Hobbyist Forums banner

41 - 60 of 877 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
Mark makes reference to a closed thread of mine in which I proposed the Constitution class be resized based on on-screen evidence, that is, the view into the bridge with which "The Cage" begins, and the apparent size of the hangar deck in relation to a shuttlecraft...or rather, a shuttlecraft enlarged from the on-air stated length of 24 ft., to 29 ft (so to contain the on-screen depicted interior...which cannot fit inside the "full scale" 24(?) ft soundstage exterior prop).

(I restate the above only to reprise the closed thread...itself the proper result of my posting in the wrong place...sorry, all!).

MGagen then goes on to critique my analysis, as follows:

First off, the scene looking in the bridge is wildly inaccurate since the perpsective, scale and even direction shifts throughout the scene. Just about every theory of bridge scale and orientation can be "proved" from this scene by merely selecting the appropriate frame from the sequence...

Actually, the sequence in question doesn't vary that much. Examine and compare the screen grabs posted at:

http://www.trek5.com/caps/tos/00_CAGE/index.htm

and you'll see several things:

1)the first shot showing a part of the bridge (which I admit is in all probability not the very first frame showing such) does indeed not jibe with the exterior...which is to say, the unseen, topmost portion of the bridge would be, according to this view, outside the ship...BUT:

2)the latter three shots -- and indeed, the first -- show bridge and ship relatively closely matched in terms of perspective, and -- more importantly:

3)comparative measurement of a clearly-visible "size datum" -- I chose the section of rail between the centermost post, and the post to the left (left as the viewer looks, that is) -- reveals that the bridge-as-seen does not vary significantly in terms of size (variance is at most some 15% -- well within the margin of human-measurement error, particularly since I chose to print out the 4 scenes on a single page, with the clear bubble sized at 1 inch diameter!). Which is to say: we see about the same amount of bridge regardless of how close the point-of-view comes to the apparently-transparent dome, just as though we were actually looking through such a dome into an actual interior.

To further quoth Mark:

Not to take away from the effects folks who worked on The Cage--this is just the best that could be accomplished before motion control camera rigs were invented.

Amen! They achieved a pretty darn consistent result with their "stone knives and bearskins" -- but not the result (i.e., a bridge consistent with a vessel 947 ft long) that we after-the-fact observers would think would have been intended. One suspects they achieved that result because "they" (including, presumably, Roddenberry) chose a bridge-to-ship size relationship that "looked right" -- and stuck with it.

Which leads in turn to the question: when was the 947-foot length "established?" Making of ST, after all, includes (pre?) production memos alluding to a (I paraphrase) "port...possibly overhead...though which we could see the engines, thousands of feet long and hundreds of feet above our heads" (my emphasis).

Is it possible the 947-ft length was an after-the-fact (the fact of filming "The Cage," anyway) assignment? Sure...given the fact that Pike's ship was, after all, said to carry 203 crew (a number boosted some 100% with the second pilot, due to, as Making says, "the size established for the Enterprise").

Understand I am not taking issue with what the show's creators (with whose talents and skills I have only the highest respect) intended...only with what things look like on screen.

Now for the aft end. MGagen:

Secondly, the blueprint of the hangar deck he uses to scale things from the aft end is unquestionably a drawing of the forced perspective miniature set, not the actual hangar. This is easily determined by noticing that all the lines converge toward the back of the set. Even the observation gallery gets shorter as it goes aft. By the time you get to the control booth by the doors only a midget could operate them. Obviously, this drawing has NO scale -- the little ruler is bogus.

This observation is completely valid...but regardless of my occasional reference to same, I do not point to "blueprints" as the source of the hangar deck's driving the ship to a larger-than-947-ft length. Rather, I rely upon the apparent (i.e., observed) extent to which the hanger as filmed dwarfs the shuttle. This dwarfing is indeed the result of forced perspective...but it is the intended result. That is, the set was built "wrong" so as to look (when filmed) "right."

If we accept a larger-than-soundstage-prop shuttle (in order to accomodate -- indeed, allow -- the human action that we see occur within)...and if we further accept that the hanger was indeed that much larger than that ("enlarged") shuttle (i.e., that the relative size was not simply a mistake, as where in "Doomsday Machine" the shuttle appears nearly as large as the Constellation when taking its death plunge)...then the ship itself must be bigger than we've been "told."

Had no figure been conclusively "established" - as with the original Galactica -- arguments of size would revolve about issues of screengrab measurement, and/or accuracy/consistency/believability of what appeared on screen. My point -- with which I am NOT in love (I grew up with 947 ft too...indeed know all the specs of Making by heart) -- is that critiques of "size apostasy" are most properly couched in those terms and no other.

All I'm saying is, she looks bigger...and looks bigger consistently (or so it seems from my [rather casual] "research"). The same logic by which the shuttle cannot be 24 ft long applies to Constitution size...save we ignore the bridge bit, and rescale (in shuttle-relative terms) the hangar.

I'm well aware the "bigger" path leads to a nightmare of inconsistency with the cinema refit -- which cannot be resized so readily (if at all) due to having been designed from the first with far more consistency and attention to detail than its ancestor. But the degree to which Andrew Probert et al "got it right" in the late '70s is to me somewhat less relevant than whether they got it consistent with what had come before.

The simple truth is that we fanboys have time to take each and every little thing apart and examine its implications. Hollywood professionals do not. Thus the TNG shuttle (the first one -- the nice streamlined thing that never saw full-scale existence) was sized by Probert in terms of 24-ft Franz Joseph TOS shuttle (and corresponding sized human figure). Does this mean the TNG shuttle was "really" larger than the stated length? I dunno...but I "know" how big the first Galileo was.

I make no such claim about the Constitution...and, I repeat, loathe the thought of casting the "canonical" specs aside...but must, save I see valid analytical refutation, maintain:

"That's a big ship."

Really big.

David Winfrey
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
I just remembered -- the builder of the hangar deck miniature (Richard Datin, if memory serves) actually cites its dimensions in an interview in ST Communicator. Do you have that issue, Mark? If not, I'll dig it up and post that data here.

David Winfrey
 

·
Starship Class
Joined
·
11,871 Posts
I hear what you're saying, David.

I think that what it boils down to is that all we can do in the end is pick and choose among the mass of conflicting evidence exactly what we prefer aesthetically and/or what we think fits most logically.

The TMOST size of the ship is, at best, semi-canonical giving us some freedom in terms of scaling her.

Thanks to the various research I've read here, I've done a huge rethink on the whole matter recently and think that about 50 feet more would put her in close range to the canonical size of the refit and put the large 60s model at 1/96th scale but that the bridge, as pointed out, would still need to be offset as in FJ's blueprints.

I can live with 947 feet but I think I prefer a little larger. :freak:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Discussion Starter #44
Welcome David!

Steve can be a "right tartar" when it comes to keeping his BB on subject. I respect him for it -- it's one of the reasons his board is so great. But I am glad to have a home for less styrene-focused musings. (Thanks, Capt. Locknar.)

I respect your exercise in "scale heterodoxy" -- I am with you on the need to re-scale the Shuttlecraft -- but I have a few reservations about enlarging the E. Herewith, some excerpts from your post and my response...

trekkist said:
Actually, the sequence in question [the bridge zoom from The Cage] doesn't vary that much.
I plead guilty to a bit of hyperbole. But I should point out that there are points in the sequence which make the turbolift look much closer to the exterior tube than the full rotated position. I also still maintain that due to the rudimentary technology employed to make the shot, it should be ruled out as a source of size and orientation data.

Is it possible the 947-ft length was an after-the-fact (the fact of filming "The Cage," anyway) assignment? Sure...given the fact that Pike's ship was, after all, said to carry 203 crew (a number boosted some 100% with the second pilot, due to, as Making says, "the size established for the Enterprise").
I used to think this too, but a careful examination of the model at this point shows the extra "decks of windows" have already been added to the model on the dorsal and secondary hull. This proves that the re-scale had already happened before the model was completed. The much smaller scaled, "one deck per hump," bridge schematic that is plainly visible in The Cage shows that when the bridge set was constructed the exterior concept was still in flux. This is consistant with what we know of the chronology of the production. The "3-footer" was shown to Roddenberry for the first time when they were on location at the Rigel Fortress. The large model was completed a few weeks later. The "203" figure is probably dialog that was written before the rescale happened and remained in the script. The decision about the actual size of the ship was definitely taken before the live action shooting wrapped.

...I do not point to "blueprints" as the source of the hangar deck's driving the ship to a larger-than-947-ft length. Rather, I rely upon the apparent (i.e., observed) extent to which the hanger as filmed dwarfs the shuttle. This dwarfing is indeed the result of forced perspective...but it is the intended result. That is, the set was built "wrong" so as to look (when filmed) "right."
There is one word I'd like to say: Focal length (alright, it's two words...) How large something looks has a lot to do with how wide angle the camera lens is. Give me a 28mm lens and I'll shoot a photo of a bicycle in a one car garage and make it look like it's sitting in the middle of NASA's Vehicle Assembly Building! (Hyperbole Alert) Alright, but I can make it look a lot bigger than it really is. My point is that a real scale model of the hangar deck built to the size it would need to be to fit in a 947' hull can be photographed to look just as large as what was seen onscreen. How things subjectively look is a very slippery criterion to hang a total rescale on.

I'm well aware the "bigger" path leads to a nightmare of inconsistency with the cinema refit -- which cannot be resized so readily (if at all) due to having been designed from the first with far more consistency and attention to detail than its ancestor.
I must totally disagree with this. First off, Jefferies himself designed the Refit for Phase II. After it became TMP Probert came in and polished his design, adding some very nice touches and bolloxing up the scale at the same time.

Jefferies put just as much care into the original TOS design. And having seen his original cross section for the Refit, I can say he really did intend it to be the same ship. His initial version matches up scale wise, and, what is more, the cross section matches the original cross section down to the paths the turbolifts take. The Refit cross section has the advantage of being a much bigger scale drawing than the one reproduced in TMOST. As such, it serves as a sort of Rosetta Stone for interpreting the original. One of the things it shows is an undistorted, true side view of the hangar deck -- complete with observation gallery. It is no cavernous void extending forward of the pylons as FJ depicts it in his blueprints. It fits in the hull in the space aft of where the old pylons connected.

This Refit cross section also shows us the deck heights and thicknesses planned by Jefferies. It matches the previous ship and proves the level of thoughtful detail he put into both incarnations of our favorite ship.

I make no such claim about the Constitution...and, I repeat, loathe the thought of casting the "canonical" specs aside...but must, save I see valid analytical refutation...
I would encourage you to take the opposite tack. Hold onto the "canonical" specs until you see valid refutation. With the Shuttlecraft, you get this when Spock stands fully erect and doesn't bump his head. With the Enterprise, though, there is no such concrete objection. If you really look into it, most of the apparent objections vanish and you are left to marvel at the careful planning that went into her design.

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Discussion Starter #45
trekkist said:
I just remembered -- the builder of the hangar deck miniature (Richard Datin, if memory serves) actually cites its dimensions in an interview in ST Communicator. Do you have that issue, Mark? If not, I'll dig it up and post that data here.

David Winfrey
I just re-read this over the weekend. I'll look it up tonight and post it. In the article he mentions a definite scale, but doesn't talk at all about the forced perspective element of the design.

I may be able to get some new, primary source data about this, though...

Stay tuned.

Mark
 

·
Starship Class
Joined
·
11,871 Posts
X15-A2 said:
Where is the refit cross section available?

Yeah! I'd like to see that in comparison to the original cross-section. :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Discussion Starter #49
I am reluctant to share the cross section without the permission of my source. I have emailed him about it and will let you know if I can (or he will ;)).

Mark
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
504 Posts
MGagen said:
I must totally disagree with this. First off, Jefferies himself designed the Refit for Phase II. After it became TMP Probert came in and polished his design, adding some very nice touches and bolloxing up the scale at the same time.
Well, you really gotta spread the blame on this. Probert was only responsible for select elements of the refit, under Richard Taylor. I'm assuming the fan-continuity part of Probert would have chosen to maintain the dimensions very faithfully if he didn't have to answer to Taylor (not saying that is a good or bad thing, just my opinion.)

Taylor insisted on the deco lines on the saucer rim (which were real scale blowers in my opinion), and on tweaking the nacelles, and probably had more input on the observation lounge (until Michaelson on the production end started messing with that), but I can't tell who chose to retain the torpedos in the strut (I think when Jeffries added this feature for Phase II it was just the phaser bank there, which ties in with the notion of warp power chanelling through a vertical intermix with a routing to the phaser area in the middle.) Presumably that is a feature Minor drew on with his vertical intermix.

Also, the E under Taylor was going to be nearly as featureless as the series version, with only a fancy paint job to suggest scale. As best I can tell, the fancy paint job only took place after Taylor/Abel were long gone, done mainly by Paul Olsen (though Ron Gress has often been credited with doing the majority of the work), but the extra detail also all came in when Trumbull took over. Magicam made a point of mentioning the extra skin detail in their pre-release interview in STARLOG 27, saying they liked the ship better before all the extra detail was added (but that might be sour grapes, since a couple principal models -- like the klingon ship -- underwent considerable upgrades by Trumbull's and Dykstra's people after Magicam delivered.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,176 Posts
Hi Mark,

OK, after all your prodding, I went back and created two tables of dimesional data on the ship, one based on the 947' (1/84.1777) length and one based on 1080' (1/96th). After converting Richard Datin's dimensions to 4x size then working both the TMOST dimensions and the resulting 1/96th scale dimensions back and forth (miniature to full scale/full scale to miniature), I think I can say one thing is certain.

It proves nothing either way.

I guess neither of us can prove, with absolute certainty, our position. It comes down to a matter of personal preference.

The 1/96th scale version is bigger than what the TMOST drawings specify. Harumph.

The size of the ship was not specified on-air. Harumph.

A model built at 1/84.1777 scale seems extremely unlikely. Harumph.

I will say that Mr. Jeffries is not quite as precise a draftsman as you have described him, the dimensions at 1/84.1777 scale are certainly "close" (TMOST drawings versus miniature measurements) but not exact matches. In some cases they are very close, in other cases they are simply "close". The degree of error by less than 5 feet in some cases is very small true but it is still an error. I could well imagine that if they did indeed pick the very odd scale that you describe, then determining the true dimensions might be difficult when figuring them out long-hand on a piece of paper. So those TMOST drawing variances could be owed to that factor (a computer makes it so much easier!).

Either set of dimensions render a ship of nearly the exact same proportions, if not exact size. At 1/96th scale the ship is 133 feet larger. Big deal. Not an astonishing difference. I have yet to hear a good reason why they would have picked 947' feet for an overall length to begin with. I could speculate that somebody other than Mr. Jeffires came up with that number and it was then forced upon him (by Roddenberry?). It may be a number that was dear to somebody's heart (same length as some famous ship perhaps?) but there appears to be no "obvious" reason for settling on that lentgh. Even computing a 1/48th scale model at 540 feet by 1.75 results in 945 feet. Once again, "close" but not exactly on the mark. 947 seems purely arbitrary.

My conclusion thus far (until further data comes along) is that the ship could be scaled either way. You can reasonably say that a total length of 947' is "right" because that is the way it appears in TMOST, eventhough it was never actually stated in the show and remains an "unvetted" fact. The slightly larger 1/96th scale version makes fitting some of the interior in a bit easier and is a logical scale at which to build a model, but that is about all that can be said about that arguement.

----------------------------

I can tell you from practical experience that you will find fitting the hangar deck into a smaller ship, a big headache. That opening at the back of my version is so small that the control booths overhead nearly touch. And don't even think about getting a Shuttlecraft, much bigger than the one they built full size, through the remaining hole. I had enough trouble with my "slightly larger" version but smaller? Forget it... :freak:

While the hangar deck may fit in the elevation view, it is a whole other story when it comes to the plan view.

Still, it is a fun challenge and I will definitely look forward to seeing your model when it is completed. At least I will be able to fully appreciate the amount of work that has gone into it, much more so than most other observers!

BTW, how is your little one doing? I don't think you told us his (he, right?) name?

Phil (The 1/96th-scale heretic)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Discussion Starter #53
Phil,

Can you post your chart? Or is it somewhere on your website? I would like to see your results. BTW, were you using the "artboard scan" I sent you, or the slightly distorted Writers Guide image from your website? The scan I sent you is more accurate.

X15-A2 said:
I guess neither of us can prove, with absolute certainty, our position. It comes down to a matter of personal preference.
Perhaps. Of course, there is always the possibility of new data coming to light.

A model built at 1/84.1777 scale seems extremely unlikely.
I'm not sure why you still say this when it is pretty well established that it wasn't built at 1:84.1777 scale. It was built in 1:48 (540') and then "rescaled" with the wave of a hand after (or during) construction. Since the hard part had been done, an odd scale at this juncture would be no big deal.

Your suggestion of why such a number might have been chosen is inspired:

It may be a number that was dear to somebody's heart (same length as some famous ship perhaps?) but there appears to be no "obvious" reason for settling on that lentgh.
To that I might add -- perhaps it was intended to be 945' and someone thought it was too "even" a number ... "make it 947', Matt."

I will say that Mr. Jeffries is not quite as precise a draftsman as you have described him, the dimensions at 1/84.1777 scale are certainly "close" (TMOST drawings versus miniature measurements) but not exact matches. In some cases they are very close, in other cases they are simply "close".
I would simply ask you to bear in mind how small those TMOST drawings are. On the original artboard the full 3-view drawing only measures 12.875" x 7". And they were done with T-square, compass and technical pens. You can't expect pinpoint accuracy. And most reproductions of the drawing are distorted (TMOST is worst). Also, I have collated all the fragments of the original construction blueprints that have been released with the Datin measurements and I can say authoritatively that the TMOST 3-view is not the final version. There were changes made before the construction blues were made for the "3-footer" and afterwards, there were additional minor changes before the "11-footer was built.

Still, it is a fun challenge and I will definitely look forward to seeing your model when it is completed. At least I will be able to fully appreciate the amount of work that has gone into it, much more so than most other observers!
Ditto, brother. No one who hasn't wrestled with this in 3D space can appreciate what it take to work it out. The advantage I have is that, since your model is mostly done, I can have nice renders of it as my desktop picture to encourage me to finish the task!

BTW, how is your little one doing? I don't think you told us his (he, right?) name?
Little Samuel is doing great. He generally does his best to entertain us every few hours throughout the night...

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,259 Posts
Maybe after we nail down the "real" scale, IF there is one to agree on, we can argue about how big the Enterprise SHOULD be, all citations be damned.

Would such a ship be based on the necessary size of the shuttle within the perceived size of the hanger, put inside a ship big enough to fit such a hanger? What would that ship come out to be?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Discussion Starter #56
PHIL:

Your Yahoo mailboxes are bouncing. Please empty them -- I have a present I would like to send you... ;)

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,972 Posts
Perhaps a stupid question, but...

It seems to me the engines were designed to be easily pulled and replaced, modified or whatever. Certainly we saw changes! It would be logical to assume that upgrades might take place that would involve putting engines on that were longer or shorter than the ones that were shown, over the course of a ship's working life.

What if 947' refers to the primary and engineering hulls only? How would that work out? Those could not be changed without major dockyard work, and it might be a reasonable assumption that the "ship" is those areas, and that the engines, which probably would be changed over the course of time, would not be considered as quite the same thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,176 Posts
Hi Mark,

I got one messsage with attachments, thank you very much for sending it and thanks to its original contributor! If there are more, my two email accounts should be ready to receive them.

I will post my table of dimensions to the web site. The reason that I hadn't done it before is that I thought it might inspire more questions than it answers, if you know what I mean. The scale thing can be worked out without it since it is just a question of simple multiplying and dividing anyway. But it can be handy to see the numbers side by side so I will go ahead and put it up. It only deals with the major lengths and the overall length, not the various minor details.

On the question of the measurements on the face of the TMOST drawing, I was assuming that they got them from the large scale drawings, not by measuring that smaller drawing itself. But maybe they didn't bother with the large sheets? If someone else in the art dept was preparing the TMOST drawing, then maybe they just didn't feel like dealing with the big unwieldy sheets for something that was not seen as being "that important" anyway. What they had was good enough? I wouldn't be surprised if that is the way it went down, with Jeffries just glancing it over and saying "OK".

I absolutley must gloat here, just a bit. It looks to me like Mr. Jeffries is showing a deck thickness/crawl space in the drawing you sent...

(just trying to give you a hard time :p )

Thanks again for the great research material, I'll put it up on the site so everyone can study it (you did say that was OK, right?)

Phil
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,176 Posts
Pygar,

That is a very inspired idea! Not outside the realm of possiblity or probability. I'll definitely look into the implications of that change.

Phil
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Discussion Starter #60
Phil,

I'm assuming you only got the second email. I've sent the first one over again. It has the bulk of my message to you and its attachment is described in it.

Your theory about the callouts on the TMOST drawing being done by someone other than Jefferies is reasonable. I am still wondering if you are measuring my artboard scan I sent you or the writer's guide image from your website. Can you tell me? It would probably make a difference in your results.

I absolutley must gloat here, just a bit. It looks to me like Mr. Jeffries is showing a deck thickness/crawl space in the drawing you sent...

(just trying to give you a hard time :p )\
Go ahead! I can take it!

Actually, he does render a 2-foot deck thickness. I wonder, though, how reasonable it is to have a "crawlway" inside it since you have to subtract at least the upper and lower deck surface that contains it. Say the actual deck material is 6 inches thick that would only leave about a foot of space between them. You'd have to be a certified "spelunker" to worm your way through that. Seems more like the kind of space where you'd pop up a deck plate and reach in with a sonic screwdriver or Feinberg Occillating Fram-a-zam to effect repairs.

Mark

P.S.: By the way, everyone, the Phase II blueprints you will see shortly on Phil's site are courtesy of Aridas Sofia of Star Fleet Printing Office.
 
41 - 60 of 877 Posts
Top