Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
The Enterprise Hangar Problem: was the shuttle-bay too big?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 дек 2022
- In this video, we will explore the original Enterprise's hangar deck, focusing on the question of size. Was it too big?
#StarTrek #culture #Blender
The 7in Galileo seven refers to the seven crew members stranded in that episode, it was not part of its name. It was simply Galileo.
But it was numbered NCC-1701/7 being the ship's seventh shuttle craft.
I never knew that. For all these years, I'd always assumed that it was from the '/7' suffix.
came here to say this but you already did.
Thank you! You are the first other person I have ever seen actually get this.
@@williamkohler7564there are actually 3 Type F shuttlecraft named Galileo. The first Galileo (NCC-1701/7) burns up in Galileo 7. The second appears in Immunity Syndrome with the same livery as the first and is lost offscreen, and Galileo II (NCC-1701/7) replaces it. I have no clue why the 3rd Galileo (technically 4th if we include the Stamets Type from SNW) is named Galileo II, but still.
Good video addressing most of the major point.
For me, the onscreen size of the Flight Deck suggests that the Enterprise is simply larger than 947 feet long
I agree. There have been scalings of the Enterprise based on the few times characters are shown looking at space through the windows and the size of the bridge dome suggests that the Enterprise is at least 320 meters long. This seems in line with the Discovery/Strange New Worlds scaling of nearly 380-400 meters.
I'm happy you like it!
@@nowhereman1046 Add to that all the people who say there isn't enough volume on the Enterprise - after all, going from 290 to 320 meters in length, and scaling the other linear dimensions to the same linear scale of 1:1.103, the volume increases by the cube, or by 1:1.34. In other words, if the Enterprise is 320m in length rather than 290m, the volume increases by about a third. That accounts for any missing room for the crew and the mission equipment.
@@Qermaq not to mention the fact that if you're going to keep the overall proportions of the ship, if it is longer, it is also wider and taller. This means that there would be much more space in the secondary Hull, and a greater chance that there could be a second-level to the shuttlebay where additional shuttles could be stored. Also, since the shuttle commonly seen in the show is the Galileo-7, this indicates that the Enterprise carried 7 shuttles since the shuttles would be numbered sequentially.
@@asarand Precisely. Volume increases compared to length much more than we intuitively think. Squares are a little intuitive, not so much cubes.
After spending years attempting to build the whole ship in Virtual Reality, by the Franz Joseph deck plans ALONE, I can tell you - you're on to something. I narrowed the problem down to an inaccurate size of the shuttlecraft itself. The turntable in the deck plans tells the whole story! It is just too small to hold a whole shuttlecraft, given the dimensions found in many other places. Perhaps we ought to determine just what dimensions the shuttlecraft needs to be to fit the Enterprise!
Or what dimensions the Enterprise needs to be to fit a shuttlecraft.
Well how many launches would a 300 men sea vessel have... Even the Enterprise having six shuttlecrafts berthed in the docking bay is ridiculous. It really should be something like Stargate Universe's Destiny with only two shuttlecrafts (and those were just docked on the outside). Note, escape pods have always been considered separate from the shuttles and more like coffins or torpedoes without loads.
The Joseph plans are inaccurate and always have been.
I think the shuttlecraft should be scaled up to match the interior set. That makes the spacecraft bigger than the prop seen on the stage and the miniature hanger as seen on screen appropriately big.
0:34 The shuttle was just called the Galileo. The episode was called The Galileo Seven, referring to its seven passengers. After this episode, you can see the reused shuttle prop was changed to Galileo II.
name the 7 passengers , I only come up with 6 unless u count 1 giant monkey too
NCC 1707 / 7 is the Galileo, shuttle #7
@@JefferyWWright True, but the episode is "The Galileo Seven" not "The Galileo 7". I know it's odd, but that strikes me as a distinction..but that may only be me. Also, the episode was inspired by the film "Five Came Back", which was about 5 crash survivors. I can see your point, but I think the hull number may just be a confusing coincidence.
How about rendering the Enterprise to a practical scale that takes in the pylons, the rear door and a hanger bay really the size of a football field?
They already did, when they let Jar Jar Abrams make his oversized toaster version for the new movies.
@@TwistedSisterHaratiofales We do not speak of this... abomination *_shudders_*
JJ Abrams Enterprise could fit 23 decks in it but not the original Enterprise when you see people standing next to shuttle and compare the shuttle with the shuttle bay, the shuttle bays is about two decks tall and when you see the clam shell doors open in some pictures you’ll notice the shuttle bay is going past the nacelle pylons when it comes to the original Enterprise and since people are almost as tall as the shuttle crafts, that would mean that the Enterprise tube section of the Stardrive section is ruffle 5 decks tall, its neck is also around 5 decks tall and then you add the upper decks of the saucer the ship should be around 16 to 17 decks not 23 decks. I think the JJ Abrams Enterprise, the 2009 version was actually to the right scale in size.
@@emperorofscelnar8443 The original I believe is 14 decks with the bridge to the bottom of the engineering hull, so yea.
@@TwistedSisterHaratiofales That would make more sense that the original Enterprise would be 14 decks tall rather then be 23 decks tall, when you look at a certain scene in the motion picture when people are standing on the saucer section but seen from the side of that saucer you’ll see that the saucer is pretty small compared to the size of the people in that scene. The size of the shuttle next to people and then the shuttle compared to the shuttle bay you’ll think there is no way this ship is 23 decks tall, the JJ Abrams Enterprise is more likely going to fit 23 decks in it.
A couple of points: Roddenberry was a frequent user of hyperbole, and the "size of a football field" bit is a holdover from the early pitches, before the design of the Enterprise had been finalized. His main point was that the ship had a hangar deck, and it was big. The cross-section of the ship shows the hangar deck doesn't go beyond the pylons, with the closeup drawing of the hangar deck itself is almost certainly showing us the forced perspective miniature set, and not an actual, full scale hangar deck.
Also, "The Galileo Seven" is a reference to the seven crewmembers on board, not the shuttlecraft. Unfortunately, that registry on the side, NCC-1701/7, has led to this misreading, starting with the AMT model kit in the early 70's.
Don't we just love the inconsistencies of television when they are still trying to figure tings out and just do what looks good.
Love that middle shot of the Enterprise in earth's sky. She looks beautiful in the daylight.
Do Klingons yearn?
Yes, it is very well done. The visual stylings of the animation are excellent. I was taken with We Travel by Night's renditions of the Tholian Web in a prior video.
These videos are better than 90% of mass media.
It wasn't the Galileo 7, but just the Galileo. The 7 references the number of people on board during that episode.
No. It is the 7th craft out of 8 onboard the ship.
You are correct, talking about the registry. That is 1701-7, the name of the vessel is Galileo, withouten the 7. If you would use the number in the name, it would imply that there is also a Galilieo one through 6. I checked images of said episode and there is no 7 in the name. Therefor the 7 in the titel doesn’t reference to the vessel, but to the people on board in the episode.
In the Franz Joseph blueprints of the TOS Enterprise, the shuttle turntable was also an elevator by which each shuttle could be lowered from the hangar deck to the deck below for storage. All in all, though, I was always glad that TOS tried to depict at least the shuttlebay as really big. It helped emphasize the huge size of the ship. I was always disappointed that the Enterprise-D in TNG, despite being supposedly twice the length of the TOS ship, never showed us any really large areas. The holodeck seemed way too small. The shuttlebay was small. Even the Engineering deck was small.
They never really showed the massive main hanger of the Enterprise D except as a model from the outside. And even then we didn’t get a deep look inside.
Franz Joseph was just taking his cues from Matt Jefferies drawings seen in "The Making of Star Trek" which state the square-shaped red outline is an elevator. The MSD of the USS Defiant from "In a Mirror, Darkly" shows it is an elevator that leads down to a storage/service area.
They might at least have had a matte painting of the Enterprise-D's main shuttle-bay - I would like to have seen it. But it is the hazard of having a huge Galaxy-class starship: if it's going to be so big, you are going to have large spaces which ought to be shown. And main engineering was tiny for such a vast starship. Even J. J. Abrams seems to have understood that (okay, it looked like a brewery (and had a water-turbine - a water-turbine??????)), but at least it was big!
@@WeTravelbyNight That's still one helluva an expensive proposition to have someone paint a backdrop and or a matte painting, then have it optically printed onto the live action footage in post production. You can see that where possible, the crew was trying to suggest a cavernous bay, but keep it cheap, and the original FX was just a reuse from "The Galileo Seven" of the Columbus coming in for a landing.
Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the 2006 TOS Remastered crew didn't take the time to add in a CGI matte. A real shame and a big time lost opportunity to really showcase what they could do.
I am looking at my Franz Joseph blueprints now and the pylons, despite being over the shuttle bay, do NOT continue into the shuttle bay. Also, my favorite deck is 13.
Very interesting. The clamshell doors are segmented, so those wouldn't need much room. Good design there. As for the door opening to shuttlebay, you kind of answered your own question; it would have been impossible to show either the side door installations or clamshell doors upon opening the hangar bay doors -- they had no money to build either, or for a matte painting. I guess they just shoved the shuttle prop as far back as they could from the doorway set to give the illusion of hangar size. Love the idea of a dual purpose turntable/elevator here -- great way to access the lower hangar deck. Kind of an aircraft carrier setup. And this whole thing kind of makes the saucer engineering location more practical, regardless of "Day of the Dove".
In Journey to Babel after exiting the Hanger Deck it takes Sarek 17 or 18 steps to to the entrance where Kirk, Spock and McCoy were waiting. In the Immunity Syndrome it takes Spock a similar number of steps to walk to the Shuttlecraft after the door opens. That is allot more consistent with the remastered Shuttlebay. So on that one score I think the team that remastered the episodes actually got it right. Also the ship schematics next to the turbolift on the bridge as well as the schematic looked at by Kang and the other Klingons in Day of the Dove clearly show that the forward part of the Hanger deck ends just before it reaches the nacelles pylons and not beyond it! And in The Galileo 7 it was stated that the Shuttlecraft was 24 feet long. Not 21. And in both the old fx and the new ones appears to exactly as long as the circle on the rectangular landing platform. Which should be perhaps the best way to calculate really just how long and how wide that the Shuttlebay would actually be. 2:52
Impressive knowledge!
You needed more research on this before making the video. The dimensions of the Class-F shuttlecraft was given in "The Galileo Seven" by Captain Kirk as 24 feet (7.3 m) in length:
KIRK: That thing out there has ionized this complete sector. None of our instruments work. At least four complete solar systems in the immediate vicinity. And out there somewhere, a twenty four foot shuttlecraft, off course, out of control. Finding a needle in a haystack would be child's play.
This matches closely with the dimensions known for the exterior shuttlecraft prop very closely. The interior, being made with the usual need for filming with the bulky cameras of the time, probably suggests a somewhat larger craft in the neighborhood of 30 feet (9 meters).
The centerline cutaway seen in "In a Mirror, Darkly, Pt. 2" shows clearly there is service and storage bays directly under the hanger. This is in line with Matt Jefferies' drawings in "The Making of Star Trek" that states the square that encompasses the circular turntable IS an elevator and this is also reflected in the IaMD MSD display. Both the MSD from IaMD and Jefferies Enterprise cutaway drawings show that the main bulkhead for the hanger bay ends just aft of the nacelle pylons.
The blank background is unfortunate, but it's an artifact of the limited budget of the time and while the set crew did put down a red circle on the stage floor, they were not able to put in the square line representing the elevator lift. The backdrop on the stage wouldn't have been seen on 1960s and 70s TV screens. But in both the original and remaster versions, the shuttlecraft is clearly rotated so that its nose is pointing back out towards the clamshell doors, so the hatch of the shuttlecraft is facing the starboard side of the bay.
Very nice video, the canon scale of the Classic Enterprise just does not work, I have built the model in Lightwave3d as I found a rescale is needed closer to around 1350ft or 411m
As opposed to the Jupiter 2 and its phantom third deck.
Mark 0:45. Greetings! 🖖
When I was a boy in the 1970s, I too thought that, "7", was part of the name. Then later on, as a man, I finally realized the number referred to the number of crew aboard it, during that one episode, "The Galileo Seven".
But even much later on, I saw that there are the hull registration numbers that the shuttlecraft have. The Galileo's might be, "NCC-1701/7", right? To indicate that it is either the seventh one of a set aboard the starship, or the seventh to have the name, but they had them named, "Galileo II", up to, "Galileo V", in one of the movies, so that's not it. 🤔 I can't see the hull number as I tap in the characters, so I'm guessing here.
They had a real loose set of name rules not well established with the issue of the shuttles.
This is what we know as far as (TOS) Canon.
As far as the show indicated we know that the Enterprise had 2 shuttlecraft for a fact. AMT (Aluminum Model Toy's) company made the 2/3rd scale filming prop to have the rights to make models of the shuttlecraft. They also built the 1/24th scale model of the Galileo and the hanger bay model that was used to film the shuttle landing and take off scenes.
Now Galileo was the shuttlecraft that they always showed, mostly because the filming model and prop were marked as such, and back then it was painted on. (no Decals).
So the name was on the craft, and the NCC-1701/7 indicated that it was the 7th shuttlecraft aboard the USS Enterprise Mark 9 Heavy Cruiser (Star Ship) Constitution Class.
Later in the book the making of Star Trek they indicated that the ship carried 8 of these Type F craft.
The second one that we see, except we don't get to see the markings clearly until they digitally remaster the series is NCC-1701/6 Columbia.
Now the reason that then had a Galileo II was because of the episode where Galileo was destroyed.
Love your videos!
Are you planning on covering other Star Trek series/movies? I'm a big fan of DS9 and would love to know more about the shape/size/configuration of the station.
I would love to see the refit Enterprise, myself.
I do want to tackle the refit Enterprise, and I have been eying up the Defiant and DS9 itself. All that Cardassian architecture will be a challenge, and I know that I won't be able to resist adding in the promenade. But, we'll have to wait and see.
Interesting way of phrasing the problem.... I have always heard the problem stated as the given measurements for the size of the Enterprise are too small, for the hanger deck to exist.
Great presentation. I always assumed the other shuttles were stored under the main hanger deck in a sort of maintenance area. I believe the original Enterprise blueprints may illustrate this, though it's been many years since I've seen them. I also liked your remarks on the pylon stresses which would have occurred if the Enterprise entered the atmosphere. Although, Pike's Enterprise on "Strange New Worlds" has entered a planetary atmosphere, although their nacelle pylons appear more substantial. I suppose fiction becomes reality though as the restorations on the original Enterprise model done by the awesome preservation staff at the Smithsonian Institute usually have to address the nacelles drooping and repairing cracks in the secondary hull near the hangar deck.
It's my understanding that with the original Enterprise, the six shuttles were all parked in the landing bay and there simply wasn't enough room for a storage bay under the landing bay. Certainly none of the published plans or cross sections showed there being enough room. Of course, keep in mind that the Enterprise is not a real functional spacecraft.
Similar to a modern aircraft carrier.
Many 24th Century master system displays show a storage deck under the launch deck for their shuttles. The shuttle garages could be further back if you place them under main engineering I guess too.
would be interesting to do a comparison between this shuttle bay and ST 5 scene where they crash into the bay, it certainly looked quite long on screen.
The issue isn't that the hanger deck is too big. It's that everyone's estimates of the exterior size are too small. The Enterprise is just bigger than everyone thinks.
Extremely so but I'm guessing this is why in the Kelvin timeline we see that the shuttle Bay is actually multi leveled, and the shuttles use their anti grav to float out to the center of the Bay and float out the doors before igniting their engines
People can hate the size of the ships in the Kelvin timeline, but they did the shuttle bays beautifully. They looked functional and made logical use of the space and the elknown technology.
They still didn't have solid size continuity but we should be used to that by now I suppose...
the JJ "monsterprise" is more than 3 times as big as the TOS enterprise
the JJ "monsterprise" is more than 3 times as big as the TOS enterprise
@@doltBmB double post alert
it doesn't matter if the pylons have no "weight", they still have "mass". But they also invented "Inertial Dampeners" to keep the crew from being squooshed against the walls during high-speed sub-light maneuvers. It's not much of a stretch to presume the Dampener Field extended to include the pylons.
At various times in reference to Star Trek I have heard mention of a "structural Integrity" field....
After all this time, you've just made me realise that Star Trek might be unrealistic.
LOLOLOLOLO
This has been debated for decades. The hangar miniature was not sized realistically, but made for dramatic effect to suggest a large space. In kind the shuttlecraft miniature was scaled too small, both the filming miniature and the fullsize exterior mockup.
In my opinion. DUM DUM DUM! Discovery make it correct! Enterprise was always bit too small. But thing is that those numbers were never actually stated in the show, but come from additional sources. What were assumed as canon, even if they weren't. People noticed some time ago that what we see is way larger, then claimed number. Especially after TNG become randomly gigantic. In reality 400 meters seams to me more rational size. Visible size differences between ships outsides can be ignored, because Trek always did suffer on scale issue. Mostly because scale of the models rarely correspond to scale in the show and in many cases they were mechanically composed in the shots. So mistakes were omnipresent.
Nothing wrong with the size of the TOS Enterprise.
they also weren't made to be measured by pixels in frame by frame analysis, but simply to look "good enough" at a glance, such is the case for many miniature effects and it's not useful to obsess over minor scaling differences.
I always thought that at the very least it was oddly sparse and not very efficiently laid out, though that may simply be due ti the requirements and limitations of filming for television...
I don't know about TOS but I believe I read somewhere that starships had structural integrity force fields that allowed the hull, neck, nacelles etc to handle the stresses of maneuvering etc
When moving in space, the engines are the "source of gravity" for the ship. Those pylons are holding the entire weight of the rest of the ship!
Also known as 'handwavium fields'.
It's in the TNG Tech Manual. But presumably all starships from the very beginning would've needed such a system given their sizes and shapes
@@jkleylein And bullshitium for the ship's hull.
@@worldcomicsreview354 Not in Star Trek. Integrity fields, inertial dampeners, plotonium powered of course such as it is.
It is a 50+ year old (September 8, 1966) T.V. show. No one, at the time, really thought about it that hard! It was cancelled when I was 8 months old.
It's possible the pylons are connected to each other and then attached to the hull, much like some of the new models have been fabricated to correct the sag problem. We can argue that this was an in-canon issue as well, seeing how the pylons in the refit were moved father forward, possibly to correct this design error.
No hanger bay was the perfect size for the shuttle craft if the shuttle was 24ft long.
It is strange when you think about it, but as a video looking at the refit version of the Enterprise has not been released at the time of this comment, I'm going to say this... I think Gene and everyone realized the problems with the original series interiors, and thusly made alterations to the design of the ship on the exterior to fix that. The design of the ship for the aborted Star Trek Phase II angled the pylons and moved the base of them closer to the neck, allowing greater room for the shuttle bay and some proper cargo space, along with getting them closer to main engineering. One must also take into account the limitations of 60s television prior to Star Wars and the highly beloved original Battlestar Galactica. The practical model of the Enterprise from the original series is surprisingly sturdy, even when it was neglected, it resisted sagging for the nacelles and pylons. Likely, the design used somehow managed to be quite sturdy due to having the straight pylons for a lower budget. When they started work on Phase II, they made a new model of the Enterprise and it was finished, though no photos of the completed model are known. (It's currently on display in a science fiction themed restaurant somewhere, modified to look more like the motion picture version of the Enterprise sadly.) Once the decision to revive Star Trek as a film series was made though, the budget was increased considerably, and things Gene wanted for the ship could now be done. They used the Phase II model as a starting point and made an entirely new model since the Phase II model wasn't detailed enough for a movie screen, and every improvement and solution from the Phase II design was carried over to the Motion Picture model and design. It still leaves the problem of the original series inconsistencies, something that has had attempts made to correct.
I love when fans try to explain the writers' mistakes away.
"Proper football field." Good one.
Nice to know that size inconsistencies in Star Trek go all the way back.
There is also no way that you could fit 425 people and crew quarters on the same ship
The support is a combination of shields and the structural integrity field. Otherwise, I think the ship is just longer than its stated dimensions.
In that episode, Kirk stated the shuttlecraft as being 24 feet in length.
Kirk was known to lie.
8m seems very small to accommodate 7 persons. It seems very thin-walled; I can't see that this is a very safe method of space travel. To a planetary surface from orbit, yes, but from a starbase in pursuit of a Starship (Menagerie), not practical.
@@quantisedspace7047 : In science fiction... anything is practical.
The exterior model was built 3/4 size to fit into a truck bed.
It was a sci-fi TV show from 1966.
NOBODY involved predicted, or COULD HAVE predicted the show's run-away cult success, NOR could they predict that the fans of the show would become SO DEEPLY INVOLVED that they would be measuring out sets and models to the milometer and debating whether set-A could actually fit inside Model-B.
I'm reminded of the first issue of the Star Trek comic book that featured a cut-away of the ship that showed the bridge taking up the ENTIRE saucer section.
Back then nobody cared because the modern form of fan involvement simply did not exist back then, I think Trek was really the prototype for that kind of rabid Fandom.
Back in the early 70's Ballantine books published a folder of Enterprise blueprints drawn by Franz Joseph designs that managed to fit EVERYTHING into the ship logically, using the sets as the guide, and Roddenberry's canon enterprise dimensions.
While NOT considered Canon today despite it being an official product, the plans DO act as a proof of concept that everything COULD have fit, and the ship could support a crew of 430.
The PROBLEM with the hanger deck was NOT the dimensions of the deck, but the scale of the shuttle craft model in comparison to the Enterprise model, and the model/set of the hanger deck, the SHUTTLE was too large.
I don't remember specifics but I was watching a vid where the designer of the Enterprise claimed what the ship is made of allowed it to not need supports for the nacelle struts.
You've put waaaaaayyyyyy to much thought into this... which is why I love it. LOL
It think someone saying the hanger deck was as big as a football field was roughly comparing its size in a way that we viewers could understand and visual how big it was. It was never meant as a actual size by size comparison.
This was fun! As one of those annoying, “keeper of the sacred blueprints,” types, I always am entertained by these kinds of speculations. If you would like to give yourself, absolute fits sometime, watch a few episodes of the second third or fourth seasons of voyage, to the bottom of the sea, and try to make those sets fit together. It’s a good way to make yourself bleed out the ears.
With regards to the engineering problem, it is entirely possible that engineering was not in the secondary hole when they were making the original show. Or rather the concept of it being in the secondary hull was not there yet. I know people don’t like to hear this, since it contradicts later canon, but the designers of the later models and sets were given a lot of latitude to go in their own direction, and the way they were configured in the movies, and afterwards does not automatically mean that’s the way they were conceptually configured during the making of the TV show. I don’t have a definitive answer on this, though, I don’t actually remember them ever saying, “Main engineering.“ I am pretty sure there was just engineering, and that was probably in the saucer section. Again, people get really mad at us and scream and call me names, but these kinds of conceptual changes happen all the time. the very first time we see 10 forward in the next generation. For instance, it is showing in the side of the interconnecting neck between the saucer and the secondary hull and stars move by its sideways. Within a few episodes, it had been moved to its more normal location at the front of the saucer section. People making TV shows tend to change their minds about such things on the fly. It’s just one of the realities of making a show.
But in any event, the dimensions of the hanger bag, and the shuttles, and the interior and exterior of the shuttles, simply do not work. They just did the best approximation they could on the budget they had, and hoped that people wouldn’t notice. The same thing is true of the huts on Gilligan’s Island, which shows some distinct signs of tardisification. They are definitely bigger on the inside and the outside.
The matter of where you store four Type F shuttlecarft on that ship is one of the reasons why I moved Engineering a ways forward, to give them a bit more room back in the hangar deck area. It's possible two of the shuttles are partially dismantled for easier storage.
Oh, and the hanger deck clam shell doors were 60 feet wide and 30 feet in height. As tall as a two story house (including the roof). The blueprints of the Enterprise drawn and sold in the late 1970's shows the size of the hanger deck in comparison to the overall length of the "secondary engineering hull." And I believe the book "The Making of Star Trek" first published in 1968 states the hanger deck was 118 feet long.
Suspension of disbelief is an important component in all science fiction.
Wow, fascinating. Heres one, try getting the "Chariot" into and out of the Jupiter 2 .
Thumb Up #80! 👍 Thanks for the fun, digital video recording! 🎬 ✌️🖖🙏🤓🤓🤠
Notes: Hmm. While viewing the reactions of both, "R Knights" and "Target Audience", I was thinking that they stopped using stock footage of catapult launching of the same model, over and over again, and replaced it with new take-offs, similar to helicopters. But you brought up the concepts of a, "Batcave"-style turntable as seen in, "Batman", and an elevator. I do now recall seeing the, "turntable", in use in at least one episode. I thought that they used the same term used in railroading? 🤔
Dammit! I was just about to but it’s Time-lord Technology when you put the Tardis in the hanger bay. 😂
Common knowledge since the 70s that the Shuttle Bay has the “Tardis Effect”. It’s bigger on the inside than the outside.
The shuttle craft also had a rather large, separate aft section which makes the 21 foot length improbable
the writers of the show never intended the viewers to get this technical with the ship LOL , all tv show sets and floorplans never made any sense and they weren't supposed to , it was all about the plot and the performances , the jupiter 2 in lost in space is another example, the floorplan of that saucer made no sense at all 😂
If you are at a loss as to where main engineering is, in the plans of the original ship in the original series, the main engineering deck is in the rear of the saucer section. The impulse engines are at the rear of main engineering. What you see when in engineering is one part of the impulse engines... The main engineering was placed in the secondary hull when the ship got refitted after Kirk's first 5 year mission on the Enterprise
There is an 'alternate' set of plans that put main engineering in the secondary hull beneath the dorsal...well ahead of the engine pylons and the hanger. I built a model of the ship in blender and since I wanted to place a correctly scaled model of the bridge inside the bridge dome I was forced to scale the ship up to 1301 feet. At that scale the hanger issues go away largely. There is still the issue of the incorrectly scaled shuttle vs the interior set though but that can be explained by simply assuming that Kirk mispoke when he said the shuttle was 24 foot in length. It was closer to 40.
Interesting, but I find myself a lot happier not worrying about this stuff. You are correct, an American football field will not fit inside the space for the model. So, the writer's bible is wrong.
He failed to mention that it's a Canadian football field.
Mark 3:46. Hehehe! The CC, has you saying, "twenty-first feet in length"! 😂🤣
It was just a fictional TV show. Remember the lyrics of the Mystery Theatre 3000 series "if you're wondering how he eats and breathes
and other science facts (la la la),
Then repeat to yourself, "It's just a show,
I should really just relax."
I always thought it was a little too small . . .
Think on the bright side, in Space 1999 the travel tubes are not only bigger on the inside they aren't even the same shape...
I'm guessing no one expected people to be overly concerned with every little detail years later.
when talking about the nacelle pylons another thing to consider is we don't actually know the tensile strength of the metal used to construct the enterprise, nor do we have the actual weight of the nacelles themselves. As for the size of the hanger bay, the limited budget made it very hard for them to make things proportional (nor do I think they ever thought people would care), as it is Science FICTION. One would assume even just from the markings on the floor that there was a lift. As in the technical manuals of several other ships this is seen as the only solution to a ship having more shuttles then what their shuttle bay could conceivably hold.
Concerning the Shuttlebay's size, if you thought 4 shuttles were hard to fit, we actually get to see all 12 of the TOS Enterprise's shuttles throughout both TOS and TAS. Given that the Aquashuttle, Heavy Shuttle, and 12's replacement Copernicus type are all bigger than the average Type F, it can be concluded that Starfleet has Tardis Tech and the shuttlebay must be bigger on the inside.
I think you underestimate how tightly craft can be packed in carrier operations!
I always thought that the exterior size of Lost in Space was too small to have 2 decks, engine room which was never scene, storage space for both space pod and chariot.
Don't forget the lower deck. Stored 2 shuttyes 1 on the back side of the lift, one on the front side of the lifthere was room enough on the upper deck for the shuttles for 21 turn sidewards was magnetic lift turned to the turntable. And then one on the watch platrorm.
Over the years I noticed other different size questions that didn't seem accurate.
The hanger deck is like the Tardis. Looks small on the outside but massive on the inside.
Clearly fans gave this more thought than the show runners.
I really liked the rendition of the shuttle bay in The Motion Picture. I realize this was the Consitution-refit Enterprise but it really gave the ship a sense of scale. I've always felt the shuttlebay from the external tends to make the Enterprise seem very small. This is at its worst for me in Star Trek V.
Glad to know your thoughts about how to improve ship structure and room functions. Shuttle bay in the U.S.S. enterprise series are not too large because saucer hull doesn't prepared too much space. However, you can designing more fashion types in order to promote modern ship series closer to 32nd century, which means more donuts and pizza types. Furthermore, if you want to reduce shuttle bay and vessel carries space, trying to think about space delivery system links to nearest spaceports and transporter on the ship, because medium size ship doesn't have too many vessel carries or shuttle bay like mothership.
Thank you.
Scale everything to the Actual shuttle we have in a museum.
It’s better to err on the side of caution and have a hanger that is much bigger than needed. Scale the whole ship up so the apparent much too big shuttle bay size fits. Too big is better than not big enough, like the Excelsior's shuttle bay. That one is a really serious design problem.
First off the star ship was made with material that was invented by my great great great grandson, and is mush stronger then steel, is much lighter then aluminum, wont rust, wont burn, but can be cut, formed and welded with lasers. So in other words if a soda can was made with material and left on a train track, the train would tip over, also the strongest car crusher in the world that tried to crush this soda can, it would break the car crusher. You forgot to factor that in the star ship Enterprise design...........
Where's your evidence?
My assumption is that the turntable would act as a lift. You likely want a maintenance facility of some form for the shuttles. Sure you can do some basic maintenance on the shuttles sat in the hangar deck, but for anything a little bit more in depth than the space shuttle equivalent of checking the oil and putting air in the tires you likely want the shuttle located somewhere close by a proper workshop, with machines and tools to aid in the maintenance.
My guess is the lift probably leads down to such a facility under the hangar deck. They probably have 2 or 3 duty shuttles at any given time that sit on the flight deck ready for use, and another undergoing some form of scheduled maintenance in the workshop area below would be my guess.
The Structural Integrity Field makes it possible for the ship’s hull to support the engine pylons.
Discovery fixed all that and pretty much confirmed that they have Gallifrean technology at work.
3:04 The lack of pylon supports doesn't really matter when considering that the ship is able to hover in atmosphere, out of orbit. It's established that ships hover using antigravity lifters and that lifters can be large enough to lift a ship or small enough to fit in a cart. I would imagine that the saucer, engineering hull, and warp nacelle each have Its own antigravity with the neck and pylons only tethering the ship together much as it would in space.
I tend to think of the original Enterprise as being a bit bigger than has been stated just so the various sets and such can actually fit inside of the ship.
As far as the warp pylons needing more internal structure, I actually disagree. I wouldn't be surprised that especially with the engineering hull being cylindrical that the circular sections would actually be strong enough to support them. Think more of airplanes or dirigibles and how the main structure is actually made up of circular frames that are connected by further framework that follows the contour of the hull or skin, rather than of a traditional ship with a keel with all the ribs and masts running down to it and connecting to it for support.
I think you should consider the possible misuse of terminology when thinking about these things. First off, the warp engines. You should consider that the big long tubes on the pylons are not "engines" in the way we think of them today. They do not burn fuel, they do not provide power to the rest of the ship, they may not even provide any propulsion force. Consider that the more accurate terminology may be warp field emitters or generators. They may not need much in the way of structural support because 1) in a minimal gravity environment they don't need to be "held up" and the propulsory force they create could be more a matter of manipulation of the warp field than any sort of pushing force that needs to be absorbed by the structure of the ship. Second is the term engineering, which may be distinctly different than the "engine room". Obviously the engine room would be where the engine is, but engineering could be more of a place where all the ship's power and systems are controlled and monitored. Engineering would be more of a centralized place for key parts of the engine control, sheild, weapons, environmental, sensors, life support ect. So main "engineering" does not necessarily need to be physically close to the warp "engines". Just a thought.
That would not reduce the inertia of the nacelles which would put huge torque on the pylons as the ship maneuvered at impulse speed.
@@jkleylein The impulse engines are mounted on the rear of the saucer section, so the saucer section is what's moving and it's just dragging the secondary section (along with the warp nacelles) along for the ride. Like with a plane, it's the wings that are flying, the fuselage and everything attachted to it are just along for the ride.
Weight is an illusion. The real issue is mass. They have a lot of mass. The location of the pylons & the shuttle bay was always problematic. The issue was corrected in th he refit, which was a completely different new ship. I'm sure the designer of the original model & writers didnt think that far ahead.
The writers went for cheap and cheerful rather than accurate and measured….so the best answer is, don’t ask the questions.
Maybe their was an additional Shuttle deployment deck in the aft saucer section of the Enterprise
Surely they expected to sometimes accomodate other craft, not just their own? And anticipate the unanticipated, with alien craft or just generally some sort of onboard space with outside access? It's not all about the shuttles.
The inside the hangar view shows 2 external (pardon me for not knowing the proper name) for the windows ( actually if anyone knows what the name of these windows are called (wayyyy to big to be called portholes, I would greatly appreciated). Could be ports....but not the point of my comment. The presenter ( don't take offense, really admire your posts and very grateful that you make them) doesn't show a flank view, but it looks like where you show where the forward edge of the shuttle bay doesn't account for the second window and the extra distance that it goes beyond. Really really really love your posts, you extrapolate expertly what data you have to go on. Love ya Travel-by-night!
To blow our minds even further, Filmation's "Animated Series" enlarges it even more with rows of multi-styled shuttles.
I'm glad THE STRANGE NEW WORLDS ENTERPRISE has taken this into account. By making the pylons like the refit Constitution class and enlarging the ship, it make more sense.
Another shuttlecraft problem.- Why is it so easy to steal a shuttlecraft?
I was hoping to see the corridors outside the Hangar Deck. I'm thinking it was on another stage from bridge and curved hallways. I'm wondering whether the corridors there were curved too. We saw the Hangar Deck in at least a couple episodes: "Journey to Babel" and "The Immunity Syndrome"
There's obviously something wrong in your scaling of the ship. By your scaling, the bridge is only about 16 feet in diameter and each deck is only about 6 feet high. Main engineering is in the saucer section in front of the impulse drive. There are multiple engineering decks by the way.
I begin to think that maybe it's for the best that both the Kelvin Universe movies and Paramount+ shows have made the Enterprise -- and by extension, all of her sister ships -- larger. It seems like the only way to fix all these scaling issues. Of course now that means we have to upscale ALL the TOS and movie ships to match up.
Big as a football field may be a simile? You have a pitch, We have a field. I think they knew what they were doing.
Good video.
I'm so used to the galaxy class... Man, the originated is way smaller than I realized.
By having the computer park the shuttle there is plenty of room for at least 6 shuttles in there. They don't have to be left on the floor when you have anti-gravity. Heck, using auto parking, you could fit 8 shuttles in there right next to each other, some vertical, they aren't old Chevys that need 2 feet around them
Great video! I don't worry about the structural aspect though. Maneuvering at impulse, this thing is experiencing accelerations in the minimum hundreds of Gs with no trouble. 1 G in atmosphere would be easy
At the end of the day, it looks cool!
I wonder if the "footfall field" length would work in the Strange New Worlds / Discovery season 2 retcon version of the Enterprise?
Seems to be,given we do get a few shots of the shuttle Bay, and especially with DISCO given we see it can fit a ENORMOUS asteroid inside without issue.
Take a look at the Franz Joseph blueprints of the Enterprise…..everything from the Hanger Bay, location of Main Engineering and the bridge offset by 36 degrees from the center line is shown there.
I have never understood why fans have to create so much foolish controversy when everything has been laid out in precise detail since the book ‘The Making Of Star Trek’ was first published with the blueprints and the Starfleet Technical Manual following in the 1970s!!!!
It’s built oversize to accommodate larger space craft parking for visitors.
The warp nacelles produce a warp field, they do not provide any thrust so the supports only need to support them to the appropriate positions relative to the hull. Now, we should ask why they are asymmetrical around the hull, basically both above the hull when the warp field needs to envelope the hull presumably as evenly as possible, does the secondary hull act ad a third nacelle?
Of course, with the concept of warp fields and subspace, we could just have a Tardis effect with the interior larger than the exterior (though Star Trek implied warp fields need to be actively maintained hence would be poor choices for permanent habitable space where the field collapse would be structurally disastrous).
The Shields provide the means by which the weight of the engines are not subjected to gravity. As to the hanger deck well there's a bugger for ya!
In the remastering of Star Trek the shots of the shuttlecraft in the hanger deck was too big compared to the overhaul size of the hanger deck when compared to the original unrestored version. The hanger deck was much larger in the original film footage as it was shot using a scale model of what the hanger deck size would be in comparison to the "actual" size of the Enterprise which was 947 feet long. The lower engineering hull with the hanger deck at the rear end was if a recall correctly (according to the 1968 book "The Making of Star Trek" which Gene Roddenberry and Matt Jeffries (the designer of the Enterprise) was 340 feet long with a overall diameter of 112 feet. I like the original footage of the shuttlecraft take off over the CGI version. Although the hanger deck had to be depressurized to a vacuum the artificial gravity did NOT have to be "turned off" as depicted in the CGI version. In any case the actual shuttlecraft model's exterior was 3/4 scale not full size scale unfortunately to save money on construction costs. So the interior shots of the shuttlecraft set was actually larger than the exterior model.
Next episode: how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Star Trek is only a work of fiction! Suspend your disbelief a little bit, and unclench your sphincter.
If you think the shuttlecraft is too big for the hangar, you should take a look at Cruisers and Battleships and their small craft. Not a lot of extra space for things like that, so I'm sure to the mind of the overwhelming majority of my fellow Bluejacket deck apes it appears perfectly reasonable.