When was 947 feet established?

[Shaw]

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.

Yeah... exactly! Just like the exact size of a communicator, tricorder or phaser were never given in any "canonical" sense. In fact, the number of things that don't have references in any relevant "canonical" sense is staggering.

Of course it would have been great if they had just shown us a diagram of the Enterprise on screen with a scale reference next to it...

... that was made publicly available a month earlier (so we could have it in front of us while watching the show)...

click to enlarge​

... but that would have been too much to ask.

But yeah, the "947" number was never given on screen in a relevant "canonical" sense.

And seeing as what is canon for one person seems different than for another, I've avoided it by studying aspects of the production of TOS rather than trying to see what can be established on screen. Which was why I was happy to address the "exactly when in TOS production history" question.

And why November 7, 1964?

Jefferies may have been working from the scale for some time before that, but that was the day he finished and dated the drawings before giving them to Datin. If someone were to ask when exactly when in TOS production history the size of a phaser was nailed, I'd most likely use Jefferies' plans for the phaser in the same way (though I don't recall him dating those). But on screen, a phaser has a general size and general shape, but no "canonical" reference.

But it should be noted that general sizes and general shapes have been fine for TV dramas for years. Even in currently running shows like CSI we see them taking Blade Runnerestque type liberties to move the story along (which only becomes a problem when the viewers hold things they saw on that show up against real life... like when they are on a jury ).

 

[Forbin]

Page 2...

 

[scotpens]

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

Of course, you’re comparing the aircraft carrier to the TMP Refit/Enterprise-A, which is exactly 1000 feet long. According to canon, that is.

 

[Albertese]

^^^
If the accepted "canon" is what's been seen or heard on-screen, then, no, 1000' isn't canonical for the TMP E either. Tell me where in any episode or movie that any length was given for the Constitution refit. 1000' was the number stated by the ship's designer, Andrew Probert. It carries exactly that same weight as Matt Jefferies' 947'.

--Alex

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

^^^
If the accepted "canon" is what's been seen or heard on-screen, then, no, 1000' isn't canonical for the TMP E either. Tell me where in any episode or movie that any length was given for the Constitution refit. 1000' was the number stated by the ship's designer, Andrew Probert. It carries exactly that same weight as Matt Jefferies' 947'.

--Alex

Exactly. None of this is canonical.

 

[Warped9]

Even when something is mentioned onscreen you might still need a little wriggle room. In "The Galileo Seven" there's reference to "24ft. shuttlecraft," but there's no way in hell that anything remotely resembling the interior we saw onscreen would fit within a 24ft L.O.A. shuttlecraft. But a little fudging and you get something resembling the interior we saw within a 26ft+ shuttlecraft. And if you take the aft landing pad and nacelles off you're left with...a 24ft. exterior hull.

Now I've seen some folks manage to get everything to fit within a 947ft. L.O.A. Enterprise so I don't have a problem with it. I simply accept that what we're seeing onscreen isn't an exact representation of what a "real" starship Enterprise would be like, but it's close.

 

[beamMe]

... that was made publicly available a month earlier (so we could have it in front of us while watching the show)...

click to enlarge​

They must have changed the ship after that drawing was made...

The filming model looks quite a bit different than that diagram.

 

[Hofner]

Shaw, did you verify the documents that you cited? Did you have handwriting experts and forensic specialists verify the authenticity of said documents, that they're not forgeries or haven't been altered?

Ok, ok in case you're actually wondering, I'm just kidding.

Robert

 

[trekkist]

SHAW wrote:

>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...

Touchy, touchy! I didn't try a google or forum search on account of not having a clue what search phrase to enter. Your name? (that'd yield a helluva lot of posts to weed through) "Connie size"? Guess I'll try the former now, being as how you've already made up your mind I'm not worth communicating with, save snarkily.

As I've said elsewhere, the foundations of my mindedness regarding this issue are philosophical. Was the 947 figure established/nailed? Yes, certainly; we've the labeled diagram to prove it. Was it official via Jeffries, Roddenberry, et al? Without a doubt. Is it therefore "canon"? In a sense...save that it doesn't permit (I don't think) the ship's interior as seen. If sets and so forth aren't canon above all other "canon," what is?

"So shrink the shuttlebay, and disregard its onscreen image." OK, say we do that. Will a shrunken shuttlebay accomodate the number of shuttles cited as being aboard Exeter? Maybe...though of couse it won't house the fleet of the animation. "So shitcan the animation." Yeah, fine, whatever. Let's toss a few other cast/crew/writer collaborations too while we're at it, shall we? "Spock's Brain," maybe. Trek V, anyone? Maybe "Nemesis"?

Then too there's the small matter of quarters. Ranks down to Yeomen (at least) had private (redresses of Kirk's) quarters all their own. Will a 947 foot ship contain 430 such cabins (on two or so of the saucer's decks, per Making)...plus guest quarters (viz. the 100-odd of "Journey to Babel")? My guess is, hell no. So yeah, my mind's made up, in the direction of reason and preponderance of aired data. 947 is untenable (I think). If you or anyone else comes forth with deck plans or volumetric calculations showing otherwise (quarters-wise), I'm open to argument. Otherwise, not.

As for the on-tri-screen diagram of "The Enterprise Incident," yep, it's there all right, and labeled with a scalebar yielding a 947-odd foot length. But an official (Starfleet), in-universe diagram would NOT bear a scalebar of FEET. Thus the scalebar (illegible onscreen, TV screen that is) must be apocryphal as to its unit notation, and perhaps even its very increments. It's there, but it must, logically, be labeled in METERS. And that's hardly heresy on my part, being as how diagrams cannot be taken at literal face value at any time within the series (or are we to presume the refit had inside it the decks so lovingly laid out by Franz Joseph, as shown onscreen in "Wrath of Khan"?).

 

[Shaw]

I didn't try a google or forum search on account of not having a clue what search phrase to enter. Your name? (that'd yield a helluva lot of posts to weed through) "Connie size"?

Funny... didn't you ask if I was serious about November 7, 1964? If that was what you were asking about, that is what you could have searched for. I did that search and came up with all that was needed to answer if I was being either serious or sarcastic.

Guess I'll try the former now, being as how you've already made up your mind I'm not worth communicating with, save snarkily.

Unfortunately, no one is going to take you seriously if you can do simple searches. Plus you don't bring anything new to the table. We've all discussed all of this at length before, and there isn't much need to cover that stuff again (specially as you've already made up your mind and just want to argue with someone).

But I enjoyed this part of your post...

But an official (Starfleet), in-universe diagram would NOT bear a scalebar of FEET. Thus the scalebar (illegible onscreen, TV screen that is) must be apocryphal as to its unit notation, and perhaps even its very increments. It's there, but it must, logically, be labeled in METERS.

... because it shows you can't be consistent within your own argument.



And the best reply so far...

 

[Captain Robert April]

As for the on-tri-screen diagram of "The Enterprise Incident," yep, it's there all right, and labeled with a scalebar yielding a 947-odd foot length. But an official (Starfleet), in-universe diagram would NOT bear a scalebar of FEET. Thus the scalebar (illegible onscreen, TV screen that is) must be apocryphal as to its unit notation, and perhaps even its very increments. It's there, but it must, logically, be labeled in METERS. And that's hardly heresy on my part, being as how diagrams cannot be taken at literal face value at any time within the series (or are we to presume the refit had inside it the decks so lovingly laid out by Franz Joseph, as shown onscreen in "Wrath of Khan"?).

THAT'S your argument? That the show is wrong and a spinoff product made five years later is right?

 

[trekkist]

1)It never occured to me to search for the date. I asked a specific question under a topic heading, then asked for the source of the data. Hardly seems out of line to me, but I am of course a mere...what is it I am? Troll? When exactly did *I* start an argument over the date? Or indeed (in this thread) anything else? Or does simple disagreement (or, heaven forbid, the raising of a non-conventional view/concept) constitute "arguing for the sake of arguing"?).

2)How, exactly, does stating the obvious and factual (an official in-universe diagram wouldn't be scaled in feet) constitute beating a dead horse?

3)April, I don't know how you confused my saying "on screen visuals aren't necessarily right; sometimes they're on screen due to convenience, as in TWOK's use of FJ deckplans" with a claim that the FJ deckplan use somehow took precedence over Jeffries' plans being used in TOS. Obviously that wasn't what I was saying.

4)I've just spent a few hours reading (and re-reading) threads here and on hobbytalk in re: bridge placement, ship size and so forth. Nowhere do I detect a dead horse in terms of what I'm arguing, merely (over and over) its rejection on specious grounds. Briefly:

a)Shuttle size inflation per the interior set isn't a superior option to shrinking the set to fit the stage prop (despite the fact that doing the latter would severly damage the shuttle's conceptual purpose, i.e., interstellar journeys of up to 2 wks duration, viz. "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield")

b)shuttle size relative to hangar deck SFX comparisons are erroneous as the latter was built in forced perspective...oh wait, no it wasn't; it just had a big "mouth" (back end) to allow entry to a camera...but comparisons are STILL bull (uh...what about when the shuttle's right in the hatchway? is it wrong to draw comparison at THAT point between its height/width and the doors'?)

c)Matt Jeffries' plans yield 947 ft without fail, so that's the right size (even though that makes the hangar-as-seen and/or shuttle set-as-used impossible).

You guys want to keep being condescending and dismissive, fine. It doesn't strengthen your cases, or jibe with the respect I've held for your work over the years (decades? I forget who's who behind the screen names here, but I sure doted on the Fed Reference Series and Ships of the Starfleet). But of course, that's a dead horse too, I guess, being as how you've...already made up your minds about me, what I'm about, and why I'm here. (What emoticon registers a shug?)

 

[trekkist]

for the record, Shaw,

>final plans finished on November 7, 1964. It looks like Jefferies used an earlier version of the plans to make notes on (for Datin and his team) including instructions to drop the fin element and replace it with what was finally put on the models.

(results of the search you think I should've run before DARING to ask you the source of the date...which incidentally I didn't do to challenge you, but simply out of curiousity) actually says nothing (in and of itself) to answer the "when was 947 pegged." Indeed, it conflicts with info as to the ship's resizing subsequent to "The Cage," doesn't it? Of course, I haven't *seen* the holy drawings in question; I'm merely a thoughtful tech-minded fan of 53, a relative late-comer to (and mostly lurker on) this board, and (like a number of others on other issues such as bridge placement and angle, etc.) a troublesome raiser/defender of issues offensive to the Most High in Rank. To whom I came in *this* case with a single question, the answer to which I've yet to receive, response to which has been, well, let's say "bitchy," shall we? And yet it's me who's starting arguments?

 

[Shaw]

To whom I came in *this* case with a single question, the answer to which I've yet to receive...

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

November 7, 1964

 

[trekkist]

I'm confused. How did Jeffries plans nail the 947 size? After all, it was after filming of "The Cage" that the ship was upsized, right?

 

[Mytran]

As for the on-tri-screen diagram of "The Enterprise Incident," yep, it's there all right, and labeled with a scalebar yielding a 947-odd foot length. But an official (Starfleet), in-universe diagram would NOT bear a scalebar of FEET. Thus the scalebar (illegible onscreen, TV screen that is) must be apocryphal as to its unit notation, and perhaps even its very increments. It's there, but it must, logically, be labeled in METERS.

But we know from numerous other episodes that imperial measurements are still in widespread use during TOS. Here's just one example from Arena:

SPOCK: Getting another life reading, Captain.
KIRK: Survivors?
SPOCK: Not survivors. Not warm-blooded. Living creatures, but not human.
KIRK: Where?
SPOCK: Azimuth ninety three degrees, range one five seven zero yards.

If the uber-precise Spock can use yards, why can't a ship diagram use feet?
However, I do agree that the visual apperance of the Enterprise in this spec is different enough from the filming model to allow for "wiggle room".

 

[Shaw]

I'm confused. How did Jeffries plans nail the 947 size? After all, it was after filming of "The Cage" that the ship was upsized, right?

No... before the models were built.

The final design of the Enterprise was based on the bridge set design (which was originally going to be the only scale reference for the audience) which was finished in mid October of 1964. The bridge on the models needed to have a diameter that worked with the diameter of the set (as designed). When they decided to resize the Enterprise in October, the features of the planned model needed to be changed.

The problem was that Roddenberry had dragged out the designing of the Enterprise, and now with this change of scale, Jefferies was forced to redraw the plans for the models. The studio was getting worried because the models hadn't been started.

On November 4, 1964 Datin was hired to get the models constructed, but because the final plans weren't finished, he was given the earlier set (of the smaller version of the Enterprise) to start with. This set had notes on it telling him what elements he was to avoid building.

With those plans in hand, he got started on the 33 inch model by farming out the turning of many of the pieces. On November 7, 1964 Jefferies finished the revised plans and they were given to Datin. Those plans had a bridge module that fit the scale that the Enterprise would be for the rest of the series.

Here is some of the sets applied at that scale to those plans...

When Datin brought the 33 inch model to Roddenberry, Roddenberry asked for windows to be added (which was not part of the original plans). This forced Jefferies to add them, which he did directly onto the original plans. The windows levels he drew represent deck levels that only work at the larger scale.

All of this is before filming on The Cage had started (which was scheduled for November 30, 1964).

You say you haven't seen the holy plans, but I made available as much information on them as I could here. You asked about the shuttlecraft scaled against the hangar doors on the forced perspective model, I thought Warped9's version of the shuttlecraft worked nicely with the Enterprise hangar doors.

If you are wondering where the deck height/levels came from... Jefferies. He thought out all that stuff too.

click to enlarge​

People think this stuff wasn't well thought out... when in fact it actually was.

You asked if anyone had taken the time to fit the sets into the Enterprise at the intended scale... yes. Because I have both the set plans and plans of the models to work with and spent time doing just that here. You asked about the number of cabin (based on the set plans)... I got about 288 on decks 4, 5 and 6. You brought up seeing the captain's yeomen having a double cabin to herself... of course she does, she has an important job. You brought up Garrovick having a cabin to himself... we don't know that, we never saw the other side of the cabin, it could have been a shared cabin.

Honestly, some of us have spent a lot of time on this. I have tons of drawings by me covering these things in detail... you've done some talking and made assumptions that things wouldn't work without even trying first. How am I to take you seriously?

 

[TIN_MAN]

If I might make a modest suggestion?

I think part of the confusion by everyone here, seems to hinge on what the definition of "nailed down" means?

I think we tech fans (all of us) sometimes forget that the makers of the show(s) were not as beholden to specific technical details as we are, or as we would have liked them to be?

Conceptually, for all intents an purposes, 947 feet was "officially' nailed down early on, but this doesn't mean that it became Holy writ for all time, never to be violated by any other department (SPFX?) under pain of death!

I'm sure everyone involved in the early production of TOS, including (and especially) Matt Jefferies, knew that in the course of the show, a veriety of factors would necessitate a flexible attitude toward such things? A few examples would be; dramatic license, time constraints, budget etc. etc.

As such, it isn't particularly useful to cite examples from the show that "contradict" a given size estimate, as they have nothing really to do with whether or not the creators had yet "nailed down" the size of the ship.

Bottom line is, What constitutes "nailed down" is -like "canon"- in the eye of the beholder. Clearly the 947 foot length was agreed upon very early, but did this mean that evryone involved with every aspect of the production had to slavishly adhere to it? Clearly not. In this sense then, it was never -and has never been- "nailed down"!

 

[Captain Robert April]

Howzabout this: Unless something a bit more concrete comes out saying otherwise (Magic 8 Ball says "Unlikely"), the ship has an overall length of 947'.

Seeing as Mr. Shaw's scaling attempts actually have the ship coming out somewhat shorter than that figure, then 947' actually comes across as downright expansive.

Hell, might even be able to get that forward facing bridge...

 

[trekkist]

As one David to another,

1)Thank you for the explication. So straightforward a response to my question would have saved a lot of time and argument. One further question: to your knowledge, did Jeffries' revised plans of 7 Nov 1964 state the ship's size, or cite a scale?

2)>... you've done some talking and made assumptions that things wouldn't work without even trying first. How am I to take you seriously?

Perfectly fair question, in the absence of my ability to share my work visually, for lack of a scanner and computer graphics programs. I am (as you may or may not know), the draughtsman of the Class F Shuttlecraft Blueprints, in which I upsized the exterior to hold the interior set. I've struggled with the hangar deck size issue, trying to put across in words arguments for which pictures are best suited...and in fact, I spent a good part of last night looking over your work (until then unknown to me save from excerpts on this board).

I point out that in the illustration you include above, the photo's "flight hatch" width exceeds that of your diagram...although the shuttlecraft widths are the same. Is there a reason for this discrepancy apart from holding to a 947 length?

When I, and one close friend, did an extensive, years-long analysis of the show's tech, the animation had but recently left the air. The book we completed was submitted to Pocket and rejected as "of interest to only a few." Subsequent revisions of our theories (hyperlight impulse, powered geosynchronous suspension, straight-line-flight non-material photon torpedoes, among other heresies) for the most part stood the test of time per later Trek incarnations. All such ideas have met with universal (and oftimes rather Rube Goldbergian, if not specious) dismissal here...rather an oddity to my eyes, given what I've long observed as the BBS members' willingness to discuss to death such minutia as registry numbers.

What should allow you to "take me seriously" is the content of my arguments. *I* do not (I think) obfuscate, disregard without GREAT reservation, or explain away due to one VERY talented and professional man's "original intent" what is shown on the air...things I've observed and drawn attention to in this and other threads. Your research -- as well as that of others -- is self-evident and expert. Your conclusions are, to my mind, in some cases another matter.

A 947 ship cannot contain the hangar deck AS SHOWN (flight hatch width, the number of steps needed to reach the shuttle, the number of redshirts standing elbow-to-elbow as honor guard). A 1000 ft refit cannot contain the rec room as built, nor two side-by-side photon torp launch bays as depicted. An exterior-prop-sized shuttle cannot serve the purposes it does throughout the series. Being as how the exterior prop was "subscale" for the same reason Andrew Probert's nicely streamlined shuttle went unbuilt (i.e., cost and production practicalities), should that be given "canon status" superior to the interior set? ONE example of Spock's saying "yards" hardly trumps the common established practice of official reports being expressed in metric (not to mention the fact of "meters" being in the '60s a less familiar term than "kilometers" -- another example of production expediency). Were the 947 figure to have gone unstated ANYwhere, we'd all agree to size the ship via the sort of references I take as logically applicable...wouldn't we?

I respect your work, and that of Jeffries. I do not, however, take either as any sort of final authority. The source matter is that. What form that source matter (the show itself) would have taken, could have taken, should have taken, or was meant to have taken by ONE of its creators is irrelevant.

I began with the question, "when was the size nailed." I think the honest answer is, "it depends on what one means by 'nailed,' and by who." This thread includes a citation of the content and date of a memo by Roddenberry suggesting he, at least, was ignorant of 947 loa well subsequent to the date of Jeffries' construction plans. The hangar deck was likewise built afterwards. The INTENT of my question was, if the size was nailed prior to the deck's construction, why does the deck look so damn big? Clearly a number of unanswerable (what with Datin's death) questions would follow. Did Datin work from plans? Were they Jeffries'? Did their "first draft" (fittable into a 947 ship, which is to say, of a like size to ST V's) get a rejection from higher up? ("Make it bigger!").

And by the way, fitting cabins for all into 3 decks MAY not jibe with Making's what's-on-each-deck descriptions, depending on how one reads them. Not to mention the matter of guest quarters. But that doesn't really matter, does it? The size having been "nailed" in '64, and all.