Honestly, it doesn't matter to me if the studio model was built to ANY scale or not. It really doesn't matter. As long as it looks good on screen, that's all that counts. The Making of Star Trek said 947 feet, and that's what I've been calling it since the damn book came out. That's good enough for me. All the figuring and rationalizing and measuring of deck height and speculation is pointless to me, since the first book on the subject I ever read said 947 feet. Dat's dat.
How big is the TOS Enterprise?
This is an offshoot of an off-topic digression from the "TOS Galileo Shuttlecraft, the Bob Villa version" thread.
What size is the "real" Enterprise. What scale is the studio model?
Phil Broad posted the following in that thread. He was responding to previous posts. To understand this discussion in context you'd probably better read up on the previous thread.
That said, there are several reasons I believe that the Enterprise is, in the end, intended to be 947'. One of them is that the original artboard drawing that was made for the Writers' Guide/TMOST was drawn in a scale logically derived from 947' (1:1152 or 1"=96'). It doesn't work out to a reasonable scale from 1080'.
One of the points you raise is that the dimensions on the Jefferies 3-view don't match the drawing. This was my initial assesment, too, when I had only the TMOST reproduction to go on. However, upon examination of the scan of the original artboard, I find that they DO in fact match the drawing pretty well, given that they are such small drawings to begin with. What is more, they also match the model "as built" quite well, too. Where they differ is in the relative position of the components to each other. For example, each component is pretty much the same size and proportion as built; but on the model, the engines are mounted closer together since the pylons anchor lower on the engine rather than at the center line. The pylons also anchor in the Secondary hull lower than the centerline. These were apparently modifications made for ease of construction. Also, the dorsal pylon is much thicker on the model than on the drawing (for obvious reasons), and it holds the primary hull a little higher aloft.
It seems to me that, when the components are all the proper size at the stated dimension (947'), to look past this and focus on the fact that the engines happen to be the "right" distance apart if you enlarge it bigger than it is supposed to be is to miss the point. You end up with one dimension "right" and all the rest of the dimensions "wrong." There is simply no justification for doing this, especially when it is a detail that was obviously changed when the model was constructed.
I am attaching below a few images to illustrate how close the drawing is to the model as built. The Jefferies drawing is reproduced in blue and the Polar Lights drawing of the same component is overlaid in red to the exact same scale. I have it on good authority that the PL blueprints are extremely accurate except for a few minor (intentional) details. None of these details bear on this discussion.
I hope the above demonstrates at least why I have "left the fold" on the 1:96 scale. It is not that I don't think a case can be made for a larger ship. As you mentioned previously, you need all the space you can get to shoehorn in the shuttle bay! But I have been forced back to 947' (somewhat unwillingly, I admit) by these, and other facts.
BTW, I don't think I mentioned before how much I am impressed by the recent updates on your site. I absolutely love what you've done with the Hangar Deck! You seem to have a real knack for putting yourself in the design aesthetic of the original series. In reference to style, it is of a piece with the original art direction. And it is functional, to boot. Great work!
Mark Gagen
What size is the "real" Enterprise. What scale is the studio model?
Phil Broad posted the following in that thread. He was responding to previous posts. To understand this discussion in context you'd probably better read up on the previous thread.
As I stated earlier in the previous thread, you are quite correct about studios never blueprinting in anything but a rational scale. The ship was originally drafted to yield a 33.75" model (the "3-footer") in 1:192 (1/16" = 1'). These same plans were used to build a 4X model (the "11-footer) in 1:48 (1/4" = 1'). The bizarre 1:84.75 scale is the result of an after-the-fact size change that happened after the blueprints were drawn and probably after at least the small model was built.X15-A2 said:
That said, there are several reasons I believe that the Enterprise is, in the end, intended to be 947'. One of them is that the original artboard drawing that was made for the Writers' Guide/TMOST was drawn in a scale logically derived from 947' (1:1152 or 1"=96'). It doesn't work out to a reasonable scale from 1080'.
One of the points you raise is that the dimensions on the Jefferies 3-view don't match the drawing. This was my initial assesment, too, when I had only the TMOST reproduction to go on. However, upon examination of the scan of the original artboard, I find that they DO in fact match the drawing pretty well, given that they are such small drawings to begin with. What is more, they also match the model "as built" quite well, too. Where they differ is in the relative position of the components to each other. For example, each component is pretty much the same size and proportion as built; but on the model, the engines are mounted closer together since the pylons anchor lower on the engine rather than at the center line. The pylons also anchor in the Secondary hull lower than the centerline. These were apparently modifications made for ease of construction. Also, the dorsal pylon is much thicker on the model than on the drawing (for obvious reasons), and it holds the primary hull a little higher aloft.
It seems to me that, when the components are all the proper size at the stated dimension (947'), to look past this and focus on the fact that the engines happen to be the "right" distance apart if you enlarge it bigger than it is supposed to be is to miss the point. You end up with one dimension "right" and all the rest of the dimensions "wrong." There is simply no justification for doing this, especially when it is a detail that was obviously changed when the model was constructed.
I am attaching below a few images to illustrate how close the drawing is to the model as built. The Jefferies drawing is reproduced in blue and the Polar Lights drawing of the same component is overlaid in red to the exact same scale. I have it on good authority that the PL blueprints are extremely accurate except for a few minor (intentional) details. None of these details bear on this discussion.
I hope the above demonstrates at least why I have "left the fold" on the 1:96 scale. It is not that I don't think a case can be made for a larger ship. As you mentioned previously, you need all the space you can get to shoehorn in the shuttle bay! But I have been forced back to 947' (somewhat unwillingly, I admit) by these, and other facts.
BTW, I don't think I mentioned before how much I am impressed by the recent updates on your site. I absolutely love what you've done with the Hangar Deck! You seem to have a real knack for putting yourself in the design aesthetic of the original series. In reference to style, it is of a piece with the original art direction. And it is functional, to boot. Great work!
Mark Gagen
Attachments
1 - 20 of 877 Posts
Oh, come on! Don't rain on my parade! :jest:X15-A2 said:
Seriously, it is an interesting discussion. I enjoy hearing the arguments on scale especially in relation to the ST:TMP refit which I think ought to be rethought in order to make it more sensible.
The refit is very close to the original in proportions yet all the comparisons show the refit as being bigger as if the newer higher tech engines should be the same size as the old ones. If one matches the saucer diameters, the secondary hulls match in terms of max. diameter and the neck is pretty close. If I'm not mistaken, a study model was made using the AMT 18" for the phase II version which is essentially the ST:TMP version.
To make the refit bigger in the ST universe, it would have required adding a lot to the exterior of the secondary and primary hulls.
If they were the same size, it would have just been some reshaping here and there and replacement of modular units, mainly cutting back the secondary hull. This makes more sense and perhaps the 1/96th scaling would make the two ships match more closely.
Is it known if the big white rectangle on the outside front of the bridge is the view screen?
![]()
Unless you don't push those nacelle end caps on hard enough, then it's longerTrek Ace said:
.
1 - 20 of 877 Posts
