TOS Enterprise Internals

[Mytran]

Well, you posted a picture of Nimoy next to a known 6'6" door. The plans say that is how tall it is. The elevator doors are 7'. Otherwise how do you explain this...

So the elevator doors are 7' tall. This door appears to be 50" wide and the one on the bridge is 45"

I was almost doubting Shatner's true height, but De was the same height. And this photo is at a good angle because it is about head height so there won't be must distortion as they walk toward the camera in terms of where their heads are level to the door frame.

And don't forget to add 2" for their boot heels. Shatner and Kelley are 6' in the boots and Nimoy is 6'2". Likely the guest star, John Crawford, was also in boots that elevated his height.

That's quite the image and it got me to go back and re-examine my stock of images. No door was ever 50" wide though

Thanks to the screencaps provided by @BK613 it is clear that the original door height was intended to be 6'6" and that is what was maintained on the Bridge set throughout the series.
However, it is equally clear that when Star Trek went to series and the main sets were built, the door heights were raised a little (perhaps due to Nimoy's height?) It's clear that ALL the door heights were raised due to scenes like this:

A good screencap to demonstrate Shatner's height is this one from Corbomite as he was wearing slippers at the time rather than his heeled boots

The turbolift door width of 3'6" was adhered to fairly consistently in Season One so we can rely on that as a measurement. This would put a gap of around 12" above Shatner's head. His height has been quoted as low as 5'9" on some sites which would make the door 6'9" as he is basically barefoot in this scene!

I am now fairly convinced that the set doors were all 6'9" tall which might explain some of the problems I had in deciphering the panel sizes last year!

 

[yotsuya]

Since the subject of scale keeps coming up, I thought I would compare to ships with similar crew sizes 500 years apart in time.

And yes, that is an accurate scaling. The decks really are that narrow. And she carried a crew of over 400. I've been on board and she is that small. 208 feet from billet head to taffrail (which is oddly almost exactly half the width of the saucer). 304 feet with her current rigging. Upside down she has about the same cross section as the hanger.

 

[BK613]

Using hammocks as the berthing solution does allow for a lot of crew in a small space.

 

[DEWLine]

@yotsuya, thank you for that sense of scale and shipbuilding priorities.

 

[danellis]

Using hammocks as the berthing solution does allow for a lot of crew in a small space.

As does having 3'6" floor-to-ceiling (I exaggerate, but it doesn't feel like it!)

@totsuya, that's a fascinating comparison, thank you.

dJE

 

[yotsuya]

Hey, two of my favorite ships in one image, how could I resist.

 

[BK613]

As does having 3'6" floor-to-ceiling (I exaggerate, but it doesn't feel like it!)

@totsuya, that's a fascinating comparison, thank you.

dJE

I'm 6'3" and have visited the ship so I totally get what you're preaching.
It was somewhat improved by the 1980s but on many decks/levels, I still had no problem reaching the overhead (and had to be careful when there were cable raceways present.)

 

[GNDN18]

Using hammocks as the berthing solution does allow for a lot of crew in a small space.

14” per man. Which works out to 28” in a two-watch ship.

Take that, Jellico.

 

[BK613]

Hey, two of my favorite ships in one image, how could I resist.

Agree.

 

[publiusr]

Hey, two of my favorite ships in one image, how could I resist.

I thank you for that.

There was a Capt. D’Souza near me that had a blue map like chart of all the different sailing ships…they took it down in the late 80’s and none of the kids remember it of course. You by any chance wouldn’t remember something similar would you.

Oh what I wouldn’t give to have that…

Thermopylae, Flying Cloud, Cutty Sark, the Great Harry. You need to do those and Great Eastern

 

[StarCruiser]

That chart -may- have been from the old Time-Life "Seafarers" book series released way back in the 1970's. There was a chart that showed artwork from the series that you could get but...alas, it's almost impossible to find that now.

One of my drafting instructors (Mr. Reinking - yes, we sometimes called Mr. Re-inking) had one in his office.

Managed to find it listed here:

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/time-life-books-seafarers-books-1939738238

 

[publiusr]

In my memory, there was a blue background…was taller than it was wide, and there were more ship drawn smaller…maybe I dreamed it…but I don’t think so.
Ugh.

 

[yotsuya]

I posted this on another thread, but it ties in with my TOS Enterprise drawings.

I was just exploring some of the photos of the 33 inch model and made an interesting discovery. It's secondary hull is NOT the same shape as the 11 foot model. I was specifically looking for the slight indent in the shape just behind the neck and I found it, but I also found that the back flares out at about the pylons. So that little bit that Jefferies drew on his plans is there on the 33 inch model, but not just on the bottom and not as much. I'm guessing that Datin took measurements off the drawing and turned the shape on the lathe to the right linear dimension at each point. This means the hanger on the 33 inch model is wider than the 11 foot model (if they were in the same scale). Also, the bridge was cut down on the 33 inch model as well when Star Trek went to series. While there aren't any good profile photos of it in its original configuration, there is a good photo of Nimoy holding it with sufficient shadows to show the larger bridge.

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

I posted this on another thread, but it ties in with my TOS Enterprise drawings.

I was just exploring some of the photos of the 33 inch model and made an interesting discovery. It's secondary hull is NOT the same shape as the 11 foot model. I was specifically looking for the slight indent in the shape just behind the neck and I found it, but I also found that the back flares out at about the pylons. So that little bit that Jefferies drew on his plans is there on the 33 inch model, but not just on the bottom and not as much. I'm guessing that Datin took measurements off the drawing and turned the shape on the lathe to the right linear dimension at each point. This means the hanger on the 33 inch model is wider than the 11 foot model (if they were in the same scale). Also, the bridge was cut down on the 33 inch model as well when Star Trek went to series. While there aren't any good profile photos of it in its original configuration, there is a good photo of Nimoy holding it with sufficient shadows to show the larger bridge.

That is interesting information. You are meaning that this sheds some light on the fitting of the hangar into the model, indicating that in one version of that model, there was more room for it?

 

[yotsuya]

That is interesting information. You are meaning that this sheds some light on the fitting of the hangar into the model, indicating that in one version of that model, there was more room for it?

No, more that the doors would be bigger, not the entire hanger.

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

No, more that the doors would be bigger, not the entire hanger.

Even more interesting, given that later versions of the ship like the one from TMP appear to have made the doors bigger, but may not as much bigger as some of us had assumed.

 

[yotsuya]

Even more interesting, given that later versions of the ship like the one from TMP appear to have made the doors bigger, but may not as much bigger as some of us had assumed.

Actually, the TMP Refit hanger doors are about the same size. Thought their shape technically makes the opening smaller. The TOS opening is an arch with the top cut off and the Refit is a trapezoid. So the TOS doors are really larger. They just stick out further aft rather than how recessed the TOS doors are.

 

[publiusr]

I like that design better. Less exposed

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

Posted this in another thread, thought that I"d share it here since it relates to your research. I don't suppose you'll subscribe to the original theory or mine, but I bet you'll have interesting thoughts on the matter as to what rooms will and what rooms won't fit in the ships.

............................................

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.

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

What I guess I am saying is that we don't know how much of the shape of the TOS-ship is directly related to the shape of its "keel"-like structure, so we don't know that the TMP refit had to reshape the whole ship be doing more than adding new structures.

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.

I don't personally favor that theory for the actual refit, but I think that it makes sense for the NCC-1701-A, since it was said to only carry 300 people. Assuming a 947-foot TOS ship, and a 1000-foot TMP, ship, that would make NCC-1701-A about 870 feet long.

 

[publiusr]

Now that is an interesting take.

Use the drawing Yotsuya is working on for the refit…and use the Kimble plans for the -A.

Great for a revision of Aridas’ Heavy Cruiser Evolution chart.