When was 947 feet established?

[trekkist]

Has anyone knowledge of exactly when in TOS production history the ship's size was nailed? Obviously it was unknown during "The Cage," and revised upward (as was the crew size) later...and I've seen an excerpt from the 1967 draft writer's guide that describes the hangar deck as big enough to hold "a fleet of jetliners." There's also a memo in Making of ST that suggests the possibility of a viewport, through which one could see the nacelles, "thousands of feet long and hundreds of feet over our heads."

I'm assuming the only canonical use of the figure was in the scale bar of Matt Jeffries' 3-view, as printed in Making in 1968. Any idea of the date of that drawing?

David Winfrey

 

[Shaw]

Has anyone knowledge of exactly when in TOS production history the ship's size was nailed?

November 7, 1964

 

[Maurice]

Has anyone knowledge of exactly when in TOS production history the ship's size was nailed?

November 7, 1964

My first birthday!

 

[Forbin]

I predict that even though the question was answered concisely in the very first reply, this thread will go on for 10 pages.

 

[scotpens]

In other Trek news:

Is Starfleet military?

Does the bridge of the TOS Enterprise face forward?

Do Vulcans have sex only once every seven years?

 

[Warped9]

Is Starfleet military?

Yes.

Does the bridge of the TOS Enterprise face forward?

Probably not.

Do Vulcans have sex only once every seven years?

Thats the official story, but probably not.

 

[trekkist]

Not that I doubt your certainty, Shaw, but would you mind citing your source? (assuming you weren't being sarcastic)

 

[trekkist]

"Parted from me and never parting, never and always, touching and touched" -- and Spock's sensing of the death of the crew of the Intrepid -- suggests the answer to "How often do Vulcans have sex?" is "as often as they like." Telepathically, that is. Which explains their constantly calm demeanor. They're always gettin' it.

Spock?

One moment, Captain. Ah. Uh...you were saying?

I SAID, would you like some lunch?

Affirmative. And perhaps a cigarette.

 

[SonicRanger]

Has anyone knowledge of exactly when in TOS production history the ship's size was nailed? Obviously it was unknown during "The Cage," and revised upward (as was the crew size) later...and I've seen an excerpt from the 1967 draft writer's guide that describes the hangar deck as big enough to hold "a fleet of jetliners." There's also a memo in Making of ST that suggests the possibility of a viewport, through which one could see the nacelles, "thousands of feet long and hundreds of feet over our heads."

This is an excellent question, and I wonder about this too, especially since even the newest edition of the Concordance repeats the "fleet of jetliners" line regarding the shuttlebay.

 

[F. King Daniel]

All I'll add is that 947' doesn't work with the generally accepted (i.e. used in all the licenced stuff) 23 decks unless you pretend the sets are shorter (8') than they actually were (around 10').

BTW, JJ Abrams totally embraced the "fleet of jetliners" thing

 

[Captain Robert April]

Has anyone knowledge of exactly when in TOS production history the ship's size was nailed? Obviously it was unknown during "The Cage," and revised upward (as was the crew size) later...and I've seen an excerpt from the 1967 draft writer's guide that describes the hangar deck as big enough to hold "a fleet of jetliners." There's also a memo in Making of ST that suggests the possibility of a viewport, through which one could see the nacelles, "thousands of feet long and hundreds of feet over our heads."

This is an excellent question, and I wonder about this too, especially since even the newest edition of the Concordance repeats the "fleet of jetliners" line regarding the shuttlebay.

I'll have to see about that...

 

[antiquityscion]

I don't know of any Star Trek episode that establishes the Enterprise as 947 feet long. I think that length is established by the Star Trek Encyclopedia or MR. Scotts Guide, and other similar books. The largest ship I have ever seen up close is the USS Midway in San Diego, and it is 972 feet long.

This is probably about what the scale is, going by the aforementioned books comparing the Midway to the Enterprise.

I think Voyager is around the same size of NCC1701/1701A.
Star Trek III establishes the Excelsior & Enterprise B as almost 50% larger than the Constitutions.

The Enterprise B is the same as the Excelsior (467 meters\1532 feet), Enterprise C (526 meters\1725 feet), and Enterprise D (642 meters\2106 feet).

 

[Captain Robert April]

If it wasn't "established" in the public's mind when the studio sent out copies of that famous three-view drawing to fans and reporters, it was certainly nailed down with the first printing of "The Making of Star Trek" and the release of the AMT model with that same schematic on the side of the box.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Has anyone knowledge of exactly when in TOS production history the ship's size was nailed?

November 7, 1964

Incidentally, this is before principal photography began on "The Cage", so no, it wasn't "unknown" at that time.

 

[trekkist]

I'm still awaiting Shaw's elucidation of whether or not his citation of a precise date was serious.

Logic suggests the ship's size wasn't established until well into the first season, given construction of a hangar deck miniature too large (via its size relative to the shuttlecraft) to fit inside the ship. Thus the "properly" sized hangar bay of STV, and the visibly shrunken hangar bay of the Remasterds (both of which appear jarring to my eye).

Anyone have their copy of Making handy? Date of the "nacelle viewing window" would be a not-before-this-date factoid.

 

[Albertese]

I'd trust Shaw's calendar. He has exhaustively researched the design and construction timeline of both Enterprise models used on the show so he knows his business. He has posted his research in lengthy detail on these hallowed boards.

I wonder if the screenplay was written off of earlier assumptions, though, and the dialog simply was never run by Matt "The Man" Jefferies. Given the nature of television production, this seems highly likely to me. Besides, even the crew figures given in "The Cage" don't really disagree with any other known technical quantity of the ship later. There just happens to be more people on it. Maybe Pike's mission demanded fewer people than Kirk's. No biggie.

--Alex

 

[Captain Robert April]

The memo in question:

To: Matt Jefferies
From: Gene Roddenberry
Date: May 24, 1966
Subject: LARGE ENTERPRISE INTERIOR

Much pleased with our Enterprise sets, Matt.

Now, however, we will shortly be getting two scripts which call for other Enterprise sets. Referring now specifically to the need for "engineering decks" or "engineering room," we should definitely think in terms of creating an illusion of a room of considerable size. We've got a huge ship, and I definitely feel the audience will be greatly disappointed if they are not taken occasionally into a set or sets with some feeling of vastness. Some areas of considerable spaciousness would only be logical within a vessel of these dimensions.

Perhaps some of this can be done in cohort with Anderson Company, letting them create the extra space with some form of optical matte. Let's discuss it ourselves, and then with them.

Also suggest we consider having somewhere on the ship a large port, possibly overhead, which uses an Anderson painting or something, to give us a view of the ship's nacelles thousands of feet long and hundreds of feet over our heads.

Gene Roddenberry

I think this should be chalked up to Gene getting a little carried away with the idea.

 

[Shaw]

I'm still awaiting Shaw's elucidation of whether or not his citation of a precise date was serious.

It was serious.

But you didn't need to wait for me to tell you that. Either the forum search feature or a google search would link you to plenty of posts where I've elaborated further.

But you've already made up your mind on the subject...

... well then 947' is wrong...regardless of its provenance.

... so what would be the point of discussing it any further (unless you are trying to hit 10 pages).

 

[Forbin]

... so what would be the point of discussing it any further (unless you are trying to hit 10 pages).

Told ya!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I don't know of any Star Trek episode that establishes the Enterprise as 947 feet long.

Bingo. There never was such a reference.

Which simply means that the length is not "canonical" in the only relevant sense. It doesn't mean that the length wasn't established for production purposes, in drawings like the elevations that Jefferies did and which have been available publicly at least since one was first reproduced in Analog and possibly before that.