Where was the TOS engine room?
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
It's a pretty cool thread. I just burned two hours on it.
Must be a typo... you obviously mean you are going to burn two hours on it. After all, your post came a little more than an hour after the link was posted.
I have no idea who TPTB is, so that makes answering this difficult.
Jefferies had settled on an over all size by the end of October 1964 when the designs for both the Enterprise models and the bridge set were finalized, as the bridge dome was to be the only scale reference for the audience. That changed when Roddenberry requested the addition of windows a couple weeks later. Jefferies drew those windows right onto the original plans, Datin added them to the 33 inch model, Roddenberry approved it, and the 11 foot model was built with the same window placement... which didn't change other than them later being lit and some additional windows being added.
They needed the biggest model they could get, and there were (intentionally) no recognizable real world elements on the surface (well, until Roddenberry had the windows added).
I don't know who TPTB is, but there is no one with those initials involved in The Cage that I can see. And definitely not with set or model design.
I'm sure you're being sarcastic, but just in case: TPTB = "The Powers That Be"
(my phone browser's refusing to draw smilies right now. Hadn't realized how much I depend on them! Not having them is like forum autism or something)
(my phone browser's refusing to draw smilies right now. Hadn't realized how much I depend on them! Not having them is like forum autism or something)
Not at all... I've never seen that referenced and it wasn't obvious the couple times I've seen TPTB used as to what it stood for.
Personally, I find that writing things out makes communication easier and less ambiguous... but the details also matter to me.
Timo, thanks for the explanation.
I thought that TPTB was fairly well known, but there are a LOT of acronyms floating around this board after all!
Thanks for the history info Shaw - it's always fascinating to look at the preproduction processes and the steps that were taken. This must mean that the numerical markings on the secondary hull were from a very early part of the design process, and just got stuck on later without updating them.
Thanks for the history info Shaw - it's always fascinating to look at the preproduction processes and the steps that were taken. This must mean that the numerical markings on the secondary hull were from a very early part of the design process, and just got stuck on later without updating them.
Those markings also have a very specific history. The building plans for the models had no hull markings on them at all. Further, the building plans for the model were finished on November 7, 1964, three days after Datin had started building the 33 inch model using an earlier set of plans as a reference (the plans which he was given when he agreed to accept the project). All hull markings were drawn on earlier plans, and some of the markings that weren't intended to be used were still used... and not removed because Roddenberry was constantly wanting more detail on the surface of the ship.
Did those numbers really make any difference? People saw those markings for decades (and in many cases didn't even get the numbers right) and it wasn't until a few years ago that MGagen put the connection together (and used the earlier plans overlaid to do it).
Those markings (or any others) are not on the original plans for building the models. All the hull markings came from different plans.
And I hope you don't honestly think that any of these arguments are new to me (or any graphics like that, of which I have MGagen's larger original)... all of this is very, VERY old news. If you are still 4 to 6 years behind on this and want to replay every argument made in that time, then maybe we should hold off on any further discussion for a few years until you catch up. After all, we know more today than we did back then, in the same way that we know more today than TMoST has in it. For me, those arguments have all played out and it is time to move on.
You can spend time reading those old arguments, but I'd also point out that it isn't even fair to the people who wrote them as so much has been learned in the intervening years. I wouldn't be surprised if you could dig up some old posts I made back in 2005 or 2007, or maybe even 2009, that I don't agree with today.
People who are holding onto those arguments most likely made a name for themselves based on them. That is a bad reason for supporting flawed theories that don't mesh with the facts. Of course it is even worse that people are even attempting to make a name for themselves with this stuff. I know (or at least hope) that when the dust finally settles on all this that no one remembers my part... after all, I wasn't there, and so deserve no credit.
Did those numbers really make any difference? People saw those markings for decades (and in many cases didn't even get the numbers right) and it wasn't until a few years ago that MGagen put the connection together (and used the earlier plans overlaid to do it).
Those markings (or any others) are not on the original plans for building the models. All the hull markings came from different plans.
And I hope you don't honestly think that any of these arguments are new to me (or any graphics like that, of which I have MGagen's larger original)... all of this is very, VERY old news. If you are still 4 to 6 years behind on this and want to replay every argument made in that time, then maybe we should hold off on any further discussion for a few years until you catch up. After all, we know more today than we did back then, in the same way that we know more today than TMoST has in it. For me, those arguments have all played out and it is time to move on.
You can spend time reading those old arguments, but I'd also point out that it isn't even fair to the people who wrote them as so much has been learned in the intervening years. I wouldn't be surprised if you could dig up some old posts I made back in 2005 or 2007, or maybe even 2009, that I don't agree with today.
People who are holding onto those arguments most likely made a name for themselves based on them. That is a bad reason for supporting flawed theories that don't mesh with the facts. Of course it is even worse that people are even attempting to make a name for themselves with this stuff. I know (or at least hope) that when the dust finally settles on all this that no one remembers my part... after all, I wasn't there, and so deserve no credit.
Must be a typo... you obviously mean you are going to burn two hours on it. After all, your post came a little more than an hour after the link was posted.
I have no idea who TPTB is, so that makes answering this difficult.
Jefferies had settled on an over all size by the end of October 1964 when the designs for both the Enterprise models and the bridge set were finalized, as the bridge dome was to be the only scale reference for the audience. That changed when Roddenberry requested the addition of windows a couple weeks later. Jefferies drew those windows right onto the original plans, Datin added them to the 33 inch model, Roddenberry approved it, and the 11 foot model was built with the same window placement... which didn't change other than them later being lit and some additional windows being added.
They needed the biggest model they could get, and there were (intentionally) no recognizable real world elements on the surface (well, until Roddenberry had the windows added).
I don't know who TPTB is, but there is no one with those initials involved in The Cage that I can see. And definitely not with set or model design.
It wasn't a typo. I had spent two hours on that thread. For some reason the time stamp was off by one hour. I had problems with the forum loading the past couple of days.
I think the reason that the 11-foot model is that size has a very real-world justification. I ran across a picture a couple of months ago on this forum of the 11-foot model being delivered to the effects house. The picture was taken out on the street with the crew that built it after they had just uncrated it. I think that the model was 11 feet long because that's the biggest size that would fit in the truck.
What the hell? It did it again. The post time is off by one hour. The time at the bottom is correct.
One more thing. The saddest thing i ever saw was back in 1978. When I saw the 11-foot model on display in the National Air and Space Museum. It was painted light green with fake plastic nacelle caps and a horrible plastic main deflector dish.
One more thing. The saddest thing i ever saw was back in 1978. When I saw the 11-foot model on display in the National Air and Space Museum. It was painted light green with fake plastic nacelle caps and a horrible plastic main deflector dish.
The time is off for me too. It was one hour, now it's two since the clocks went forward (in England). No idea why...
Your shows to be over an hour old. The time at the bottom of the page and the GMT offset are both correct. The Daylight Savings Time change here in Texas was over a month ago. This just started within the past couple of days.
I must be stuck in a time loop. Every time I post, I travel back in time one hour. I must be emitting chronometric particles. Can't be; I just took a shower.
If the Doctor shows up it better be David Tenant.
If the Doctor shows up it better be David Tenant.
I would hope that the same could be said for most people (although of course that isn't always the case!). I for one have learned a lot more about the inner workings of Trek in the time I've been perusing this board - and I initially thought I knew a lot to start with! This is the real benefit of a posting system like this.
Although MJ settled on a 947' Enterprise, isn't it possible that the ship we saw on our screens each week had more in common with a vessel of a larger size? Writers and special effects people often employ their own interpretation of the facts after all.
How have you actually lasted this long on discussion boards without learning the common abbreviations?
And if you don't understand an abbreviation, there's always Google.
WTF?
I know the common ones. That one I've seen only one other time and I wasn't involved in that discussion.
Besides, I think it is better for people to learn to write out their thoughts and learn how to express themselves. There is a whole world where being able to communicate clearly is an important skill.
My suggestion... PYHOOYA and get on topic.
That's concise!
Like your most recent post there - very much looking forward to it!
Last edited:
Similar threads
