RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,546
Posts: 5,421,922
Members: 24,804
Currently online: 480
Newest member: comicstar100

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Tears of the Prophets
By: Michelle on Sep 12

New Wizkids Attack Wing Ships
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12

Coto Drama Sold To Fox
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12

Braga Inks Deal
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12

Remastered Original Series Re-release
By: T'Bonz on Sep 11

UK Trek Ships Calendar Debuts
By: T'Bonz on Sep 10

Quinto In The Slap
By: T'Bonz on Sep 9

Burton On Shatner’s Brown Bag Wine Tasting
By: T'Bonz on Sep 9

New Trek Trading Card Series
By: T'Bonz on Sep 8

New Red Shirt Diaries Episode
By: T'Bonz on Sep 8


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 TV Series > Star Trek - Original Series

Star Trek - Original Series The one that started it all...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 24 2013, 01:36 AM   #181
sojourner
Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Franz Joseph Blueprints Revisited

^You have a funny way of counting.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2013, 01:57 AM   #182
Marsden
Captain
 
Marsden's Avatar
 
Location: Getting killed so the captain can have tea later.
Re: Franz Joseph Blueprints Revisited

But wouldn't that make 1700 number one hundred?

I liked the completely made up notion that Constitution started out as NX-1700, then Enterprise really is the "first" fully operational model. And the Constellation and Republic were earlier "saucer" ships that were built up to Constitution class with a new engineering hull and nacelles.
__________________
"A man either lives life as it happens to him, meets it head-on, and licks it. Or he turns his back on it and starts to wither away."
Marsden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2013, 03:34 AM   #183
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Franz Joseph Blueprints Revisited

The "Mark" designation had its historic root in equipment for ships: in the early 20th Century for the artillery (sic) of US naval ships, by World War II for their radar instruments.

Considering that Jefferies (and others) were war veterans, there were no "Mark" designations for ships in the 1960's and the context in which the primary phaser schematic is presented (to tell the viewer what kind of phaser he is looking at, not what kind of ship), I'd say it's pretty clear that the "MK IX/01" designation refers to the primary (long range) phaser.
I'm sorry but it isn't as cut and dried as you are making it seem. The MK designator is used for all sorts of military gear, naval guns etc. But Matt Jefferies, a military pilot in the European Theater during WW II, would have been familiar with the British use of the term for aircraft. The MK designator was used by them for British military aircraft such as Typhoons, Hurricanes, Hellcats, Spitfires, Lancasters etc. Spitfires were produced in a MK IX generation. In fact, IIRC they were further broken down as MK IX/01, 02 etc.

I think Jefferies is responsible for assigning the term to that phaser illustration. But it is just as likely that he is referring to a starship as it is he is referring to the phaser type. There is simply no way to tell beyond inference from the fact that as a pilot it is more likely he was referring to the starship than some naval gun.

When I first read the Matt Jefferies interview about the Enterprise being "the first bird", "the first in the series" my conditioning immediately wanted to place the Constitution before the Enterprise and then my inner voice took over: What the heck are you doing, isn't "first bird" clear beyond doubt?!?. YMMV, of course
You joined this BBS just last year so you might not be aware of the fact that I was arguing the "Enterprise-class" argument ten years ago. Just out of sheer orneriness.

Last edited by aridas sofia; April 24 2013 at 03:57 AM.
aridas sofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2013, 04:11 AM   #184
GSchnitzer
Co-Executive Producer
 
GSchnitzer's Avatar
 
Location: Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA, Terra
Send a message via AIM to GSchnitzer Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to GSchnitzer Send a message via Yahoo to GSchnitzer
Re: Franz Joseph Blueprints Revisited

Considering that Jefferies (and others) were war veterans, there were no "Mark" designations for ships in the 1960's and the context in which the primary phaser schematic is presented (to tell the viewer what kind of phaser he is looking at, not what kind of ship), I'd say it's pretty clear that the "MK IX/01" designation refers to the primary (long range) phaser.
The first of about 100 Mark I Swift Boats became operational with the U.S. Navy in August 1965. Fourty-six Mark II Swift Boats went into service in late 1967. Thirty-three more Mark III Swift Boats went into service from 1969 to 1972. Clearly, actual craft had "Mk" designation with the U.S. Navy--not just armaments on craft. With these new Mark I and Mark II Swift Boats being the newest and hottest things in use in Viet Nam, it wouldn't be too surprising if Matt Jefferies had selected a "futuristic" "Mk IX" for his "Constitution Class" display for "Space Seed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrol_Craft_Fast
__________________
Greg Schnitzer
Co-Executive Producer
Star Trek Phase II
http://www.startrekphase2.com
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3348883/
GSchnitzer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2013, 04:55 AM   #185
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Franz Joseph Blueprints Revisited

sojourner wrote: View Post
Masao,

Lenny is the infamous James Dixon.
Must be why I like him. I'm pretty sure I took a couple warnings defending him in 05 or thereabouts. Don't always agree but usually am at least on the same page with him.

Maybe I should have changed my user name to Enterprise-Class instead of Trevanian ...
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2013, 07:30 AM   #186
sojourner
Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Franz Joseph Blueprints Revisited

Yeah, Lenny's gone already.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2013, 09:09 AM   #187
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: Franz Joseph Blueprints Revisited

sojourner wrote: View Post
Yeah, Lenny's gone already.
His profile speaks to his attitude:
Occupation
Professionally Unemployed, thanks in part to Fandom...
__________________
* * *
"If you wanted to get a good meeting... just go in and
say 'darker, grittier, sexier' and whatever."
—Glen Larson, 2010
Maurice is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2013, 11:16 AM   #188
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Franz Joseph Blueprints Revisited

aridas sofia wrote: View Post
You joined this BBS just last year so you might not be aware of the fact that I was arguing the "Enterprise-class" argument ten years ago. Just out of sheer orneriness.
Then what changed your mind as you are apparently advocating that the (TOS) Enterprise is a member of the Constitution Class, now?

You may believe whatever you want, of course, but since the focus of the schematic in "The Trouble With Tribbles" (and originally "Space Seed") is the "Primary Phaser L.R" and not a starship of the Constitution Class the "MK IX/01" obviously refers to the primary phaser (to tell you what generation and model you are looking at).

If Scotty or Khan would have wanted technical details of a starship of the Constitution Class they would have opened the corresponding file...

Jein reinterpretated the phaser designation as a starship designation because he needed the "01" to manufacture a connection to the "1701" to be able to "conclude" that the Enterprise belonged to the Constitution Class.

I don't believe that two separate people at the same time came up with the same "exotic" conclusion, thus I'm confident that Franz Joseph merely copied the "MK IX" from Greg Jein's article - and of course the idea that "NCC-1700" referred to the USS Constitution.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2013, 11:41 AM   #189
ZapBrannigan
Fleet Captain
 
ZapBrannigan's Avatar
 
Location: New York State
Re: Franz Joseph Blueprints Revisited

This is very frustrating. If Franz Joseph saw Jein's "Doe" article before drafting his blueprints, he could have used Jein's NCC numbers and the whole ST universe would have been in agreement.

But Jein's article is dated April 1975 (as reprinted at TrekPlace.com), and the blueprints were made in 1973.

Edit: Jein's article actually refers to the Booklet of General Plans. Was the first edition missing FJ's NCC numbers, or was Jein just ignoring them?

Is there no "MK IX" reference in The Making of Star Trek, maybe in the chapter on the Enterprise? I'm at work now and can't check. That would be FJ's source then.

Last edited by ZapBrannigan; April 24 2013 at 11:53 AM.
ZapBrannigan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2013, 11:50 AM   #190
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Franz Joseph Blueprints Revisited

I'm pretty sure there's no such reference in TMoST having read the book many times. And I've always thought Jein's reasoning to be way too fannish and simplistic. It doesn't wash for me that the chart in Stone's office is referring to only ships like the Enterprise rather other ships of other classes.

Bit by bit TOS' creators were trying to world-build something of a coherent universe "beyond the hull" so to speak. As war veterans they likely would have drawn from past and (then) present military experience and knowledge. It's not impossible, but I find it hard to believe their thinking would be so simplistic as Jein proposes with his assumptions.

Sadly no one is around who could tell us exactly what those visual onscreen references were meant to represent or even suggest. And I don't recall hearing of Matt Jefferies answering such a direct question either.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?

Last edited by Warped9; April 24 2013 at 12:01 PM.
Warped9 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2013, 12:24 PM   #191
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Franz Joseph Blueprints Revisited

@ Zap Brannigan

If I recall correctly the Booklet of General Plans aka Constitution Blueprints didn't have the "MK IX" designation, it did not have a list of ships, but it assigned NCC-1700 to the USS Constitution.

In this case Jein might have been further inclined to assign NCC-1700 to the Constitution. He may have written his treatise earlier (before it got published) and sent it to Roddenberry from where it passed to Franz Joseph, who then adopted the "MK IX" in the Technical Manual on the pages illustrating the Enterprise starships. That's also where we have the Franz Joseph name listing with all the "17" prefixes and names.

There is no "MK IX" reference in The Making of Star Trek, only some Roddenberry statements dealing with the general use of "Mark" for the series (but not in the context for vessels).

@ Warped9

I think you are being to harsh. Kirk's "12 like it" statement in "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" suggested that there are only 12 starships identical to the Enterprise's appearance. The Making of Star Trek suggested (the way one could read and understand it) that Starfleet has only 12 starships (i.e. ships of the Starship Class).

Since the status display in "Court-Martial" explicitly said "starship" status, Jein correctly concluded (the way he read and understood it) that the numbers seen here must belong to the 12 starship names listed in TMoST.

Had that peculiar Jefferies production sketch (17th design etc.) been already published in TMoST back then, things probably would have taken quite a different path...

This would have meant that Kirk's statement in "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" exclusively referred to the 12 starships of the Enterprise Class while the "Court Martial" display would have also shown starships of the 16th design (presumably Constitution Class).

Interestingly, TOS-R left the door to that interpretation "open", suggesting Constitution Class starships underwent a refit or upgrade and "now" look like Enterprise Class starships. The one thing that obviously would have to "go" is "NCC-1700" for the Constitution...

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2013, 12:57 PM   #192
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Franz Joseph Blueprints Revisited

^^ Still doesn't support Jein's assumption. And the MK-IX reference is indeed in the notations block at the corner of each sheet of FJ's Booklet of General Plans. I have it right at hand and just checked to confirm my memory of it.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2013, 01:34 PM   #193
GSchnitzer
Co-Executive Producer
 
GSchnitzer's Avatar
 
Location: Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA, Terra
Send a message via AIM to GSchnitzer Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to GSchnitzer Send a message via Yahoo to GSchnitzer
Re: Franz Joseph Blueprints Revisited

The Booklet of General Plans: U.S.S. Constitution Class does indeed have fourteen starship names (and some numbers that have been assigned to them) on Page 1 of the Plans:



(You can see a little comment that that the Constitution is identifed as the "Class Ship.")

The legend on these blueprints also shows a "Model MK-IX" comment as well as a "Type: Heavy Crusiser" comment.



Although Greg Jein's article might not even have been written when Schnaubelt generated the list of Starship Numbers in September of 1973, Matt Jefferies' STAR SHIP MK-IX CONSTITUTION CLASS" screen diagram film clip might have already been making the rounds. It looks like Schnaubelt just grabbed twelve sequential numbers from 1700 to 1711--and then also listed the known 1017 and 1371 exceptions. Greg Jein attempted to shoehorn the various "known" Star Ship names into the numbers seen in "Court Martial," instead of generating his own numbers.
__________________
Greg Schnitzer
Co-Executive Producer
Star Trek Phase II
http://www.startrekphase2.com
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3348883/
GSchnitzer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2013, 01:45 PM   #194
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Franz Joseph Blueprints Revisited

sojourner wrote: View Post
Yeah, Lenny's gone already.
That's a shame. I know he was banned previously and is somewhat fractious, but he has a unique view of Trek.

If what he said on another site about writing a book is true, I'd read it!
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2013, 04:44 PM   #195
ZapBrannigan
Fleet Captain
 
ZapBrannigan's Avatar
 
Location: New York State
Re: Franz Joseph Blueprints Revisited

My knowledge of Lenny (whoever he may be), and James Dixon for that matter, began with this thread, I grant that.

But even allowing for what I don't know, I'm shocked and saddened if a member can be banned for so little.

An intelligent guy who's thought things out (almost to a fault), and who's articulate, should be tolerated for being doctrinaire. I mean, even if you don't buy into his manifesto-like dissertations on starship design, can't he be read for entertainment value?

I was getting a kick out of seeing so much detail on an entirely ficticious subject. If I had known a Lenny when I was 14 and the blueprints were new, I would NEVER have grown up.
ZapBrannigan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
blueprint, bridge, franz joseph, plans

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 04:15 AM.

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