Joined
·
11,892 Posts
Thanks!MGagen said:
How big is the TOS Enterprise?
61 - 80 of 877 Posts
947' seems like an odd length to me, but so does 1100'....
what if someone back then was thinking, "let's make it 1000' long"?
What scale would that make it?
Maybe they were using engineering scales in the art department that day, which have 1/100 on them...
just a thought...
what if someone back then was thinking, "let's make it 1000' long"?
What scale would that make it?
Maybe they were using engineering scales in the art department that day, which have 1/100 on them...
just a thought...
Hi Mark,
Actually my description should have been that there "could be" a crawl way, meaning that there is room for one where necessary. I wasn't thinking that they would be all over, just where circumstances dictate.
Er, I wasn't measuring drawings, just taking the various dimensions shown on the face of the drawing or listed online, such the R. Datin ones. So no, the condition of the drawing wasn't really a factor to my table of dimensions.
I'll send you another address for those drawings.
Thanks again,
Phil
Actually my description should have been that there "could be" a crawl way, meaning that there is room for one where necessary. I wasn't thinking that they would be all over, just where circumstances dictate.
Er, I wasn't measuring drawings, just taking the various dimensions shown on the face of the drawing or listed online, such the R. Datin ones. So no, the condition of the drawing wasn't really a factor to my table of dimensions.
I'll send you another address for those drawings.
Thanks again,
Phil
Mark,
Please send the other images to my work email as soon as you can (I leave work at 6, LA time), I won't be back to work until next Tuesday and will be out of town until probably Sunday night. I'd like to post those images tonight but I'll need to burn them to CD before I go home just to transfer them.
Phil
Please send the other images to my work email as soon as you can (I leave work at 6, LA time), I won't be back to work until next Tuesday and will be out of town until probably Sunday night. I'd like to post those images tonight but I'll need to burn them to CD before I go home just to transfer them.
Phil
MGagen,
Without going long this time: the hangar thing drives me nuts. Doesn't take much attention to see that some ("long") shots distort the shape of the hangar in relation to those shot at near-eye level...nor to wonder what the right comparative size is.
And that's without getting into issues of lens focal length, etc.
Be interesting to do some research of contemporary film techniques, try and puzzle out, for a model bay of such & such size, built forced perspective as you've documented, what lens(es) would have had to've been used to get the appearance as seen.
Or is that too many variables? Sure sounds like it.
Damnit...there must be an answer.
And I don't mean to my own wildhair Connie size issue (on which proper emphasis, I agree with you, BTW: "The Cage" be damned, she's 947-ish til proven otherwise).
But how big "is" the hangar???
David Winfrey
Without going long this time: the hangar thing drives me nuts. Doesn't take much attention to see that some ("long") shots distort the shape of the hangar in relation to those shot at near-eye level...nor to wonder what the right comparative size is.
And that's without getting into issues of lens focal length, etc.
Be interesting to do some research of contemporary film techniques, try and puzzle out, for a model bay of such & such size, built forced perspective as you've documented, what lens(es) would have had to've been used to get the appearance as seen.
Or is that too many variables? Sure sounds like it.
Damnit...there must be an answer.
And I don't mean to my own wildhair Connie size issue (on which proper emphasis, I agree with you, BTW: "The Cage" be damned, she's 947-ish til proven otherwise).
But how big "is" the hangar???
David Winfrey
Joined
·
867 Posts
Phil,
I had already sent the one email you were lacking at 5:26 p.m. Eastern Time. Not sure why it didn't show up. By the time I saw your posting last night it was too late to send again.
If it doesn't show up by the time you return, email me and we'll figure out what to do about it.
Mark
I had already sent the one email you were lacking at 5:26 p.m. Eastern Time. Not sure why it didn't show up. By the time I saw your posting last night it was too late to send again.
If it doesn't show up by the time you return, email me and we'll figure out what to do about it.
Mark
Joined
·
867 Posts
Trekkist,
Looks like Phil didn't get all my emails in time to post them this weekend.
So here's a small preview of the hangar deck.
The TMOST cross section is scaled to 947 feet, the detail from the Phase II cross section is scaled to the size indicated on that drawing.
Both images are reproduced at 1mm = 1 foot. If you have an image editing program that lets you set your ruler to millemeters you're in business to measure directly in "feet."
Sorry about the small size of the image. You have to reduce things so much to post them here. For the record, the Phase II blueprints were provided to me by Aridas Sofia of Star Fleet Printing Office. (Thanks!)
As you can see, it's pretty obvious that THIS is what MJ had in mind for the "real" hangar deck of the TOS E. The why and wherefore of the miniature set may remain a mystery. The obvious reason seems to be the necessity to pour light in around the bulky movie camera. I am making inquiries of a certain source that may bear some fruit in this direction. I'll let you know.
As for the focal length issue, the best thing would be to model the Hangar as shown here in a 3D modeler. It would then be a simple thing to try out viewpoints and focal lengths to see how close one can get to the on screen appearance.
Enjoy.
Mark
Looks like Phil didn't get all my emails in time to post them this weekend.
So here's a small preview of the hangar deck.
The TMOST cross section is scaled to 947 feet, the detail from the Phase II cross section is scaled to the size indicated on that drawing.
Both images are reproduced at 1mm = 1 foot. If you have an image editing program that lets you set your ruler to millemeters you're in business to measure directly in "feet."
Sorry about the small size of the image. You have to reduce things so much to post them here. For the record, the Phase II blueprints were provided to me by Aridas Sofia of Star Fleet Printing Office. (Thanks!)
As you can see, it's pretty obvious that THIS is what MJ had in mind for the "real" hangar deck of the TOS E. The why and wherefore of the miniature set may remain a mystery. The obvious reason seems to be the necessity to pour light in around the bulky movie camera. I am making inquiries of a certain source that may bear some fruit in this direction. I'll let you know.
As for the focal length issue, the best thing would be to model the Hangar as shown here in a 3D modeler. It would then be a simple thing to try out viewpoints and focal lengths to see how close one can get to the on screen appearance.
Enjoy.
Mark
Attachments
Joined
·
867 Posts
One further point:
The Phase II Hangar Deck seems to support something else I have been suspecting for some time now. I am beginning to believe that Jefferies intended the Hangar doors to be elliptical in the side view, not spherical. This allows a little more room for the Hangar since the depth of the doors would be shorter front to back. It also suggests a geometric solution to the old "how do they seal" conundrum. They would still share an axis of rotation, and in consequence, their surfaces would move apart as they open. A beveled lip on each door with some form of futuristic gasket and, viola: Doors that don't scrape past each other and present a smooth surface with only seams visible from the outside.
The following illustration shows what I mean.
Now I'm not saying the model was built this way, (it seems to have spherical doors) but perhaps this is Jefferies' original concept, since he seems to render the doors with an elliptical profile on both the TMOST and Phase II cross sections.
Just some food for thought...
Mark
P.S.: Line illustrations can be much larger if you save them as GIFs!
The Phase II Hangar Deck seems to support something else I have been suspecting for some time now. I am beginning to believe that Jefferies intended the Hangar doors to be elliptical in the side view, not spherical. This allows a little more room for the Hangar since the depth of the doors would be shorter front to back. It also suggests a geometric solution to the old "how do they seal" conundrum. They would still share an axis of rotation, and in consequence, their surfaces would move apart as they open. A beveled lip on each door with some form of futuristic gasket and, viola: Doors that don't scrape past each other and present a smooth surface with only seams visible from the outside.
The following illustration shows what I mean.
Now I'm not saying the model was built this way, (it seems to have spherical doors) but perhaps this is Jefferies' original concept, since he seems to render the doors with an elliptical profile on both the TMOST and Phase II cross sections.
Just some food for thought...
Mark
P.S.: Line illustrations can be much larger if you save them as GIFs!
Attachments
Joined
·
1,259 Posts
Cool! I'd like to see that Phase II cross section. It's not in the book is it?
And great idea on the door, I'dhave never thought of that.
And great idea on the door, I'dhave never thought of that.
Joined
·
166 Posts
No need to wait:
![]()
I hope this helps. I'm sure Mark has provided Phil with the full size scans he was given, and that Phil will give you more detailed images when he returns. Unfortunately the scans are not of the best quality -- the drawings are quite large and I have yet to make the trip to the only scanner large enough to make quality scans of them. BTW, this came to me a long time ago via Paul Newitt and Andy Probert. It was part of the material that ended up being used to create the Constitution II class in the USS Enterprise Heavy Cruiser Evolution Plans and the first volume of Ships of the Star Fleet.
I hope this helps. I'm sure Mark has provided Phil with the full size scans he was given, and that Phil will give you more detailed images when he returns. Unfortunately the scans are not of the best quality -- the drawings are quite large and I have yet to make the trip to the only scanner large enough to make quality scans of them. BTW, this came to me a long time ago via Paul Newitt and Andy Probert. It was part of the material that ended up being used to create the Constitution II class in the USS Enterprise Heavy Cruiser Evolution Plans and the first volume of Ships of the Star Fleet.
Joined
·
1,259 Posts
Thanks aridas,
That's very interesting. Is that a 100% Jefferies drawing? I ask because other designers came into the fray eventually and sometimes it's hard to distinguish who did what. So this is Jefferies, before any of the other guys made alterations?
That's very interesting. Is that a 100% Jefferies drawing? I ask because other designers came into the fray eventually and sometimes it's hard to distinguish who did what. So this is Jefferies, before any of the other guys made alterations?
Joined
·
166 Posts
^ Yes, that one is 100% Jefferies. You're right about other designers being involved in the process -- I'm sure all of you know the long haul involving Jefferies, Jennings, Taylor, Michaelson, Probert and others. There is another page to this set (haven't got that one uploaded yet), that has detailed exteriors of the Phase II ship as it was to be built, and I am pretty sure it was drawn by Joe Jennings. But at the beginning you have Jefferies doing the conceptualizing over how the old ship would be refit, as is evidenced by the misplaced drawing on page 69 of the "Star Trek Sketchbook". Judging from the date on it, (6-77) that drawing is from Phase II, not Star Trek, and it shows the Phase II ship in an early state of redesign. It also tells us that as far as Matt Jefferies was concerned, the "A" added to 1701 would only be done for refits of the original ship. That fits with something Andy Probert told me, and that is borne out in some of his sketches. They realized that they were radically altering the original ship for "The Motion Picture". Because of that, the TMP ship was supposed have a whole new registry number -- NCC-1800. But Roddenberry felt abandoning the old number was too much a break with the original show, so it went back to just 1701. How the "A" was lost I don't know. But it got added later -- unfortunately in a way that doesn't make sense.
Joined
·
1,259 Posts
What's the date on this drawing?
Joined
·
166 Posts
^ The last date on the plans is a note that says the drawing does not reflect changes made to the miniature by Matt Jefferies. That note is dated November 1977.
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
Quoteof Chuck)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But in the final analysis we're really just bitching about the shortcomings of "technical" people who were having to make up this stuff as they went along and probably didn't even know if the series would make a second season, muchless be picked apart like this almost four decades later.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoteof MGagen)
"I would submit that you are complaining about the "shortcomings" of "technical" people where few shortcomings exist. The inconsistancies in these matters are nearly ALL due to compromises made in the heat of production, not flaws in the initial design."
Though that's what I had just said?
Perhaps feciousness doesn't come across as clearly in type as it does in print. What I was suggesting was basically the same thing you said. These guys were working a set job, doing the best they could under the stress of week to week deadlines.
We really have no disagreement there.
On the number of scales issue, perhaps I also wasn't as clear as I could have been. The three scales I was refferring to was the intial scale the ship was envisioned at, with a crew of less then a couple dozen people. Secondly, the ship size and complement that it was envisioned as for the pilot. And finally the production model scale. There was one scale(in the strictest definition meaning simply "size" the ship was initially envisioned to be(the one FJ referred to that was revised even before the pilot) was the one other scale I was referring to.
It didn't seem clear when you were talking about the scales that you meant to only talk about ones that had been finalized in measured blueprints. Sorry if I didn't define what I meant by scales in my post.
of Chuck)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But in the final analysis we're really just bitching about the shortcomings of "technical" people who were having to make up this stuff as they went along and probably didn't even know if the series would make a second season, muchless be picked apart like this almost four decades later.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
of MGagen)"I would submit that you are complaining about the "shortcomings" of "technical" people where few shortcomings exist. The inconsistancies in these matters are nearly ALL due to compromises made in the heat of production, not flaws in the initial design."
Though that's what I had just said?
Perhaps feciousness doesn't come across as clearly in type as it does in print. What I was suggesting was basically the same thing you said. These guys were working a set job, doing the best they could under the stress of week to week deadlines.
We really have no disagreement there.
On the number of scales issue, perhaps I also wasn't as clear as I could have been. The three scales I was refferring to was the intial scale the ship was envisioned at, with a crew of less then a couple dozen people. Secondly, the ship size and complement that it was envisioned as for the pilot. And finally the production model scale. There was one scale(in the strictest definition meaning simply "size" the ship was initially envisioned to be(the one FJ referred to that was revised even before the pilot) was the one other scale I was referring to.
It didn't seem clear when you were talking about the scales that you meant to only talk about ones that had been finalized in measured blueprints. Sorry if I didn't define what I meant by scales in my post.
Tos E
Hi Mark - this thread has really ballooned since I checked in last.
So, am I correct in assuming that the current concensus agrees with the 540' original length and a resizing? The time and scale of the resizing remain the areas of contention?
Actually, I have it on good authority that the original Enterprise was to resemble the DY-100 class ship. It was to be commanded by John (Gomez) Astin and in an attempt to draw in the female viewers, the entire vessel was to be painted pink. Jamie Lee Curtis was to play a yeoman in Phase II, but she was involved in some submarine show at the time. That's what my sources are telling me.
Phil, let me say I really appreciate the info on your web site. Particularly the new info on the Icarus. Also, your 3D E is impressive. The closeup of the shuttlebay is fabulous. Almost makes me want to dust off my 3D E and revise it with all the current info...almost.
Hi Mark - this thread has really ballooned since I checked in last.
So, am I correct in assuming that the current concensus agrees with the 540' original length and a resizing? The time and scale of the resizing remain the areas of contention?
Actually, I have it on good authority that the original Enterprise was to resemble the DY-100 class ship. It was to be commanded by John (Gomez) Astin and in an attempt to draw in the female viewers, the entire vessel was to be painted pink. Jamie Lee Curtis was to play a yeoman in Phase II, but she was involved in some submarine show at the time. That's what my sources are telling me.
Phil, let me say I really appreciate the info on your web site. Particularly the new info on the Icarus. Also, your 3D E is impressive. The closeup of the shuttlebay is fabulous. Almost makes me want to dust off my 3D E and revise it with all the current info...almost.
Joined
·
867 Posts
Hi, Chuck.
Actually, I understood you to mean that the people who were "making it up" were the ones who were to blame for most inconsistancies.
Perhaps this is indeed what you meant. If so, we are in agreement.
That said, it is because the design of the Enterprise is so well thought out that a little digging can usually show what was intended by the designer -- and it usually makes good sense. In the case of the ultimate scale of the ship, there's no need to make it bigger than 947 feet.
I've also had it confirmed to me by someone in the know that the original bridge dome seen in the pilot configuration is actually the same as the Production dome. They merely chopped a section off the bottom to make it shorter. As a result, the pilot dome was a little bit wider at its base, but not wide enough to contain the bridge set if the ship is 540 feet long. It would be very interesting to know what the bridge dome looked like when the ship was on the drawing board at that scale.
Mark
Actually, I understood you to mean that the people who were "making it up" were the ones who were to blame for most inconsistancies.
I was disagreeing with this, saying, in essence, that the person who was "making up" the configuration of the Enterprise (Jefferies) WASN'T to blame for the inconsistancies. Most inconsistancies stem from the original, well thought-out design being changed or set aside at the last minute for production reasons. For example, "let's reshuffle how the bridge is layed out so the turbo door is over the Captain's shoulder for a better camera angle."Chuck_P.R. said:
Perhaps this is indeed what you meant. If so, we are in agreement.
That said, it is because the design of the Enterprise is so well thought out that a little digging can usually show what was intended by the designer -- and it usually makes good sense. In the case of the ultimate scale of the ship, there's no need to make it bigger than 947 feet.
The early concept, before even the shape of the vessel was settled on.
This would be the 540 foot length -- but I must point out that during the production of the first pilot this was changed to the final 947 foot size. Although the model was drafted to be 540 feet long, Pike's ship as seen in the pilot was 947' long. The big model, when delivered to the studio, had the extra windows already added to the dorsal and secondary hull. In essence, there isn't a "Production Scale", only a Production configuration.
I've also had it confirmed to me by someone in the know that the original bridge dome seen in the pilot configuration is actually the same as the Production dome. They merely chopped a section off the bottom to make it shorter. As a result, the pilot dome was a little bit wider at its base, but not wide enough to contain the bridge set if the ship is 540 feet long. It would be very interesting to know what the bridge dome looked like when the ship was on the drawing board at that scale.
Mark
Joined
·
867 Posts
I think the evidence is there to settle the planned 540' length pretty authoritatively. The current debate is on whether it was doubled to 1080' (1072' as built) or if it really was "rescaled" to 947' resulting in an oddball 1:84/85 scale.jheilman said:
Wasn't that "Operation Petticoat"? Considering that the models were built/supervised by Richard Datin, perhaps that should have been "Operation Petticoat Junction"!
Mark
61 - 80 of 877 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!