[Chuck_P.R.]

Is anybody here aware of any accurate CGI TOS Enterprise Bridges around?

Links please?

 

[KUROK]

http://www.strafe.com/bridge/

 

[jheilman]

Oh, yeah! His bridge is breathtaking!

 

[Chuck_P.R.]

Some nice renders! Thanks!

Anybody else have links? Maybe to downloadable 3D files?

 

[aridas sofia]

Todd Guenther, Bill Thomas and I are in the process of building the entire B/C deck right now, including the bridge, based on the cross section I created from Jefferies' material. It's not ready to see yet, but it's certainly turning out to be some very interesting design work. Once it's done we hope to have a 3D walk-around like the strafe.com bridge above.

 

[Chuck_P.R.]

Todd Guenther, Bill Thomas and I are in the process of building the entire B/C deck right now, including the bridge, based on the cross section I created from Jefferies' material. It's not ready to see yet, but it's certainly turning out to be some very interesting design work. Once it's done we hope to have a 3D walk-around like the strafe.com bridge above.

Cool!!!

Glad to see you are still posting here.

Between the three of you I know it will be gorgeous!

Are you going to sink the bridge lower into the B deck?

At 947 or 1080 feet(some have speculated that the modelers originally intended the 11 foot to be a 1/96th scale model) lengths of the TOS Enterprise,

The bridge seems to be a VERY tight fit, leaving an unbelievably thin hull between the bridge interior and exterior if one confined the bridge to only the A deck.

I've even gone so far as to try and insert McMaster's version of the bridge into a properly scaled drawing of the as-built 11 foot miniature.

I have to say I agree that without sinking the bridge into the B deck it does not look right.

However, once one does sink the bridge into the B deck, at assuming either a 947 ft or 1080 ft length to the TOS E, in both cases it works. There is then "walk-behind" and access room to service the rear side of the bridge panels, as well as enough room for emergency exit.

Without sinking the bridge, though, there doesn't seem to be enough room for a believably thick hull around the bridge, nor any access to even service the turbolift or exit via gangway ladder, etc.

 

[Chuck_P.R.]

Actually, I have to correct myself.

When I was originally trying to fit McMaster's bridge into a 947 ft long TOS E bridge I was looking at it above and not from the side.

When I was looking at it from above I decided it would fit but be too tight a fit.
So when I tried to fit McMasters's bridge into the side view I didn't even try and fit it entirely within the A deck.

I just tried.

It doesn't fit.

Not unless somebody wants to believe the turbo lifts were lower then they actually were and also would seperately have to believe there was no sunken section in the middle of the bridge.

Here the scale is 25 pixels to the inch for a 1:24th scale drawing(resulting in a 24.8" image in which 1 inch equals 2ft(1/24th scale).

Conclusion: the bridge cannot be contained within the A deck.

How much one decides to lower it into the B deck is open for matters of taste and practicality, but the bridge will not fit entirely within the A deck.

Bummer but true.

 

[Chuck_P.R.]

BTWay, here is a rough draft of the earlier sunken version I talked about.

Aridas, has there ever been any thought as to making the A/B deck into a combined early TOS version of the later series' Captain Yacht or - to use a less elitist phrase - Emergency escape vehicle of some sort?

 

[aridas sofia]

Maybe you've never seen this material. I developed it after close scrutiny of as much of the existing Jefferies material as I could lay my hands on, including my own Phase 2 stuff (some of which I shared with the Cloudster site via Mark Gagen).

http://www.federationreference.com/forum/viewforum.asp?forum_id=9&cat_id=25&topic_id=307&cat_name=Special+Project%3A+NCC%2D1701+Cross+Section&topic_name=The+Place+to+Start%2E%2E%2E&mode=iVRjLgbcVP&c_status=sNYfR&t_status=sNYfR

This is the basis for the CGI work we are doing, though we are tweaking it as we flesh out each deck.

 

[Chuck_P.R.]

That is incredible work!!!!

These are based on a TOS E scaled at 947 feet?
(the A/B looks fantastic, but something seems off about the shuttlebay's scale.)

 

[Chuck_P.R.]

I was recently watching CBS's remake of the hanger bay and tried to scale a bay that was deep enough to hold three 30 foot long Class F shuttlecraft(big enough to actually hold the shuttlecraft interior set as seen onscreen).

Here's a ridiculously rough but pretty accurately scaled low res copy.

 

[Chuck_P.R.]

Aridas, sorry if you have answered this a hundred times,

but is there anyway mathematically/architecturally you could perhaps remove one deck or so per major section - saucer, secondary hull - and thereby increase the spacing between the hulls?

While there is no direct onscreen evidence that there is more then a foot or so space between decks, not only does a deck spacing so thin go against our perhaps admittedly backwards 21st century concepts of structural strength...

there are a few structures among the halls and rooms seen in TOS that would suggest thicker spaces between decks.

For example, the wide, thick inverted triangular trusses seen in the briefing room and in some hall locations.

If there were a functional need for such large, thick metal bracing and support...

would it make sense that these huge braces would be there to hold up(or together) decks with so little space between them?

Usually such "web" truss braces are used to support decks many times their thickness.

Yes, perhaps in the 24th Century there are alloys a thousand times stronger then we have access to now.

But if that is the logic, then it would also then stand to reason that there would be no need for such braces,

because the support braces could also be made of the same alloy - and thus be again able to support decks many times their thickness.

So I could be wrong, but I believe that either - those support braces seen in corridors and the briefing room were either entirely decorative(I doubt) ...

or there should be much more space between the decks then drawn in TMoST and most other peoples' blueprints.

I could be totally wrong on this, and I am leaving my brain as wide open on the issue as it is possible for me given my brain's inherent limitations. :tongue:

Any thoughts you have on the matter would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance,
Chuck

 

[Chuck_P.R.]

For those who are wondering "why would you think the shuttlebay should be deep enough to hold three rows of shuttlecraft?"

I based that on screen captures of CBS' new shuttlebay.
In the scenes showing the shuttlebay there is one turntable clearly seen.

I don't believe that turntable to be far enough aft to also be an elevator.

Behind that turntable by a few feet is seen a second shuttlecraft that is clearly not on an elevator.

That would mean to have an area with a functional elevator(s) that those elevator(s) would have to be to the rear of the length of that second seen shuttlecraft.

Assuming two rear elevators, there could be five shuttlecraft on deck at one time, and depending on how much room one dedicated to a lower level(s) - an indeterminate number of shuttlecraft, workerpods, specialty shuttles, etc that could be brought up once one or more of the five on-deck craft launced.

 

[aridas sofia]

Chuck,

The plans are based on Jefferies' 947' sizing of his ship.

The deck spacing was carefully taken from the two cross sections he drew -- for TMoST and the Phase 2. In most cases it scales to about one foot. That seems generous, given that the only time we ever saw a "ceiling" in TOS, the decking was mesh -- from the WNMHGB deleted scenes, at the 2:47 mark:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xe5SUxq25I&mode=related&search=

As for the placement of the decks, they also come from the Jefferies cutaway. This exercise started as an effort to see whether his cutaway and the 947 foot size could work. If you insist the hangar deck as shown be used, it won't. But that hangar was highly distorted for filming purposes, and Jefferies shows how it was intended to look, undistorted, in the Phase 2 plan. I went with that, and only chose to make it a few feet shorter than MJ indicated, in order to avoid having it intrude upon the pylon join.

The beams and various braces are seen -- in this plan -- as part of what is called a semi-monocoque hull. In other words, the hull, boosted by the bracing, carries most of the stresses. There is a rudimentary skeletal "keel" deep in both the primary and secondary hulls -- the pylon joins this -- and the hull is connected to it via the deck structures -- that is why I felt justified boosting deck thickness to a foot in most areas (the mesh decking will show up in a few places in the secondary hull). Given magic materials like "tritanium" that can be as strong as we want, that foot is fine -- for me.

 

[Chuck_P.R.]

I understand your point of view.

If you are trying to adhere closely to Jefferies' cutaways you have little choice.

There is one point that I don't feel 100% clear on, though.

Is there a chance you might redo the hanger to match the new CBS remake of the shuttlebay? If not anytime soon then at some future point?

 

[Chuck_P.R.]

Chuck,

The plans are based on Jefferies' 947' sizing of his ship.

The deck spacing was carefully taken from the two cross sections he drew -- for TMoST and the Phase 2. In most cases it scales to about one foot. That seems generous, given that the only time we ever saw a "ceiling" in TOS, the decking was mesh

Is there a chance the decks could be drawn with the mesh drawn in, leaving room for wiring, plumbing, etc in each ceiling?

 

[Chuck_P.R.]

Also, any chance we'll be able to buy high def versions of these plans when finished, even if only in Electronic form?

I remember what you went through back when Paramount started their C & D crusade and realize you might not want to get back into doing printed oversize stuff again.

 

[aridas sofia]

I understand your point of view.

If you are trying to adhere closely to Jefferies' cutaways you have little choice.

There is one point that I don't feel 100% clear on, though.

Is there a chance you might redo the hanger to match the new CBS remake of the shuttlebay? If not anytime soon then at some future point?

I think this version will be similar to the CBS version, at least in its overall geometry. To my eye, their version looks much closer to mine than the original. The depth of the bay on their model is greater however, and would necessitate ignoring the pylon connection issue. I also think they have probably allowed their bay to "creep up" in size to allow it to be a little more spacious than the 947 foot confines would allow.

To see how that sizing would look, you need search no further than Bill's own model. While this isn't the model we are working with, and there are differences between his hangar deck and what I ended up with, this version is probably closer to what we'll end up with than any other one out there:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v176/wpthomas007/1701/Shuttledeck/HangarXparent.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v176/wpthomas007/1701/Shuttledeck/hangar013.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v176/wpthomas007/1701/Shuttledeck/hangar002.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v176/wpthomas007/1701/Shuttledeck/hangar004.jpg

The 3D walkaround that we end up with will be freely available to all on a new website devoted to the long-term storage and care of NCC-1701.

 

[Chuck_P.R.]

Thanks a ton!

While I'll love the 3D walk around I do hope you guys will consider doing high resolution 2D orthographic plans like those in your Evolution series and FJ's for those of us old schoolers who still love paper and ink!

 

[Chuck_P.R.]

BTWay, love to see that he's using the shuttle FourMadMen constructed in conjunction with our thread here!

Hope he scaled it the bay to the shuttle's 30 foot length...