RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,868
Posts: 5,475,006
Members: 25,044
Currently online: 622
Newest member: DrawHQ

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek: The Next Generation Gag Reel Tease
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Shatner In Haven
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Retro Review: Covenant
By: Michelle on Nov 22

Two Official Starships Collection Previews
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Saldana: Women Issues In Hollywood
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Shatner Book Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Nov 20

Trek Original Series Slippers
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Hemsworth Is Sexiest Man Alive
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Trek Business Card Cases
By: T'Bonz on Nov 17

February IDW Publishing Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Nov 17


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.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 26 2009, 07:55 PM   #76
Whorfin
Lieutenant Commander
 
Whorfin's Avatar
 
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

CRA et al.,

My post have (retroactively) shown up in the thread, hopefully the duplicate and partial posts I made will not. Actually several versions were ultimately posted, but I think this is the first version, so I might have to add some additional information in.

The ultimate answer to the question is that there is no canon or semi-canon answer, but people have made suggestions over the years for you to pick from, or you can make your own. If you have any questions, I'll do my best to answer.

Whorfin
Whorfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 27 2009, 12:21 AM   #77
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

Zoinks! Sure you didn't leave anything out?

First off, one of the good things of doing projects like this is the ability to ignore a whole lot of stuff, like other fan produced designs.

Another thing to keep in mind, when trying to make heads or tails of the canon registry numbers is that the initial inspiration was aircraft tail numbers, not naval hull numbers, so for any analysis to work, it has to come at it from that angle or it just falls apart (it's tenuous enough as it is, so don't go making things even more difficult).

As for the spherical-hulled Daedelus design, I reject it for the same reason it was rejected back in '64, it just doesn't work very well. Plus, with the NX class in the line, the basketball on a broomstick becomes the odd man out. I'm also thinking of the upcoming backstory of the Romulan War, and how Starfleet would be needing new ships based on a proven design, just slightly upgraded (which is being addressed in my other thread here).

As for the class before the Constitution, I'm just invoking the AMT 18" model.

And for those ships that are supposedly Constitution class but have registries in the 16xx range, they're either later builds that were more easily refit/upgraded to Constitution class, were modified during construction to Constitution class, or the original construction assignments were cancelled and the numbers were reassigned to new Constitution class ships.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2009, 12:02 AM   #78
Whorfin
Lieutenant Commander
 
Whorfin's Avatar
 
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

CRA,

> Zoinks! Sure you didn't leave anything out?

Actually, yes, as I repeatedly kept trying to make the post I found a few items that I had overlooked or forgotten about and added, but this seems to be the original. If the later posts don't show up and there is interest I can provide the additional information. If, on the other hand, the information is of no use to anyone I won't further clutter up the thread.

> First off, one of the good things of doing
> projects like this is the ability to ignore
> a whole lot of stuff, like other fan produced
> designs.

As I said, there is no official answer to the question, so I gave existing alternatives. The fact that there is no consensus in itself invites one to ignore at least some of these suggestions. One can, if one wants, call it the "Good Ship Lollipop Class". Or one can take an existing idea (or half-dozen) and work with them to make something plausible. I try to do the latter though occassionally I am tempted to do the former -- but that has always ended up being unwise in hindsight. One of the reasons that classic Trek fans (however one interprets that) aren't very happy with the franchise is that there has been altogether too much making and remaking out of whole cloth going on -- either out of ignorance or hubris on the part of the people who are in control of the property.

> Another thing to keep in mind, when trying to make heads
> or tails of the canon registry numbers is that the
> initial inspiration was aircraft tail numbers, not naval
> hull numbers,

Actually, aircraft registry and Soviet spacecraft designation (CCCP).

> so for any analysis to work, it has to come at it from
> that angle or it just falls apart (it's tenuous enough
> as it is, so don't go making things even more difficult).

We will have to disagree here. The vessels depicted are unlike any existing aircraft, large bombers included, and are much, much more like existing naval vessels (use of naval rank system, relatively large crews, references to "ship", etc). While Starfleet is, to quote JTK if I remember right, a "combined service", it is not -- even as a television show -- based on any existing airforce or space program. Its inspired by Horation Hornblower, and that's the way Roddenberry depicted its traditions. Naval designation systems seem to hold, and while the registry is unlike the US Navy (for example) it probably doesn't stray completely away from it. So we don't have CA-985 (a hull type designation), but we might have NCC-1701, representing the 1701st vessel of that particular registration type (whatever NCC equates to -- presumably "Starfleet, normal"). And, remember, when all we had was TOS, there just was NCC for typical Starfleet vessels (no NSP, etc.). TAS introduced variants, but they were for other types of vessels (NCC-G1465=Starfleet Cargo Drone; NCC-F1913=Starfleet Freighter; and 10281NCC=USS Bonaventure, "The first ship with warp drive", which leaves us puzzled where this ship belongs to this day). We get NX-2001 in ST3, which becomes NCC-2001, indicating that it probably means "Naval Experimental". The important piece of information there is that the number stayed the same when the letter portion of the registry changed, indicating that NX is temporary and not a real registry number in the typical sense, but the number portion is. The other types we get in TNG, and often what they mean isn't clear from the context, but they either mean "Starfleet, non-standard" (and standard in SF seems to cover the water front) of various types or non-Starfleet (civilian, Terran, Vulcan, whatever) of various types. But none of this tells us for certain what NCC actually means.

> As for the spherical-hulled Daedelus design, I reject it
> for the same reason it was rejected back in '64, it just
> doesn't work very well. Plus, with the NX class in the
> line, the basketball on a broomstick becomes the odd man
> out. I'm also thinking of the upcoming backstory of the
> Romulan War, and how Starfleet would be needing new ships
> based on a proven design, just slightly upgraded (which
> is being addressed in my other thread here).

I'm a little confused here. Perhaps it was a different thread but you I thought you were looking at this from a TOS only perspective (or at least emphasizing it). Frankly, registry numbers from 100 years previous to TOS may not tell us much. Particularly prior to the founding of the UFP, which may mean the ENT Terran "NX-" and TMP/TNG/DS9 UFP Starfleet "NX-" have nothing to do with each other, but I'm not a proponent of that necessarily. Similarly, a registry from a ship of an unknown type from the 29th Century (which we know little about) probably tells us next to nothing about 23rd/24th Century registry practices. Frankly, systems from the 24th Century probably aren't that great a comparison to TOS. In point of fact, 20th century registries of any type tell us about as much, other than as inspirational uses to designers.

As to the Daedalus design, and the similar Horizon, they got dragged into this on the basis of a Jeffries-centric perspective. "What comes before the Constitution Class? -- another Jeffries design, of course!" I don't agree with it, but the use of another design study of his for the Declaration class actually makes some sense. My main "beef" with it is that the saucer would probably be too large for a much earlier vessel (the Baton Rouge class is another example of that, according to our 20-20 Treknology hindsight), hence my recommendations of 'whittling' it down by removing the outer section of the pressure hull, which then be added during a refit to match the AMT design. But, playing devil's advocate, it wouldn't be much harder to rework a "Horizon class" into the Constellation than it would be to convert the TOS 1701 into the movie version (it pretty much all would need to be replaced or remanufactured). It was brought up as pertinent to the question and to provide its version of the registry list. I don't think its right, but its relatively early Treknological thinking.

As to "ST:Enterprise" invalidating the Daedalus, before taking that as a given you might want to take a poll on the number of fans who consider ENT to even be in the same universe as TOS: I do (with a few necessary retcons) but others might not, particularly those who know TOS well. The Daedalus shows up as a model in Sisko's office, so that makes it Canon. Okuda is the one that places it in a particular time period, which ends up being post-ENT (i.e., just after the founding of the UFP). If one wants to argue with Mr. Okuda that the Daedalus comes before ENT and not the other way around, see if he can work that into the 16th edition of the Encyclopedia. Frankly, one could easily use the same arguement to invalidate TOS as 1701 doesn't look sufficiently advanced by ENT standards, and one could then say that the new movie will be the "correct version" of 1701 and the original an erroneous design.

I find the arguement false. I find the ENT design choices somewhat annoying in their anachronism, but not apocalyptic. The Daedalus is just one type of vessel, and we see a similar design far in the future in "All Good Things" ( http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/USS_Pasteur ), and other contemporaneous designs may be somewhat more sevlt, or NX derived, or completely different. At this point only the fans seem to care. One would expect to see many differences in design styles, materials, and technology between 2161 and the 2260s (or the 2240s if you want to accurate). A bad pre-boot, a botched "remastering", and a potentially bad alternate universe re-boot are not sufficient reasons for me to rework anything in Star Trek, fan or canon. For what its worth, I consider precedence and coherence to be higer values in canonicity than brand new and "gee-whizz". In short, when George Lucas decided that he could "do what he wanted" with revising the Star Wars movies (Greedo shoots first, etc.) those fans didn't take it lying down, and when it came time for a "reworking" of the Indiana Jones movies the uproar managed to stop similar butchery. Now the same thing is being done to Star Trek. Can these people, who aren't even the franchise creators, just do whatever they want and we have to accept it as canon? My question is are we going to take it with a smile?

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/ar.../tos_ships.htm

For example, it would be nice if they could at least get the impulse engines in the right place:

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/ar...troyius2-r.jpg

> As for the class before the Constitution, I'm just invoking
> the AMT 18" model.

Here is the part we agree on, probably for different reasons. For me, if you throw Jein's [don't even get me started on his contributions to the 11' model in the Smithsonian] bizarre registry scheme out the window (just read how he cooked it up if you don't like the adjective), and if you assume that registries follow a sane system (such as the Roddenberry approved -- and in small part used -- Franz Joseph Designs system, possibly inspired by Jefferies), then the differences in the AMT model make sense, and the Constellation is a refit of an earlier design. On the other hand, if you embrace the Jein/Okuda registry system, then there is no reason to see NCC-1017 as an odd number for a Constitution class (the destroyed/scrapped/sold/missing Constitution class USS Eagle NCC-1685 which was apparently succeeded by ST6's USS Eagle NCC-956, for example), and any differences between the AMT and studio models are errors of production, corrected by the "remastered" HD version of the episode. In short CRA, if you drink the Koolaid then... its Miller Time, so to speak! Well, not for some of us.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/The_...n_Doe_Starship
http://www.trekplace.com/article10.html
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/sc...-wallchart.jpg
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/NCC-1685
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/USS_Eagle

> And for those ships that are supposedly Constitution class
> but have registries in the 16xx range, they're either later
> builds that were more easily refit/upgraded to Constitution
> class, were modified during construction to Constitution
> class, or the original construction assignments were
> cancelled and the numbers were reassigned to new
> Constitution class ships.

I didn't mention any ships in this range so I assume you are back on to the Jein/Okuda list (is the Intrepid NCC-1631 or 1831? -- they just can't make up their minds!: Erroroneous, corrected to match out-of-context-canon, recorrected back to erroroneous and then made canon). Or they are just ships of a completely unreleated class that just happen to be on a wall in a Starbase commandeder's office. Like ships currently docked their for repairs, etc.? No, couldn't be. Why would he have a list of existing Constitution class ships displayed in reverse alphabetical order by registry? Ask the current keepers of the Canon.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/NCC-1831

In short, if you want to base your work on that of a bunch of people who throw out the Roddenberry approved FJD laundry list of names and registries and replace it with their own shoddy work, that they then can't even keep straight, be my guest. But its not my cup of Earl Gray.
Whorfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2009, 02:18 AM   #79
DrFate
Cadet
 
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

[quote=Whorfin;2555669]

>> Actually, aircraft registry and Soviet spacecraft designation (CCCP).

Far be it from me to dispute, but I'm pretty certain that CCCP has nothing to do with spacecraft designation and everything to do with the Cyrillic alphabet used in Russia and the former Soviet Union. Thus, much like the US shuttle fleet is decked out in "USA" livery, one would expect to see "CCCP," for Sovietsky Soyuz Socialisty Respublici -- Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In Cyrillic, the Latin "S" looks like a "C", and the Latin "R" looks like a "P".

Now returning to the regularly scheduled defense of bowling ally placement in the warp nacelles.
DrFate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2009, 06:09 AM   #80
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

^ Actually, that'd be Soyuz Sovietski Socialistic Republiki. But, yeah, a Soviet spaceship having CCCP emblazoned on the side is no different than an American ship having USA on it.

Jefferies added that second C for balance more than anything else. Any allusions to a US/Soviet partnership was more happenstance than anything intended.

As for the continual citing of FJ, keep in mind that a key factor in starting this project in the first place was twenty-odd years of frustration with the gross inaccuracies in FJ's blueprints, so bringing his stuff up as somehow being authoritative, well, let's just say that you're not scoring any points.

I think will be using that registry of NCC-1223 for the Valiant when I finally build a model of her, but that's another matter...

Last edited by Captain Robert April; January 30 2009 at 06:28 AM.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2009, 06:37 AM   #81
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post

Jefferies added that second C for balance more than anything else. Any allusions to a US/Soviet partnership was more happenstance than anything intended.
Matt Jefferies said, in this interview:
NC, by international agreement, stood for all United States commercial vehicles. Russia had wound up with four Cs, CC CC. It’d been pretty much a common opinion that any major effort in space would be too expensive for any one country, so I mixed the US and the Russian and came up with NCC.
aridas sofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2009, 06:43 AM   #82
uniderth
Commander
 
uniderth's Avatar
 
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

Sorry this comment goes back a way in the conversation, but I know we all want there to be a real bowling alley on the ship. Even if it wouldn't be practical it would be AWESOME!
__________________
Star Trek (The Complete Voyages)
uniderth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2009, 06:59 AM   #83
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

Jefferies brought that up more as a justification for the move, not a basis. The core, though, was to better balance the 1701 on the other side of that dash.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2009, 08:58 AM   #84
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

Got evidence?
aridas sofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2009, 07:20 PM   #85
Ryan Thomas Riddle
Rear Admiral
 
Ryan Thomas Riddle's Avatar
 
Location: The Bay Area
View Ryan Thomas Riddle's Twitter Profile
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

aridas sofia wrote: View Post
Got evidence?
He rarely ever does. However...

aridas sofia wrote: View Post
Captain Robert April wrote: View Post

Jefferies added that second C for balance more than anything else. Any allusions to a US/Soviet partnership was more happenstance than anything intended.
Matt Jefferies said, in this interview:
NC, by international agreement, stood for all United States commercial vehicles. Russia had wound up with four Cs, CC CC. It’d been pretty much a common opinion that any major effort in space would be too expensive for any one country, so I mixed the US and the Russian and came up with NCC.
Jefferies says in The Star Trek Sketchbook:

Excerpt from Matt Jefferies interview part two: "The Search for the Enterprise, exterior", The Star Trek Sketchbook by Herbert F. Solow and Yvonne Fern Solow, pg. 62

"Since the 1920s, N has indicated the United States in Navy terms, and C means 'commercial' vessel. I added an extra added an extra C for fun. Interestingly, Russia's designation is CCC. So the N and the C together made it kind of international...."
__________________
A mild-mannered reporter

Last edited by Ryan Thomas Riddle; January 30 2009 at 09:46 PM. Reason: Added quote from Matt Jefferies
Ryan Thomas Riddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2009, 11:05 PM   #86
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

It's interesting how two people can look at the same thing and come to totally different conclusions. While I agree FJ's plans left something to be desired, there was nothing a little retcon couldn't fix. And considered in the context of their times, before all the later techno-babble came along, I certainly wouldn't consider them grossly inacurate by any maens.
TIN_MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 1 2009, 01:53 AM   #87
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

middyseafort wrote: View Post
aridas sofia wrote: View Post
Got evidence?
He rarely ever does. However...

aridas sofia wrote: View Post

Matt Jefferies said, in this interview:
Jefferies says in The Star Trek Sketchbook:

Excerpt from Matt Jefferies interview part two: "The Search for the Enterprise, exterior", The Star Trek Sketchbook by Herbert F. Solow and Yvonne Fern Solow, pg. 62

"Since the 1920s, N has indicated the United States in Navy terms, and C means 'commercial' vessel. I added an extra added an extra C for fun. Interestingly, Russia's designation is CCC. So the N and the C together made it kind of international...."
Fairly consistent with every other time he was asked about this issue.

As brilliantly as the show was designed and set up, there's no getting around the plain and simple fact that, for the most part, they were making it up as they went along. They all had tons of experience and quite a bit of research to draw upon, but there was a lot of "that looks good, let's go with it" going on.

This kinda reminds me of how certain posters (ahem) were absolutely convinced that the design of the Enterprise bridge and the establishing of an interracial crew was directly influenced by a certain East German sci-fi film, released in the States as "First Spaceship on Venus", with lots of pics being posted as ROCK SOLID EVIDENCE of the clear influence....until Mike Okuda emailed me to let me know that he'd asked Matt Jefferies about this very issue and he never saw the film. Ever.

That argument died a quick death after that.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 1 2009, 05:24 AM   #88
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

It died because to the best of my knowledge, Mike never asked Pato Guzman, who was sketching round, white, domed bridges well before Matt Jefferies became art director.
aridas sofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 1 2009, 05:47 PM   #89
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

It's also debatable how much of Guzman's stuff Jefferies used when the bridge became his baby. From where I sit, not all that much, if any.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 1 2009, 06:54 PM   #90
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

Yeah... I figured as much.
aridas sofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
enterprise deck 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 12:01 AM.

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