Back where Mark was posting about this drawing, he commented that it's a "sketch" and only to trust the called out dimensions, that you'd need to carefully redraft it according to the labeled dimensions. Then, the angles may visually add up better. (Or did you mean they don't mathmatically (or trigonometrically) add up based on the call-out dimensions?)Chuck_P.R. said:The top view drawing is somehow off too.
Can't tell exactly how it's off but the angles are just not adding up right.
Aany idea as to the size of the studio or even the bridge set?ZStar said:I think the book you are refering to is "Star Trek Sketchbook - The Original Series" by Herbert and Yvonne Solow. It has several pages of photos of the 4' x 4' model of the permanent sets. The model was built by the man himself, Matt Jeffries.
Try the following link to info and stage map:
uss_columbia said:Ziz is a rare poster here these days. MGagen seems to surface when his name is mentioned, though.
Edit: looks like Ziz last posted on hobbytalk almost a year ago. You can find his Ultimate Bridge model at http://www.zizolfo.com/models/bridge.html. (Pay no attention to the size of his bridge dome and the external tube.)
To repeat my email here,X15-A2 said:Chuck & Paul, you have mail!
Enjoy the drawings and feel free to share them with others.
Yep. Courtesy of Phil Broad I now do.irishtrek said:Any idea as to the size of the studio or even the bridge set?
The reason I ask is I've had a few discusions on the correct size of the bridge module on the Excelsior and if knowing the size of TOS bridge set may help to deterimine the size of the Excelsiors bridge.