When was 947 feet established?

[Captain Robert April]

Well, Mr. Winfrey, if you'd identified yourself early on, a lot of unpleasantness could've been avoided.

After all, that "lieutenant junior grade" ranking under your screen name tends to indicate a newbie.

For those unfamiliar with the gentleman's work....

Star Trek Blueprints: Class F Shuttlecraft

 

[TIN_MAN]

I began with the question, "when was the size nailed." I think the honest answer is, "it depends on what one means by 'nailed,' and by who."

Where have I heard that before?

Well, Mr. Winfrey, if you'd identified yourself early on, a lot of unpleasantness could've been avoided.

After all, that "lieutenant junior grade" ranking under your screen name tends to indicate a newbie.

For those unfamiliar with the gentleman's work....

Star Trek Blueprints: Class F Shuttlecraft

And this, this is just too funny!

Lesson of the day, find out who your shooting your mouth off to, before you shoot your mouth off!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

...I don't know how you confused my saying "on screen visuals aren't necessarily right; sometimes they're on screen due to convenience, as in TWOK's use of FJ deckplans" with a claim that the FJ deckplan use somehow took precedence over Jeffries' plans being used in TOS...

It's a good example, though. An illegible illustration or text - such as the one cited here, or the infamous Jein "list of starship registries" in "Court Martial" - is meaningless. The answer to "has the size of the TOS Enterprise been canonically established" is still "no." This is like the insistence that the so-called "Daedalus class" is canonically a globe-shaped ship because there's supposedly a plaque on a model in Sisko's office somewhere.

 

[Warped9]

We have to accept that what we see onscreen can often be at best an approximation or representation of what is supposed to be "the real thing."

I'm familiar with those shuttlecraft drawings, Mr. Winfrey, and with all due respect I dismissed them. I also recognize that these were drawn quite some time ago. But I dismissed them because although you get the interior we saw onscreen into the craft you consequently made the exterior unsuitable for fitting into the hangar facilities. If you really study the onscreen evidence you pick up on a lot of clues as to what may well have been intended for the "real" shuttlecraft. I used construction drawings of the fullsize exterior mockup as the starting point so the vehicle would look near exactly as it does onscreen. I scaled it up just enough to get an interior that is immediately recognizable to as what we see onscreen and allows for it to be used as such. The only real compromises I had to make were a bit of cabin length and some ceiling height.

And I didn't work on this alone. I had a lot of help from insightful folks around here and on Hobbytalk.

But I'll let the work speak for itself here and here.

This one could also be of interest.

 

[T'Bonz]

I'm probably the only person in the whole thread who doesn't care about the size of the ship.

 

[Shaw]

One further question: to your knowledge, did Jeffries' revised plans of 7 Nov 1964 state the ship's size, or cite a scale?

No, that information wasn't needed for the model makers. The only thing they needed was the finished plans... and they were already late (Datin was forced to start the 33 inch model with previous plans). Further, there were no copies of the final plans made. The only copy went to Datin and stayed with him.

The next time Jefferies was asked to draw the Enterprise was for the AMT model kit. My studies of that kit show that Jefferies was most likely working from notes he retained from the original plans (and many of the measurements are nearly identical while others are slightly off and some shapes are also different).

The next time he drew the Enterprise after that was for the drawings with the "real world" measurement applied to them. Again, those measurements match up with those of the original plans, but the shapes are off.

A decent set of plans of the 11 foot model wouldn't exist again until the mid 1990s.

So... what was your point in asking?

I point out that in the illustration you include above, the photo's "flight hatch" width exceeds that of your diagram...although the shuttlecraft widths are the same. Is there a reason for this discrepancy apart from holding to a 947 length?

Well, first, I don't consider the hangar deck model to be usable at all (other than for some details). The problem is that it is a forced perspective miniature and we have no way of knowing at which spot (if any) the shuttlecraft would have been in the right scale (or if there was even any spot that was at the right scale). The hangar miniature was design to invoke a feeling of a large space... how do you measure a feeling?

The photo was included to show that it was pretty close using Warped9's shuttlecraft... which I was quite happy with. It most likely would have been even better if I had used the 20 foot shuttlecraft exterior prop instead, but I like Warped9's shuttlecraft as a good compromise.

But lets get back to history (as the behind the scenes stuff is what I'm interested in and was the part of your original question I answered). Jefferies was pulled out of the loop on the shuttlecraft. The basic design was done by Thomas Kellogg and commissioned by AMT (who was paying for everything). And all this was put together under the pressure of the first season... where they were constantly behind schedule. So if the interior doesn't match the exterior which doesn't match the model which is misproportioned to the hangar miniature which wasn't meant as a scale reference anyways as it was designed as a forced perspective... then maybe it is a bad place to look for anything that works with anything.

And it only shows up in a few episodes (compared to the Enterprise which appears in all of them).

I understand that you've invested a lot in the shuttlecraft... but it simply isn't a good gauge for the scale of anything (even itself). And it doesn't change the fact that the size of the Enterprise had been worked out years earlier.

All such ideas have met with universal (and oftimes rather Rube Goldbergian, if not specious) dismissal here...rather an oddity to my eyes, given what I've long observed as the BBS members' willingness to discuss to death such minutia as registry numbers.

I'm not part of that... as far as I'm concerned, there were only three numbers associated with three ship names throughout all of TOS (Enterprise, NCC-1701, Republic, NCC-1371, and Constellation, NCC-1017).

What should allow you to "take me seriously" is the content of my arguments.

Not when on one hand you dismiss one thing for reasons that could have been applied to things that you hold strongly. There wasn't a scale measurement next to the shuttlecraft or the hangar deck miniature on screen, so why give those elements weight and not something that does have a scale measurement included?

If you showed consistency in your arguments, I'd take you more seriously. As it is, you don't seem interested in what is now known... you seem to just want to perpetuate what you've believed for years.

If you want to have canon arguments about such things, great. Find someone who cares. I'm interested in the history of the production, and I answered your production question.

Your conclusions are, to my mind, in some cases another matter.

More often than not, I don't share anything that is a matter of my opinion. Years from now, people will know a lot about these things and the people who made it happen... and my name will be forgotten. And rightfully so, as none of it is mine anyways.

When I put forward what Jefferies did, it isn't really a matter of debate... as to what people accept as canon, well to each their own. I have some ideas about things, but I work hard not to mix it in with research.

And as a researcher... the shuttlecraft interior is a different animal from the exterior, which in turn is a different animal from the model. As a researcher, I don't need them to work together... I need them only to be what they were. That is how you avoid compromises.

One thing I am proud of is that people who I don't agree with on things still use and reference my research because they know it is unbias.

I do not, however, take either as any sort of final authority. The source matter is that. What form that source matter (the show itself) would have taken, could have taken, should have taken, or was meant to have taken by ONE of its creators is irrelevant.

This is why I've avoided the canon stuff. I don't care about interpretation... everyone's is going to be different. My focus is on the people behind the show, the designers, the models, the sets, and the events (and interactions) which shaped them.

You seem to have an agenda in this. I'm only curious as to what actually happened and why.

But I have never presented myself as an authority. I've presented my work, and people are free to judge for themselves.

I began with the question, "when was the size nailed." I think the honest answer is, "it depends on what one means by 'nailed,' and by who." This thread includes a citation of the content and date of a memo by Roddenberry suggesting he, at least, was ignorant of 947 loa well subsequent to the date of Jeffries' construction plans.

Actually, it suggests that Roddenberry didn't have a head for scale.

One of the first things you need to realize is that a lot of people have no sense of scale and no aptitude for numbers. For people like this, big is a gray area. And it doesn't take much to figure out who didn't grasp these types of things very well.

So the first question is, why give anyone like that (even Roddenberry) any amount of weight on this issue? Easy answer... you shouldn't.

The only thing worse than people who don't grasp scale (which isn't really their fault) are people who repeat bad information mindlessly.

The hangar deck was likewise built afterwards. The INTENT of my question was, if the size was nailed prior to the deck's construction, why does the deck look so damn big?

It was intended to feel big... feel, but not to be measured. After all, it was a miniature trying to feel big... and it worked. But it wasn't intended to be a gauge by which everything else was to be measured (as it wasn't supposed to be measurable on screen anyways).

So the problem here is that you've applied a massive amount of personal investment into something that wasn't intended to be used that way.

Clearly a number of unanswerable (what with Datin's death) questions would follow. Did Datin work from plans?

Of course he did. And they were drawn by Jefferies, and they were intended to off set limitations of 1960 cameras.

Did their "first draft" (fittable into a 947 ship, which is to say, of a like size to ST V's) get a rejection from higher up? ("Make it bigger!").

First, STV's hangar is misshaped, and doesn't fit the model. It is less accurate than the TOS version. Second, as I said before, there were limitations to how cameras back then could capture miniatures. These men were professionals and knew the tricks of the trade. There is a reason why the 11 foot model is that big... it was needed so it would work on camera.

Today, we could do everything in scale and make it look big. Heck, by 1979 a smaller model of the Enterprise looked great when projected from 70 mm film onto massive screens.

And by the way, fitting cabins for all into 3 decks MAY not jibe with Making's what's-on-each-deck descriptions, depending on how one reads them. Not to mention the matter of guest quarters. But that doesn't really matter, does it? The size having been "nailed" in '64, and all.

Who said all? I just alluded to three decks that I had worked on... you seem to want to distort that. This is why it is hard to take you seriously.

And considering the number of errors in TMoST, yeah, it can be disregarded. Just like we can disregard TMoST when it said that the 11 foot model was 14 feet long.

TMoST was rushed to publication with no one double checking it. It contains a ton of information about TOS that we know today to be wrong. And one shouldn't read it without being highly critical of what you find in there... specially things written by the author that he wasn't involved with (which was a lot). It has some nice raw data, but a lot should just be ignored.

And yeah, the size was nailed in 1964... even if it runs contrary to your agenda in these threads. You can have opinions on if it worked (I think it does), but the facts are the facts. You asked...

Has anyone knowledge of exactly when in TOS production history the ship's size was nailed?​

Answer: November 7, 1964

I'm probably the only person in the whole thread who doesn't care about the size of the ship.

Well, you may be in the minority in this thread, but your in the majority among Trek fans.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'm probably the only person in the whole thread who doesn't care about the size of the ship.

You're not a guy. Guys are real concerned with this kind of thing, especially when it turns out that Abrams's is twice the size of Roddenberry's.

 

[T'Bonz]

Probably true. I'm more into the stories of the people. The ship is just the thingy on which those in the story traveled or which was used to take them to Planet Whatever.

Besides (prepare for incoming, Bonz!) I've always thought that the nacelles, graceful though they be, were highly impractical. A few lucky shots from the enemy at the pylons and goodbye nacelles.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Same thing is true of the bridge.

The real rule here, given the supposed weapons and speeds involved, would be that if the shields are up it doesn't matter how the ship is designed - it'll be fine. And if the shields fail, it doesn't matter how the ship is designed - it's fucked.

 

[scotpens]

And the best reply so far...

I think this image is also applicable here.

I'm probably the only person in the whole thread who doesn't care about the size of the ship.

You're not a guy. Guys are real concerned with this kind of thing, especially when it turns out that Abrams's is twice the size of Roddenberry's.

For us guys, it’s always about size.

. . . I've always thought that the nacelles, graceful though they be, were highly impractical. A few lucky shots from the enemy at the pylons and goodbye nacelles.

Practical, schmactical. The nacelles atop those slender pylons look like the sails and masts of a majestic clipper ship. With a little imagination, that is.

 

[trekkist]

First, apologies for the tone of my previous 2 posts. I work nights, but found myself haunted by the thread (boy, do I need to get more of a life), and posted at what amounted to my personal 2 AM. Bad idea, bad tone, no one to blame but myself.

Second, no "Mr." please -- trekkist or David (or asshole or dumbass, should I again be rude or stupid) are all welcome.

Shaw, we've different agendas, for sure...and yours is superior. You are a documentarian, rescuing, restoring and researching real things: documents, drawings, anecdotes...facts. You're both technically right and inappropriately humble to remark that your name will not (though it may not), or should not, be remembered. Your work is that of an historian; mine, that of a hobbyist. Anything I've said that you take as casting aspertions on what you've done, or what Matt Jeffries did, was NOT meant that way.

Nor am I "trying to" put words in your mouth in refering to cabins on however many decks (I simply thought, from brief examination of your many drawings, AND long hours of reading of other threads, you'd done that). Typing into, and reading from, a damn silent screen is far inferior to a conversation, during which you and I (or however many of us) could parry and question and elucidate without delay or more than brief misunderstanding.

My point in asking whether Jeffries final revised plans indicated size or scale related to my agenda, not yours: that is, the agenda of making something consistent from the inconsistent, which is to say, the on-screen depiction(s). This sort of thing is little more than mental masturbation, and nothing to interest a working historian (NOT a sarcastic jibe; simple fact)...but I'm not a historian, I'm a hobbyist.

I don't see where my arguments have been inconsistent, and would welcome (should you care to spend further time with a hobbyist) your take. To my mind, there is a "scalebar next to" the shuttlecraft: namely, Leonard Nimoy. The fact that he stands "taller" when outside than inside is an inconsistency resolvable in terms of the interior, not the exterior, given that A)inside is where the shuttlecraft-driven/enabled plots occur and B)the exterior's subscale-ness is a readily understandable, practical consequence of production costs.

Your consistency is that of facts. I'm awestruck at the amount of thought and work Jeffries (and you) put into making the ship "real." And y'know what? The sheer weight of work on his part, and research on yours, shakes my "faith" in a view (>947) I have indeed held for years...though not too many.

But (I say this to anyone else reading; I respect and understand your disinterest) I remain, as yet, steadfast. Throw out the shuttle/hangar miniature/set comparison, and there remains the hangar deck set, into which we twice peer:

1)"Journey to Babel" -- eight redshirts stand side-by-side, seemingly two to three feet apart, as an honor guard leading to the shuttle. The first appears to be about 3 feet from the yellow stripe marking (I think) the edge of the bay wall inset cutout. The last appears to stand about 3 feet from the shuttle itself. Two foot wide people with a yard separation yields 43 feet to the shuttle, which sits midline in the bay. Is this arrangement possible in a bay fit for a 947' ship?
2)"Immunity Syndrome" -- we see Spock take nine or ten steps toward the shuttle before the camera cuts to McCoy...at which point Spock appears about halfway to the shuttle. My stride is nearly a yard, and I'm 5 ft. seven. Allowing for error, the distance Spock covers seems about the same as that the honor guard occupies.

Warped9, I followed your work and that of all the rest, to all of whom my hat's off. But again, our agendas differed. Mine was to slavishly document (as much as my personal stone knives and bearskins made possible) the exact size of the shuttle's depicted interior. At time of production, I gave no thought to what a shuttle sized to the interior would do to hangar deck practicality.

>If you really study the onscreen evidence you pick up on a lot of clues as to what may well have been intended for the "real" shuttlecraft.

Yep, sure do: and they boil down to a comfortable ftl vehicle of up to 2 weeks duration. Have I really ever come off as not having "really studied" the whole shebang from start to finish? Or is there an allusion to "original" intent here?

>I used construction drawings of the fullsize exterior mockup as the starting point so the vehicle would look near exactly as it does onscreen.

What's your point? I've NEVER claimed my exterior plan (or indeed, the interior) to have been anything other than the best my mk. 1 eyeballs could do with manual drafting from photos, slides and xeroxes. So your reference material was superior; lucky you.

>The only real compromises I had to make were a bit of cabin length and some ceiling height.

What you did was laudable and expert, and allowed for exactly what you said it did:

>...an interior that is immediately recognizable to as what we see onscreen and allows for it to be used as such.

Which is all very well...but its a goal driven by something outside of the shuttle: the desire to retain (at least as nearly as possible) the 947.

>And I didn't work on this alone. I had a lot of help from insightful folks around here and on Hobbytalk.

...all of whom shared your 947-ism. Which isn't bad, or "wrong," or any damn thing it's been suggested I think, or am trying to say, or whatever. It's simply a different view than mine.

Viz. the screenname, dating to the hoary old "I'm not a Trekkie, I'm a Trekker." What I am is a trekkist. To me, what's "real" is on the screen. The original screen. The old black and white one of (I gather) more than a few of our childhoods. I'm not of a mind to pursue history (for one thing, I'm too shy). My particular fandom didn't lead me to engineering or science or even art. It led me to argument and deduction and fiction. Someone observed awhile back that some of us seem more devoted to technical minutia than people. I myself like both. On another thread (or perhaps board) I'd be delighted to argue on behalf of yeomans' skants as evidence that in TOS, feminism has "won," or give a sociological reason why most or all races put their bridges in damn near plain view. On this thread (and one other at present), I'm arguing what it means (in my view, of course...we all have those) in terms of certain visuals. It's not a serious pursuit. It's not a resolvable one. Nor am I much expecting (at this point) to get, for the moment, any pertinant (NO offense, Shaw; different agendas) criticism...which IS what I'm here for. Damnit.

 

[trekkist]

At the risk of beating a dead horse,

There's quite a difference between saying "YOUR goal is not mine" and the statement (in best Sat. Nt. Live brough) "YOURRR goal is CRRRAP!"

Shaw, I hope I've gotten off your shitlist. But I'm not sure whether I was rightly put on it. Someone in effect said, "Oh! THAT'S who he is!" -- but y'know what? My having done ONE thing a million (sic) years ago isn't something I wave a banner with on starting a thread, or asking a question, or raising an argument. When and if I have a website full of my own "contributions," I'll post a link here. If I've time, I'll slowly climb the ranks. But is a tact of "I'll be fully informative and/or polite IF that guy I don't know satisfies my unknown-to-him rules of decorum" really the best among a forum of contentious so-and-sos like this?

Some of us believe in a canted bridge; others in one facing forward (me, I don't care). Some want to embrace ST XI; others, to expunge it (NONE of us can do EITHER; it simply is). Some devote themselves to matters of record; others, to pointless speculation. What we share is enthusiasm and (to differing degrees, about different things) knowledge. I *finally* have both the answer to my question, understanding of why you (Shaw) would take such umbrage with me, and...well, I'd like to say the memory of a fun debate. But you know, it hasn't been (was it good for you, Shaw?).

Myself, I'll stoop to giving (harmless) facts even to an ideological opponant. And Shaw, I'd like to...have a few beers, did I live up your way. I envy your resources and talents, daresay you've many an anecdote, am embarrassed to say my sole two are accidentally scaring Ms. Roddenberry and pissing off Franz Joseph by mail. Had I been lurking during your drawings' presentation I'd have had a few modest comments, and a shared eyeroll for the persistent queries of "howzabout stuff from the animation?" and so forth.

Howzabout I start a thread titled something like "TOS Connie, a speculation in re-sizing" -- would anyone here come giving constructive criticism? (as vs. the brough-ian kind)

 

[trekkist]

In response to the semi/almost-suggestion that we defer to the shuttle exterior prop's actual size (over the interior set's height), here's a link:

http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/publicity/spock/spock_shuttle_variantpb.jpgto

to a photo which (not unlike that of the "Big 3" before a shuttle in Making*)

1)appears to be a processed shot of the actor(s) placed onto a shuttle background image (or am I imagining a matte line?)

2)appears to show the shuttle as considerably larger than the "full size" setpiece (save the actors are on their knees or in a hole)

This "historical document" implies to me someone in or of the production staff "knew" the soundstage prop was smaller than the "real" shuttle would be...and endeavoured (as did Probert, decades later -- see his interview reference to the "soapcake" TNG shuttle's sizing:

http://www.trekplace.com/ap2005int01.html

to "fix things."

*With this single photo, Warped9, began my preference for slavish documentation over "close enough to look right." Which isn't a dig; I don't see you're take as "wrong" or bad. I simply don't share it.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I'm probably the only person in the whole thread who doesn't care about the size of the ship.

You're not a guy. Guys are real concerned with this kind of thing, especially when it turns out that Abrams's is twice the size of Roddenberry's.

I think if you go by the size of the TOS ship measured by the shuttlebay, and the size of JJ's ship at the shipyard, the TOS one is bigger

 

[Shaw]

Shaw, I hope I've gotten off your shitlist...

Well, for my part, any incredulity stemmed from the fact that you seemed to think that I was being either sarcastic or not serious. There are times when I can spend time around here, and other times when I end up away for several days or more. I fully expected you to ask about the date, it was questioning my seriousness that caught me off guard.

I'm always willing to discuss these types of things, and one doesn't have to be using "947" to be on my good side... I've attempted to help out people who felt that "1080" (or near that) is a better option. And I'm not even really a "947" myself... everything I've seen to date makes me believe that it might have been a typo, and should have read something like "940".

You brought up Spock as a gauge, but that was part of the reason I alluded to not having "canon" information about communicators, phasers and tricorders... these are things we see people handle, but people aren't "fixed". There are times when we see close ups of those items where we weren't even seeing the actual actor's hands.

Not wanting to speak too much for Warped9, but he wasn't concerned with a "947" Enterprise, he wanted to get the interior and exterior of the shuttlecraft to meet half way, and look reasonable next to a person compared to what we saw on screen in both settings. The only number I recall him wanting to match was the "24 foot" reference... and his 26 foot shuttlecraft has a 24 foot hull length (which, again, is a pretty good compromise).

You were asking about that photo of Spock in front of the shuttlecraft... a number of publicity shots were done in front of blown up photos. For example, there is a photo of Uhura standing in front of a photo of Talos IV.

Star Trek (as we saw it on TV) is art. And art is always open to interpretation (artist give up a certain amount of say about their art when they release it to the public). I don't need (or want) everyone to see Star Trek the way I do... and if everyone did, it would make the whole subject boring. I enjoy seeing Star Trek through other people's eyes because it keeps it fresh for me. Similarly, I enjoy seeing other people's take on the Enterprise for the same reason, which is why I use a share-alike copyright on all my illustrations (so people can use what they want and share it with others).

I'm interested in artist's intend when studying the background aspects of TOS. But at the same time, those artist gave up their ability to push that intend once the product aired to the public. It was, from that point forward, the public's to interpret.

So no, you aren't on my "shitlist" (and even if you were, I have a short memory for such things).

 

[Forbin]

Page 4....

Come on, only six pages to go!

 

[Mytran]

ONE example of Spock's saying "yards" hardly trumps the common established practice of official reports being expressed in metric (not to mention the fact of "meters" being in the '60s a less familiar term than "kilometers" -- another example of production expediency).

Very true, but that was just one example which I picked out of the air. In fact there are 11 episodes where characters use either feet or yards as a unit of measurement and 47 where imperial terms are used. By comparison there are just 23 where metric units are used. In fact in many episodes where they occur both types are used.
So, while it may not jibe with "real world" practises, in the TOS universe both units of measurement are co-existing nicely.

If I could veer off subject slightly, I'd just like to add my praise for your shuttlecraft plans. I've admired them for some years now and while the larger shuttlecraft exterior can never match up with the prop we see onscreen, it is the most realistic solution to a FTL craft of extended duration. If TOS were "real" (without the production limitations on the shuttle that have been previously discussed), this is how the shuttle would have appeared.
IMO, of course

 

[Warped9]

Believe it or not I wasn't interested or even trying to get a 24ft. measurement in there somewhere for the shuttlecraft. It came about as a strange coincidence.

Shaw is right, though, that the 947ft. figure wasn't a consideration in my project.

Although Nimoy is seen standing inside the interior set there are many clues onscreen that make me believe they were trying to convey a sense of a more cramped interior because they knew the set was oversized. And the exterior mockup has an element of forced perspective to it because they knew the mockup was undersized. So in both exterior and interior we are looking at production compromises. So I reasoned that what was intended for the "real" shuttlecraft had to be somewhere in the middle.

Another reason the exterior mockup was undersized (as I understand it) was to make it somewhat more manageable to transport and move around. Imagine trying to transport and handle a fullsize 26+ ft. shuttlecraft!

When I was trying to arrive at a size for the interior I could live with I actually measured out its size in real terms and used kitchen chairs as a quick-and-dirty substitute to get a feel for the scale. I did the same using stairs to get a feel for a manageable step up height to enter and exit the craft. In the end a person 5'-7" can stand upright inside my design and anyone over that will have to stoop some, which is pretty close to what we saw the actors doing onscreen.

I've long questioned whether 947' was workable and thought it likely the ship could be larger. But I've seen enough evidence over the years that convince me it is workable. Yet I also recognize that for it to work as a "real" ship then in some cases we won't get exactly what we saw onscreen.

 

[trekkist]

Shaw, the only reason I asked if you were serious is that my reading of other threads turns up your consistently both knowing what you're talking about, and saying why you do...and the date's preceding what reading of other threads led me to believe was a post-"Cage" resizing (i.e., the original Jeffries 500-odd ft. length/what scale were the plans drawn at discussion, what part in which you took I don't recall). In other words, I thought you were teasing me, and asked for clarification. I wasn't trying to be a smartass.

Warped9, the "difficulty of transport" (let alone use on a set of fixed size) is exactly why I figure the subscale exterior was built the size it was. Though not much involved, I followed, printed out much of, and respected enormously the multi-person process by which you and others devised a compromise shuttlecraft. To my recollection, the "trying to convey a cramped interior" body language included the overly low chairs and...what else was there? (interior-wise, that is). And by the way -- speaking of chairs -- I used an office chair in a basement when drawing my plans, and HAVE plans to arrange seven semi-Burkes at work at my first opportunity! *MY* goal is to re-nail an absolute-to-the-interior-sized shuttle. As to 947 working or not working for a "real" ship, the bees in my bonnet are:

1)hangar deck width, as guesstimated by distance to the centerline-placed shuttle (as cited above) (I'm ALMOST ready to concede all shuttle-to-hangar size contrasts...with the possible exception of those at the flight hatch...are flawed)
2)inability of the TMP rec room to exist in a 1000-odd foot ship
3)inability of 2 side-by-side torp bays to ditto in TWOK

Mytran, I certainly can't cite or recall numbers of non-metric references...but the only ones that would call into question metric as an official denoter of numeration would be those delivered "officially." As Roddenberry himself said, "[~] a military man will be quite precise in briefing his superior, but might remark to the man next to him, 'They're still a mile out of range.'" To my recollection, Spock, Scotty, Sulu & Chekov (among others) always cited data metrically, other than in jocular references. Non-metric numeration was used for the sake of the poor metric-innumerate 1960s viewer...for whose sake (and/or by analogy with then-contemporary [perhaps] mortar ranging) Spock used "yards" in "Arena." If I'm wrong, tell me so. But I see no reason to believe an in-universe briefing room image would be labeled non-metrically.

Thanks for everyone's forbearance, and Mytran, for your compliments on my Class F blues. As Warped9 and Shaw can both attest, any kind of imaging of the non-real is both a labor of love and a huge pain in the butt. All the more so it was for me with references confined to paused videotape, slide tracings, the Star Trek Fotonovels, and the odd magazine image. Not to mention which I was working in isolation, with a constant sense of "Why the hell am I bothering?" (though in fact I was trying, among other things, to make money, as I did, a bit...discounting utterly the number of hours invested prior to a xerox-ready product).

By the way, Shaw, may I say I found your saucer room balcony/viewing gallery a brilliant blending of the rim's windows and the undercut? And as a suggestion (assuming you haven't incorporated it), have you considered the briefing room set's "girders" and inclined wall seem a dead-on match for the saucer rim angle? (not that *I'D* put a high-rank briefing room there, but I wouldn't sit the bridge atop the saucer, either).

 

[trekkist]

Something I've thought MANY times over the years is that an anthology of fan tech writings/art -- published without approval, under the branch of copyright allowing for "editorial" works -- would sell like gangbusters. I mean, Aridas "got away with" the Ships of the Starfleet, right? And I assume, made at least a modest profit?

Of course, assembling such a collection would be like herding cats, being as how no more than 3 or 4 of us tend to agree on any one thing's being...hmmm, what would the phrase be? -- "of merit"?