View Single Post
Old February 16 2009, 11:44 PM   #113
Lieutenant Commander
Whorfin's Avatar
Re: Pros and cons of Franz Joseph's plans

How to stuff a turkey, the Star Trek way:

(Please read all notes before commenting, any inadequacies in this diagram may be discussed there. Forgive any grammatical errors, it was a couple of long nights.)

--- Procedures followed

Aligned drawing:
Rescaled drawings by overall length of FJ cross-section (ship = 2420 pixels).
Positioned drawings.
Top/Bottom of DS (Pilot) saucer approximately matched FJ.
Deflector shaft matched. Dave Shaw's (DS) Deflector Dish is the larger Pilot version so size is not matched.
Length of secondary hull matched.

Primary Hull Discussion: Preliminary assessment was actually good, particularly for the primary hull. However, there were significant alignment issues that pointed to serious underlying problems requiring a piecemeal rehabilitation of the plans. De-integration of components and reassembly solves part of the problems, particularly in the saucer, but not all.

Lowered outer saucer decks (6+7) to match DS plans.

Lowered mid-upper decks (4+5) to match DS.

Positioned "pod" decks (2+3) and modified to approximate DS configuration. Further work would be required to fine-tune this.

Positioned Bridge (1), repositioned turbolift alcove to match DS. Bridge somehow seems smaller in overall diameter DS's version. Bridge could be lowered partially, and would better match production configuration. Current configuration could work for Pilot versions. Current "deck" the bridge bulge rests on is somewhat higher than DS and should be reworked.

I decided to retain FJ's deck 2. DS's plans do not include it, and from the diagram its easy enough to imagine it "gone" and the deck having a high ceiling. I probably should have adjusted the position of deck 3 slightly to better match DS, but I was concerned about making the FJ plans into a hodge-podge of minor edits in this area, and with this initial drawing the intention is to demonstrate what is possible. Its conceivable that Deck 2 existed in the pilot versions, was removed in production (or replaced with the partial deck shown in TMoST), and/or was removed by the time of the proposed Phase II refit. As such, over time, both FJ's interpretation (slightly amended), MJ's from TMoST, and MJ's Phase II drawings could all correctly show the disposition of Deck 2. But some may see things differently.

Repositioned lower saucer decks to match DS. I am concerned that Deck 7 is now effected by the undercut, but as DS's plans lack this feature I cannot evaluate the issue. I think mainly cargo areas outboard of the transporters may be effected but it is unclear.

Effectively removed Deck 8 (marked in blue) as hardly anything was left of it (goodbye "life quality facilities"). Eliminating lower decks would not solve the problem as this would not satisfy the shape of the hull. Also on that deck are the the large portion of the primary hull's 'ship's computers', some life support machinery, water tanks, and all three primary hull emergency transporters. The contents of these might be shifted, at least in part, to the next two decks to increase their deck heights. Conceivably, the recreational facilities on this deck could be replaced by deeming several saucer small cargo holds as "holodecks" thereby allowing them to be gyms, restaurants, parks, theaters, bowling alleys, etc. but effectively these would service a lower number of people. The recreational areas have counterparts in the secondary hull. There are 'ship's computers' surrounding the "emergency bridge" on Deck 7 (which seems to correspond to the Auxillery Control seen in TOS), so we could leave these as all that are necessary. Alternately, splitting up the ship's computers to several areas of the primary hull could be a good idea (again, reconfiguring small cargo holds), but ultimately this makes them harder to guard against boarding parties. Conceivably a slight readjustment of the remaining lower decks would correct deficiencies in them and eliminate all that remains of Deck 8.

FJ's lower Navigational Sensor was too small, so I removed it from the plans (DS version remains). [Is the version on the DS plans a pilot version or was it the same through production?]

Repositioned FJ's Interconnecting Dorsal, causing five of six decks to be closely aligned to DS. Removed most of top deck. One deck would need to be removed and others somewhat repositioned to match DS (discussed further in Conclusions).

Secondary Hull Discussion: The dorsal (back) of the secondary hull differs, with FJ's gaining a small amount of deck height in the top deck in the front, and losing deck height in the top most decks to aft. I have not modified this as it would take major reworking, and the implications are pretty clear as depicted (i.e., critical areas don't appear to be impacted). The overall height of DS's hanger bay is smaller. The top of the hanger doors protrude somewhat more aft. Modifying the alignment of FJ's secondary hull upward slightly would alleviate some of these problems forward, increase them to aft, misalign the deflector dish, and remove what alignment exists with DS's deck arrangement.

I left the Main Deflector unmodified, as FJ's is meant to depict a production version while DS's plans show a Pilot version.

Left FJ deck 15 (forward part needs to be raised, aft part lowered). If DS's version of this deck were somewhat lower, the entire deck could be lowered and while ceiling height would increase forward it would solve much of the discrepancies in the rear, but would probably impact the aft section of FJ Deck 16. Left hanger area untouched (overall fit isn't bad, Areas around the upper but aft portion of the hanger bay requires significant reworking and these details are already demonstrated by DS's plans).

Lowered FJ Deck 16 to match next DS Deck, gained in height.

Removed FJ deck 17 (botony high-bay, crew quarters, shuttle observation gallery untouched as all alterations stopped at hanger bay areas -- some minor deck realignment might be necessary, but it was a complicated area not amenable to easy reworking).

Repositioned FJ Decks 18+19 to match DS deck(s) 16a/b, both increase in height. Basically I conceive of the hanger decks and the engineering section here as being two decks tall while the port and starboard sections could be split into two decks. If this is upheld as a valid choice, the decks should be relabeled as 16 & 17. These were the key decks, based on their potential relationship to engineering and the hanger deck, to understanding how to position the remaining decks.

Lowered FJ deck 20 to match next DS Deck, gained in height.

Removed FJ deck 21 (goodbye swimming pool, food & beverages... and the bowling alley -- sorry CRA).

Lowered FJ deck 22 to match next DS Deck, gained in height.

Raised FJ deck 23 to match next DS Deck, moved it further back in the hull, and it still gained in height. Separated rear section and raised it further to match ventral curve of secondary hull, but its still not a good fit (needs reworking), in part because this deck actually gains some floorspace.

Removed FJ deck 24 (mid-deck of tractor beam, cargo).

Relocated (unnamed, unplanned) bottom hull section to match DS plans, modified forward part of section to integrate with Deflector surrounding. The "bottom hull section" might be able to house all or most of the contents (cargo) of deck 24 with a partial deck height. The tractor beam assembly may be shortened in height but still exists.

Raising and lowering of decks in the secondary hull will effect the floor plan as the topology of interface with the external hull changes. "There's no such thing as a free lunch."

The engine pylons attach aft of FJ's position, repositioned. Pylons are slightly narrower than DS. The warp nacelles are slightly lower, thicker, and somewhat longer than FJ's versions (unaltered at this time). How did that happen??? Repositioned pylons.

--- Conclusions:

When all is said and done I believe that most of the (remaining) saucer decks are (at least fairly) near where DS has placed his. The missing deck 8 and the probably reduced Deck 7 are major concerns. All other primary hull decks are kept intact, most unaltered, with the command "pod" being the most changed (and still somewhat uncorrected). FJ's saucer has 11 decks (excluding sensor domes), DS's has 8 -- the cross-section in TMoST has 8.5 which probably could be considered a full 9 in the Pilot configuration (with a more elevated bridge in a taller dome not obstructing deck 2), and Phase II has 8. If the Pilot saucer was considered by MJ to be 9 decks, and the sensor domes were counted as well, this would explain where '11 decks in the saucer' originated as a concept. Somehow this was not updated when the production version of the model changed.

FJ's Interconnecting Dorsal is somewhat smaller than DS's, and his deck spacing doesn't match. FJ's Interconnecting Dorsal has 6 (6.5?) decks, DS apparently has 5 in this drawing -- TMoST has 7, Phase II has 5 (not counting the one partly sunk in the secondary hull. Considering that the Interconnecting Dorsal is probably about the most easily replaced major component of the ship during a conversion I would strongly recommend considering reverting to a TMoST configuration for a TOS vessel rather than Phase II. If Phase II were to have implemented an intermix shaft to the impulse engines this might explain the reconfiguration of the Interconnecting Dorsal.

The most troublesome issue is that FJ's secondary hull has about 10.3 decks while DS's plans have about 6.5 decks (or 7.5 by my slight revision of partially splitting 16a/b) -- TMoST and Phase II have 8 (more or less, counting oversize decks as separate decks could leave TMoST with 10 and Phase II with 9, to play devil's advocate). Removing three decks here is at least as troublesome as removing one in the saucer and perhaps more serious, but is mitigated somewhat by the nature of most of the facilities on the decks that had to be removed. While the overall secondary hull volumes are probably not that much different, because of the way humans inhabit living spaces (more as surfaces than volumes) this is a much greater difference in available floor-space for all facilities. It not that one choice is right or wrong its that its a difference that has severe implications for laying out deck plans.

But it is impossible to transform FJ's floor plans to DS's reconstructed plans without throwing four full decks out at a minimum (not to mention other necessary alterations). Now we know why the crew was only 203 in The Cage!!! They hadn't refitted to the superior FJ design. 8)

Overall, FJ's design could be interpreted a significant improvement on the original Constitution class (i.e. Achernar class), produced approximately twenty years later with more advanced technologies making differences in how space could be allocated possible. This is obviously the retcon explanation I have repeatedly mentioned -- a get-out-of-jail free card. Admittedly, ceiling space would be at more of a premium, but there would be far more floorspace available. If, for example, the M/AM reactor were half the height in TOS (even if twice the width) there would be no need for the tall engineering deck. Conceivably FJ's Deck 16 could house the entire warp core as it is depicted (as "Warp Engineering"), but this would involve a considerable miniaturization of the core. This propulsion arrangement is one step closer to what we see in ST:TMP -- at least in terms of placement -- and the length of warp plasma conduits certainly would be reduced. The vast conduit system seen in ST:TMP is not needed in TOS because warp plasma is not being fed directly to the phasers and impulse engines (normal lower power EPS conduits are being used -- less energy, more hydrogen). The downside, as seen in STII, to such a surface placement of the reactor system is that it is more easily damaged by external causes (as opposed to being buried in the center of the engineering hull). An important thing to remember is that thinking we understand TMP and TNG propulsion technology doesn't automatically give us a complete understanding of TOS engineering. Alternately, moving the warp reactor into the nacelles isn't as "silly" an idea as putting a nuclear reactor and all other necessary vessel systems (including weapons -- and the crew) into a not too dissimilar in size and shape 20th century submarine. Or, if one wanted to integrate a DS proposed reactor arrangement into FJ's plans, it would require removing some crew quarters on FJ's decks 18 & 19, removing the intervening deck plates & walls in the area where the reactor and associated spaces would exist, and running some sort of conduit system (one way or another) up to the pylons. The main implication would be adding some dual bunk beds in some quarters.

None of these are impossible choices with the existing FJ deck plans. What is required is ignoring the ramifications of the Phase II refit plans. But as we have seen before there is conflicting canon information on where the TOS warp core is and what it looks like, just as there is conflicting semi-official information on deck layout. Without a clear correct interpretation there is room for personal choice. IDIC. Well, hopefully far less than infinite in this case.

BTW, the "Inboard Main Propulsion Sheet", i.e., 'sheet 13' associated with the FJ plans is copyright 1978 by Geoffery Mandel. They are not FJ's, and I don't believe they were ever part of the "official" BoGP as published. I believe I remember them being sold separately. That's not to say that they aren't a good attempt at a TOS warp engine plan, and I think (off the top of my head) that they are roughly the same design as Everhart used in his plans (though I don't know who actually originated it).

Its even got an "access crawlway" where the whole crew could pack into in case of a *real* emergency. Boy, that would be an episode!!! ... errr....

So, am I earning my keep? To quote Praetor, "comments?"
Whorfin is offline   Reply With Quote