I came across this YouTube video yesterday with what I thought was a plausible theory about why the nacelle struts on the Enterprise refit were shifted to an angle. What do you folks think? If you haven't checked out EC Henry's Trek videos on his YouTube channel before, I highly recommend them. He's got a lot of interesting things to say and he's changed my mind on a few things.
I think Henry's video was on point, it's a Robert Wise convention of presenting scope. I still believe the Starship Class U.S.S. Enterprise could've been used and have the cinematic treatment like that model but Wise wanted this Constitution Class model to have more lights and loads of excess to it.
EC Henry's main point about the shuttlebay not extending past the struts on the TOS Enterprise isn't correct if we examine the original FX. And if we look at the base of the struts in the TMP Enterprise we see that there isn't alot of super thick internal bracing reaching into the hull via the engine room scene. I think the reason the strut was moved forward has less to do with structural strength blocking the size of the shuttle and cargo bay and more to do with the new warp drive design. All IMHO @KamenRiderBlade has asked a similar question this morning which got me thinking about it enough to comment on your (@JonnyQuest037) thread
In-universe, we could argue that the ship stayed more or less the same, but the engines changed radically. That is, the nacelles did. Perhaps it's absolutely vital to pump the plasma in at mid-nacelle in the new design, just as it was necessary to enter it at the front in the older one? That alone would require the pylons to be canted, so that the plasma conduit (which we indeed see canted in the Main Engineering set, forced perspective considerations notwithstanding) could do its thing as shown above. OTOH, we could also say the other part of the engine, that is, the powerplant, underwent the change. Much like coal-burning battleships of WWI had lots of internal space liberated by the adoption of oil boilers, the powerplant of NCC-1701 might have been compacted a lot in the modernization. And the extra space would best be placed aft of the reactor, what with access to the secondary hull being from the rear; whatever was put into that space, shuttles or cargo or extra crew cabins or a bowling alley module, it might be inserted through the stern. Timo Saloniemi
This is one of those things I don’t like to look at too closely, as, if you managed to sneak in even a modest bomb on your shuttle, the moment you land, you’re in a position to either blow off the nacelles or the blow up the warpcore itself. The ship is just too small. Especially for the size of the crew, sans holodecks. Plus, we all know why the Refit’s pylons are angled — because they’re kewwwwwwwwl
I've followed EC Henry's channel for a while; this is a very well presented video I would add that there's additional pylon structural support on the refit, visible at the base of the pylons. This may offset the need for the pylons to intrude into the hull so much (which we certainly don't see on the interior of the Engine Room set!)
Problem I have with this analysis is that the Enterprise crew really don't seem to use the shuttles all that often, and it doesn't make sense (to me) that so much of the secondary hull would be devoted to shuttle maintenance, storage and flight operations. The diagram of the Enterprise next to the TOS bridge turbo-lift depicts the shuttle deck as not extending forward of the warp engines nacelle's attachment point. The cutaway graph in The Making of Star Trek also shows the shuttle deck not extending forward of the warp engines nacelle's attachment point.
Nice video. Thanks for making me aware of EC Henry's stuff. And @blssdwlf nice to see your stuff again...
I don't follow. Wouldn't that same problem exist for the TMP Enterprise since the flight deck and elevator layout is even larger? Actually the diagram next to the TOS bridge turbolift isn't that clear. Not only that, have you compared the diagram to the actual ship? From examination it's apparent that the diagram is stylized since the engineering hull is enlarged and the nacelles and strut placement are different. Also, what is it actually trying to represent? Can we even say the length and size of the flight deck/shuttle bay is even accurate given the diagram appears to be not in correct proportion to the actual ship? The thing with referencing a designer's illustration is that unfortunately it's not always reflected in the physical construction of the model or set. The actual flight deck as filmed and shown in the TV series is longer than what was drawn by Jefferies and ends up under the pylons. So, going back to my comment about EC Henry's video - if you take in account the original FX the flight deck goes under the struts and therefor it isn't a structural reason to move to angled struts on the TMP Enterprise. But that's for the original FX version of TOS. I do acknowledge that the TNG-universe version of the TOS Enterprise uses the short flight deck and EC Henry's thinking would be applicable for that version.
One of the things that is clear is the hanger deck as being entirely aft of the warp engines nacelle's attachment point. But again Jefferies' the image does have the hanger deck as being entirely aft of the warp engines nacelle's attachment point. Which does line up with the bridge image. And we are talking about Matt Jefferies here, and not some guy with a video.
Okay, the "refit" wasn't a normal starship, it was a technological demonstrator, packed full of new equipment, ideas and concepts. The expanded fight deck, big dual elevators and the large storage area were to facilitate this.They were atypical. Why were they loading all of those storage containers, right before a emergency launch? It wasn't cargo, they were spare parts in case the new stuff didn't work under real world conditions. These large areas would be absent from a working starship of the same general design. The flight deck in Star Trek The Final Frontier did seem considerably smaller than the one seen in The Motion Picture. This would be a indication that after the test phase was over as much as half of the fight deck was essentially "filled in," and the large elevators removed, rendering the flight deck more a practical size.
they look angled because they wanted a 'faster' look for them. It was the late 70's. These are the equivalent to a 70's Porsche 911's whale-tail. I could make a video stating "The swept back struts allowed chryo-frumustramulators to synchronize the crystal bariolithium grammeters into a more stable modial warp core.. " actually let me allow a starfleet engineer involved in the project explain..
That same bridge diagram also has the bottom of the saucer section completely missing. What we know is that the filmed original FX has a flight deck that is long enough to go under the nacelle attachment points and that should be the deciding factor. Just like there is also a substantial bottom to the saucer that is visible on the filming model. What we are left with is that the bridge diagram represents parts of the ship but in a way that is not physically accurate to it since we know what the outside and the flight deck looks like. Which MJ did both the graphic and designed the filming miniature. I'm going with the filming miniature When was it said the ship was a technological demonstrator? If you look at the flight deck in TFF you'll see two large doors right where the two large elevators would be suggesting that the elevators are still there only with additional doors and a turbolift in between them. You can even see one of the doors in your own screenshot: I'd argue that the flight deck stayed roughly the same length between the original FX TOS, TMP and TFF Enterprises.
...TMP large, of course, as the folks of the day have faith in atmosphere-containing forcefields. The ultraconservative Kirk will be the guy later insisting on installing the physical bulkheads. Timo Saloniemi
I said, somewhere else on this site, that if you look at the angled struts, they have vents on them, and that blue pain Probert told Trekyards was some kind of "protection." I'm going with the idea the change was not structural or related to the shulttlebay, but rather in some way related to the need for extra radiators on the new warp drive system. They did also have to cover up part of the bussard scoops with intercoolers, and supposedly Reliant had phasers attached to its struts that could benefit from drive energies. I sort assumed the wall diagram is based on the usable interior space from Pike's day when the ship only held 203 people. That's why certain areas are not shown, and that the shuttlebay is smaller. This a main reason the new CBS show's Enterprise bugs me in context, even though it looks good on its own: the shuttle bay is bigger not smaller. See my comment above. The proportions should have been more like the wall diagram from TOS, especially the Bridge Module should be bigger, or, honestly, actually there at all. I think you both agree and don't realize it. The shuttle/cargo area could have been open in TMP because it was being tested, then later versions walled it off to divide up the space, but continued to use it for the same general purpose, hence the larger doors at the back.
Another thought is perhaps this is the first time they are actually pumping plasma "up" to the nacelles. So they use a shorter path from the branch off point to mid nacelle. We have no evidence that there was warp plasma being sent up to the original nacelles. Likely all plasma was generated and used up there. With only anti-matter (and matter if you include TAS) being pumped down out of the nacelles into the third M/AM reactor in the secondary hull. The Enterprise A and the refit Enterprise were not the same ship. It seems clear from what's seen on screen that they have different flight deck layouts.
...Or then the same, only with different degrees of physical bulkheadage. Quite a bit of creative effort apparently went into making both the movie shuttlebays resemble the TOS bay as much as possible. Probert had to fight decrees calling for radical changes and physical impossibilities (vast window wall showing space beyond, say); Zimmerman had to turn way too small a room into an approximation of the TOS landing bay. Did these efforts succeed? I'd say yes, to a surprisingly great degree. The differences are there because the art directors couldn't help it, not because they would have been intended and desired. Timo Saloniemi