"Star Trek" Enterprise Saucer

[Vektor]

Well, I'd actually prefer to do the Enterprise in meters, but 947' is easier to work with in Max than 288.7 meters when it comes to the really small details and Max's ability to work with them accurately. One you start dealing with stuff smaller than about 0.01 units, all sorts of operations become a lot more error prone, like booleans, chamfers, etc. Using generic units, a 947 unit ship is mathematically over three times larger than a 288.7 unit ship.

[JustinDixon]

Looks quite nice. Gonna need to keep those schematics for my long running conny mesh!!

[Cinnamon]

Didn't some bloke on one of those reference sites say something about the dimensions given in the writer's bible being superceded by the filming model? I seem to recall a long explanation on his page that the 11 foot model was likely built to a standard scale - and that after analysing lots of photos of said model that it was a 96th scale model - from there he calculated that the real ship was actually something over a thousand feet in length. Let me see if I still have the link to that.

Ahh, yes, I do.

Enterprise Smithsonian Display

The relevant section is at the bottom of the page under the heading 'the question of scale', and his calculations would have put the ship at 1072 feet long. I realise that it's not 'canon' of course - but after reading his arguments, I thought they made sense, and figured that you might be interested.

As usual, 4MM, your work amazes me - all *I* can get out of a blender so far is a daquiri. ^^; Lovely work.

Cheers

-jaime

[Vektor]

The question of the ship's actual length is a long-running debate. Phil broad, who's analysis you cited, makes a pretty good case, but I have seen others that I find more convincing. You have to understand that the Enterprise was originally designed to be a much smaller ship and was only scaled up, perhaps imprecisely, after they realized it wasn't as big as it needed to be for the dramatic purposes of the show. There is also the matter of the model having been built with a few slight differences from the blueprints, notably the nacelle struts which are not aligned with the centerlines of either the nacelles or the secondary hull, probably for structural reasons. This very likely invalidates the distance measurement between the nacelles upon which much of Phil Broad's analysis is based.

Ultimately we are left with a choice: We can assume that the ship was built to 1/96th scale and that every measurement given in the original Star Trek writer's guide was wrong except for the distance between the nacelles, or we can assume that the model was off a little on the nacelle spacing and that everything else was correct, albeit using a rather oddball scale, which itself might be attributed to the dramatic changes that were made to the ship's assumed size during production.

The writer's guide says the ship was 947' long. I see no reason to invalidate that just because the model they built to represent it onscreen doesn't work out to that exact measurement at a standard scale. Although, in one sense the 1072' length would be more convenient as it would provide additional room to shoehorn the shuttlebay in behind the nacelle struts.

[Four Mad Men]

That debate can be as spirited as the forward facing bridge argument. Suffice it to say that I personally prefer to live with the oddball scale that makes the ship 947' -- shuttlebay fit problems and all. All those issues aside the original Enterprise design is truly one of the best to ever grace the screen and that's good enough for me. I'm not overly concerned with internal issues of what goes where and does it actually fit. If I do decide to make the whole ship then I will have to reconcile some of that in regards to a shuttlebay but at the end of the day if the shuttle interior doesn't fit the shuttle exterior why should I expect the shuttlebay itself to fit in the ship. Besides with the shuttlebay set likely being a forced perspective miniature who can really say with full certainty what the shuttlebay floorplan was actually meant to be. OK, so apparently I do concern myself with these issues... moving on...

Getting things prepared for cutting the windows/other-bits around the saucer rim. I haven't setup for the round windows yet but that's one of the next things to do...

[USS Mariner]

Originally Posted by Vektor

The question of the ship's actual length is a long-running debate. Phil broad, who's analysis you cited, makes a pretty good case, but I have seen others that I find more convincing. You have to understand that the Enterprise was originally designed to be a much smaller ship and was only scaled up, perhaps imprecisely, after they realized it wasn't as big as it needed to be for the dramatic purposes of the show. There is also the matter of the model having been built with a few slight differences from the blueprints, notably the nacelle struts which are not aligned with the centerlines of either the nacelles or the secondary hull, probably for structural reasons. This very likely invalidates the distance measurement between the nacelles upon which much of Phil Broad's analysis is based.

Ultimately we are left with a choice: We can assume that the ship was built to 1/96th scale and that every measurement given in the original Star Trek writer's guide was wrong except for the distance between the nacelles, or we can assume that the model was off a little on the nacelle spacing and that everything else was correct, albeit using a rather oddball scale, which itself might be attributed to the dramatic changes that were made to the ship's assumed size during production.

The writer's guide says the ship was 947' long. I see no reason to invalidate that just because the model they built to represent it onscreen doesn't work out to that exact measurement at a standard scale. Although, in one sense the 1072' length would be more convenient as it would provide additional room to shoehorn the shuttlebay in behind the nacelle struts.

Actually, Phil has since changed his mind about that issue, as MGagen explains:

Originally posted by MGagen at Hobby Talk:
This one's right up my alley. I've spend entirely too much time puzzling out these very issues and I can give you a couple of definitive figures.

First off, Matt Jefferies blueprinted the model as 33.75" in length. This is the size the lost "3-footer" presumably was, since it was built directly from this blueprint. The source of this info is Richard Datin, who personally built the "3-footer" and still has the plans.

The "11-footer" was built from the same plans and scaled up exactly 4X. This means it was intended to be exactly 135" in length.

During the most recent restoration, Gary Kerr was able to take direct measurements and tracings of the various components when they were disassembled. He later modeled the components in AutoCad and digitally reassembled them. There was no time to make the kind of jigs necessary to take a direct length measurement of the assembled model, so our best figure comes from this CAD reconstruction. Rich Sternbach contacted Kerr at the request of some of us who were discussing the issue online and he passed on Gary's L.O.A. figure -- 134.08161". This is the best available measurement we have for the model as built.

That brings us to another point: Scale. I would submit any attempt to figure the scale that the model was built at should be based on the intended 135" figure, since it is unlikely Jefferies or anyone else involved with the show would have known the model was about an inch short. They would have naturally assumed that it was 135" as called for on the plans. That being said, the model works out to 1:84.17778 scale. (If you wish to go by the model as it actually turned out, it is 1:84.75435 or 1:84.75 scale.)

You may ask (as I did): why would Matt Jefferies, who was a very competent and methodical man, pick such a whacked-out and unworkable scale to build the Enterprise in. The answer is simple: He didn't. Through a long, drawn out investigation that I've detailed elsewhere (and which I'm currently documenting for a new website) I was able to determine that Jefferies originally planned and drafted the Enterprise to be 540 feet in length. This would have made the "eleven footer" a very sensible 1:48 scale (or 1/4" = 1 foot). Only after the drawings were approved was the decision taken to enlarge the size of the ship.

At that point there was no sense in redrafting the plans. All that was necessary was a little mathematical sleight of hand to change what those plans represented. Why they didn't just double the size, making the ship 1,080 feet in length and the "eleven footer" a 1:96 scale model we may never know.

As an aside, I was once convinced of the 1:96 scale theory and even corresponded with Phil Broad at length about it. I was forced to this conclusion because I couldn't believe Jefferies would design in an unreasonable scale. But this was before I found the evidence that he designed it in another scale entirely, and that the rescale was decided upon after the thing was already blueprinted. I was also spurred on by the apparent fact that the dimensional callouts on the famous 3-view drawing didn't match the proportions of the drawing itself. This seemed to cast doubt on their reliability. It was as if someone had come along after MJ had made the drawing and inserted the figures from the Writers' Guide on it even though they didn't match. This turned out not to be the case. I have since come into possession of a scan of the original artboard and can say that the problem is that the drawing we've all seen is reproduced very poorly with a surprising amount of distortion. When seen in its original form, the callouts match very well. The ship is meant to be 947 feet in length.

Back to the re-scale: Since the hard work was already done (drafting the plans) the only real burden was to recalculate the window spacing on the model. Interestingly, the original plans did not have the windows marked on them. According to Datin, these were added later, in pencil, while the plans were at his shop. Perhaps the awkward math involved may explain why a few of the window levels are too close together on the saucer rim and the dorsal pylon.

Mark

MGagen is the man to go to on the topic of the 1701's construction history and design. Eventually, he plans on making a site with all of his collected knowledge, whenever that is.

And, as an added bonus, here's a rare picture by Mark showing what the mysterious technical markings were on the 1701. According to this, they are actually inch markers, like those seen on modern day aircraft.



Personally, I'm changing those markings to feet markers when I get around to making my own version. I wouldn't mind seeing someone else recalculate the inch/feet numbers for those though. A neat little touch to the model I'd think.

Oh, additionally, if any of you are going to use Sinclair's plans, make the saucer 60 inches (or 420 feet) in diameter (as on the construction plans,) as the saucer itself shrank and defored over time due to the internal lighting and studio lights.

For my own observation, I notice that if you scale up the model's units by a factor of seven, you get a total length of 945. Wherever that extra two feet came from, who knows...

[Cinnamon]

Heh... well, I didn't really mean my last post as a part of a -debate-, but I'm glad I made it - the responses have been fascinating, and very educational. I hope that MGagen gets his site up soon - it'll make a very interesting read, I'm sure.

4MM, I hope whatever had you visiting hospital overnight doesn't turn out to be too serious, whether it's you, or a member of your family.

In the meantime, I'll wait patiently for further updates whenever you have the time - it's a joy watching you work.

Peace and Long Life

-jaime

[homerpalooza67]

mariner, do you have a way of contacting Mark? Im sure everyone here would like to see the full resolution scan he was talking about; it would help everyones projects significantly

[USS Mariner]

Sadly, I don't believe so. The only way we'd be able to see those plans legally is if the original artists were all dead, or unless Datin gets a fair amount of money in the process.

[homerpalooza67]

Well, thanks anyway, if you do hear something, we're all listening.

BTW, here is a highly detailed, star trek blueprints site. I do not know how accurate it is, but i think its officially licensed: http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/