Much to my suprise, I can't find any guesses on the actual size of deck 13, the Torpedo deck. The best I've come up with is 80' long and 20' wide, based on the airlock door being 6' diameter (on the filming model). Any better guesses? I'm trying to draw a deck plan putting the ST:II set in it. One thing I discoverd is the Scott's Guide makes the room about 30' wide, while it only looks about 15' wide on screen. I know that the set wasn't made with the model in mind.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I don't think you should go based on the set design -- to me, the set looks like one half of the deck, while the sizing of the deck doesn't allow it to fit.
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
When I did the 1701-A deck plans, I assumed that the set (the Bird-of-Prey bridge set), was the port-side torpedo bay, and was accompanied by an identical starboard-side one.
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
but... did you measure the lingth and width? Where ARE these blueprints you keep alluding to, anyway?
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
And can you give us the title that would most likely be "official" in such places as Amazon.com, as well as the ISBN number? I've been trying to locate a set of these for a couple years now, obviously w/no luck!
Posted by Fleet-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
Doesn't the refit Constitution Class have two foward and two aft torpedo launchers?
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
According to dialogue in ST:VI, it has at least one, if not more aft photorp's, sure. While trying to locate Gen Chang's ship, Kirk says something about "standby aft torpedo's".
However, where are they...?
I hate inconsistancies in continuity....
Posted by Fleet-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
Shouldn't the aft torp launchers be behind the forward torp launchers?
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
I might be remembering a different line, but wasn't it "stand by photon torpedoes"?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
There's no aft launchers on the Connie Refit or Enterprise A. Dozens of photos of the studio model would have shown it years ago. Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
I saw some schematic of the proposed "last" Constitution upgrade, it had aft launchers located at the rear of the launcher "box", very logical. They should've included that for TMP, or at least TUC.
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nim: I saw some schematic of the proposed "last" Constitution upgrade, it had aft launchers located at the rear of the launcher "box", very logical.
That would be the USS America, one of the Enterprise II class from Ships of the Star Fleet, volume one.
Of course, FASA also refitted some of the Enterprise class with aft tubes, but didn't bother to change the pictures to show this...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
mabye it would have been in that weird bump thingie under the shuttlebay? It would at least hold with the Excelsior design ethic then...
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
The blueprint set I bought several years ago is the "U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701A Deck Plans", created by Strategic Design. One interesting difference I noted between them and the Shane Johnson drawings is in the Cross Section (Sheet 4 of 9). The deck plans have the turboshaft in the dorsal running in front of the intermix shaft in a single vertical tube, rather than the stairstep version in the Scott's Guide. As I said, interesing.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
I think it was in the Star Trek IV update material in 'Scott's Guide' that said something about an aft torpedo launcher being placed at the aft of the secondary hull above and behind the Shuttlebay Control Booth. Not changes to the model were evident of course.
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
Woodside:
Yep, those are mine. They are still available on eBay from time to time.
I haused to see them posted on the net (feel free, anyone).
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
I didn't like the stair-step arrangement, so I placed the shaft forward of the intermix chamber (warp core). Seemed more logical at the time. On the next deck down, the horizontal shaft swung aft and to starboard, then ran aft - starboard of centerline. (if you look at the STMP Engine Room, the aft portion of Main Engineering had a vertical bulkhead running along the starboard side - while on the port side you could see the upper curve of the secondary hull meet the deck. The fore-aft horizontal shaft was (in my opinion) behind that bulkhead).
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
Not to be the Doubting Thomas, but who are you, exactly, "Treknophyle"? Very curious to know since you don't list a real name in your sig-line. Do you also go by "TrekAce" at Hobby Talk?
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Spot on, Identity Crisis!
Reinforced engine support pylons, larger impulse engine and aft-firing torpedo tubes. Mmm�
Now if only they'd made the pylons thick at the base and thin toward the nacelles, I'd be happy.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Is it just me or can anyone else sense the throbbing of testosterone in here....??
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
Plasma Injector's out of tune again.
Treknophile, I agree that your turbolift plan is a good one, but it toesn't need to be that way. If the turbolift goes strait down the front of the neck, it could also go down the front of the engineering deck, which would put a door right in the mysterous forward hallway, coming out of engineering. In ST:II Spock makes a big show of going down to deck 14 (forward side), then taking the ladder down to Engineering (15), so he can commit suicide and get out of the show. Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
My name is David Schmidt.
I agree there are a lot of possible layouts. Mine seemed to make sense to me. I didn't like the idea of a turbo shaft going down the Secondary Hull forward of the warp core - left little room for the Deflector/Sensor machinery.
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
I plan to tackle the main deflector later, but I can't imagine it really taking a whole lot of space.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
David Schmidt? Kewel! I've heard of you in "trekno-circles", then. Very kewel. I take it that you're who the Schmidt class was named for, as well as the editor of "StarFleet Prototype"?
If so, awesome work.
Sorry to go on like a fan-boy, but I am. Plus, it's always nice to get such fantatsically produced work as yours and that of MasterCom DataCenter out there. Us Fan-Boys and -Girls need something to drool on, after all. ;-)
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
"Kewel"???
Quick! Somebody grab a crowbar to pry this guys lips off Davids ass....
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
Better bring some friends. Like, about a football teams worth. ;-)
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
(Danger! Hobbyhorses Xing!)
Now if the turboshaft AND the vertical intermix bottle (along with the entire Engineering set) were moved aft so that the lift station in "mysterious forward hallway" coincided with the "staircased" sternmost shaft of that picture...
...then we'd solve the mystery of the long forward corridor from ST:TMP, create enough room for extensive deflector machinery at the secondary hull bow, AND leave maximal room at the torpedo deck level forward parts, in case we want to squeeze two side-by-side torp bay sets in there. Plus, it would make perfect sense that most people in ST2 and ST3 depart towards the *aft* part of the torpedo deck when "dismissed".
The minus side is that the vertical intermix bottle would have to be "staircased" as well. Or then truncated just above Main Engineering (like it is aboard TNG-era starships). And the lower part of that bottle would either have to be truncated (our view of it in TMP was forced-perspective anyway), or shafted through the main cargo bay and the arboretum, which requires a bit of additional trickery but isn't completely impossible.
(/Danger! Hobbyhorses Xing!)
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
Here is my half-done vision.... Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
*snickers*
Well I guess someone just confirmed the testosterone theory...
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
Griffworks - guilty as charged.
Those other works were produced some years ago. Some used to be available on the web.
I'm presently working with a 'few good men' on 24th century deck plans - as well as the NCC-1701 and the NX-01.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
Something which occured to me about all this is that the ERTL connecting dorsal isn't quite as thick as that on the studio model, comparitively speaking. Not sure of the exactly difference, accounting for scale, of course.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
If at all humanly possible, the torp deck area ought to be wider than suggested by TheWoozle...
...At least by a meter or so on each side. There's a great need for a narrow corridor running forward and aft from the travel pod doors, a corridor into which the three exterior portholes would open. The forward porthole ought to open into the torp bay set in the current model, like you suggest, yet AFAIK it doesn't.
Adding these narrow corridors would also explain how people can depart the torp bay set in the direction of the pod doors even when there isn't likely to be a pod attached. They are just going through the *inner* pod access doors into this corridor that leads to turbolift (or at least ladderway) access either forward or, more probably, aft.
I know it will be a horrible, horrible squeeze, but IMHO necessary. And generally, this area of the ship ought to be incredibly cramped and compromise-ridden anyway, since it is a major departure from the TOS incarnation of the corresponding area. If we want to pretend that the basic spaceframe of the TOS ship was retained in the refit (even though neither the neck nor any other areas really correspond to the original shape), then the flared-out torp deck might feature elements that show where the old neck walls were, and then added features outward of these.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
Actually, I thought about that. The windows aft of the airlock door would be aft of the set wall, while I've gone over ST:II carefully and the wall section that would have had the forard window isn't shown on screen. That's probobly where they had the camera. With that in mind, it could easily have been in the torpedo room set.
I'm STILL trying to pin-down some good measurements of the neck and deck 1. zThe design above is 80' by 30' and newer research is leading me to think that it's actually 130' by 50'
[ April 25, 2003, 03:18 AM: Message edited by: TheWoozle ]
Posted by darkwing_duck1 (Member # 790) on :
A couple of things to point out about compartment size/placement in the Connies:
There is contextual evidence in ST II that there are indeed TWO torpedo bays in that pod:
First, when the travel pod with Kirk and crew in it is approaching, it is instructed to "approach port side torpedo bay" (implying that there is also a "starboard side torpedo bay").
Second, that self same port torpedo bay goes BOOM real good latter on in the film, after being hit HARD by phaser fire from Reliant. Yet at the end of the film Spock's casket is launched out of a functioning torpedo bay and tube (the tube being shown to be the STARBOARD one).
The other issue is that of scaling. I for one think that the airlocks on the Connie are too large on the model by a good amount (40-50%). Given that certain locations (like the 2 story plus Rec Deck) are pretty much pinned down to certain locations with indentifyable associated features (primarily windows/portholes).
Reducing the size of those airlocks would make more sense, as it would free up a lot of room on the interior.
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
Yup, that woudl explain why my plan came up small, based on the size of the airlock. I guess that all that work, I went to, making the intermix shaft fit, is for naught, heh.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
It's also been stated in several articles, dating all the way back to Paul M. Newitt's "StarFleet Assembly Manual 4" that the airlocks are twice the size they should be to scale out w/the model. If you don't alreayd have them, "Woozle", I'd like to suggest you get the Millenia Models International "Constitution II Docking Ports" set thru Federation Models. They're very nicely done and now include some Evergreen tube stock to place in the kit "caves" so that the docking ports fit better. Fit like a dream, too. Posted by darkwing_duck1 (Member # 790) on :
Well, to be fair to AMT/Ertl, the fault is the original shooting model, not their copy. It's way too big on the shooting model too... Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
Those docking ports on the AMT kit should be about the size as the one at the back of the bridge. Clearly the other four are much larger.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
The size of the ports is only "wrong" on the basis of the close-up we get of the latches locking in place in TMP (and ST2?). Apart from that, we could very well say that the doorway is big, but is *supposed* to be, and can also latch to "male" parts much smaller than the maximum "female" size indicated by the doorway. In fact, this would make operational sense (and may well be true of the huge ports on the Intrepids etc.).
I still insist that all is fair in love and trying to fit two two-deck torp bays in that compartment. Including creatively reinterpreting exterior features.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Oh, anybody willing to put two pics up for show for me if I mail them to him? They're quick'n'dirty modifications of SJ originals, to show side-by-side bays and possible turboshaft arrangements. Really sucktacular as far as graphic quality goes, but hey, that's what a "sketch" is supposed to be, right?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
YES, I have the docking port insters on order, from Federation Models. Once I got the size of the deck, changing the docking port to 6' diameter was easy. The lines are 5'-ish.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
What that seems to be still missing is the small ante-room between the Torp Room and the doorway of the Travelpod as it docked. It is unclear if the room there actually led anywhere, but there was at least two sets of round airlock doors a few feet apart.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: *snickers*
Well I guess someone just confirmed the testosterone theory...
BTW, not sure if you're Trolling or what your deal is, but I was making an attempt at humor, not throwing testosterone around. My comment about bringing about a football teams worth was more to the point of my ass-kissing developing a strong enough adherence to David's buttocks that you'd need that many folks to separate us. While I am a big guy, I'm not necessarily in to violence as anything other than a tool..... Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
I think he's refering to our compairing the size of our... torpedo decks?
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
If that's the case, my apologies!
However, I re-read it several times and found it to be an ambiguous, at best. Maybe I'm just too cynical anymore after all these years online, but it just struck me as rather Trollish, after thinking on it for a day or two.
Yeah, I'm too much the cynic anymore, methinks.... Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Okay, here are two bastardizations of SJ graphics to show how I think the torp deck and the general neck area *should* look. Trivial concerns like actual set dimensions should not stand in the way of things. Deck 14 layout Explanation as to why I say "Deck 14"
The torp deck layout supposes that the torp casing is a good 2m/6' yardstick. Dimensions roughly match those perverted by yours truly from the ERTL model. Or then they don't.
The neck area cutaway is the SJ one, modified to show both the Torp Deck and Main Engineering moved aft. The forward turboshaft (shown in red) connects the two hulls and goes between the actual torp tubes. It has a station at the forward end of the "oops" corridor that lies forward of Main Engineering (and thus gives a raison d'etre for that corridor). The aft one is shunted to starboard below Deck 14 but centered above that deck. I tried to avoid horizontal shafts within the neck since there would be little room for anything else there...
The portholes in the neck area are shown. The uppermost row means SJ must be wrong with his "separation line" thing. I replaced the separation charges with a new deck, and shortened the ramp, so that the portholes would be logically positioned. This means Torp Deck is Deck 14, and Scotty and pals were on the Loading Deck in ST6. (I envision that the corrugated-metal box in the middle of the set covered the hole through which torps are lowered to Deck 14...) Alternatively, I could have eliminated the whole "separation deck" altogether, which in retrospect would probably have been smarter - the upper porthole row seems to be too far down now...
Blue areas mark deuterium/antideuterium flow areas. I placed a big tank where there are no portholes in the neck, to make this look more like a TNG ship. The AM pods are now below the Arboretum, and eject through one of the painted-on hatches down there. The core goes through the Arboretum (the light show is VERY pretty, and the ferns just love it!), and the core shaft aft wall coincides with the former Cargo Hold forward wall - the only change in the Cargo Hold is that there are no pockets for containers (yellow) in the forward wall (which was never seen in the movies anyway).
What else? Oh, yes, the purple areas are all dedicated to deflector machinery. I think it should be *bulky*. This also excuses the long corridor between Main Engineering and the turbolift, sort of.
The vents on Deck 13 aren't for torpedo exhaust here. They are for purging the main deuterium tank. And the "Jeffries Tube" thing had to go because I said so.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
One thing I noticed looking at those plans and the cutaway is that the forward turbolift tube runs right past the torpedo storage area and between the two torpedo launchers.
This doesn't strike me as a particularly clever place to put a torpedo launcher, as all it would take is a malfunction or a weapons strike to detonate the entire torpedo area and disable access (except through jefferies tubes) between the command and engineering sections of the ship.
This is not a comment on the designs you have drawn, by the way, just a general thought on the design of the ship (putting your torpedoes in the thin bit connecting the two halves of the ship).
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
There's a plus side to that arrangement, though.
Torpedoes are physical munitions. They also appear to pose the same problems as moving an occupied coffin - the size, the weight, the delicate handling. How are they brought to the torp deck area?
The natural way would be to bring them aboard through the docking hatches conveniently placed on the torp deck. However, there are no floor or ceiling rails there to facilitate torpedo transfer. And if torps are stowed one deck above, then how do they get there from the docking level? The central torp crane won't be very practical for that, with that railing and all...
If, OTOH, torps were moved around on trolleys that fit in corridors and turbolifts, then this lift placement would make great sense. Direct delivery of torps to the magazines! (The lifts could be just *barely* wide enough for the task. Or then inert torps can be stored vertically.)
The neck is a vulnerability in battle in more ways than one. Admittedly, it's risky play to position vital yet kaboomy things there - like turboshafts, torpedo magazines, fuel tanks, or the FRIGGING MAIN ANTIMATTER REACTOR OF THE SHIP! I suppose the two porthole-free vertical stretches of hull plating there are some sort of armor, for the reactor core in the Probert original, and for the turboshaft and the magazine in my bastardization.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
I'll admit that putting it near a turbolift is a good idea - easy access for vital maintenance in a battle - but surely there are more places in the ship near turbolifts?
As we saw from the Reliant battle, torpedo launchers can and will go boom in a battle, regardless of armour, and I dont see how putting them near such vital access tubes and technical areas can serve any practical purpose.
Now at the bottom of the engineering hull, or the bottom tip of the saucer, that would make sense. Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I guess the torp launchers could also need direct antimatter feed for arming the torps, so all the eggs would be in one basket anyway. The farther you outrig the launchers, the longer and more vulnerable your supply lines become.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
I hadn't thought of that. It makes sense.
If the torps have antimatter inserted just before they are loaded into the launcher, it would both provide a reason for the torp bays (someone would need to insert it, I suppose) and mean that the torp storage area contains antimatter-less and therefore inert torps.
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
I like it, but that's the first idea I've seen, that didn't have the deflector crystal directly above the intermix shaft in Engineering.
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Blue areas mark deuterium/antideuterium flow areas. I placed a big tank where there are no portholes in the neck, to make this look more like a TNG ship.
Yeah, but that's a pretty skimpy load of deuterium, don't you think? Granted, the original design had even less storage, but that's not an error one needs to perpetuate. If the ship uses a Mark One Sternbach Foam-Dilithium Pressure Vessel with Distributed Annihilation [tm], I'm not sure there's a need for the deuterium to be injected from above (though it is on Voyager). I like the idea of having the deuterium and antideuterium both at the bottom on this ship, mostly because that's the only place there's unused room.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phoenix: I hadn't thought of that. It makes sense.
If the torps have antimatter inserted just before they are loaded into the launcher, it would both provide a reason for the torp bays (someone would need to insert it, I suppose) and mean that the torp storage area contains antimatter-less and therefore inert torps.
Doesn't "Mr Scott's" state this very thing? I need to pull that book back out and peruse it again. Pretty certain it does state this. Regardless, this is how almost all munitions are stored wherever possible. The USAF stores all missiles and bombs w/o the fuses. While this does not make them inert (they've still got explosives in them), it likely would make photorp's inert w/o the antimatter. However, an argument might be made for the propellant being an explosive device, which might or might not be the case - perhaps they've perfected a miniature A/M drive for the photorps.
Of course, all of this is pure speculation, but I like it! Great job on the call-outs, Timo. Seems there's some honest, objective thinking in this thread.
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Griffworks: Doesn't "Mr Scott's" state this very thing?
I wouldn't know. Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
In ST:VI we see difinitive proof that they can correct their trajectory, in ST:III we see the standard casing also used for a coffin, making them multi-purpose. Not to mention, the ease at which they swap-out guidance and sensor elements in ST:VI That would mean that the probes that they launch occasionally (in TOS and TNG) also use torpedo casings. That would make sense, having a universal launch system.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
We also see in TNG that they have warp capability, because, as I recall, K'Ehleyr traveled in hibernation in one in the TNG episode "The Emissary". It's my suspicion that they've had a warp field generator of some sort which would allow them, if programmed or the "mother ship" were travling at warp, to travel faster than C since the TOS Movie Era days, tho I have nothing with which to back that supposition up.
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Griffworks: We also see in TNG that they have warp capability, because, as I recall, K'Ehleyr traveled in hibernation in one in the TNG episode "The Emissary". It's my suspicion that they've had a warp field generator of some sort which would allow them, if programmed or the "mother ship" were travling at warp, to travel faster than C since the TOS Movie Era days, tho I have nothing with which to back that supposition up.
I agree. It seems likely to me that they can travel at warp, but not accelerate to it. This would explain how they can work when a ship is at warp and yet appear to be really really slow in episodes and movies.
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
If memory serves, it's called a 'warp sustainer'.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Okay, here are two bastardizations of SJ graphics to show how I think the torp deck and the general neck area *should* look. Trivial concerns like actual set dimensions should not stand in the way of things. Deck 14 layout Explanation as to why I say "Deck 14"
The only probelm I have with this is that the only canonical evidence we've seen as to the deck numbers is the Red Alert digram in TWOK, which clearly indicates that the two decks in the widest part of the saucer are decks 5 and 6, not 6 and 7.
Then again...where's Deck 78? Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
The revised layout also contradicts the turboshaft chart graphic from the movies. I'd still rather forget about those and go for something that makes the greatest possible sense dimensionally.
Which my revised cutout does not. I restored the separation charges and removed the extra deck, and noticed that this necessarily splits the planned deuterium tank in half. Oh, well. Perhaps the upper part goes with the saucer for impulse propulsion in case of separation, even though both are interconnected in attached mode.
I'd still defend a deuterium tank somewhere up there, just so that the impulse engines could be easily fed. But if there are separate tanks for that, then things change. The deuterium volume would be a function of the relationship between warp and impulse travel during a typical mission - impulse would call for relatively more deuterium. But if impulse engines have their own tanks in the saucer, then the warp deuterium should not take up much more room than the warp antideuterium.
The "impulse crystal" need not be at the upper end of the shaft, or connected to it, canonically speaking - it isn't there on the Constellations or the NX-01, and the Mirandas, Soyuzes and Excelsiors are still open to speculation in that respect. The Sydneys seem to have a big shuttlebay beneath the crystal...
The greatest problem with side-by-side torp decks would seem to be, not the width issue, but the fact that the upper deck balconies seem almost as wide as the lower bays. Very little can be done to help that.
(Just to gloat on that layout I did, though, it would also explain why the port side torpedo bay docking ports are preferred. The "waiting niche" for turbolifts is on that side... )
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by thelastguardian (Member # 1017) on :
Greetings --
Many thanks to Griffworks for inviting me to come to this board and take a peek.
I've enjoyed your posts concerning the interior layout of the movie Enterprise. You guys sure know your stuff, and I've really had fun reading through your thoughts on the vessel's theoretical innards
When I wrote 'Mr. Scott's Guide,' there were several restrictions I was asked to abide by. One was some measure of adherence to prior licensed materials such as FASA's stuff and the earlier Spaceflight Chronology, as well as the Kimble cutaway poster. I also incorporated design suggestions given me by Probert (the computer core) and Okuda (corridor specifics, among other things).
Some elements, such as the torp bays, simply couldn't be done as implied on-screen. The clear implication in ST II was that there were two separate bays resting side-by-side, with docking port access foyers placed outside of those. Can't happen -- Irwin Allen would have been proud. After all, the set originally was created as the Klingon bridge for TMP, and was redressed by Meyer as a budget-saving feature. Despite all this, since the room was so prominent in the film, I wanted to include it in MSG -- so, I created the single-bay 'horseshoe launcher' compromise. Even THAT is a stretch, but it worked well enough to provide a plausible entry in the book.
It's been a long time since I did MSG (some 17 years), and there are things in there I'd now do differently given the chance (but then, there always are -- I tend to edit my novels right up to the last minute, and even after publication I continue to find things I feel could be made better). It's been a good while since I even read through the book, so I don't immediately recall everything in it, or the thinking behind some of its content. But I do know that I produced the best interpretation of the Enterprise I could at the time, given the short deadline I was working against and the other creative guidelines to which I was asked to adhere. The Trek universe, of necessity, requires authors such as myself to do a lot of gap-filling -- there's a lot of square-footage inside that ship that barely had been hinted at, or had gone unmentioned altogether.
It is 'only a movie,' as they say, and the sets and design elements are created only to look good on-screen and remain within budget. Like you, however, I cannot resist the creative desire to attempt to make all the puzzle pieces fit together into a cohesive whole. Sometimes it works (a testament to the skill of the original production team), and sometimes it doesn't, but in either case folks such as you and I enjoy contributing what we can to the overall 'realism' of the ST universe.
Shane Johnson
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Hot damn!! Shane!! Good to see you again, sir! I've missed our conversations ever since the e-mail addy you were using at the time started bouncing. What the heck have you been up to these last couple years?
--Jonah
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
... waaaa...umm.. umm... umm...
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
LastGuardian, in MSG, you showed the turbo-lift going down the neck, in a stepped affair, others have suggested having it go down the front of the neck, and Engineering, or down the middle of the neck, with one step, and just AFT and Starboard of Engineering. Would you still put it as shown in MSG?
Posted by thelastguardian (Member # 1017) on :
If I remember correctly, the elevator shaft cannot drop down the front of the dorsal if the intermix shaft is centered under the deflection crystal. It would fall directly in the center of the Main Engineering entry foyer, and there is no place on the torp bay decks above for it to run sideways and back.
So yes, I believe I would keep it much as it is shown in the book.
Shane
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by thelastguardian: If I remember correctly, the elevator shaft cannot drop down the front of the dorsal if the intermix shaft is centered under the deflection crystal. It would fall directly in the center of the Main Engineering entry foyer, and there is no place on the torp bay decks above for it to run sideways and back.
Hey Shane. Just curious, but do you recall what the sources were that you used for things like the deck numbers? And did you talk to Andy Probert about things like the corridor outside of engineering?
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
And another question that has burned the minds and hearts of MSG afectionados since time immemorable:
What is the story behind the design of the one-man lifepods? Were those an original Probert creation for the movie, or added by you to flesh out the book? Was that instruction sheet perhaps included in the set design for the cargo bay catwalk?
It's very difficult to discern the design of the red lifeboats we see in the cargo bay set/matte, but they do look a bit larger than the one-man pod...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by thelastguardian (Member # 1017) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron:
Hey Shane. Just curious, but do you recall what the sources were that you used for things like the deck numbers? And did you talk to Andy Probert about things like the corridor outside of engineering?
I don't recall specifically concerning the deck numbers, but factors such as the cutaway poster and deck-to-deck measurements were taken into account.
In referring to the corridor outside engineering, I assume you're alluding to the fact that said corridor (seen in TMP) cannot exist according to the ship exterior as established. I don't think I discussed it with anyone -- there was really no need, since the placement shown was a physical impossibility and everyone knew it. That is one of those instances where easy access and placement on the soundstage floor overrode the supposed, fictitious layout of the ship. Again, elements in films are meant to look good on screen -- if they also fit into an overall, logical scheme, that's gravy.
Shane
[ May 06, 2003, 11:38 PM: Message edited by: thelastguardian ]
Posted by thelastguardian (Member # 1017) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: And another question that has burned the minds and hearts of MSG afectionados since time immemorable:
What is the story behind the design of the one-man lifepods? Were those an original Probert creation for the movie, or added by you to flesh out the book? Was that instruction sheet perhaps included in the set design for the cargo bay catwalk?
It's very difficult to discern the design of the red lifeboats we see in the cargo bay set/matte, but they do look a bit larger than the one-man pod...
Timo Saloniemi
I believe no lifeboats were seen in TMP, and to the best of my knowledge none were even sketched in pre-production. I asked about that at the time, and was told that only the closed 'lifeboat station' door was visible on-screen (it stands screen right, next to the turboshaft tube through which Kirk first enters the Enterprise). If I recall correctly, the door is gray with red and white markings, and says simply 'Life Boats' or some such on it. Since the lifeboats themselves had not been designed for the film, I got what input I could from my Paramount sources and created the drawings in the book.
Shane
[ April 30, 2003, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: thelastguardian ]
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Glad you decided to finally try posting over here, Mr. Johnson. Flare is a bit more heavily tech-minded/conscious than the TrekBBS.
-MMoM Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
Yeah! Glad you made it, Shane. The guys here are all great and very Treknology minded.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
*bows* mad props man, on being published..
now.. Ti-Ho?
aaanywho.. i have a feeling you are going to be inundated with questions regarding the 1701-A transwarp graphics and the rec deck proposed sketches... i just gotta say, good work on everything
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Shane, may I...? Or would it be too presumptuous? Based on what you told me, I made sure to include the Ti-Ho in my ship list, as a matter of respect.
--Jonah
Posted by thelastguardian (Member # 1017) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: Shane, may I...? Or would it be too presumptuous? Based on what you told me, I made sure to include the Ti-Ho in my ship list, as a matter of respect.
--Jonah
Thank you, Jonah...I really appreciate that.
Shane
Posted by thelastguardian (Member # 1017) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: i have a feeling you are going to be inundated with questions regarding the 1701-A transwarp graphics and the rec deck proposed sketches... i just gotta say, good work on everything
Many such issues are addressed in an interview I did with Greg Tyler's excellent 'Trekplace' a couple of years ago. You can find it at:
Shane
Posted by thelastguardian (Member # 1017) on :
My use of the name 'Ti-Ho' involves a close friend of mine who had passed away. 'Ti-Ho' was the class name of a ship he had designed, and I used the name as a tribute to him.
At the time MSG was written (the summer of 1986), no back history had yet been established for the 1701-A, and it was necessary for the book that some such history be included. The 'Yorktown' designation now considered 'canon' was not conceived until several years later (in the works of Sternbach and Okuda), when Paramount chose to disregard my work and that of other early, licensed authors, despite its precedence.
Shane
[ May 01, 2003, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: thelastguardian ]
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
I am really envious of you, Shane. I was born in '74 (the day after Nixon was pardoned, actually), and one of my biggest regrets is that I missed the entirety of Project: Gemini.
For my little pocket universe, I have three docks at the San Francisco yards building Constitutions and Enterprises, and at the time the Federation Council and Starfleet Command were trying to figure out which ship to re-name Enteprise for a present to Kirk, the three newbuilds were considered, those being the Levant, Atlantis, and Ti-Ho. In the end, however, the Admiralty got their way, and Kirk's new ship was the ageing, refit Yorktown.
--Jonah
Posted by thelastguardian (Member # 1017) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: I am really envious of you, Shane. I was born in '74 (the day after Nixon was pardoned, actually), and one of my biggest regrets is that I missed the entirety of Project: Gemini.
For my little pocket universe, I have three docks at the San Francisco yards building Constitutions and Enterprises, and at the time the Federation Council and Starfleet Command were trying to figure out which ship to re-name Enteprise for a present to Kirk, the three newbuilds were considered, those being the Levant, Atlantis, and Ti-Ho. In the end, however, the Admiralty got their way, and Kirk's new ship was the ageing, refit Yorktown.
--Jonah
Thanks, Jonah...I appreciate your thoughtfulness.
Yes, the days of Gemini and Apollo were something to behold. Walking in space for the first time, leaving the Earth for the first time, wow. Imagine launching a mission to the moon every two months or so -- the breakneck pace was breathtaking. What an exciting time to be alive.
There are some outstanding 'as it happened' DVD sets available from www.spacecraftfilms.com -- give them a look. I own a few of their amazing sets, and they do a nice job of recapturing the awe and adventure of the NASA of the 60s and 70s.
Shane
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Don't know if you ever saw this in Smithsonian's "Air & Space" magazine -- or if you read it at all -- but there was an offer for a two CD-ROM set containing the complete transcription of all transmissions between mission control and each spacecraft from Mercury Redstone 3 to Apollo 17. Don't know if NASA Public Relations is still offering it, but it was free, plus shipping costs. Makes for fascinating reading.
--Jonah
Posted by thelastguardian (Member # 1017) on :
I did pick up the NASA transcript CD-ROM you mention...very, very cool. Not bad for the price of postage
Shane
[ May 01, 2003, 09:58 PM: Message edited by: thelastguardian ]
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
Okay, unless somebody convinces me that it's silly, this is what my torpedo deck will look like, in my cut-away model. The Movie set fits, The docking port looks like it does on-screen, the windows fit, the Intermix shaft and turbo-shaft fits (the aft turbo-lift comes down from above and doesn't go any lower), and even Scotty's torpedo crontrol room (ST:VI) fits. Oh, and the scale is 5' per line.
[ May 05, 2003, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: TheWoozle ]
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
No arguments here. Looks pretty darned good, IMO.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Though, surely a docking lounge should connect to the actual dock, rather than making people walk through the torpedo bay. Folks are trying to work in there, you know.
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
No room. On screen, they (accadentally, I'm sure) had the camera where the forward window would be, so that one's easy. The set is about 15' wide, two of them side-by-side would be most of the approx. 50' width of the deck. I've seen plans that show a door between the two docking-lock doors, but not only is it not seen on screen, but there really isn't room, and having a door in a docking port would be kinda silly. In the movies, that space between doors looks to be only a couple feet, with the inner door being the ship's door and the outer door being the shuttlepod's door.
It's not an air lock, since there's no little room with inner and outer doors.
It just occured to me, that the scene where Kirk and Scotty get in the travel pod, should have the same door arangement as when they dock on the ship.
EDIT: I just added a travel pod, to help explain the doors.
[ May 05, 2003, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: TheWoozle ]
Posted by thelastguardian (Member # 1017) on :
It's a fun layout, but be aware that it does present several continuity problems with what was seen on-screen:
1) The photon torpedo bay (or each bay, if one places two of them side-by-side) is 28 feet in diameter, not 15. Reducing the room's width by almost half is quite a stretch, and a fifteen-foot diameter version of the room would be vastly different in appearance.
2) This plan does not include the security foyers/airlocks between the outer docking port doors and the inner bay doors, seen in ST II.
3) Placing the forward turbolift shaft in the position you have chosen makes the Main Engineering entry foyer impossible (that was where Kirk told Decker he was assuming command of the ship), for it sits in the same location.
4) There were no viewports in the bays themselves, and your angled wall/hatch arrangement at the aft point where the two bays meet does not match the set as built.
5) After his inspection, Kirk (et al) was seen to exit the portside bay at the forward port corner. These plans do not provide an exit at that point.
I would have loved to have placed two bays side by side in MSG, for I believe that was the illusion Meyer intended to convey. Unfortunately, the Snoopy's doghouse effect is very much in play here, and as a result I was forced to devise the single bay/horseshoe-launcher compromise.
One pretty much has to decide to which on-screen features one is going to adhere, and which ones may safely be ignored. Pick your poison. In MSG, I tried to do the least amount of violence to the ship as a whole, but my interpretation was not necessarily the only viable one.
I do like your plan
Shane
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
Thanks, it would be nice if the torpedo bay had fit as well as the shuttle bay set did for ST:V. It just comes down to what compromises you want to make. I DO insist that there isn't that an airlock or docking loung doesn't make any sense, when the inner door LOOKS like the ship door and the OUTER door is the shuttle pod's door.
I also agree with what you say about the turboshaft. There's another deck between the torpedo deck and the Engineering deck, which could easily have a turbo-lift branch. I envision the turbo lift being where that mysterious hallway is, FORE of Engineering.
Posted by thelastguardian (Member # 1017) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheWoozle: Thanks, it would be nice if the torpedo bay had fit as well as the shuttle bay set did for ST:V. It just comes down to what compromises you want to make. I DO insist that there isn't that an airlock or docking loung doesn't make any sense, when the inner door LOOKS like the ship door and the OUTER door is the shuttle pod's door.
On a ship such as this, ANY door that opens to space is going to have an airlock behind it. Each docking port features its own outer doors, which rest just 'inside' the mechanism which accepts the doors of the travel pods/shuttlecraft (see page 47 of MSG). The foyer shown between the outer and inner hatches of the torp bay docking port is far too deep for the inner door to be the only one -- all filming models of the Enterprise show a sealed hatch just within the port.
Shane
Posted by thelastguardian (Member # 1017) on :
Sorry to keep editing my message on you, but I thought of other points I needed to make
Shane
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
ah, it wasn't that plain to me. Nice to have somebody that's actually seen it.
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
Shane, I owe you an apology. No matter how I try to do it, the turboshaft has to be as you show it. Down one side, just as you show it on pg. 87.
Now that my torpedo deck is planned... time to plan engineering... Posted by darkwing_duck1 (Member # 790) on :
thelastguardian, what do you think of my suggestion (articulated in another thread) that we politely ignore the "canon" measurements and rescale the entire ship to fit the sets shown? It solves a LOT of problems, addressed here, as well as some not mentioned.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by darkwing_duck1: thelastguardian, what do you think of my suggestion (articulated in another thread) that we politely ignore the "canon" measurements and rescale the entire ship to fit the sets shown? It solves a LOT of problems, addressed here, as well as some not mentioned.
That's always seemed logical to me.
It's just too bad set designers never think about this stuff.
I also have to pester Andy about who decided the impulse shaft went straight up to the deflection crystal where there was a big obvious corridor outside engineering. hee hee
Posted by thelastguardian (Member # 1017) on :
quote:Originally posted by darkwing_duck1: thelastguardian, what do you think of my suggestion (articulated in another thread) that we politely ignore the "canon" measurements and rescale the entire ship to fit the sets shown? It solves a LOT of problems, addressed here, as well as some not mentioned.
It isn't an idea I've extensively examined, but offhand I see no reason not to run it up the flagpole. Many approaches are valid, inasmuch as we're dealing with fiction here. However, just about any method of harmonizing a vessel's interior and exterior is going to demand its own set of compromises -- particularly in areas where interior and exterior 'meet,' such as docking ports, hangar doors, and window spacing.
Other things, such as scaling standard human height to 'enlarged' interior features, must also be considered -- usually, one can fudge a bit, so long as the 'cheat' isn't pushed too far.
As I mentioned in another post, one just has to decide personally which on-screen 'evidence' takes precedence, and which is expendable
Shane
Posted by thelastguardian (Member # 1017) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheWoozle: Shane, I owe you an apology. No matter how I try to do it, the turboshaft has to be as you show it. Down one side, just as you show it on pg. 87.
Now that my torpedo deck is planned... time to plan engineering...
Hey, no apology necessary. We're all trying to get this ship sorted out -- well, you guys more than me, nowadays (I gave it my shot back in '86).
I'm really enjoying the concepts being presented on this board, and I'm honored to contribute anything I can in the way of answers, ideas or opinions. It'll be up to you to decide the merit of anything I have to pass along.
Your floor plan should make for a really cool cutaway model...I'd like to see pics when you have them!
Thanks for the kind words
Shane
Posted by darkwing_duck1 (Member # 790) on :
quote:Originally posted by thelastguardian:
quote:Originally posted by darkwing_duck1: thelastguardian, what do you think of my suggestion (articulated in another thread) that we politely ignore the "canon" measurements and rescale the entire ship to fit the sets shown? It solves a LOT of problems, addressed here, as well as some not mentioned.
It isn't an idea I've extensively examined, but offhand I see no reason not to run it up the flagpole. Many approaches are valid, inasmuch as we're dealing with fiction here. However, just about any method of harmonizing a vessel's interior and exterior is going to demand its own set of compromises -- particularly in areas where interior and exterior 'meet,' such as docking ports, hangar doors, and window spacing.
Other things, such as scaling standard human height to 'enlarged' interior features, must also be considered -- usually, one can fudge a bit, so long as the 'cheat' isn't pushed too far.
As I mentioned in another post, one just has to decide personally which on-screen 'evidence' takes precedence, and which is expendable
Shane
Agreed...
Personally, I think it easier to simply "scale up" the ship to match the sets. It requires the least amount of work to do (resizing the airlock doors) and solves (or at least mitigates) most of the problems the sets caused (as already covered). It DOES cause a few problems of it's own, but only a few, and they are really minor in the great scheme of things.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Good to see you again, sir! I've missed our conversations ever since the e-mail addy you were using at the time started bouncing. What the heck have you been up to these last couple years? 
![[Smile]](smile.gif)