TOS Hanger in the TOS E

[Albertese]

Just for kicks, I did a quick and dirty study of the model hanger deck from the original series.

The question: how big would the Enterprise need to be to fit that hanger bay into the hull without needing to adjust anything? this is actually part of my on-going secret project to define my own deck plans for the old E (keeping them under wraps for now, since there's a bunch of other guys similar projects going on right now, figure I'll put something out once this wave is over) Anyway, my guiding principle is WWTD, What Would the Thermians Do? You remember, from Galaxy Quest. What might the reconstructed ship be like if we built it using the information on-screen and nothing else. But try to use ALL of it that would possibly fit. Obviously this would not work as the ship seen on screen was designed to work on a TV show, not in space. But just or fun....

Anyway, one of the major scaling issue has been the hanger deck being too big for the hull. I wondered just how much too big. After dinking around with Photoshop a bit, the conclusion i reached is that the ship would need to be just a touch under twice as big to house the shuttlebay!

Has anyone else tried to calculate this? I expect that someone must have. I would be interested to hear what other methods have been used.

--Alex

 

[TIN_MAN]

Oh goody, another excuse for a flame war!
Nah just kidding, It's not that much different is it? Have you considered that the miniature has a forced perspective, if adjusted for this the HD isn't too far off, is it?

 

[Plecostomus]

Oh goody, another excuse for a flame war!

Hot-dogs! Pop-corn! Slightly warm beer! Get 'em here!

 

[Maurice]

The hangar deck was a forced perspective miniature, you you have to pick which end or cross-section of it represents the actual proportions. The shuttlecraft model gets "bigger" as it nears the doors because the model set narrows at that end.

 

[T'Girl]

I've alway had a problem with the Enterprise being 947 feet long. Just seems too small.

When I did my version of Enterprise's deckplans a few years back I placed the hanger deck's foreward bulkhead behind the engine pylons, because I had the pylons continue thru the hull, cross at the hanger level and continue to anchor points on the lower hull.

My Enterprise was almost 1100 feet.

The hangar deck was a forced perspective miniature, you you have to pick which end or cross-section of it represents the actual proportions. The shuttlecraft model gets "bigger" as it nears the doors because the model set narrows at that end.

The secondary hull also narrows at the end, accounting for at least some of that.

 

[Longinus]

It all depends on how many hangers you want the deck to hold. If we assume that each of the 400 crewmen has on average five* shirts or jackets requiring a hanger, we are looking at 2000 individual hangers here. Then you have to take account the accessibility, as the coats need to be easily retrievable from the hangers, so I assume that the walkways between the rows of hangers would actually take most of the space on this hanger deck.

*) Is this reasonable? It is a military ship after all, they do not have very many sets of clothes.

I hope this helps.

 

[T'Girl]

My father, mother, uncle , and two brothers are all military. You have no idea the amount of uniforms they got.

 

[Mytran]

... Anyway, my guiding principle is WWTD, What Would the Thermians Do? You remember, from Galaxy Quest. What might the reconstructed ship be like if we built it using the information on-screen and nothing else. But try to use ALL of it that would possibly fit. Obviously this would not work as the ship seen on screen was designed to work on a TV show, not in space. But just or fun....
--Alex

Hey, that's almost the exact same principle I used when I did my own TOS deckplans plan in college! And there's me thinking I was the only one; ain't the internet great for finding like minded people!

The shuttlebay is particularly interesting because right from the beginning there's size inconsistencies. Even the original design sketch shows two different lengths:
http://i757.photobucket.com/albums/xx214/Mytran77/cutaway1.jpg?t=1252508741
Measure it out - that lower picture is never going to scale into the dark section picked out for it on the cross-section!

If you're going by what we see on screen however there's adcition problems (of course). The forced perspective has been mentioned. Here's another - how big do you want the shuttlecraft to be? The exterior we see with the actors is about 20' long, the interior is from a craft about 30' long. This could make the shuttlebay very large indeed!

 

[Maurice]

The shuttlebay is particularly interesting because right from the beginning there's size inconsistencies. Even the original design sketch shows two different lengths:
http://i757.photobucket.com/albums/xx214/Mytran77/cutaway1.jpg?t=1252508741
Measure it out - that lower picture is never going to scale into the dark section picked out for it on the cross-section!

That's because the lower picture is the plan for the forced perspective model, so it's intentionally out of proportion.

 

[Mytran]

...That's because the lower picture is the plan for the forced perspective model, so it's intentionally out of proportion.

That accounts for the shape but not the length - it's still too long.
And if it is indeed the plan for the forced perspective set, that means it was designed to look even longer!

 

[Forbin]

No, it was only designed to look cool.

 

[Mytran]

If we're going by the Thermian rule, it might be best to build the "forced perspective" set into the ship as is. Unlike the forced perspective set in Engineering, we actually see both ends of the shuttlebay, ostensibly with the same shuttle.

 

[Captain Robert April]

This is one of those areas where "best guess" is recommended.

 

[Shaw]

If we're going by the Thermian rule, it might be best to build the "forced perspective" set into the ship as is. Unlike the forced perspective set in Engineering, we actually see both ends of the shuttlebay, ostensibly with the same shuttle.

Well, if one is following the Thermian rule, you'll need to totally disregard the plans for the hangar miniature as those never appeared on screen. You can't reference it at all. None of it, it doesn't exist in the historical records.

Without the plans you're left with a scale for the ship as a whole (from on screen data) and that the hangar ends about where the nacelle supports start (again, from on screen data). And we never see the back wall or any details of the hangar (and without the plans, there would be no way of knowing anything about it's details).

I suggest that you make sure that you're up on your geometry and have taken a good perspective drawing course... and then go Thermian on this issue!

Let us know how it turns out... and don't let ANY off screen references into your studies (because the rest of us will know if you do).

Never give up! Never surrender!

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I've alway had a problem with the Enterprise being 947 feet long. Just seems too small.

When I did my version of Enterprise's deckplans a few years back I placed the hanger deck's foreward bulkhead behind the engine pylons, because I had the pylons continue thru the hull, cross at the hanger level and continue to anchor points on the lower hull.

My Enterprise was almost 1100 feet.

Now, that's fascinating... I wonder if you've had the chance to take a look at my project (which has been on-hold for a few weeks while I'm in the process of upgrading my computer system from a run-of-the-mill machine to an super-duper-uber-computer!). In my case, I came up with a length (to make everything work out as accurately as possible... on-screen deck heights matching with windows, bridge fitting in the dome, hangar fitting properly... engineering fitting properly... everything) of 1067 feet.

I'd love to see/hear more about your efforts on this... it's always fun to see how some answers tend to converge, after all. Here's where MY work is being displayed: http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=89810

The hangar deck was a forced perspective miniature, you you have to pick which end or cross-section of it represents the actual proportions. The shuttlecraft model gets "bigger" as it nears the doors because the model set narrows at that end.

The secondary hull also narrows at the end, accounting for at least some of that.

Yeah... the landing bay (it's NOT a "hangar"... the hangar is where the ships are stored, not where they take off and land, dammit!) was never modeled exactly. The "stake in the ground" is the size and shape of the doors (which must match the exterior model detail). I've assumed that the interior walls of the bay (and the ceiling and floor) are parallel - a common extruded shape, not "matching the outside hull shape." So far, it's worked out quite nicely, and (using a virtual "wide angle lens" I can get an image which almost perfectly matches the TOS "forced perspective" shots)

... Anyway, my guiding principle is WWTD, What Would the Thermians Do? You remember, from Galaxy Quest. What might the reconstructed ship be like if we built it using the information on-screen and nothing else. But try to use ALL of it that would possibly fit. Obviously this would not work as the ship seen on screen was designed to work on a TV show, not in space. But just or fun....
--Alex

Hey, that's almost the exact same principle I used when I did my own TOS deckplans plan in college! And there's me thinking I was the only one; ain't the internet great for finding like minded people!

The shuttlebay is particularly interesting because right from the beginning there's size inconsistencies. Even the original design sketch shows two different lengths:
http://i757.photobucket.com/albums/xx214/Mytran77/cutaway1.jpg?t=1252508741
Measure it out - that lower picture is never going to scale into the dark section picked out for it on the cross-section!

If you're going by what we see on screen however there's adcition problems (of course). The forced perspective has been mentioned. Here's another - how big do you want the shuttlecraft to be? The exterior we see with the actors is about 20' long, the interior is from a craft about 30' long. This could make the shuttlebay very large indeed!

Yeah, the "make it all make sense" thought process is pretty common for some of us on this BBS. Some of the conclusions vary WIDELY, but we're all trying to imagine what the Enterprise would be like if you actually built it.

That original shuttle bay drawing is really useless... note the location of the "dome" versus the doors in the sketch, then look at where it is on the ship. That's clearly a shuttle bay on a different ship!

 

[Maurice]

...That's because the lower picture is the plan for the forced perspective model, so it's intentionally out of proportion.

That accounts for the shape but not the length - it's still too long.
And if it is indeed the plan for the forced perspective set, that means it was designed to look even longer!

No it's not, because a forced perspective is a deliberate distortion that applies even to depth...you might deliberately make a forced perspective model deeper than it need be proportionally to get depth of field with the camera.

 

[Mytran]

That original shuttle bay drawing is really useless... note the location of the "dome" versus the doors in the sketch, then look at where it is on the ship. That's clearly a shuttle bay on a different ship!

Quite right, although I had a fun evening trying to wrangle different scales of it into the back of that enterprise cutaway. I wonder what the original intention was for reconciliation between the two? Probably artistic license, as always!

I've assumed that the interior walls of the bay (and the ceiling and floor) are parallel - a common extruded shape, not "matching the outside hull shape." So far, it's worked out quite nicely, and (using a virtual "wide angle lens" I can get an image which almost perfectly matches the TOS "forced perspective" shots)

I hadn't realised you'd gone to all the extra effort of trying to fit an "on screen accurate" shuttlebay into your design, great work! How's the super duper computer upgrade going - I find your project fascinating!

 

[T'Girl]

Yeah... the landing bay (it's NOT a "hangar"... the hangar is where the ships are stored, not where they take off and land,

---Yes,the landing bay, I'd even buy flight deck, the 'hanger' would be the next deck down in the area usual labeled as a maintenance shop. Matt Jefferies and Gene Roddenberry were both pilots, Roddenberry in the army air corp. The army often use old airship hangers for their planes. That's where the hanger term comes from.

This maintenance shop is also where Spock's parents disembark from the shuttlecraft during "Journey to Babel", not the landing bay. The shop would of been easier to pressurize.

I wonder if you've had the chance to take a look at my project ---

Yes sir, I think your project is fantastic. My own wasn't CAD but sketch book style.

We should also to consider how big the shuttle complex needs to be, landing deck, maintenance shops, fuel storage, air locks, lockers, parts and the shuttles themselves. Most off ship travel is by transporter, during TOS, shuttles recieved slight use. What percentage of the ship do we devote to it.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Here's what I came up with...

 

[Longinus]

---Yes,the landing bay, I'd even buy flight deck, the 'hanger' would be the next deck down in the area usual labeled as a maintenance shop. Matt Jefferies and Gene Roddenberry were both pilots, Roddenberry in the army air corp. The army often use old airship hangers for their planes. That's where the hanger term comes from.

HANGAR! You store aircraft in hangar, you put clothes on hanger.