TOS shuttle cutaway

[Timo]

It can't be lack of IQ that's holding you back from seeing your error, that's fer shure.

Look, I'll make it easier for you to understand. Why is false perspective used? Normally, in order to make the audience see dimensions differently from what the underlying geometry would dictate - to create a convincing illusion of a geometrical situation familiar from our everyday surroundings, even though the "real" situation is anything but. The Willy Wonka example above is a humorous exception.

How is false perspective used? So that the illusion is not broken. Again, Willy Wonka makes us giggle because he's breaking illusions. In order for the illusion to remain, objects within the forced perspective set have to behave themselves.

The point is, the TOS shuttle does. In the shots from the original series, the shuttle is observed touching the floor at the point of the turntable, which unambiguously establishes the width of the (illusory and real) bay at that point. It doesn't establish any other dimension, but it does establish width, exactly contrary to your innocent little error of a statement. Otherwise, the shuttle is observed hovering above the floor, so we cannot establish a relationship between the shuttle's distance from the camera and the corresponding shuttlebay section's. So illusion is preserved. At most, we can establish that the shuttle can squeeze between the doors, too.

Your problem appears to be combining illusion and the technologies used for creating it: your statement doesn't hold true either from the point of the illusion (where the bay has those dimensions it seems to have) or from the point of the technique (where the dimensions can be divined by the Willy Wonka method if no authentic knowledge of them is available otherwise).

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Shaw]

The point is, the TOS shuttle does. In the shots from the original series, the shuttle is observed touching the floor at the point of the turntable, which unambiguously establishes the width of the (illusory and real) bay at that point. It doesn't establish any other dimension, but it does establish width, exactly contrary to your innocent little error of a statement. Otherwise, the shuttle is observed hovering above the floor, so we cannot establish a relationship between the shuttle's distance from the camera and the corresponding shuttlebay section's. So illusion is preserved. At most, we can establish that the shuttle can squeeze between the doors, too.

So you believe that the turntable is the only point at which the shuttlecraft is touching the floor? And that in turn makes it the point to make a measurement?

And yet a counter example from this very thread...

Why is that point of view any less valid? The turntable isn't even seen in this picture.

And how many examples of the shuttlecraft "touching the floor" at different points beyond the turntable do I need to post to counter that real bad assumption on your part. Is this one (here) enough? Or is more footage needed? It slides along the three lines on the floor to the end of the bay. Or did you not know that?

There was no good point at which the shuttlecraft and the bay were in sink... the main issue was to make the viewer (in the form of a large camera on stage) feel small relative to the miniature set.

When you are willing to stop throwing bad assumptions at this, and are willing to look at it clean (and maybe watching a little TOS might help as well), let me know and we'll revisit this.

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
-Sherlock Holmes (A Scandal in Bohemia)​

 

[Timo]

But the thing is, the shuttle isn't equipped with wheels - so in that shot, it's hovering at an unknown distance above the floor. In the other shot included, it's even more blatantly not scraping the doors with just centimeters to spare (since that makes no dramatic sense), the front tips of the nacelles behind the "approach grid" on the floor - but at some closer point that is confused by the fact that the craft is above the floor.

This would not have been possible had the set been of the sort of high visual resolution that the later CGI constructs use; we could use lighting angles and pixel counts for argumentation in that case. In the general fuzziness of the set used in TOS, the illusion is indeed preserved - which we can only expect from people who are being paid for doing exactly that, preserving our illusions.

However, if there are valid comparison points all the way from the turntable to the end of the "approach grid", all the better: we can then divine the width of the bay for that entire section of shuttlebay, both in terms of the illusion and the false perspective. They just happen to be one and the same, thanks to the less than skilled use of said false perspective - but that poses no problems as such, because nothing dictates that the side walls of the bay be straight and parallel. And the method of establishing the width does not suffer from any fundamental problems.

On your offer of "looking at it", what would be the point? That's not a dismissal, that's a question. Would the point be establishing the dimensions of the bay? Or establishing the dimensions of the set? As already indicated, the two are one and the same to some degree, and different to some degree. The region where they are demonstrably the same is around the area of the turntable; this as such doesn't help much in discussing the fitting of the bay into the ship, or other such relative or absolute measurements, because the area of the turntable doesn't feature walls that would be flush with the outer hull (there are those door pockets there, for one thing). The areas that would be flush with the hull or externally subject to analysis, mainly the bay doors, are outside the region where all this false perspective mayhem holds validity, as the shuttle is at hover there.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Shaw]

On your offer of "looking at it", what would be the point?

At this point... you are struggling to save face. In your argument above, you are basically saying that these two top down views are equivalent.

It is all bad data on top of bad data... and now your ego is put in to the mix as well.

Come back with some real drawings and real measurements. Stop talking and start doing. Right now, you've got nothing going for you, and I'm pretty sure that I've made my case for everyone else here. So there really isn't much else to add.

It is funny how you make up facts to fit your theories (the model couldn't lift off until it had cleared the ceiling, but you still see it as floating in the air)... and ignore the three tracks along the floor that the shuttlecraft has always traveled on.

Measure your Willy Wonka butts and let us know how it turns out. Because you're now arguing that he is a good scale measure right to the end of the hallway.

 

[Timo]

At this point... you are struggling to save face.

That's funny - because the sole reason this discussion seems to be continuing is that you cannot admit to a simple, simply erroneous claim you made a few posts ago.

All these irrelevant explications on esoteric subjects such as "What is false perspective?" or "How can it be humorously misused?" only waste bandwidth and fingertips. If you really think you are demonstrating something new to anybody in this thread, you are much deeper in your own hubris than you have any right to be.

It goes to show something that you only need to launch into these face-saving attacks once in a year at most. Whether it speaks well of your expertise or your frequency of posting, I wouldn't dare speculate. That, however, is rather unrelated to the subject matters of this forum, wouldn't you agree? I for one don't feel an urge to attack whenever somebody points out a clear error of mine. Errors are errors. What you say about false perspective is true, even if not particularly informative. The only thing that isn't true is that single innocuous phrase of yours (although it, too, was used somewhat offensively to start with).

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Shaw]

Well, here is the best thing to do (for everyone)... I invite anyone who thinks I'm wrong about any of this stuff to ignore anything I've posted and anything I would post in the future. Cause if anyone believes I got something this trivial wrong, then it should call into question anything else I've ever done, and anything I've ever posted.

Don't waste any more of your time reading or looking at anything I do.

I for one don't feel an urge to attack whenever somebody points out a clear error of mine.

Well, you are the only one to have used foul language thus far, and you've gone out of your way to attack me rather than just what you see as my erroneous statement. Other than pointing out the stuff you're making up as you go, I've stayed on topic.

Remember the old rule... reply to the post and not the poster. You spend a lot more time describing me than you have supporting your case.

I, on the other hand, made my case... just in case you just couldn't see it. But if you think you can point to a post where I attacked your character rather than arguing to the point, I'd be interested in seeing a quote.





My favorite quote of the day...

We can establish the shuttlebay width in units of shuttle width - AT ANY POINT (that is, at any distance from the camera) WHERE WE SEE THE SHUTTLECRAFT POSITIONED.

Thanks for that.

 

[scotpens]

I've followed this interesting debate over the last several posts. For some reason, the phrase "angels dancing on the head of a pin" keeps running through my mind.

FWIW and IIRC, the canonical size of the shuttlebay doors is 60 feet wide by 30 feet high. Make of that what you will.

 

[Mytran]

Why is that point of view any less valid? The turntable isn't even seen in this picture.

The picture I posted is cropped from an original that shows the shuttlecraft sitting on the turntable. Unfortunately I'm not at home at the moment so I don't have the original handy, but it's a screencap from one of the end credit sequences, and I'll post it on Sunday if anyone's interested.

 

[Timo]

Well, here is the best thing to do (for everyone)... I invite anyone who thinks I'm wrong about any of this stuff to ignore anything I've posted and anything I would post in the future. Cause if anyone believes I got something this trivial wrong, then it should call into question anything else I've ever done, and anything I've ever posted.

See, that's why I have great difficulty taking you seriously. You always seem to be willing to slit your own throat at the first suggestion that you might have gotten something trival wrong.

Yet you are (more or less demonstrably) still alive. So I take all this is just so much posturing, and deep down you aren't quite that sensitive about occasionally being wrong.

Well, you are the only one to have used foul language thus far

Don't try such a blatant lie here. The only foul language involved has been in your PMS, sorry, PMs...

Remember the old rule... reply to the post and not the poster.

Now say this out loud 47 times.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Shaw]

Don't try such a blatant lie here. The only foul language involved has been in your PMS, sorry, PMs...

Interesting... as I don't resort to foul language no matter what.

But the mods are usually pretty clear... replies should be directed to the posts, not the posters and take personal stuff to PMs.

In this thread I made my case as if you were willing to listen... even if I knew you wouldn't.

So, there is no lie on my part (can't lie when there is a running transcript)... but that sure looks like more personal attacks from you.

Care to post any more?

 

[Unicron]

I suggest everyone get back to the original topic. Timo and Shaw, you two both need to dial it back.

 

[Bill Morris]

Anyway, for the purpose of this schematic, I used the false-perspective profile of the mockup, since it was sometimes filmed from the side, but the dimensions cited are based on the interior sets, making the craft larger than the mockup but hopefully reflecting what they really should be in the Trekiverse. How a full complement of shuttlecraft might fit into the shuttlebay is a separate issue.


From The Immunity Syndrome:

The full schematic:

 

[Captain Robert April]

I suggest using Warped9's middle-ground drawings for a good size estimate of the shuttle.

And Timo, you're completely dead-ass wrong on the issue of trying to estimate the size of the shuttle bay by that forced perspective miniature set, for all the reasons Shaw listed. It's deliberately distorted, and therefore useless.

 

[Forbin]

I had muffins for breakfast.
Yum!

 

[Bill Morris]

I was lucky enough to get a couple of useful comments from this thread. And from Phil Broad's collection of screencaps of the interior set I was able to find good reference points that could be measured to adjust my scaling. For the labeling, as well as the location of the deflector and sensor array, etc., Warped9's work was very helpful. The screencap above is also from Phil Broad's Web site.

For the type 7, I've just done an outline and general interior layout so far and downloaded the dozen or so interior screencaps from Ex Astris Scientia, as well as some drawings by Andy Probert, in the hopes of being able to make all that fit together.

 

[Mytran]

OK, so the shuttle wasn't on the turntable at that point. Whether is was ground-crawling or hovering is something that other can (and have ) put up for debate!

​

 

[Captain Robert April]

Look, the available space is immediately aft of the nacelle pylons; this is borne out by Jefferies' cross section diagram and plain old common sense, that requires there to be some room for the structural support of the pylons and all the conduits running to and from the nacelles.

The Jefferies diagram of the hangar deck only gives a general layout (because, remember, it's of the forced perspective miniature set, not a full scale cross section of what the real thing would look like).

So, cram the diagram into the available space, stretch and squeeze (mostly squeeze) the innards so that they fit and don't look distorted, and *BAM!* you'll have your answer for how big the flight deck is.

 

[Mytran]

So just like with the shuttle, it's a case of reconciling one set (the FP flight deck) with an exterior prop (in this case, the Enterprise herself!)

What is it with UESPA and shuttlecraft scaling issues?

No wonder they invented the transporter!

 

[Mytran]

BTW, are there any actual measurements of the FP shuttlebay set available? As others have pointed out it's bothersome (to say the least) extrapolating "real world" sizes from it, but it would be interesting to know.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Well, if we could get the measurements of the miniature shuttlecraft, which is still around somewhere (was used as a background prop on TNG a time or two....Oh, Rick...?) then use that against those stills, and you can figure out how wide that miniature set is from the position of the shuttlecraft at the various points of its takeoff.