RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,899
Posts: 5,387,109
Members: 24,717
Currently online: 585
Newest member: teriankhoka

TrekToday headlines

Gold Key Archives Volume 2
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Takei Documentary Wins Award
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Cumberbatch To Voice Khan
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Shaun And Ed On Phineas and Ferb
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

New Ships Coming From Official Starships Collection
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

Trek Stars Take On Ice Bucket Challenge
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

Retro Review: Profit and Lace
By: Michelle on Aug 16

Eve Engaged
By: T'Bonz on Aug 15

Shatner’s Get A Life DVD Debuts
By: T'Bonz on Aug 14

TV Alert: Takei Oprah Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Aug 14


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Fandom > Fan Art

Fan Art Post your Trek fan art here, including hobby models and collectibles.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old March 16 2008, 07:33 AM   #241
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

But we know better now, don't we?
Captain Robert April is offline  
Old March 16 2008, 06:38 PM   #242
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

Well, not to belabor the point too far (I hope), but it could be argued that FJ's plans based on Whitfield's book aren't so much in "error", but rather the "error", if you choose to call it that, was on the part of the script writers and editors being unable or unwilling to follow T.M.O.S.T. as the guide for them it was intended to be. We're all accustomed now to the long standing "canon" idea that what was seen or heard onscreen is "official", and that's fine as far as it goes, but consider this, Whitfield's interior arrangement was very logical and practical and may have been (and probably was) based on discussions with GR and MJ? Of course we'll never know for sure, since there's no one left to ask (is Whitfield still alive?) and I know this doesn't change the fact that the filmed elements are as they are, but they do contradict themselves as well as T.M.O.S.T. and one can still pick and choose, since there never was a "real" starship for comparison. So, I doubt FJ would have changed much that he did, even if he had at his disposal, all the info we have at ours? My own take on this is to disregard "throwaway lines" as to what's where or on what deck, for the most part, since I've been able to "retro fit" all the sets seen in TOS into FJ's plans without too much difficulty, and seeing is believing and a picture is worth a thousand words etc. etc. So I'm satisfied FJ's plans work just fine, even while I still enjoy others ideas on the subject, such as Shaw's excellent work here.

Last edited by TIN_MAN; March 16 2008 at 08:04 PM.
TIN_MAN is offline  
Old March 16 2008, 06:54 PM   #243
FalTorPan
Vice Admiral
 
FalTorPan's Avatar
 
Location: Out there... thataway.
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

Stephen Edward Poe (a.k.a. Stephen E. Whitfield) passed away in 2000. I learned of his then-recent death just as I was planning to try to contact him for an interview for my web site.
__________________
Watch ASTRONUTS! Visit Trekplace! Check out my personal website!
FalTorPan is offline  
Old March 16 2008, 07:20 PM   #244
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

Well, as long as it is understood that I'm not attempting to replace FJ's work. But it should be pointed out that he most likely wouldn't have spent too much time hunting through the shows even if he had video taped versions... he didn't like Star Trek (he was a Lost in Space fan), and all this was done both for his daughter and to show the quality that could be done (but wasn't being done) by Trek fans of the earlier 70s.

The main argument that has been put forward since the FJ plans and manual came out was that the show was wrong, FJ was right. And as a kid studying the plans and manual, I sat through episode after episode correcting what I saw on screen. But why?

As I said before, I'm not taking this project to be in any way, shape or form to be an Irwin Allen Production. This is a test to see if what we saw on screen will actually work. If you built the Enterprise to these plans and re-filmed all of the episodes, could you do it without having to change much of what we saw?

For most of my life I was under the impression that the first real attempt to figure this stuff out was done by FJ... now, I'm pretty sure that a lot of that work was done by MJ during the extended preproduction that Star Trek had because the first pilot wasn't picked up.

Star Trek was truly unique and the fact that people lump it in with other 60s series from Irwin Allen makes it easy to dismiss a ton of thought and hard work that went into making this show internally consistent enough that even technically advanced audiences of today can enjoy the stories.

But the point is internal consistency. And I think that there is a lot more than a Lost in Space fan like FJ had given Trek credit for. FJ had some great ideas, but I really do question how much respect he actually had for MJ and the rest of the Trek staff throughout his life. Both the technical manual and the blueprints were more to show off his abilities (and they are amazing) than to accurately document the show.

While I'm glad that you guys all like my abilities, the goal here is to document Star Trek with as little compromised as possible.
Shaw is offline  
Old March 16 2008, 08:27 PM   #245
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

I know he said he didn't like Star Trek in the interviews, but that was never my impression. I think he was sensitive to the way the work would be taken, and particularly to its potential to stimulate young minds to think about the implications of some of the things raised in his work or in the shows, if what he did was dismissed as the prattling of some fan of a TV show.

After all, he obtained hundreds of film clips from the show. Having done the same, I can say that is the way we used to do what we later did with video tape, and now do with screencaps, etc.
aridas sofia is offline  
Old March 16 2008, 09:34 PM   #246
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

Well, there's always going to be the matter of the bridge...
Captain Robert April is offline  
Old March 16 2008, 11:07 PM   #247
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

I wanted to share this next set of images as it is how I'm looking at the primary hull. It is rather quick and dirty, but I think it conveys a lot of information.


What is shown here are the outer hull curves of each deck (generally both the top and bottom curves of the deck), the hull pressure compartments, and a gradient running from a dark gray to white to point out decreasing head room (with white areas generally being the height of the average sets seen on the series). I think that I've provided enough additional references of how large the sets are in relation to all of these decks, so to keep this image as clear as possible I've omitted any reference to them.

So the idea is to take what we know we've seen, and within the general spaces shown above and any references from the show, fit it all together.

I know I've said this before, but I consider cross sections to be quite deceptive in visualizing the actual space available. So to help with that, a lot of floor plans can better illustrate the amount of space we are talking about.

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
Well, there's always going to be the matter of the bridge...
Well, not in these plans.

For people who must have a forward facing bridge (or the world collapses around them), they are free to pull their view of Trek into the Irwin Allen Universe. The solution to that issue sits right next to the third deck of the Jupiter 2 along side the Pod and the Chariot.

But in this thread... if it fits, it works. And the bridge as built fits in the model as built, so it works for me.
Shaw is offline  
Old March 16 2008, 11:44 PM   #248
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

But the point is internal consistency. And I think that there is a lot more than a Lost in Space fan like FJ had given Trek credit for. FJ had some great ideas, but I really do question how much respect he actually had for MJ and the rest of the Trek staff throughout his life. Both the technical manual and the blueprints were more to show off his abilities (and they are amazing) than to accurately document the show.
I just noticed this, and I have to demur. I have made my reputation on this BBS, such as it is, as a proponent of the "Matt Jefferies thought this stuff out reeeaaal well" school of thinking. And yet, I know fully well that Franz Joseph had no such lack of respect for Jefferies. He met the man, and they shared a love of aviation. I think that he believed that the deck-by-deck description in TMoST was gospel and that he needed to fit those decks in a ship shaped like the one seen on the show. He did it by being a little loose with the outward configuration. Jefferies himself was much, much looser with his own work when confronting a similar task in Phase II.

The right way to do this is to go back, as I did and Shaw is now doing, and retrace the mental process Jefferies went through to come to the description of the ship he ended up with. He calls small spaces "decks" in order to get the number of decks he ends up with, and has an offset bridge to get a filmable set to mesh with a symmetrical model. And it works. It might not have been a process immediately understandable to FJ, who no doubt had been told by Jefferies that the latter would do it differently if given the chance. (And who might have taken Jefferies' comments as carte blanche to be a little loose with things.) But that in no way should be taken to mean he disrespected Jefferies. In fact, everything I know would indicate quite, quite the opposite.
aridas sofia is offline  
Old March 17 2008, 01:31 AM   #249
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

I think it's also helpful to keep in mind that, while MJ might have thought things through quite well at the begining, the show moved on in ways that he had no control over. much of the techno-babble about what was in the ship and where may not reflect how he would have prefered it to be. I see the big 'E' as a mosaic of many different artists and authors ideas, and if documentation is the name of the game, then document it all controdictions and mistakes included. As for FJ's work, while Star Trek may not have beeen his personal cup of tea, I think he did respect the technical aspects of it, as he said as much in interviews, and I think he wanted his work to honor what MJ had done previously. As for the idea that FJ was "right" and the show was "wrong", I don't think so, I never got that impression, there really is no right or wrong in situations like this. The most that could be said is that FJ's plans probably represent the way the ship would really have been built, whereas the show had to capitulate to the demands of a dramatic production, such as budget, lighting, available space etc. Look at it this way, as was mentioned a few posts up, when we see a Polaris sub or the aircraft carrier Enterprise in movies or TV, they don't acually look like they do in real life, many things are changed for many reasons, so even if there were a "real" starship Enterprise, the show couldn't duplicate the real thing in every detail.
TIN_MAN is offline  
Old March 17 2008, 02:13 AM   #250
Lieut. Arex
Fleet Captain
 
Lieut. Arex's Avatar
 
Location: Nav console
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

FJ's plans represent Constitution, not Enterprise. Any discrepancies can be dismissed as the variations that invariably arise during the construction of such ships as well as modifications between the prototype and the production models.

Or something like that.
Lieut. Arex is offline  
Old March 17 2008, 02:28 AM   #251
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

TIN_MAN wrote: View Post
I think it's also helpful to keep in mind that, while MJ might have thought things through quite well at the begining, the show moved on in ways that he had no control over. much of the techno-babble about what was in the ship and where may not reflect how he would have prefered it to be. I see the big 'E' as a mosaic of many different artists and authors ideas, and if documentation is the name of the game, then document it all controdictions and mistakes included.
If you think I've overlooked something... point it out. What we saw gets used, what we didn't gets dropped... including the forth wall missing from three wall sets and the like. And yeah, I'll be putting together all the different versions of the engine room, which you can mix and match at will.

But there is nothing stopping anyone from doing this type of thing on their own... and better than I.

I happen to think that a lot of stuff has been overlooked because we have assumed others have already weeded that information out for us. I looked that the Trek Encyclopedia and see that they deferred to FJ on a lot of stuff (including much of the deck layout for the original Enterprise). What I don't see is people asking the questions that we would have asked had people not attempted to fill in blanks that weren't really blank.

For example, what Star Fleet ships were we exposed to in TOS? There are a bunch of lists going around, but they all seem to reference someone else's list.

What did we see? What did we hear?

Known ships:
U.S.S. Constellation NCC-1017 (Doomsday Machine)
U.S.S. Carolina (Friday's Child)
U.S.S. Defiant (Tholian Web)
U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701
U.S.S. Excalibur (Ultimate Computer)
U.S.S. Exeter (Omega Glory)
U.S.S. Farragut (Obsession)
U.S.S. Hood (Ultimate Computer)
U.S.S. Intrepid (Court Martial, Immunity Syndrome)
U.S.S. Lexington (Ultimate Computer)
U.S.S. Potemkin (Ultimate Computer)
U.S.S. Republic NCC-1371 (Court Martial)
U.S.S. Valiant (A Taste of Armageddon)
U.S.S. Yorktown (Obsession)
And we had some additional NCC numbers which have been creatively matched up with ship names (some of which never made it to screen). Now why is it that this type of information isn't just presented raw? What we usually get is information interpreted for us, but it would be nice if we could make the interpretations ourselves.


On the subject of what FJ felt or didn't feel about Trek and it's creators, he made public statements and that is the best I can go on as most of the parties are no longer with us. Most of what I've talked about was during the period of FJ making the blueprints and manual and are based on his own accounts. What did he feel at other times? I don't know, a lot of time past between about 1975 and when these people left us. Just about anything could have happened... none of which makes all that much difference here as this is about the set plans, diagrams, stuff seen on screen, and the model (the 11 foot model).

I'm not writing the biography of any of these people, just seeing if the pieces we have fit together... And so far they seem to.
Shaw is offline  
Old March 17 2008, 03:19 AM   #252
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

Most of your cutaways seem to be based on the pressure comp. diagram, are you going to use MJ's cutaway from T.M.O.S.T.? I know it was never seen onscreen but it is the masters original work after all, and it was seen in a TAS ep. which gives it at least semi-canonicity.
TIN_MAN is offline  
Old March 17 2008, 04:35 AM   #253
Wingsley
Commodore
 
Wingsley's Avatar
 
Location: Wingsley
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

[QUOTE=Shaw;1442161]
TIN_MAN wrote: View Post
For example, what Star Fleet ships were we exposed to in TOS? There are a bunch of lists going around, but they all seem to reference someone else's list.

What did we see? What did we hear?

Known ships:
U.S.S. Constellation NCC-1017 (Doomsday Machine)
U.S.S. Carolina (Friday's Child)
U.S.S. Defiant (Tholian Web)
U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701
U.S.S. Excalibur (Ultimate Computer)
U.S.S. Exeter (Omega Glory)
U.S.S. Farragut (Obsession)
U.S.S. Hood (Ultimate Computer)
U.S.S. Intrepid (Court Martial, Immunity Syndrome)
U.S.S. Lexington (Ultimate Computer)
U.S.S. Potemkin (Ultimate Computer)
U.S.S. Republic NCC-1371 (Court Martial)
U.S.S. Valiant (A Taste of Armageddon)
U.S.S. Yorktown (Obsession)
And we had some additional NCC numbers which have been creatively matched up with ship names (some of which never made it to screen). Now why is it that this type of information isn't just presented raw? What we usually get is information interpreted for us, but it would be nice if we could make the interpretations ourselves.
Interesting list; don't forget the U.S.S. Archon ("The Return of the Archons") and the U.S.S. Antares ("Charlie X").
__________________
"The way that you wander is the way that you choose. / The day that you tarry is the day that you lose. / Sunshine or thunder, a man will always wonder / Where the fair wind blows ..."
-- Lyrics, Jeremiah Johnson's theme.
Wingsley is offline  
Old March 17 2008, 05:07 AM   #254
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

Wingsley wrote: View Post
Interesting list; don't forget the U.S.S. Archon ("The Return of the Archons") and the U.S.S. Antares ("Charlie X").
Good point... but I couldn't remember off hand if those were actually U.S.S. ships... I would assume Archon and Horizon are though.

TIN_MAN wrote: View Post
Most of your cutaways seem to be based on the pressure comp. diagram, are you going to use MJ's cutaway from T.M.O.S.T.?
And here I thought I had made it clear that it was one of the foundations of my cross section back on page one of this thread.

But as I've pointed out (many times now) a cross section actually reveals very little about the nature of the rest of the deck layout. Even on the most accurate cross sections, you only get information about what is along the center line of the ship... and the original Jefferies TOS cross section isn't even that accurate.

So yeah, I've used it to back up the Phase II cross section for deck heights, approximate placement of vertical turboshafts, size of the hangar deck... but I'm not sure that much else can be used than what I've taken already, and I only used what could be matched up nice with the very accurate Phase II cross section (which wasn't prettied up for the writers).

Is there some information there that you think I've missed? And how does anything along the center line effect my use of the hull pressure compartments in arranging anything off center?

I'll post this image (again) for anyone else who may have forgotten it (or not seen it) from more than a month ago...

Shaw is offline  
Old March 18 2008, 02:18 AM   #255
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

Yeah, I vaguely recalled seeing T.M.O.S.T.'s diagram, but my point is, it seems you're going more with the phase two variant than the orginal? And come on, it isn't that difficult to extrapolate the rest of the decks from a centerline cutaway, it seems you've set yourself a much harder task in extrapolating from the pressure compartment diagram which is even more inacurate in terms of scale, being based on a ship half the size, with half as many decks as the Enterprise we've come to know? It would make just as much sense to say the ship is really that small and we've all been wrong lo these many years? It seems you're still 'filling in the blanks' to account for the Press. Comps. on those decks not included in the original diagram, it seems far less extrapolation is required to simply go with the T.M.O.S.T. diagram as a starting point? Don't get me wrong, as I've said many times, I like what your doing here, there's much food for thought, but I just don't see how you can say the T.M.O.S.T. diagram is one of the foundations of your cross section, when virtually nothing from it is used? So again, I think it's fair to ask, are you going to include any other elements from T.M.O.S.T.'s diagam such as placement/spaceing of hallways, 'A' frame doors, sensor/deflector machinary, stair cases, etc.?

Last edited by TIN_MAN; March 18 2008 at 02:33 AM.
TIN_MAN is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:54 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.