Who has done a TOS E cross-section?

[blssdwlf]

Thank you for posting those phots. I can tell at a glance which is the 4". The neck is longer, the pylons look thinner and the bottom of the saucer has a very odd shape. It is very discernable. As easy to identify as the 33 inch model.

Of the three features you cite, how can you tell the pylons look thinner when we only see the 4" from the side? And how is the very odd shape of the bottom of the saucer any different from the 33" at that distance or the 11' with the random mattes that cut into it every once in a while? Only the neck appears longer and even that could be reproduced with a strange matte cutout. I suspect that if the scene with the 4" model was mixed in with the 18" AMT, 11' and 33" from the entire series into a collage that most people would be hard pressed to find it.

But my point was that they are all supposed to be the same ship.

Of course, they are supposed to be the same ship. However the 4" and the 18" AMT are meant to be and only seen at a distance where you can't discern details to distinguish them from the 11' and 33" (which can and are seen up close). So in the example where you say that details cannot be seen on the 4" we have an example of the 11' where the details also cannot be seen when viewed from a similar distance. And since we see strange matting issues on the 11' it is also possible that the 4" can have them too resulting in the odd shape of the primary hull and neck.

Enterprise and Constellation are supposed to be the same design, down to the interior rooms.

I see no problem with the Constellation having a design that is identical to the 18" AMT model (and not the 11') since that is what we see up close. If they really wanted to convey that the Constellation was the same design they could've done something similar to "The Tholian Web" or "The Omega Glory" and re-used shots of the Enterprise from a distance or at an angle where the registry isn't visible. But they didn't.

The various models are all of the same ship, as are the drawings. Insisting they aren't gets into the area of having to have each and every modified set as a different room on the ship.

I see the 4 filming models to be the same ship that can change between configurations since they all appeared on film. However the drawings, or more specifically the Jeffries illustration from "The Enterprise Incident" is not a filming model nor is it accurate to a filming model. We don't have footage of this version of the ship flying around in space. But I don't dismiss it as not the Enterprise though. I would honor it as a version of the Enterprise that came before "The Cage" in-universe. I certainly wouldn't call it a mistake, IMHO.

 

[BK613]

I see no problem with the Constellation having a design that is identical to the 18" AMT model (and not the 11') since that is what we see up close. If they really wanted to convey that the Constellation was the same design they could've done something similar to "The Tholian Web" or "The Omega Glory" and re-used shots of the Enterprise from a distance or at an angle where the registry isn't visible. But they didn't.

I'm inclined to think of it as the previous starship design, with slight differences and not radical ones. My RL analog is the Forrestal and Kitty Hawk class carriers. Very similar looks but with the position change of the island for better flow on the flight deck.

 

[Warped9]

Although the intent appears to be the Constellation being the same as the Enterprise I’m interested in rendering it as based on the AMT model rather than the 11 footer Enterprise.

 

[yotsuya]

Although the intent appears to be the Constellation being the same as the Enterprise I’m interested in rendering as based on the AMT model rather than the 11 footer Enterprise.

Well, David Shaw did that one as well.

And I was sure I had what Shaw shared of Jefferies original plans and I finally found it.

About the only major differences are the curve of the bottom of the secondary hull and the bold cover over the impulse engines. And we also see that the line across the edge of the saucer from the smaller drawing is really just the tangent of the curve to the bottom. And that curve on the bottom of the secondary hull is pronounced because it nearly the same curve until you get back under the pylons and then the bottom of the secondary hull actually bulges out a bit to create that distinctive shape at the forward end of the fantail. Datin just left off that little addition and it changes the shape.

 

[yotsuya]

For those who want to stick closer to what Jefferies drew, I have a couple versions where I push his cross section into the 11 foot profile. I wasn't happy with the first version so I did it again. The decks in the saucer are 9 foot and because of the differences between his drawings and the 11 foot model, there is one more deck in the saucer than he had. I also layered in the very wonky cross section (also redrawn) with the pressure bulkheads and added a couple of walls to what Jefferies had on his cross section to make them line up. From my measurements, the ceiling probably should be 9'3" with a 9" thick deck, but I wasn't being too exact on this. I marked the bridge in magenta and main engineering in orange. The pipes would be just behind it and that odd vertical bit I take for part of the original warp core which we never saw. I hope you enjoy.

 

[publiusr]

This is my redraw of Jefferies cross section in the 11 foot outline.

That is lovely. I look forward to more!

AH! The AMT in the flesh!

Well, David Shaw did that one as well.

If he would permit it...and you want to pursue it....maybe have a cutaway of that with a shuttlebay as small as you could get it...so show some variability within the Starship Class that was...say...narrowed down to Constitution parameters?

Here...have the turbolift directly behind the captains chair. A "smaller" 947 foot vessel with maybe only one shuttle, but extra transporters to further hamper poor Decker's ability to get his crew back and help drive him mad. One of the last issues of STAR TREK The Magazine did indeed show a very cramped shuttlebay with only one shuttle able to fit in it. Depict that if you would....Constellation may have had that lay-out (each ship a bit different perhaps?)

I could just see a story where Decker was fighting to get the one shuttle to work...the transporters are out......he is all alone racing around. A repair! Doesn't hold.

A huge deployable bag they had for some mission! It folds up so compactly!

He could have a shuttle tow it down by remote!

It crashes.

Have them get in the bag and tractor the damn thing off the planet's surface---hit again. He gets so close..and then collapses....where Kirk found him...in a ship built it seems to give him headaches.

 

[Tallguy]

Although the intent appears to be the Constellation being the same as the Enterprise I’m interested in rendering it as based on the AMT model rather than the 11 footer Enterprise.

Been a long time since I've messed with this. But here you go. (Based largely on Shaw's wonderful schematics, of course.)

 

[publiusr]

The AMT deserved life in CGI.

I imagined the damage done might have been due to the nature of the force beam seeming to be a cone, that narrows to a point. I actually think in the initial encounter Decker actually tried to keep his distance. That actually might have as been as much of a mistake as stepping away from a swung bat.

The force beam came to a point right on that saucer as he was backing away and did its worst to Constellation.

So Decker’s seemingly mad action of putting Enterprise hard up on DM at point blank range kept the beam wide and diffuse. I don’t think anyone has told the tale from his mindset. He really thought it was his hesitation that doomed his crew and really did not understand the reluctance of Spock and others. You step into the bat swing so it cannot connect full force.

It probably hurt him that Kirk didn’t have his back…and resigned himself to his fate.

 

[MGagen]

And I was sure I had what Shaw shared of Jefferies original plans and I finally found it.

If I may interject here, this is not the original construction blueprint. It is an imaginative "recreation" of the construction blueprint.

Shaw is an excellent draftsman, but there are parts of this drawing that are based on hand held photographs of parts of the original blueprint that have considerable distortion. The task of anyone trying to interpret such images is a difficult one as it involves removing camera lens distortion, perspective distortion and a wrinkled original that is not held flat. This leaves much room for interpretation. This is one interpretation. There are others.

This is a very good attempt at a restoration. But some details may not be truly accurate as shown. I have worked on this task myself and believe that the secondary hull is incorrectly rendered here with an extra bit of "undercut" on the bottom which is illusory. The secondary hull was indeed drawn with a bit of "curving past the tangent" before it flares back out to join the cone-shaped aft end. But I believe it was symmetrical.

Finally, while the above image is charming; presenting it in this way, with apparent folds and paper texture added overall, makes it very easy for folks coming across it to misinterpret this as the actual original. To Shaw's credit, he does place a title line on the drawing explaining that it is a recreation.

Here is a section of my reconstruction of the actual blueprint. This is not a re-draft. This composite is made from several photos and scans, of varying quality and resolutions, assembled to actual dimensions read from the plans for me by Richard Datin, with whom I corresponded. The secondary hull seen here is truly symmetrical, as is appropriate for a shape planned to be rendered on a lathe. It is also quite close the the actual shape of the 11-footer. Interestingly, Jefferies did not depict the area of the hull covered by the intersection of the dorsal neck. Also, the material removed from the trenches should affect the contour of the hull in side view. It does not -- the hull as drawn on this plan shows the uninterrupted contour. This is not unusual in drawings of this nature, as those details would work themselves out during construction.

I set this project aside several years ago, but I think it is time to finish it. I will post the results publicly. Truly, the world can never have too many blueprints of the Enterprise...

M.

 

[publiusr]

Oh--please do finish that! By all means...

I love Shaw's work here:
http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx/trek_stuff/What_If.pdf

Especially the wider saucer on page 3.
It is wider than the TOS saucer...but would look better on the sleeker secondary hull Matt had drawn that was even longer and more elegant than FJ's blueprint. There the secondary hull also had nice curves.

 

[Shaw]

This is a very good attempt at a restoration. But some details may not be truly accurate as shown.

Well, you're right... that drawing from two and a half years ago (which was a reworking of this drawing from five years ago) has some flaws, specially the shape of the secondary hull. The updated version I put out a year and a half ago I think is better. But it is no more perfect than the latest version which I haven't shared... none of my stuff is (in my opinion) perfect.

But I don't share my stuff because I think it is good, I share it in the hopes that it'll be useful to truly talented artists... something that I am not. I try to draw stuff, but I don't do it enough to be good at it. I also try my hand at model building, photography and Photoshop, and again I don't do any of them enough to be actually good at any of them. But if what I do helps people like Tallguy or yotsuya do some incredible works of art, then that makes it all worth it.

 

[publiusr]

You are too modest. Your drawings ARE art in an of themselves.

I would like to see your own designs--say the nacelles and upper saucer of the 3 footer on the nice 64' secondary hull with its graceful lower saucer. Yotsuya and Henoch both lament how the TOS secondary hull isn't as curvy as it could be. FJ's secondary hull would look better with another saucer---and that saucer needs to go on the AMT secondary hull in that they seem to fit each other better.

 

[yotsuya]

I've spent a lot of time pouring over @Shaw's drawings. I probably tent to trust him a bit too much. But key features of that are from a section of it I am pretty sure is authentic. Also, all Jefferies published drawings of the ship have that extra bit in the bottom back. Also, my examination of the photos of the 11 foot model show that it is not a perfect conical lathe shape. It has an angle located just about equal to the aft end of the neck. This has the effect of making the forward part a little more curved. A lot of that curve hides with those cutouts and how they change the profile. And few draw the neck/secondary hull line the right way. Not unless they do it in CG. It all goes together to make the intended design much curvier than the final model appears.

 

[aridas sofia]

Shaw and MGagen are among the very few who qualify as having been truly indispensable to Treknical fandom.

 

[Tallguy]

it'll be useful to truly talented artists... something that I am not

Not to descend into technical jargon. But that's bullshit.

Shaw and MGagen are among the very few who qualify as having been truly indispensable to Treknical fandom.

I'll concur and I know that you're too modest to add yourself to that list.

 

[publiusr]

Agreed. 50 for 50 is proof of that.

 

[MGagen]

I hope my post was not interpreted as being unduly critical of Shaw's work. I merely didn't want the construction "recreation" to be misinterpreted as a photo of the actual document.

In addition to being a very good draftsman, Shaw is obviously a highly talented (and motivated) model maker. I stand in awe of his 3-footer recreation. Just knowing it exists in a strange way sort of assuages my grief that the original 3-footer is lost to us...

I am a big fan of his work; especially his blueprinting of the AMT model. That is something that has been needed for a long time. Particularly since that kit is a screen used model. Only Shaw stepped up to do that, and did it very well.

Shaw, I look forward to seeing your latest iteration of the construction blueprint when you are ready to share it.

Yotsuya, you are correct that most of the published drawings MJ did featured a bit of a guppy bottom to the secondary hull. I believe the slightly exaggerated way his did this was due mainly to two things: 1) He was working at a very small size (comparatively) and was using a french curve. 2) He knew he had intended a bit of a bulge at the front end, but that the top part of this section would be "consumed" by the dorsal pylon. In truth, the bottom bulge, when viewed orthographically, also loses some of its curve due to material removed by the lower trench; but this happens to a lesser extent and would be almost invisible at the drawing scale.

The truth is, this is a symmetrical shape, planned very intentionally to read to the eye as more organic and alive than it truly is. I honestly believe this was deliberate. MJ was an amazing artist. Just look at the complex, organic look of his Klingon design. He was a genius.

M.

 

[yotsuya]

I hope my post was not interpreted as being unduly critical of Shaw's work. I merely didn't want the construction "recreation" to be misinterpreted as a photo of the actual document.

In addition to being a very good draftsman, Shaw is obviously a highly talented (and motivated) model maker. I stand in awe of his 3-footer recreation. Just knowing it exists in a strange way sort of assuages my grief that the original 3-footer is lost to us...

I am a big fan of his work; especially his blueprinting of the AMT model. That is something that has been needed for a long time. Particularly since that kit is a screen used model. Only Shaw stepped up to do that, and did it very well.

Shaw, I look forward to seeing your latest iteration of the construction blueprint when you are ready to share it.

Yotsuya, you are correct that most of the published drawings MJ did featured a bit of a guppy bottom to the secondary hull. I believe the slightly exaggerated way his did this was due mainly to two things: 1) He was working at a very small size (comparatively) and was using a french curve. 2) He knew he had intended a bit of a bulge at the front end, but that the top part of this section would be "consumed" by the dorsal pylon. In truth, the bottom bulge, when viewed orthographically, also loses some of its curve due to material removed by the lower trench; but this happens to a lesser extent and would be almost invisible at the drawing scale.

The truth is, this is a symmetrical shape, planned very intentionally to read to the eye as more organic and alive than it truly is. I honestly believe this was deliberate. MJ was an amazing artist. Just look at the complex, organic look of his Klingon design. He was a genius.

M.

Here's how I look at that recreation:
We know the two models build from the plans. Shaw was able to find out that there was one set of plans. So we have an idea what Datin did and what the plans must have looked like to arrive at the two nearly identical models.
We have several drawings made at a similar time that show mostly the same design.
We have the AMT kit which also shows a mostly similar design.
We have a few photos of the plans (two that I know of, this one and one of the aft end of the nacelle)

So based on all that we know, what Shaw did was just put the pieces together. I can't say whether that extra bit on the bottom was on his construction drawing or not, but it was definitely on his production drawings. Three that I know of specifically. So I stand by that earlier post that I think that was the closest to Jefferies original intentions. I know Shaw posted that he updated it since and flattened that out. If I had access to the source photos I could probably identify if there is any sign of that feature on them, but I don't know what all exists (possibly in images that can't be shared) to say one way or the other, just that we know Jefferies had drawn it with that little bit extra other times. Datin didn't do that, but there are several things where the two models don't agree that lead to questions as to what the construction drawing looked like and what, if any, corrections were indicated.

I love finding out new information. It makes studying this ship even more exciting.

 

[publiusr]

A good fleet chart would have all these iterations as different ships.

 

[MGagen]

Yotsuya,

There are other images. Some of them are visible in the composite I posted.

The image you just posted has a bit of distortion which is easy to quantify. Look at the line near the bottom of the frame. This is a dimensional callout. By nature and function, this line was perfectly straight on the drawing. You'll notice that it curves just at the same point where the "guppy belly" seems to be drawn into the hull. Both lines are being distorted by the same amount. The curve is indeed there, but it is less than the image would seem to indicate. Look at that same line in my image. It is a straight baseline. Take the secondary hull from my composite and mirror it as a separate layer. Align the center line. You will find the hull is symmetrical. When you harmonize this image with several others, you end up with a much truer idea of the intended geometry.

M.