Franz Joseph's Star Trek

[CorporalCaptain]

It occurs to me that IF the FJSTM ships were canon vessels it would make sense to have engineering in the saucer as those ships do not have secondary hulls. The warp core could be vertical, and located in the neck.

The two round pods on the floor with the dilithium crystal between them, called the "Impulse Syncrotron," could be the top of the warp core, like the Impulse Deflection Crystal would be on the refit. Then, the blue structure that takes its place in TAS would be an expansion of that system, moving towards the Impulse deflection crystal, and the Dreadnought would connect its upper nacelle to the warp core through that structure.

The season 1 engine room could be the one near the horizontal part of the warp core, sort of like Drexler's diagrams, hence no Impulse Syncrotron on the floor. And, it kind of looks like Warp Engineering from the FASA blueprints.

I've always been an "Engineering is in the Secondary Hull" guy, but this kind of convinces me to consider it the other way.

Those are good points, but there's more to consider.

The mount points for the nacelles are completely different on the Destroyer, Scout, and Tug than they are on the Heavy Cruiser. On the Destroyer and Scout there's evidence of nacelle pylon structure in the interconnecting dorsal. On the tug, the support pylons connect to the underside of the saucer. Granted, all those points are near the aft of the saucer, near Engineering. But in the Booklet of General Plans, on Deck 16 of the Heavy Cruiser, there is a section called Warp Drive Engineering near the support pylons that's absent from the Heavy Cruiser saucer. Ergo, the internal arrangement of the Destroyer, Scout, and Tug saucers cannot be either identical or even really almost identical to that of the Heavy Cruiser saucer. This is because Warp Drive Engineering must be inside those saucers, whereas it's explicitly down in the secondary hull of the Heavy Cruiser, and plus there are a few other sections that also have to get crammed into those saucers.

That said, it would be reasonable for all of the saucers to be either largely identical or mostly identical.

TL;DR: The FJ ships do not require or imply that the Heavy Cruiser's Warp Engineering is in its saucer.

 

[Shawnster]

I've always been an "Engineering is in the Secondary Hull" guy, but this kind of convinces me to consider it the other way.

It makes sense there would be 2 engineering sections. The warp nacelles are connected to the engineering hull and the impulse engines are in saucer.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

It makes sense there would be 2 engineering sections. The warp nacelles are connected to the engineering hull and the impulse engines are in saucer.

Yep. Everything really important, except for warp drive, is supposed to be redundant in the Enterprise. You take a belt-and-suspenders approach to starship design, not only so the saucer can act as a lifeboat, but because the mission will take you so far from home, there will be times when no rescue is coming.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

The Blueprints package came out first, in 1975, and I used to pore over the deck plans, imagining myself aboard the Enterprise. You could go from room to room, from the bridge to obscure areas deep in the ship. It was kid-imagination heaven.

My family had the technical manual, and it was so great to see the TOS world expanded (including designs created by TAS such as the second bridge turbolift), and it was a page-turner. As in the case of many ancillary TOS items, they broke the ground that Star Wars gets undue credit for (e.g. tech manuals, poster books, soundtracks, behind the scenes books, in-universe "history" books, etc.).

In late 1977 came the Moonbase Alpha Technical Notebook, sold by mail order out of Starlog magazine. Like FJ's material, the MATN was done by an artist unaffiliated with Space: 1999, who mostly studied photos to figure out his technical drawings of the floor plans and props. It was pretty well done. I ate it up.

I really wanted that, but it did not work out. I do recall Starlog #7 (August, 1977) had a pull-out Space: 1999 blueprint in one of the early issues--was that a sample from the Moonbase Alpha Technical Notebook?

But FJ had invented the concept and started the whole thing.

Sadly, despite FJ doing exactly that--starting the entire commercial production of film/TV blueprints, he's been pushed into a corner, with a couple of generations of other authors piggybacking off his landmark work.

You can bet I took the technical drawing class my high school offered. And I started making set sketches, homemade plans and elevations, for any TV show I got really interested in, but I was mostly drawing Star Trek props and the house from Bewitched. This was pre-VCR; I would take photos of the TV to assist me in capturing things. Good times. A lot of guys here are too young to relate to any of this.

Sounds SO familiar. One of my projects was a TOS movie era ship of my own design. Fun times.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

I do recall Starlog #7 (August, 1977) had a pull-out Space: 1999 blueprint in one of the early issues--was that a sample from the Moonbase Alpha Technical Notebook?

The Eagle blueprints were drawn by the same guy, Geoffrey Mandel, but they weren't included in the MATN. He did a great job on those, very finely drawn and professional.

Eagle technical drawings from decades later, done in the computer-art era, would scale the ship up to increase its interior headroom, but Mandel's traditional draftsmanship was never put to shame, even by that high-tech work.

 

[Phaser Two]

Simply awesome thread, folks. I love the anecdotes about taking pictures of the TV and drawing sets.

 

[Galileo7]

I really wanted that, but it did not work out. I do recall Starlog #7 (August, 1977) had a pull-out Space: 1999 blueprint in one of the early issues--was that a sample from the Moonbase Alpha Technical Notebook?

Here are the complete pages of the STARLOG Alpha Moonbase Technical Notebook:
http://catacombs.space1999.net/cybermuseum/MATN/matnindex.html

Starlog#7 Blueprints:
http://catacombs.space1999.net/press/w2starloge.html

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

It makes sense there would be 2 engineering sections. The warp nacelles are connected to the engineering hull and the impulse engines are in saucer.

Some on this site have speculated that that is why we see an empty engine room in "The Omega Glory" when Kirk is shown in the engine room calling to see if anyone is aboard.

CorporalCaptain makes a good point about the indication of two engine rooms. I guess I should clarify that the meaning of my original post is to say that in the FJSTM world, the warp "intermix shaft" could run be supplementing the impulse system with a subspace field, like the impulse deflection crystal apparently does in the TOS movies, and the TNG impulse engines can do on their own.

This explains that oft-mentioned line in "Balance of Terror" where Scotty says the Enterprise is more maneuverable because the Romulans have "simple impulse" The BoP could have warp, but be much slower at sub-light speeds with unaided impulse power, whereas the Enterprise does not have that limitation.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The only thing a subspace field would do for impulse is lower the inertial mass of the starship to make the drive more efficient, i.e. reduce the fuel requirements for a given amount of acceleration. Impulse is still a sublight drive, always was.

I think McMaster et al. squared the circle nicely regarding the Romulan Bird of Prey with their classic blueprints. Their idea was basically that it was beyond Romulan technology to power warp drive, the cloaking device, and the plasma weapon all at the same time. So, there were power limitations such as that they had to decloak to fire the plasma weapon and decloak to use their warp drive. Consequently, when cloaked they had to use impulse power only, i.e. remain sublight. One doesn't have to squint too hard for Scotty's line about their power capabilities to be taken to mean that sort of deal.

Their strategy was to run invisible near the neutral zone and evidently decloak to warp back to Romulus once they'd gotten safely back into Romulan space.

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

The only thing a subspace field would do for impulse is lower the inertial mass of the starship to make the drive more efficient, i.e. reduce the fuel requirements for a given amount of acceleration. Impulse is still a sublight drive, always was.

I think McMaster et al. squared the circle nicely regarding the Romulan Bird of Prey with their classic blueprints. Their idea was basically that it was beyond Romulan technology to power warp drive, the cloaking device, and the plasma weapon all at the same time. So, there were power limitations such as that they had to decloak to fire the plasma weapon and decloak to use their warp drive. Consequently, when cloaked they had to use impulse power only, i.e. remain sublight. One doesn't have to squint too hard for Scotty's line about their power capabilities to be taken to mean that sort of deal.

And their warp drive was inferior to the Federation warp drive, so if they had decloaked to use it to try to get away from the Enterprise they would have been an easy target. Their strategy was to run invisible near the neutral zone and evidently decloak to warp back to Romulus once they'd gotten safely back into Romulan space.

I never meant to imply that impulse was more than a sublight drive. It's just that I have heard that some scientist think no conventional fuel could ever go faster than, say, .3c. The idea then is that lowering the mass of the vessel means less fuel can make you faster, up the .5c or .9c from the show.

I had not heard the power consumption theory about the cloaking device before. I like it. It also explains why TNG ships don't fire while cloaked. The prototype in ST:VI could do it, but the power consumption was not worth it.

If the CorporalCaptain name is a reference to that episode of M*A*S*H where they sneak Radar into the bar, I doubly approve

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Scratch the part about the Romulan warp drive being inferior than the Federation's according to the McMaster blueprints. I quickly checked my blueprints and realized I had mis-remembered and edited that out. The McMaster blueprints have the BoP warp speeds the same as the FJ Constitution class.

If the CorporalCaptain name is a reference to that episode of M*A*S*H where they sneak Radar into the bar, I doubly approve

Yes! It is.

 

[Lance]

Always figured maybe the second door in TAS went to a circular corridor and possibly a way down to a ready room / captain's cabin below the bridge.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Always figured maybe the second door in TAS went to a circular corridor and possibly a way down to a ready room / captain's cabin below the bridge.

I think the TAS secondary entrance is clearly a second turbolift, which can be seen by comparing the background there with the background at the main turbolift carried over from TOS. It has the same details.

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

I don't own a copy of the ST Blueprints, but I have seen the similar or identical ones in the FASA manual at Cygnus X-1. The Warp engineering area seems to contain 2 of the "Standby Power Units" that are sometimes seen in the TOS Engineering set and two other large round structures I don't recognize from the show. I can visualize what many conjectural rooms from these diagrams are supposed to look like, since equipment like consoles, transporter pads, even chairs and tables look like they do on the show. However, the floor plan of this room does not give a sufficient frame of reference. Does anyone have a rendering or even a detailed elevation view of what the FJSTM warp engineering should look like? I'd love to see one.

 

[Mytran]

Some on this site have speculated that that is why we see an empty engine room in "The Omega Glory" when Kirk is shown in the engine room calling to see if anyone is aboard.

We don't even need to move into Season 2 to find evidence of multiple engine rooms - Scotty's announcement over the tannoy in The Naked Time (as they are preparing to do the emergency engine start) makes explicit reference to "all engine rooms"

 

[GNDN18]

“Tannoy”—what a charming word!

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

Those are good points, but there's more to consider.

The mount points for the nacelles are completely different on the Destroyer, Scout, and Tug than they are on the Heavy Cruiser. On the Destroyer and Scout there's evidence of nacelle pylon structure in the interconnecting dorsal. On the tug, the support pylons connect to the underside of the saucer. Granted, all those points are near the aft of the saucer, near Engineering. But in the Booklet of General Plans, on Deck 16 of the Heavy Cruiser, there is a section called Warp Drive Engineering near the support pylons that's absent from the Heavy Cruiser saucer. Ergo, the internal arrangement of the Destroyer, Scout, and Tug saucers cannot be either identical or even really almost identical to that of the Heavy Cruiser saucer. This is because Warp Drive Engineering must be inside those saucers, whereas it's explicitly down in the secondary hull of the Heavy Cruiser, and plus there are a few other sections that also have to get crammed into those saucers.

That said, it would be reasonable for all of the saucers to be either largely identical or mostly identical.

TL;DR: The FJ ships do not require or imply that the Heavy Cruiser's Warp Engineering is in its saucer.

You make some great points and I gave them some thought.

Looking at the blueprints from FASA at Cygnus X-1 (the one's I can get digitally), I see that there are two large round structures in Warp Engineering that I can't Identify. Those same structures are found on Deck 6 as part of the Engineering Room in the Saucer, and in the FJSTM, they are called: "Energy Converters." Not very helpful. But if they are part of the warp drive system and are also found in the saucer, then perhaps the Engine Room in the saucer is the main one, and accesses the warp and impulse systems where they connect as I said before.

 

[TIN_MAN]

The two engineering sections in FJ's BOGP's are not engine specific, just redundancies for one another, each one can take over the functions of the other if necessary.

The two round "energy converters" are probably the same as the "power supply converters" mentioned by Scotty in "The Tholian Web" (If memory serves)?

 

[Neopeius]

Late to the party here. I grew up on the Technical Manual. Interestingly, I remember finding one of the "missing pages" at an online archive a few years back. It wasn't in the book, but it sure looked like it had been. I wonder if it was fan-made. Anyone know what I'm talking about?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Late to the party here. I grew up on the Technical Manual. Interestingly, I remember finding one of the "missing pages" at an online archive a few years back. It wasn't in the book, but it sure looked like it had been. I wonder if it was fan-made. Anyone know what I'm talking about?

Geoffrey Mandel did a transporter console page with the look and feel of the Tech Manual. Maybe this is what you're thinking of?

Here's an earlier post of mine, dated Jan 17, 2015 (so note that some referenced information may have changed in the interim), that discusses it [https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/transporter-console-slider-controls.244549/page-4#post-10584364]:

Apologies for the thread reanimation, but I have a correction to make regarding this information. This information does not appear in the Star Fleet Technical Manual, and it is not due to Franz Joseph.

Instead, it is due to Geoffrey Mandel, and it originally appeared in The Starfleet Handbook Issue 12, on page 12, in this drawing: thumbnail/full. (At the time of this post, I know of no link to an online copy of this issue. The location of the images is described below.)

There are at least three causes of the confusion about this drawing.

First, the drawing is (undoubtedly deliberately) rendered in the same style as the Star Fleet Technical Manual (SFTM) pages. However, the page is not actually in the SFTM, and its technical order number isn't even in the contents (unlike some missing pages that are), although it logically fits into the gap following the 6 person transporter plan; it is in fact the first unused number in the contents after the 6 person transporter plan.

Second, the Star Trek LCARS Blueprint Database at Cygnus-X1.Net includes Mandel's page on its SFTM webpage. (That's where the images I linked to above are.) Unfortunately, they do not credit Mandel for it, although note that the page is out of sequence, evidently as the "bonus page" that it is.

Third, people have (no doubt unintentionally) propagated the error around the web, such as on this page. And in the post I am responding to.

This is a significant page in the tech manual area of fandom, and I'm just setting the record straight here (naturally, only to the best of my knowledge), so that credit can be given where credit is due. Thanks!

P.S. I think this may have come up before. I know that I found out about The Starfleet Handbook Issue 12 on the board somewhere. I couldn't find the thread, though.​

A follow-up post also seems significant [https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/transporter-console-slider-controls.244549/page-4#post-10586446]:

One other thing needs addressing, I believe.

I'm not in a position to agree or disagree with what you are saying, because I have never seen an original printed copy of the page. However, I have seen another electronic copy from a different source, and I can assert that what's posted at Cygnus-X1.Net is a particularly bad reproduction. For one thing, the pattern for red doesn't show up in the legend of the reproduction, and yet the red pattern, which takes up the bulk of the console, looks particularly messy in the actual figure. This tells me that, in all likelihood, the page is more competently drawn than the images at Cygnus-X1.Net might lead one to believe. I'd doubt that Mandel himself would be pleased with the reproduction, because it looks really bad. But again, whether the page is as competently drawn as Franz Joesph's work, I cannot say.​