As for alternatives to turbolifts and ladderways, I envisioned null gravity tubes in the pylons that were basically Jefferies tubes without gravity that you could scoot quickly through. And I was going to have that promenade around parts of the saucer rim. Not entire, but at least half, in chunks.
I completely forgot about this thread. This discussion happened long before I created my own 3D models of shuttlecraft and hangar deck. So to add to the discussion I'll repost some images of what I came up with for both shuttlecraft, flight deck and shuttlecraft maintenance bay.
Oh hey! Nice to see the Copernicus again! I love what a sports-car feel it has with the nacelles moved rearward and the reversed (and to my mind, corrected) arrangement of the tricycle landing gear. Remind us what your ship scaling is, @Warped9?
This is based on a 947 ft. starship and the Class F shuttlecraft is 27 ft. long. The shuttlecraft scale I arrived at ages ago when I first worked it out in 2D schematics. When I made a 3D model of those schematics I found I had made a slight error and had to increase the shuttlecraft's size by a few inches. The shuttlecraft's interior was scaled down a bit from what was seen onscreen in terms of overall cabin length and ceiling height. Concurrently I increased the exterior size of the shuttlecraft's exterior mockup to accommodate my rescaled interior. The end result left me with an inner and outer hull to accommodate mechanicals behind the bulkheads and under the deck. Of course, this necessitated rethinking the access hatch to a degree resulting in an inner and outer access hatch. That is the one obvious deviation from what we see onscreen. Also, because it is flat out impossible to line up the interior windows with the exterior panels seen on the forward exterior hull without drastically changing the shape of those "windows" I opted to reinterpret the interior windows as three display screens. The three exterior panels on the forward hull became sensor arrays. My goal in reconciling the exterior and interior as seen onscreen was not to simply recreate a filming prop, but to create an integrated "real" craft that looked like what was depicted onscreen as much as possible.
I've often wondered about this idea. In TNG, the major characters often made their way in and out of the bridge by the aft lift. Why go around and up the horseshoe when you could just walk diagonally to the forward lift? Maybe there is an operational difference.
I did this recently. The top is my cross section (an ongoing project). The bottom is based on the hanger model at the same scale as the shuttle model. I based my hanger on the Phase II hanger and the details shown in the hanger model. The hanger model as built would indeed fit in the ship at 947'. The doors would need to be smaller and the observation deck taller. I also included a Ford Transit van next to the shuttle for real world size comparison. The warp drive/plasma distribution system is in orange.
The van was because someone said a 22 foot shuttle would be too small. The van is similar in height and length, but is narrower. So the shuttle at 22' has more room.
But a 22ft. shuttlecraft still lacks sufficient space to have an interior even remotely similar to what we saw onscreen. I know because I tried.
The interior was built larger to accomodate cameras. There is plenty of width and length for the seats and asile. It just isn't as roomy as the set.
Do you have a citation for this claim? I mean, there were various other known ways to film seemingly inside a cramped interior, utilizing removable walls being chief among them. So, yes, do you have a citation for your claim that there was a decision made to scale up the shuttlecraft interior in order to accommodate cameras? Thanks in advance.
You want a specific citation for a common practice? When something is that common there are no citations. Sets for small spaces were built big enough for the camera to fit in. Much larger spaces were built smaller to save money. Hollywood is about illusion, not reality. Besides, both exterior versions of the shuttle were built to an exact scale. The small model and associated hanger were built at a specific scale that makes the shuttle 22' long and the full size set piece was 22' long. If the intended scale was something else, the small model and hanger would have been built to the intended scale. Instead they were built to a specific scale that makes the shuttle 22' long. The set is the only thing that does not match and coupled with the practice of building small spaces large enough for the camera to shoot easily, there is no need for any citation to be certain that is what they did.
So, you've got nothing but your supposition. Thanks! I can make up reasons, too, that are completely different. Like, say, maybe someone decided that as specced the space was too small for the actors to move around in to shoot the scenes as written (for "The Galileo Seven"). Sounds plausible, but that doesn't make it true, and its plausibility doesn't make it something that can be corroborated. Just to be clear, there's nothing wrong with supposition, not to mention educated guesses even. But, can't we just be honest about why we've come to the conclusions that we have? Some of us are interested in what can be factually ascertained about the production, and to distinguish that from what people believe, supposed, or assume to have been the case, however good reason those people may believe they have to come to their conclusions.
Some here might not know how extensively this subject has been covered over the years, and by many people. Yes, there is enough width, but not enough length or height in a 22ft. craft. Everything about the shuttlecraft was a production compromise. The original interior set was initially meant to have a lower ceiling—evidenced by how the seats are oddly low compared to normal seats. But as the interior set neared completion the word came down to raise the ceiling to allow the actors to stand upright and to allow for the bulky cameras of the day, something that wouldn’t be an issue today. This also made the seats look even more low slung. In rescaling the interior I brought the ceiling down a bit that made it a bit closer to what was originally intended. A 22ft. craft cannot accommodate the length of the cabin as seen onscreen and certainly cannot accommodate the aft cabin we see. The interior set had a lot of extra room lengthwise so that was relatively easy to shorten the cabin length to something more realistic. Even so it still doesn’t get you the aft cabin into a 22ft. craft. Finally there is the angle of the interior set’s forward bulkhead that does not match the angle of the exterior’s forward hull. And that the width of the interior is proportionately narrower than the exterior. Consequently there is absolutely no way to line up the three interior windows with the windows seen on the exterior without drastically altering their position and appearance. Even Matt Jefferies knew the exterior mockup was smaller than the real craft would actually be. It had to be to be more easily transported and manhandled around the stage. A shuttlecraft sized to accommodate the interior exactly as seen would end up being 30-32ft. long, far too big to be properly berth the shuttlecraft particularly when you have to berth at least four of them. Such a large shuttlecraft would also be proportionately much wider than the full size interior set as seen. A shuttlecraft kept to size and appearance as the 22ft. filming mockup simply cannot accommodate the interior set as seen. It’s impossible. Flat out impossible and no wishful thinking will make it otherwise. A lot of hay has been made of the 24ft. figure cited by Kirk in “The Galileo Seven,” but it doesn’t help. A 24ft. shuttlecraft still doesn’t get you the full size interior. It all comes down to what you want to prioritize: exterior size, interior size, or overall appearance. I chose overall appearance—how to integrate exterior and interior together so that they looked as close as possible to what we see onscreen. My solution was to reduce the interior cabin in length and height just enough to still allow someone 6ft. to stand with their head touching the ceiling. Consequently we would see that person duck their head a bit which would reflect what we often saw onscreen even though it looked like they had lots of headroom—as if they were trying to suggest a lower ceiling than what we saw. Once I had the interior scaled down sufficiently I upscaled the exterior to accommodate it and without changing any proportions. The end result was a 27ft. shuttlecraft from bow to end of aft landing pad. My original size was about 26ft. and a bit, but I had to make it a little bigger to correct an small error I made with my original schematics. I discovered the error when I finally made a 3D model of my schematics. Integrating the exterior and interior this way also allowed for between hull mechanicals as well as the under-the-floor guts something like we saw Scotty working on in “The Galileo Seven.” Oh, and while I initially discarded Kirk’s citing of a 24ft. shuttlecraft by complete accident I found my resized craft gave me a main hull about 24 feet long minus the aft landing strut and minus the nacelles. How’s that for weird?
There are references to the reasoning for oversized interior set. I recall watching an interview where the issue was discussed. The man interviewed, Gene Winfield, was involved in actually building the interior set. And, yes, it was to allow the actors to stand upright and to accommodate the cameras and lighting of the day. I believe it’s also referenced in a little book that was published about Matt Jefferies designing the Enterprise. At 9:42 Winfield discusses the interior. But the above interview is not where I saw the reference to the interior set ceiling being raised at the last minute. Interestingly Winfield references the exterior being 28 feet rather than 22 ft., but it’s easy to see someone misremembering something like that after fifty years.