135" or a scale of 1:84 for a 947' Enterprise.
Now, modellers do not work with scales like 1:84, they use scales like 1:12 or 1:24, 1:48 or 1:96
And 1:96 on a 135" miniature yields an Enterprise of 1,080 feet long. Genius, right?
Well, not exactly. This thinking was born out of a misunderstanding - in reality, the size of the miniature was just 4 times the size of the plans, which themselves were simply that big because of the size of the piece of paper.

Larger Enterprises than even 1,080' seemed to stem from a desire to fit the actual sized sets into the spaceship (already discussed upthread). Fitting eleven 10' deck divisions into the saucer will enlarge the Enterprise to around 1,200 long. Allow 10' ceilings with some deck thickness and you've got Doug Drexler's 1,420' long design.

Were any of these sizes what the original creatives had in mind? Probably not. But we got on screen what we got on screen and the importance of authorial intent compared to the final product is going to vary from fan to fan.

Having said all that, back to the actual topic of the thread!

 

[yotsuya]

According to Gary Kerr, it isn't 1:84, it is 1:84.726. It would have been interesting to ask Matt Jefferies where that scale came from, but it seems to be what he was using when he was doing his drawings. I think it is more likely that he had a scale in mind and the model got built at a somewhat random scale. But what Shaw found was that the 33 inch model was built to even measurements (the dimensions are in even 1/4, 1/8, 1/16 of an inch). It may just be a case of Jefferies just scaling it so the dimensions were nice. An interesting mystery.

 

[Mytran]

According to Gary Kerr, it isn't 1:84, it is 1:84.726.

True, I was rounding off for simplicity.
However, that even more bizarre ratio just reinforces the fact that the model was not built with a specific scale in mind - it was just built
The scale was determined later

 

[yotsuya]

I decided to change plans of the ship to ones that are sourced from Gary Kerr. I also changed scale to 1 pixel = 3 inches or 4 pixels per foot. Now each deck is accurately measured. The decks that people live on have 8 foot ceilings. Some of the working decks in the saucer have 7 foot ceilings (or 7.5 with a thinner deck). In the secondary hull, the ceilings are 8, 9 and 10 as you go deeper. I have not opened up the Engineering room yet. Just placing the decks at this point. That double row of windows in the neck doesn't leave room for two decks, so it gets one deck. I'll have to think about what to do inside it. According to Jefferies drawings, the turbolift should come through the neck, possibly two ways. I have fit the hanger in and done some further manipulation to make it line up better. I also stuck on the Pilot bridge. I need to check TMOST tonight to see what it says about what is on each deck. The text description is very tied to the work that Franz Joseph and the TMP internal designers did.

The series bridge will be sunk, taking a chunk out of deck 2. I think that is where Pike's cabin is supposed to be (before the ship grew). Probably science labs now.

 

[yotsuya]

Since my layout is dependent on the TMP decks, I turned to the TMP Enterprise to see what I could work out. Now for that one, the secondary hull decks are already laid out (aligned to the ports) so not much work there. The saucer was an open book. Fortunately I found some good drawings of the lounge on deck 3. There is a gray area between decks 2 and 3. Not sure how the layout will (and for the 1701-A deck 2 pretty well vanishes), but it aligns with the TOS Enterprise. So decks 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are all 8 foot ceilings. Decks 9, 10, and 11 are 7 foot and deck 3 is really a split level with deck 2. The decks in the neck make no sense. Some levels would have usable areas and some are likely just engineering and machinery. Both have turbo shafts that go down through all levels. I sketched in the main engineering areas for the TMP Enterprise and added the deuterium tank and a feed to the core. I located it on the side of the core we never really see.

First the TMP layout:

And then the TOS layout:

By doing it this way, for the refit the hull plating would be removed, the frames extended and modified to the new hull shape, and the new hull plating put on giving the ship its new shape. For the saucer they would not have to reconfigure the decks and it would be a quick process. For the secondary hull and neck the change in warp core would necessitate a major gutting of the space frame. A lot of the area where the old Engineering was would now be open space in the cargo area. The decks would have to be reconfigured and the secondary hull virtually rebuilt with only a fraction being kept over. The botanical section could actually remain in the same place but now have windows. I've included the TOS shuttle as it was scaled by Jefferies in both.

 

[yotsuya]

I have my 1976 copy of The Making of Star Trek and I thought I would post the deck descriptions (mainly so I don't have to drag this book around).

Deck 1 - Bridge
Deck 2 & 3 - primarily research labs
Decks 4, 5, & 6 - primarily crew quarters. no duty stations on these decks. Senior officers on Deck 5. Senior officers have single quarters with two rooms (and the bathroom). Junior officers share accommodations (2 per suite).
Deck 7 - center area is sickbay outer area are water tanks and bulk storage. Center of the deck is the top of the main computer.
Deck 8 - center of the deck is the bottom of the main computer, recreation area, main food preparation, ship's laundry, exotic entertainment center.
Decks 9 and 10 - primarily devoted to freight and cargo
Deck 11 - phaser controls

Secondary hull is not broken down by deck. 16 are indicated, though there really isn't enough room for that many. It contains fuel, supplies, main repair centers, water and waste reconversion, interpanet freight, minimal crew quarters, and the hanger.

 

[Mytran]

And then the TOS layout:

That's really not a lot of floorspace for Deck 11, especially when you consider the shape of the "ring" around the lower dome. It has several circular indents:

This really limits the useable space to the diameter of the glowing dome itself, if we go by that floorplan. Any chance it could be shifted upwards, perhaps sharing some space with Deck 10?

Secondary hull is not broken down by deck. 16 are indicated, though there really isn't enough room for that many. It contains fuel, supplies, main repair centres, water and waste reconversion, interpanet freight, minimal crew quarters, and the hanger.

If you include the dorsal and split that double-window deck you'd get 16 decks, although that might lead to some narrow "maintenance space only" levels.

 

[yotsuya]

What I'm thinking is on Deck 11 is the actual control machinery - so basically an engineering deck - with the manned control center either on the deck above or in the deck 2/3 area. The manned area would be the forward phaser control room we saw.

I'm thinking of some sort of dining or lounge area in that part of the dorsal. Not a real deck but more of a platform to separate them. I haven't calculated the space to see if that would work. There are a few other options. Right now I'm just trying to place the main structural decks. I decided a while ago that the areas on either side of main engineering are not at regular deck height. I'm seeing lots of opportunity for some fun room designs. I already was planning on that for the areas behind the ports on the saucer edge. Some of these areas might end up being kind of creative. But at least the TOS Enterprise, TMP Enterprise, and Excelsior seem to be consistent in the oddity that is the edge of the saucer ports.

 

[Henoch]

I think your design effort is great. This ship size and approach is exactly which I prefer.

Deck 1 - Bridge
Deck 2 & 3 - primarily research labs
Decks 4, 5, & 6 - primarily crew quarters. no duty stations on these decks. Senior officers on Deck 5. Senior officers have single quarters with two rooms (and the bathroom). Junior officers share accommodations (2 per suite).
Deck 7 - center area is sickbay outer area are water tanks and bulk storage. Center of the deck is the top of the main computer.
Deck 8 - center of the deck is the bottom of the main computer, recreation area, main food preparation, ship's laundry, exotic entertainment center.
Decks 9 and 10 - primarily devoted to freight and cargo
Deck 11 - phaser controls

As you indicate in an earlier post, deck 2 or at least its center portion got cannibalized to lower the bridge. Originally (Cage), it was cabins, offices, lounge and maybe a round briefing room, but with the center reconstructed for TOS, only the outer rim of rooms may survive which may be too small for labs with the extreme curvature of the hull. Probably, something survived aft of the turbolift and around the sides. A good place for restroom facilities (already existing?) to service the bridge plus increased equipment/utilities spaces to support the new bridge and upper sensor functions. I also think the ship's recorder beacon is located there which can be ejected in an emergency (yellow hatch on hull behind turbolift).

Sickbay may need to be multiple facilities (like separate emergency room or normal surgical suites or doctor offices), or moved up to Deck 5 center if we are to believe The Day Of The Dove when the Klingons controlled Deck 6 and part of Deck 7, but the wounded in the Enterprise crew were piling up in Sickbay. I can see one type of Sickbay on Deck 5 to be closer to the crew quarters to service their normal needs like physicals. Pump those pedals on the wall.

Deck heights are a fair choices: 8' in saucer and 10' in secondary hull. Day of the Dove also gave an excellent corridor (Deck 6) ceiling close-up: ~8 feet and white, but there may be a small between deck spacing needed, or not, its your design.

We see that the walls are ~28 inches thick in which (besides men pulling doors open) most of the conduits and utilities run up and down (see Charlie X disappearing wall), over door sills, through the crazy beams over the corridors and not between decks giving a small inbetween deck spacing (I'd assume the wooden board at ~6-7 inches for the unknown deck, based on Charlie X.)

Others on this site have measured the taller sets at 16 feet for S1 Engine Room and its re-dressings, and 20 feet for S2 Engine Room. I also think in the secondary hull, some of the central areas and outer side areas are staggered or partial (as you indicate for Deck 10-11), especially at the very top and bottom of the hull. Same with front to back in the hull with matching ports and shuttlebay, etc. Large naval ships are notorious for staggered decks, everywhere. Again, great job.