TOS Enterprise Internals

[yotsuya]

Star Trek has a bad habit of putting windows on the exterior that really don't align well to interior spaces or that are practical for use for by the crew. The windows on the bottom of the saucers are very impractical for use as windows. However they would be very useful for other things such as science equipment and sensors. So I have no intention of worrying about aligning decks to those windows as I don't think that is terribly important. I'll align the ones that make sense, but the rest I'm dumping into equipment ports and making the decks fit the design. The windows that make sense for crew use I am using to align the decks.

 

[BK613]

@Henoch With bench seats by the windows.

Edit to add: Point is that most peeps think of these windows from a standing height POV instead of considering a sitting height. Heck, every window in my house but one is 22" from the floor.

 

[Mytran]

The closest thing I can think of is airship windows like those on Germany's zeppelins. They offered some seating by their windows.
https://www.airships.net/hindenburg/interiors/

Great article, thanks!

 

[StarCruiser]

Ah but, apparently, they were also for tossing passengers out if they don't have tickets!

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[yotsuya]

When talking about the TOS Enterprise, it is a narrow range of 15 years of its service in Starfleet. It has a couple of upgrades in that period and a huge one after. (the needed alterations to go from The Cage version to the Discovery Version and then back to the Where No Man Has Gone Before version are too extensive to make any sense so they are therefore being totally ignored)

During that period, there were at least 14 starships. 3 of which were lost (Intrepid, Constellation, and Defiant) and 3 of which were known to have suffered to an extent they likely were not in service any longer (Farragut, Excalibur, and Exeter) Of those only Farragut was lost prior to Kirk talking about there being 12 other ships in the fleet.

We have the official list in TMOST of 14 ship names, plus several extra that weren't use. Valiant seems to have been used over and over again for a variety of ships. So when we put all sources together we get the following Constitution Class ships that existed prior to the Enterprise Refit.

Canon Constitution Class
USS Constitution (NCC-1700)
USS Constellation (NCC-1017)*
USS Defiant (NCC-1764)*
USS Eagle (NCC-1685)
USS Endeavour (NCC-1718)
USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)*
USS Essex (NCC-1697)
USS Excalibur (NCC-1664)*
USS Exeter (NCC-1672)*
USS Farragut (NCC-1647)
USS Hood (NCC-1703)*
USS Intrepid (NCC-1631)* - number on screen was 1831
USS Kongo (NCC-1710)
USS Lexington (NCC-1709)*
USS Merrimac (NCC-1715)
USS Potemkin (NCC-1657)*
USS Republic (NCC-1371)
USS Valiant (NCC-1709)
USS Yorktown (NCC-1717)

These are the ships that looked like Enterprise during that 15 year period. Considering the gaps in the numbering, there could have been more that were lost prior to TOS and we don't know how many came into service between the last reference to how many Constitution Class ships there were until the Enterprise was refit. * mark the ships we saw on screen. Merrimac was heard in dialog in TMP, so it could not yet have been a refit.

 

[BK613]

Some people will mention that the "USS Carolina" from Friday's Child should be on that list. What are your thoughts about that?

 

[yotsuya]

Some people will mention that the "USS Carolina" from Friday's Child should be on that list. What are your thoughts about that?

The class is never specified and as that name is not on their list of Starships, I just consider it a different class like the Antares.

 

[BK613]

The class is never specified and as that name is not on their list of Starships, I just consider it a different class like the Antares.

Fair enough. TOS never used the USS with anything but starships so I was just curious.

And the Defiant wasn't on that list either.

 

[Henoch]

Assuming the USS Carolina is a Starfleet vessel, its naming seems appropriate to the above names for Starships which hail from famous historic ships. Though only a schooner, perhaps it's a smaller ship than the Starship class. Carolina seems to named after:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Carolina_(1812), a schooner that played an important role in the Battle of New Orleans.

 

[BK613]

Assuming the USS Carolina is a Starfleet vessel, its naming seems appropriate to the above names for Starships which hail from famous historic ships. Though only a schooner, perhaps it's a smaller ship than the Starship class. Carolina seems to named after:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Carolina_(1812), a schooner that played an important role in the Battle of New Orleans.

And at least five Norths and three Souths so the name could reflect the combined heritage.

 

[yotsuya]

Assuming the USS Carolina is a Starfleet vessel, its naming seems appropriate to the above names for Starships which hail from famous historic ships. Though only a schooner, perhaps it's a smaller ship than the Starship class. Carolina seems to named after:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Carolina_(1812), a schooner that played an important role in the Battle of New Orleans.

I would consider it a lesser class like a Scout or Destroyer, maybe of an older class. But not Constitution.

 

[yotsuya]

I have reached a decision on John Eaves beautiful and excellent design for the Discovery 1701. It does not represent the Constitution Class, but the class that came just before it. A few corrections and alterations to bring it in line with the early TOS look, and it is a perfect candidate for the class that left several registries available to be finished as Constitution Class. All the NCC-16xx Constitution Class ships. So in the Discovery universe, they built it later and bigger, but in the TOS universe they built it earlier and smaller. Works for me.

 

[yotsuya]

I did some checking and Eaves 1701 is not much longer than Jefferies 1701. The window spacing does not lend itself to a huge ship and the bridge window matches the size of Jefferies 1701. For my purposes it needs to be shorter and the saucer no larger than Jefferies.

 

[yotsuya]

Still trying to decide between these. Drexler included all the TMOST decks but everything is the wrong scale.

 

[Mytran]

I suppose it depends on how important you feel the description in TMOST really is!
For me it's an interesting exercise in speculation from an out-of-universe POV and there are some ideas in there worthy of inclusion. However, at the end of the day the descriptions often conflict with how the ship was depicted in the actual episodes.

However, YMMV - I know we have different views on this sort of thing!

 

[yotsuya]

I suppose it depends on how important you feel the description in TMOST really is!
For me it's an interesting exercise in speculation from an out-of-universe POV and there are some ideas in there worthy of inclusion. However, at the end of the day the descriptions often conflict with how the ship was depicted in the actual episodes.

However, YMMV - I know we have different views on this sort of thing!

This is why I posted Drexler's cross section (seen in In A Mirror Darkly). Problem is his depiction, while it has the same number of decks as FJ's, has been rescaled. Jefferies had a different deck layout that does't fit TMOST or how many of the decks were referenced in the series. So no matter which way you go, some adjustment has to be made. I prefer to stick with TMOST as it is clear and was followed by FJ and Andrew Probert for the refit interiors. Probert did something funky with decks 2 and 3, but that was already there when TOS sank the bridge into deck 2. In universe my reasoning is that since they sank the bridge once, Scotty wouldn't bother putting something important there in case they needed to do it again. Then it just becomes a design feature and 1701-A again has a sunken bridge. It becomes so common that the Galaxy Class has a sunken bridge by default.

Still, all of this is easier than tackling the Millennium Falcon with its impossible angles and impossible deck levels.

 

[Mytran]

This is why I posted Drexler's cross section (seen in In A Mirror Darkly). Problem is his depiction, while it has the same number of decks as FJ's, has been rescaled. Jefferies had a different deck layout that does't fit TMOST or how many of the decks were referenced in the series. So no matter which way you go, some adjustment has to be made. I prefer to stick with TMOST as it is clear and was followed by FJ and Andrew Probert for the refit interiors. Probert did something funky with decks 2 and 3, but that was already there when TOS sank the bridge into deck 2. In universe my reasoning is that since they sank the bridge once, Scotty wouldn't bother putting something important there in case they needed to do it again. Then it just becomes a design feature and 1701-A again has a sunken bridge. It becomes so common that the Galaxy Class has a sunken bridge by default.

Scale doesn't bother me all that much since it was never clearly established onscreen - the graphic in Day Of The Dove doesn't hold much weight with me because it depicts a different design of vessel.
I tend to prefer the onscreen visuals, which leaves us with the cavernous Flight Deck and the Bridge which has to be sunken if it faces forward (which Babel suggests it does).
Then there's the TMP refit, which mandates a certain continuity between the 2 designs and the external features of the TMP vessel strongly favour a 1000' long ship. However, I favour a TOS-E which is actually slightly larger than the TMP-E.
I realise that this is an unusual opinion, especially if authority is given to the offscreen material

Still, all of this is easier than tackling the Millennium Falcon with its impossible angles and impossible deck levels.

Yeah, that is one ship where I take a VERY loose approach to the onscreen visuals - those deck plans with the off-centre cargo bay make me feel all icky

 

[yotsuya]

Scale doesn't bother me all that much since it was never clearly established onscreen - the graphic in Day Of The Dove doesn't hold much weight with me because it depicts a different design of vessel.

It does hold weight with me because I don't consider it a different design, just a different rendering. It is as close to the final model as many of the on screen displays in TNG, DS9, and Voyager. Besides, the ship was represented by at least 4 different models, all of which vary more from the design that that on screen graphic.

I tend to prefer the onscreen visuals, which leaves us with the cavernous Flight Deck and the Bridge which has to be sunken if it faces forward (which Babel suggests it does).

I consider the flight deck to be a forced perspective miniature and the the bridge is linked by the opening of The Cage.

Then there's the TMP refit, which mandates a certain continuity between the 2 designs and the external features of the TMP vessel strongly favour a 1000' long ship. However, I favour a TOS-E which is actually slightly larger than the TMP-E.
I realise that this is an unusual opinion, especially if authority is given to the offscreen material

I stick to on screen materials where possible. The model wall is a key point to scale all the designs.
The originals on set:

The originals remounted:

Yeah, that is one ship where I take a VERY loose approach to the onscreen visuals - those deck plans with the off-centre cargo bay make me feel all icky

It can be done, but it requires moving things and changing angles and making the ship bigger. Though we aren't ever really given an exact scale for it, I think most people use the dimensions of the set from TESB, which ir probably scaled down.

 

[BK613]

Man, that observation lounge is a wonky place to go to for scaling. Especially when the scaling in First Contact contradicts it (meaning that scaling can vary based on artistic license.).

 

[dupersuper]

Man, that observation lounge is a wonky place to go to for scaling. Especially when the scaling in First Contact contradicts it (meaning that scaling can vary based on artistic license.).

I'm more distracted by the lack of the space shuttle, NX Enterprise and ship seen in the rec room display from the Motion Picture. You could explain that by saying it's only a display of post Federation ships, but then there's that navy ship just floating there...