Hobbyist Forums banner

841 - 860 of 877 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,969 Posts
uss_columbia said:
Steve: try trekcore.com

Griff:
CRA had two nearly identical engine rooms, one one each side (fore/aft) of the mesh/tube thingy, which he locates far forward of the nacelle pylons. The tubes connect to power transfer conduits or somesuch, with one part of the conduit making its way through the floor (under the dilithium doo-hickey) and on to the nacelles. The two nearly identical engine rooms are meant to explain the differences in the set dressing, one with the dilithium doo-hickey, for example. I'm not doing it justice with the description. You might have to wait for April to post his picture.
(BTW, I'd forgotten about his features corresponding to the keel markings.)

Sorry for using technical terms thingy and doo-hicky. I can't think of the layperson's terms. :D
I'd originally set that up as a joke, but it just made so much sense when I thought about it a while, I just kept it.

My thinking of it is that the aft engine room, with the dilithium doo-hickey, wasn't quite set up that way in the first season; rather, we had that rather odd room in "The Alternative Factor" in that area. When the second season started, the aft engine room was upgraded, primary engineering operations were moved there, and the forward engine room was relegated to a backup role, and primarily to monitoring of the fusion reactors.

As for the big screen separating the tube assembly (I have it as a plasma transfer manifold) and the rest of the room, and why you can't see through it into the other engine room, when they did the upgrade, they switched around the screen and the corresponding bulkhead on the other end. ;)

Ya may not agree with my solutions, but almost all of them are done for a reason.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
X15-A2 said:
So you have decided to ignore the visible portion of the casing around the Hangar Deck? To me that is the strongest evidence we have of the intended hull thickness but of course, it is not definitive. I would argue that the extant MJ inboard profile is too small to really extract fine detail such as thicknesses, however, when I bring it into the CAD environment and scale it up to 947 feet, this is the result:



This image just shows a selection of thicknesses for comparison purposes. There is obviously "wiggle room" because the image is blurry but it is still instructive, though once again, not definitive.
I would say that the Phase 2 cross section is a much better indicator of his intent in this regard, because its scale makes such a fine measurement more reliable. The decks on that illustration are about a foot thick, using the provided reference measurements as a guide. So is the hull.

It's been a while since I did the ablve illustration, and studied the Phase 2 cross section in any detail, so forgive me if I'm misremembering. But I'm pretty sure I'm right -- the hull and decks were a foot thick.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Discussion Starter #843
The Phase II section view has a 2 foot thickness called out in one place, but it is unclear whether this is referring to the hull thickness or the deck. The actual drawing shows something more like 18 inches for the deck thickness. The hull thickness is not depicted on the drawing, as it is rendered as a single line throughout.

M.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
Yes... you're right. Now that I look at the drawing again I see that I was mixing sources in my mind. When I did that illustration, I was juggling several sources in coming up with what I did -- the Phase 2 drawing, the photos and drawings of the 11 foot miniature, and things like the WNMHGB and "Charlie X" scenes showing (respectively) mesh decking and wall thickness, and much more. I included two decks in the secondary hull with the 18 inch thickness and made the others 1 foot. It seemed to strike the best balance among the various sources. And the common sense notion that a technology that could manipulate gravity with pinpoint accuracy would have very little concern for gravity-incurred stress tolerances. They'd need space for whatever utilities needed physical support for transmission -- conduit and the like. And the decking would vary in dimension to accommodate those varying needs.

Similarly, I included a heavier hull in the saucer -- the primary habitation area and the part that is supposedly capable of entering an atmosphere -- versus the secondary hull, with its multiple hatches and possible "thin hull" areas. In this way I was trying to flesh the thing out and, in detailing it, include something of the attention to verisimilitude that I believed Jefferies would have done had he tackled something similarly detailed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,454 Posts
Have you guys taken into conisderation how much space between deck plates? Space to be used for gravity generators, over head lighting, air conditioning ducts, etc., etc.? I would think about 2-3 feet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Discussion Starter #846 (Edited)
My impression has always been that the decks are fairly thin, but are secured to the visible support frames seen overhead in the corridors. If you looked overhead as you walked down the typical corridor, you'd see that the reflective shower curtain material panels are pierced where ever necessary to allow all of the electrical wire, plumbing conduits and heating ductwork that always seems to come crashing down on everyone's heads in a shower of sparks whenever the ship is attacked. :D

Of course, YMMV.

M.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
McGagen,

All of which is well, fine and good until you are searching the internet, high and low, to get some decent dimensions of things like the Secondary/Engineering hull to check against Casomir and Sinclair plans with.

Because when you build the rerelease AMT original kit, as 99.999% of us do; you end up with differences of under a millimeter (kit lateral raised area is about 10.5/11mm, drawing shows as _narrower_ indent-slot dimension of about 9mm). All the while working on hull drawings that are supposed to be short but in fact match up pretty well with most of the failings being in curveature as with the hangar section.

Given two things:

1. The hull is very poorly designed for both load bearing and comparison to plans (cut it in half and you lose any hope of getting a circle).

2. I have seen people take 1/4" chunks out of the assembled hull to insert a spacer which the plans don't seem to indicate as being necessary.

It would be REALLY NICE to have some accurate studio model dimensions for items _other than_ the primary hull saucer.

Because what I'm seeing is sheet plastic on the order of .20 or .30 different and a file. Something for which the thickness of line on the printout could easily be an influence.

Since the great Phil Broad himself has told me that the above two sets of plans are good 'but for some drafting errors' and I am in fact scaling the entire set of drawings from the size of the plastic saucer, the only real way to get anywhere's close to the original is to take dimensions and overlay them on TOS stills as photographic proof.

This searching high and low across the Internet is a fools quest when the best means to make our own choices seemingly is nowhere recorded.

Even in the 60s and 70s, what with the errors that simple mimeographic and photocopying slop can induce, what /idiot/ of a draughtsman doesn't put dimensions on his plans for the fabricators to check against?

I don't care what the real size is supposed to be. I want to match the on-screen model. And by now, someone should have published a decent set of drawings to start that process, even if it had to be done by digital capture on an episode by episode basis.


Jeep
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,969 Posts
Part of the problem is that the actual construction plans for the model have never been fully shown to the public (only extreme closeups of a couple of sections), and for some unknown reason, Matt Jefferies never saw fit to make sure the publicity drawings (as seen in "The Making of Star Trek", for instance) matched up with either the actual plans, or the model as built.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
360 Posts
I don't think any true original plans exist. A general concept sketch sure. At times modelmakers have to do with a lot less. Most of the stuff was most likely worked out on the small model, then scaled up to the SSM.

It's my understanding that there is a modern set of drawings of the E, that were created at the time the SSM was rebuilt. The MR E, and Jim Key E(I have both models) were apparently created to the same drawings. But to have an absolute accurate plans of the E is impossible. Nor would anybody want to create an absolute reproduction on the SSM, it's in pretty bad shape. But then what do you expect for a 40+ year old model.

I would put Allen Sinclair's as the best publicly available. Mainly because he offered up his plans in a more usable format. And after going over his work, he misses little, if anything.

There are many reasons as to why they will not put out the "accurate" plans.
One is money, license holders want to be able to offer things others don't. As to maintain a market advantage. The other and the most important is the owner of the property. They have sole discretion over how this stuff is put out. We have no say in that. Even when ST was at it's peak, we still saw very little of the TOS E.

When it comes to what is truly accurate plans, that is a good question, most of the time the guys that made them have just as much info as all of you.
 

·
Modeler's Brand
Joined
·
2,376 Posts
My impression had always been the ship is 1,100' long. Don't know where I got the measurement... FJ's SFTM?

But at 1100', the 11' model is 1/100, the 3' model is ~1/350, the 18" is ~1/640 and the 11" is 1/1000. Does this not make sense?

Guess I'll duck out before I get razor-sharp T-Squares and protractors hurled at me! :)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,621 Posts
When I was working out the actual size of the vehicle for my TOS shutlecraft drawings, after a lot of weighing different matters and very insightful input from folks on this site as well as the TBBS, I eventually came out with a shuttlecraft just under 26ft. long. That allowed me to integrate all the disparate elements of the three versions of the Galileo we saw onscreen into a believable whole.

And that 26ft. shuttlecraft was meant to be accommodated within the hangar area of a 947ft. Enterprise. Even though the ship's actual size is never stated anywhere officially onscreen. And aridas drew up some beautiful cross-section drawings that made a 947ft. ship quite convincing and workable.

That said if someone made an even more convincing argument that the ship was actually more like 1080ft. in length then I could reasonably accept that as well.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,969 Posts
My only problem with the length of 947' is the length coming out as 947' exactly. It just seems to me that there should be a few left over inches somewhere.
 
841 - 860 of 877 Posts
Top