Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

[Reverend]

I think the main reason some people try to come up with crazy ideas about how the Constellation was a different class has nothing to do with the AMT model but everything to do with the registry number. Now as Shaw pointed out, at no time during TOS is the USS Constitution mentioned or is any name linked with NCC-1701 (although I think there is some diagram of a ship's phaser that's labelled "constitution-class") and indeed TOS gives us very little to go on.
Having said that, it is generally accepted (for whatever reason) that NCC-1701 is a Constitution-Class starship, (partly due to people who like to take screen shots of tiny details in the background of TMP) that NCC-1700 is the reg for the Constitution herself and yes since TOS, registry numbers have been (broadly speaking) sequential. Of course the problem with that arises when we have apparent anomalies like NCC-1017 (hence the crazy class juggling.) No maybe it's because I used to work in stock control, but I really don't see any contradiction here. To me it's perfectly reasonable that 1700 was constructed BEFORE 1017 in a sequential system, here's how...

To me the most likely way this works is that certain ranges are pre-assigned for planned production runs, with certain ranges assigned to specific ship yards, so it'd be up to the yards themselves to assign the registries available to them.

So, for the sake of argument, say in the 24th century (because the numbers are bigger, which makes this easier) Starfleet command gives out the construction orders the next 2 years as follow:-


Utopia Planita is assigned ranges NCC-77200 -> NCC-77358 and NCC-77780 -> NCC-77999
San Francisco is assigned ranges NCC-77359 -> NCC-77779

In which time UP is ordered to build 24 Galaxys, 50 Akiras, 70 Novas and say 150 Danubes
So the yard commander assigns the registries available to him as he sees fit.
Say NCC-77780 -> NCC 77804 for the Galaxy class ships; NCC-77805-77855 for the Akiras, NCC-77856 -> NCC-77926 for the Novas and NCC-77208 -> NCC-77358 for the Danubes.

Now he still has NCC-77927 -> NCC-77999 which can be tacked in front of the next batch of Novas that gets ordered and NCC-77200 -> NCC-77207 which he intentionally left to one side because he knows the NXP-2765WP/T pathfinder is being fast tracked and will likely go into production as an official prototype for the new Yorktown-Class, which will probably require an additional order of six hulls after the prototype, for which he "pencils in" NX-77200. That still leaves NCC-77207 without a ship to go with, so he either leaves it unallocated, possibly to be used years later as a "filler" when he find's he doesn't have a "block" of numbers big enough to neatly take a whole order, or he ends up assigning it the experimental Icarus Project as NX-77207 along with several other "scrap" numbers he has on file to cater for the five or so prototypes they have been cleared to order.

Now if we apply that to the Constellation/Constitution issue, then we simply have San Francisco applying a block of say NCC-1700 - 1759 that's been allocated to them to the first order of Constitutions, which uses up the first ten numbers (Constitution through to Lexington.) Now other yards are also ordered to build varying numbers of the new class and as usual they use whatever number that have been allocated to them. So let's say Utopia Planitia still has some gaps in the the 1600-99 range to use up and assigns them to the Intrepid, Potemkin, Excalibur & Exeter while Tranquility Base decides to use up 1760 - 64 on the order of five that has been ordered from them. Now for the sake of argument let's say that the Proxima Yards were only asked to build one Constitution (as they are already near capacity building the new Soyuz class) and the yard commander assigns a stray number (NCC-1017) that was originally going assigned to an old order but was cut short leaving a bunch of regs allocated to his yard, but unassigned to any hulls.

That's how I see things working anyway. Like I said, if you work in manufacturing or stock control you see this kind of anomaly in serial numbers quite often. I shan't give an example as it's even more tedious than the post above, but that is the basic gist of it. Feel free to come up with your own interpretations, but lets not pretend a less than perfect AMT model requires the invention of a totally new class.

...Now back to deck plans!

[therealfoxbat]

Captain Robert April wrote:

---

If we go by the remastered version of "The Doomsday Machine", yeah, Constellation appears to be a Constitution class ship, and we're back to trying to wrap our heads around the wacky registry number.

Go by the original version, with the AMT model, then we have a case for an earlier, albeit similar, unnamed starship class, which most likely includes the Valiant and the Republic (and if you go by Riker's recitation of the Yamato's registry of NCC-1305-E, a USS Yamato NCC-1305 in that early ship class).

It's likely something similar to what Star Fleet Battles came up with for their background history. They have an earlier heavy cruiser design called the Republic class. When the Constitution was built, several Republics were refitted to match Constitution specs while retaining their hull numbers.

[aridas sofia]

U.S.S. Republic wrote:

---

I have to ask why M. Jefferies "intent" is always mangled by fans?

I mean, if the "intent" is for the Enterprise to be the 17th major Federation cruiser design, and the numbering convention (by M. Jeffereis "intent") is No. 1 = 1701, No. 2 = 1702, why is the mythical U.S.S. Constitution regarded as the class ship? This is completely against the "intent" so highly spoken of. But then. so is the other information from the same source regarding "1st modernize or modification = 1701A". Guess Pike's Enterprise and Kirk's Enterprise had no modernize or modifications (by intent).

I completely agree. This is clearly Jefferies intent -- Enterprise is the first of her class, and the first modification of that frame would be -A, and the second -B, and so on (possibly at the eighteen-year intervals mentioned as defining the ship's endurance in TMoST). If the ship was forty years old, as the class is mentioned as being in that book, then it has gone through one, or maybe two of these modifications since launch. Since there was no "-A" on the hull of this ship -- that was planned from the start to have some age on her -- either the "-A" wasn't meant to be affixed to the hull registry and was a clerical thing, or it was a later idea that was for Phase II and wasn't meant to apply to TOS. This last possibility probably means that when Jefferies was designing the Phase II ship, he intended those modifications to be the first that warranted a registry change. The ship was launched in more or less the configuration we saw in the series, and at eighteen year intervals the modifications were minor enough not to cross some threshold that would require an "-A" be affixed.

This isn't the way it developed onscreen, and I don't in any way mean to diminish what anyone is doing when they stick to what is onscreen, by calling such devotion "canon worship". It's tiresome and irritating to read the incessant berating of posters for expressing any view that is extrapolation, or that reflects an original intent of a writer or artist versus what was forced upon the production by considerations of time, money or ratings, and my irritation with such berating sometime shows.

From the perspective of adhering to what is onscreen, and using it, as a set of original and limiting assumptions, Reverend's schema works well. So do others that I've seen. You don't have to go outside the onscreen stuff to make it make sense. That's just my preference, because I like to imagine "what if?"

I agree wholly with the notion of starting with a set of a posteriori conclusions, and that in this case, starting with what was onscreen in TOS is the best place to start. From there I would modify using other considerations in order to make the design make some conceptual sense. But the idea of leaving blank spaces is an equally valid, and perhaps more elegant approach.

[aridas sofia]

Shaw wrote:

What I was eluding to was the couple times that you've pointed out that you were the first to really attempt something like this. While my attempt is coming from many of the same initial conditions that yours has... I would like to think that some aspect of my attempt is unique, even if only in what things I want to leave open for others.

I flattered myself to think that some aspect of what I'd done had contributed to what I was witnessing, and to work I thought might end up being a superior effort to the work I'd carried out. The fact that you failed to make any such attribution, and the similarities between our approaches, might have left my ego... wanting. I apologize for any inconvenience I might have caused by remarking on several occasions that we started from a common basis but proceeded in different directions. However, to say that I "feel the need to assert ownership (or take credit) of so many ideas" is way, way over the top, and a total mischaracterization. And it is one I find offensive, and without basis. Coupled with your accusation that posters can't "wrap their head around things"... "because they are unwilling to open said head to anything other than preconceived notions," I was motivated to respond. These accusations tell me that 1) you are possessive of what you are doing to the point of being unwilling to credit anyone else that might have contributed to your understanding, and 2) you are unwilling to consider contrary points of view, to the point of characterizing those that possess such views as being close minded. Because I think you are doing truly exceptional -- nay, extraordinary -- work, and don't want to see it poisoned with such unnecessary and uncomfortable offensive defenses, I'm offering this friendly advice.

Go back through the thread and substantiate your charge if you believe it to be true, and if anything I have posted can be legitimately taken by any but the most thin-skinned person in the way you've characterized it, I'll be happy to either clarify my meaning, and/or apologize for the mistaken impression I might have left. Otherwise, I suggest you work in the spirit of collaboration, unhindered by such considerations of who did what and who believes what, and let the remarkable art speak for itself.

[therealfoxbat]

Shaw wrote:

---

Try this (if you can), list only what TOS gives us... and nothing else. Drop all preconceived Jefferies/Jein/Joseph ideas, and just start with what is known and list that for us.

A question regarding this part of the discussion...

Is information from the TNG era concerning the TOS era considered valid for the subject of ship names? If so, that's the point where "Constitution Class" actually becomes canon.

[Tallguy]

Where was "Constitution class" first put forward OFF screen? Is that in TMOST? I'm still rather taken with my sudden (and obvious) realization that they never referred to any interstellar vessel as a STARSHIP except for the Enterprise and her kin.

I love the designation "Constitution class" and always will. It's part of my Trek DNA. But I'm starting to lump it into the category of "made up after the fact".

Not that it has anything to do with the deck plans, of course...

[Shaw]

aridas sofia wrote:

---

I flattered myself to think that some aspect of what I'd done had contributed to what I was witnessing, and to work I thought might end up being a superior effort to the work I'd carried out.

Well, I've stated on a number of occasions that much of your work has been an inspiration for me. But in this case (just as in the case of my 11 foot model plans), your work is actually too similar to even be looked at. And I'm finding that some sources aren't as reliable as I thought for sticking to TOS (and I've sequestered elements from both Joseph and the Okudas now as well).

As for being a superior effort, I still have to face the fact that no matter how good any of the ideas are that I put together, they are going to be hidden behind my amateurish drawing abilities.

The fact that you failed to make any such attribution, and the similarities between our approaches, might have left my ego... wanting. I apologize for any inconvenience I might have caused by remarking on several occasions that we started from a common basis but proceeded in different directions. However, to say that I "feel the need to assert ownership (or take credit) of so many ideas" is way, way over the top, and a total mischaracterization. And it is one I find offensive, and without basis.

Well, I guess what I would have to say is that I was just asking why. From my point of view though, wanting attribution for Jefferies' deck placements would be like me wanting attribution for the use of Jefferies' pressure compartments as an organizational tool. In the end, it was Jefferies' artwork, so shouldn't the credit go to him for the ideas?

As for over the top or mischaracterization, if only one person felt that those original terms might have applied, then neither was offensive in nature. They were a simple expression of what you were conveying (from that persons perspective). If I had said you are __________, then sure, you would have every right to take offense. I was pointing out that you were starting to come across that way, when it is absolutely unnecessary. But as you had already formed the impression that I was not giving people credit or accepting of other's ideas, it is easy to see why you would take a friendly question so completely out of context.

But yeah, yours was the first time I had ever seen anyone attempt this type of thing before (and I've stated so in this thread), but for this project, I've stayed completely away from your work in an effort to see what could be learned from the raw data.

Coupled with your accusation that posters can't "wrap their head around things"... "because they are unwilling to open said head to anything other than preconceived notions," I was motivated to respond.

The term wrap my head around this was first put forward by April, and I have used that term in italics ever since as I don't believe that anything put forward here is outside what he (or anyone else) could wrap their heads around.

These accusations tell me that 1) you are possessive of what you are doing to the point of being unwilling to credit anyone else that might have contributed to your understanding, and 2) you are unwilling to consider contrary points of view, to the point of characterizing those that possess such views as being close minded. Because I think you are doing truly exceptional -- nay, extraordinary -- work, and don't want to see it poisoned with such unnecessary and uncomfortable offensive defenses, I'm offering this friendly advice...

Both points are untrue, with plenty of examples throughout the thread to prove otherwise. And infact, the presence of even a single counter example to those two points is enough to show them baseless.

Do I need to show an example? Lets look at a few, just for the fun of it...

Cary pointed out that while the idea of having a loop for the turbolift was a good idea, the fact that it was on a single deck wasn't. He suggested that the loop be broken up between multiple decks, and I've tried to make of point of the fact that I intend to (specially any time that I make use of the original drawing with the layout). In this case I have (1) given him credit and (2) changed my views on the subject.

I had originally put Sickbay on deck 7 (which I realized now was due to the Okudas' reference to it being there). Wingsley asked the fateful question "I'm curious; why did you choose this particular deck for Sickbay?" When looking back at my reasoning for it, I had no good answer. So I started searching for any references in the show. I am now going to be moving Sickbay to deck 5. While I haven't as yet solidified that, I will (1) credit him for causing the (2) change in my outlook on this.

Even though it was too small to tell that they were his, I used Warped9's shuttlecraft when looking at room around the shuttlecraft bay. I (1) credited him for this on my sketch.

My first look at engineering, specially the back wall, made use of MGagen's back wall diagram as a reference, to which I (1) credited him. I wasn't originally going to make use of his diagram for what was behind the screen, but he put forward a very good argument, and I have (2) changed my mind in this matter.

TIN_MAN asked if I had any plans on taking the engineering forced perspective into account (which I hadn't), and I'm still working out the details of it, so nothing is finalized, but I did (2) change the position of engineering to take this into account.

April had put two engine rooms in his plans (and I have (1) credited him for it on a number of occasions), one at either end of the tube room, and with the move of engineering forward, I (2) now plan on leaving the area behind the tube room open for a second engine room of different configuration.

So while any single counter example of what you said should have been enough, here we have five counter examples of your first point and five counter examples of your second.

Now maybe you didn't see any of these examples because you haven't been following the thread very closely, but you might want to double check stuff like this before throwing it out there.

And for the record, I'm neither hurt nor offended that you thought I was overly possessive, unwilling to give credit or unwilling to accept the ideas of others. If that is what you think of me, there isn't much I can do to change that... specially as the record shows that those were inaccurate descriptions of me to begin with. If I've already been doing exactly what you accused me of not doing, then there is no way that future examples would make any more difference to you than the past ones.

__________________

therealfoxbat wrote:

---

A question regarding this part of the discussion...

Is information from the TNG era concerning the TOS era considered valid for the subject of ship names? If so, that's the point where "Constitution Class" actually becomes canon.

Actually, I wasn't concerned with (or wanted any part of) a canonical discussion, this was more a historic view... so for this question, it was based only on what we saw or heard in TOS.

Sure, Jefferies had his ideas about what the 1701 meant, but for much of the first and second season he wasn't really in a position to push that type of thing (unlike preproduction were he had much of the Trek universe to himself). As such, his ideas where most likely (to one degree or another) discarded, and we are left with what was given to the original audiences.

So yeah, I was just trying to collect those data points and have everyone consider them for a moment without any additional factors (like Jefferies, TMoST or TAS, TNG or the like). What ideas could we come up with if that small collection of data was all we had to work with.

[therealfoxbat]

Tallguy wrote:

---

Where was "Constitution class" first put forward OFF screen? Is that in TMOST? I'm still rather taken with my sudden (and obvious) realization that they never referred to any interstellar vessel as a STARSHIP except for the Enterprise and her kin.

I love the designation "Constitution class" and always will. It's part of my Trek DNA. But I'm starting to lump it into the category of "made up after the fact".

Not that it has anything to do with the deck plans, of course...

I believe "Constitution class" was first mentioned in Star Fleet Technical Manual. Digital copies of that page are displayed on some of the small viewscreens on the bridge of the Enterprise during Search For Spock, but I think the first time anyone on screen actually says the words "Constitution class" is Captain Picard in the sixth season of TNG.

Shaw wrote:

---

Actually, I wasn't concerned with (or wanted any part of) a canonical discussion, this was more a historic view... so for this question, it was based only on what we saw or heard in TOS.

In that case, what we're left with is 13 ships in the class (during TOS First Season). Eight names are visually confirmed in TOS episodes, and there are five more names mentioned during TOS episodes which COULD be members of the class. Other ship names mentioned during TOS episodes belong to vessels which are not Starships (cargo vessel, etc.) or are at least 50 years old and unlikely to be part of the class.

How's that?

[Unicron]

But the SFTM wasn't published until the 70's, right? After the series went off the air but was still being rerun? There were definitely several instances of the name appearing onscreen in TOS - "Space Seed" is the only one I can remember at the moment. What's not clear is if that was intended to actually represent the Enterprise, and I can't think of any FJ pages that appeared in TOS. They did appear as background schematics in TWOK and TSFS though.

[Irishman]

aridas sofia wrote:

---

Anyone that advances the "preconceived notion" that the numbers are sequential is just echoing Jefferies, who said they were sequential. It is a "preconceived notion", that's true. But, so what?

Also, how is advancing the notion that the Constellation is not of the Constitution-class a "preconceived notion"? I don't recall anyone ever suggesting that idea before I did, right here on this BBS. On the one hand, the different models representing Enterprise are clearly meant to represent the same ship at the same time period. On the other hand, Constellation, represented by the (yet again) differing AMT model, and having a very different number from Enterprise, might mean that the number scheme is non-sequential (thus further distancing it from Jefferies intent). Or, it might mean Constellation is of a different class. Given that Greg Jein advanced the former "non-sequential number scheme" notion in 1974, I'd say that is the "preconceived notion" and that the idea that Constellation is an earlier class is fresh, different, and adds depth to the TOS universe.

This part of your post...

...is particularly troubling. It has been my experience that usually, when people aren't able to wrap their head around things it is because they haven't been convinced, usually because of some deficiency in the argument they've heard.

I think that, to my reading, what Shaw has suggested very persuasively, if one takes the original TOS episodes as a body of work, leaving out Jefferies musings, then the idea that the Constellation being of the same class (Starship class) as the Enterprise, is tenable, regardless of the out-of-sequence registry.

What if Starfleet had issued numbers like that on more than one occasion? It was later done to the E-nil herself as a memoriam, but where did we get the idea that that was the first time? Maybe what was unique for the E-nil was the letter suffix following the registry (NCC-1701-A). Perhaps SF had commemorated other vessels and crews in similar ways. Surely the crew of the Enterprise weren't the only ones to distinguish themselves in such a valorous manner? If we understand NCC-1017 of the Constellation to be the retention of an earlier registry that had likewise distinguished itself BEFORE the idea of letter suffices had been adopted, then it's tenable.

Of course, they had the good graces to give it a lower registry # than Enterprise. If it had been higher than 1701, I'd have a harder time explaining it in Trekverse terms.

[TIN_MAN]

Why in the name of the Great Bird of the Galaxy didn't Jeffries just cut and apply the AMT model's decal sheet to read 1710 instead of 1017 for the Constellation, then we wouldn't be wondering about things like this forty years later?

[Shaw]

I wanted to put this up because it had been discussed a bit (and I hadn't put anything new up in a while). In this image I have a comparison between Jefferies cross section and mine as it sort of stands currently. I put in some turbolifts and corridor frames on the primary hull approximately where they would appear given the deck layouts as they stand currently.

Click to enlarge

[Wingsley]

Mind if I wade in on the "Constellation" discussion here?

There seems to be a certain assumption that ships which look like the Enterprise (the Constitution Star Ship Class) are the first ones to ever look that way in Starfleet. Not long ago, Aridas did a thread called "Star Ships". In the thread, there were drawings of ships that looked like a an evolution of the "Star Ship" that ultimately settled on the configuration we recognize as the Constitution-class.

I'd like to suggest a different possibility. Maybe the overall shape and structure of the "star cruiser" concept date back over 50 years prior to TOS, hence Anan 7 referring to the target Enterprise as "the star cruiser now circling". This "star cruiser" concept may have looked very much like the Constitution-class in overall shape, but its technical refinement and capabilities may have been significantly less advanced, but each succeeding star ship class of star cruiser vessels acted as an improved draft, with the final draft being the Constitution-class. We don't know what these earlier ship classes were named, but NCC-1017 Constellation was no doubt a member of an earlier class of star cruisers. Refitting these earlier star cruisers to the Constitution class spec when it came out was a significant undertaking, but not as drastic as totally building them from scratch.

I like the notion of NCC numbers being slated for construction, but I've also seen fans suggest that NCC means "navigation contact code", which could mean that ships are given the NCC registry to identify them by name and class. Perhaps NCC-10xy, of which Constellation is a member, started out life as a Magna Carta-class of star cruiser around 2185, and it was only capable of Warp 6.5 top speed, until the class' members were upgraded to Constitution-class decades later; Constitution class vessels were the ones to finally crack Warp 7. In the meantime, the Charter of Liberties-class came out in 2200, which represented a marginal improvement: a top speed of Warp 6.8. The Charter of Liberties class were slated for NCC-13xy, which included the future cadet vessel Republic.

Perhaps the shape and spine of the Magna Carta and Charter of Liberties were the same as the Constitution, but the secondary hulls and connecting necks were smaller on earlier "drafts" of the design.

Sorry if this just muddies the waters more, but I do think the content of TOS and TMP should make it clear that starships and their class-specs evolve over time, no doubt with refitting playing a role.

[Tallguy]

TIN_MAN wrote:

---

Why in the name of the Great Bird of the Galaxy didn't Jeffries just cut and apply the AMT model's decal sheet to read 1710 instead of 1017 for the Constellation, then we wouldn't be wondering about things like this forty years later?

That's what drives me nuts about these discussions. The modelmakers (Jefferies himself, I believe) were very candid that a) they used the numbers available and b) they picked the registry that they felt looked the least like 1701 and therefore was not confusing to the viewer. Nothing more complicated than that.

Now if that leads us to extrapolate all of the things that we have (it's what we do for fun, and it is fun) then fine. As long as we don't fool ourselves into thinking that the "filmmakers intent" was anything other than to show a ship pretty much exactly like the Enterprise.

[U.S.S. Republic]

TIN_MAN wrote:

---

Why in the name of the Great Bird of the Galaxy didn't Jeffries just cut and apply the AMT model's decal sheet to read 1710 instead of 1017 for the Constellation, then we wouldn't be wondering about things like this forty years later?

And that! is the question.

His own visual numbering "intent" would have allowed 1702, 1705, 1707, 1710, 1712 (legibility issue) based on the 12 like her statement made on-screen and in keeping with a 17th major Cruiser design "intent".

As head of the Art Department, surely he had some control over the model while being built - enough at any rate to recognize something so glaring against his "intent" of a 17th major Cruiser design and its attendant "intent" registry system. So, the numbering scheme may have fit some other "intent" unrelated to this concept.

I'm likely to stick with his assessment of "So 1701 was as good a choice as any." and simply substitute 1017 for 1701 as the true underlying "intent" as the true explanation, given that at least 1 other registry number was given; 1371 (aside from a wall chart of other interesting registry numbers).
Source: The Star Trek Sketchbook pgs 62 (text) and 68 (sketch).

Shaw: will this project be a "toolbox" kit?
Meaning, generic staterooms and other soundstage set pieces that have been adapted (e.g. briefing room to "x") that can be inserted at will?
I got this impression from the beginning of this thread with your "black box" analogy, but wanted to clarify. Something like "Vance's toolkit" in implementation?

Shaw: second question; I noticed that in you amalgram of sources (Phase II cut-away and original cut-away) that, at minimum, the centerline corridors no longer match in placement to the original. In fact, according to the original cut-away, the corridors have never been proven concentric (they are forward of the central turbolift not aft; under the bridge and thus offset from a true raduis of the primary hull), where the aft placement F. Joseph and thus most of fanon plans thereafter have adopted. Will you be addressing this?