Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans
- Thread starter Shaw
- Start date
- Status
Well, the main reason was that I was starting with a ton of measurement data that MGagen had supplied and it included specifications for the dish on the secondary hull (which matched the best image I had of that section of the ship). The secondary reason was that while I knew of the baby bottle assembly, I never had as good a reference image as what you just posted to work from.Shaw, I'm curious why you include only the "dish antenna" front for the secondary hull. I was under the impression that one of the very last things to be changed on the plan for the 33" model, as it went to Datin for building, was to swap the "baby bottle" front for the dish you have shown. Perhaps both this one...
and the dish should be included?
I do have an image of the top half of what you posted which brings me back to something I was very curious about but lacked additional data for... I've seen two examples of the structure on the top rear of the primary hull, but they have always been profile views. Is there any reference as to what the other dimensions of that structure might be? I always assumed it to be a fin (sort of a heat sink for the impulse engines), but in the absence of better data I wasn't willing to put forward any thing stronger than the fact that it is visible from the side.
I saw that you included it on the Constellation and was wondering if you had any additional data or what your take on that structure is.
Wow! Thanks for saying that. I can't imagine higher praise considering all the cool works you've done in this area.
Shaw, I don't have a top view of that impulse feature. I assumed in my illustration of the Constellation that it would be similar to the feature eventually placed on the model -- a rounded shape slightly taller than what was eventually used. I was thinking that Jefferies/Datin just trimmed it down a bit and to make it less prominent and integrate it into the saucer a bit better. They seem to have been going over the ship with a fine toothed comb by that stage, adjusting the front of the secondary hull, the angle of the neck, and the impulse detailing. As we all know, that process was ongoing, extending into the first and second pilot and beyond. In fact, I think you could consider even the Phase 2 reworking to in some ways be Jefferies still tinkering with his design, trying to get everything to fit better inside and out.
Getting back to the questions of whether Franz Joseph had anything to contribute as far as laying out a logical, feasible means for the warp nacelles to function, and whether they have anything to tell us about the thinking in the TOS era, I'll only say the following: If you allow him the fact that he was being interviewed, and that the interviewer might not have had a clue what he was talking about, then the description he gives -- at one point of energy being drawn through a system, at another point of energy being drawn around a ship -- comes off as having the inexact nature of quoted speech, instead of poorly thought-out writing. Quite in contrast to what was invented for the TNG tech manual, the idea FJ puts forward holds some water, and once you get through the inexact speech, bears some similarity to what Jesco von Puttkamer says later when he is developing an explanation of warp drive for Phase 2. And as we all know, von Puttkamer's explanation seems to have inspired no less than Miguel Alcubierre to consider whether what was being described was mathematically possible.
CRA says that "matter+antimatter=ginormous kaboom, the energy of which is used to warp space." My understanding is that a M/AM explosion involving anything other than truly enormous amounts of each wouldn't produce nearly the kind of power that current thinking indicates would be needed to warp spacetime -- Alcubierre thought it would take more energy than existed in the universe, and physicist Chris Van Den Broeck finally determined that something like three solar masses worth of energy would be needed to accomplish anything like what Alcubierre had described. But even if you had those three solar masses, warping space isn't enough -- you need to control what you create and keep it from collapsing. So gravity manipulation is involved -- just the sort of thing that FJ seems to be talking about, if you squint and allow him his own colloquial way of describing things.
He's describing a system that would use a M/AM explosion to produce enough energy to create some kind of gravity source. "In theory you would need only a very, very tiny antimatter-starting chamber to start the whole mechanism pulling in energy," he says. "The engine fronts are the source in which the entire energy of the universe in front is taken in..." You'd think he's saying something like a big space jet, until you read further:
It's 1976, and he's describing something very similar to what von Puttkamer will set out for Roddenberry a few years later, and what Alcubierre and others have more recently given some mathematical basis. In fact, by telling us the bubble would be "infinitesimally tiny" he is even predicting the refinements to Alcubierre by Van Den Broeck, who adjusted the external geometry of the bubble to lower the energy requirements. I don't know if he had a clue what he was saying, but in 2008, it makes some sense. You have to overlook the clumsy description of passing "the energy of the universe through your system" and read beyond to where he qualifies what he's just said -- "Passing it about you, in other words." He even describes the resulting bubble of spacetime that would be created. He just doesn't invoke the ideas of gravity and antigravity, or negative energy, things are now understood as being necessary to create the kind of effectively FTL drive that doesn't violate relativity's prohibitions.
It's important to remember that Franz Joseph talked directly to Matt Jefferies. He forms an interesting link in a chain between the Rand-researched underpinnings of TOS and what was done by Jesco von Puttkamer for Phase 2 and TMP. CRA says he doesn't like what FJ said, and others point out that FJ doesn't mesh with the TNG-TM explanation, and that's fine. But he wasn't some kind of country bumpkin. Quite the opposite -- those that ignore him and insist he didn't know what he was talking about aren't bothering to figure out just how much he did know, and just how sound some of his ideas were. For someone like Shaw that is limiting himself to TOS-era material, FJ's explanations are right in line with what was later developed for Phase 2. And if the Phase 2 material is fine, so is FJ's explanation of warp drive -- once it is interpreted through von Puttkamer.
Getting back to the questions of whether Franz Joseph had anything to contribute as far as laying out a logical, feasible means for the warp nacelles to function, and whether they have anything to tell us about the thinking in the TOS era, I'll only say the following: If you allow him the fact that he was being interviewed, and that the interviewer might not have had a clue what he was talking about, then the description he gives -- at one point of energy being drawn through a system, at another point of energy being drawn around a ship -- comes off as having the inexact nature of quoted speech, instead of poorly thought-out writing. Quite in contrast to what was invented for the TNG tech manual, the idea FJ puts forward holds some water, and once you get through the inexact speech, bears some similarity to what Jesco von Puttkamer says later when he is developing an explanation of warp drive for Phase 2. And as we all know, von Puttkamer's explanation seems to have inspired no less than Miguel Alcubierre to consider whether what was being described was mathematically possible.
CRA says that "matter+antimatter=ginormous kaboom, the energy of which is used to warp space." My understanding is that a M/AM explosion involving anything other than truly enormous amounts of each wouldn't produce nearly the kind of power that current thinking indicates would be needed to warp spacetime -- Alcubierre thought it would take more energy than existed in the universe, and physicist Chris Van Den Broeck finally determined that something like three solar masses worth of energy would be needed to accomplish anything like what Alcubierre had described. But even if you had those three solar masses, warping space isn't enough -- you need to control what you create and keep it from collapsing. So gravity manipulation is involved -- just the sort of thing that FJ seems to be talking about, if you squint and allow him his own colloquial way of describing things.
He's describing a system that would use a M/AM explosion to produce enough energy to create some kind of gravity source. "In theory you would need only a very, very tiny antimatter-starting chamber to start the whole mechanism pulling in energy," he says. "The engine fronts are the source in which the entire energy of the universe in front is taken in..." You'd think he's saying something like a big space jet, until you read further:
It's 1976, and he's describing something very similar to what von Puttkamer will set out for Roddenberry a few years later, and what Alcubierre and others have more recently given some mathematical basis. In fact, by telling us the bubble would be "infinitesimally tiny" he is even predicting the refinements to Alcubierre by Van Den Broeck, who adjusted the external geometry of the bubble to lower the energy requirements. I don't know if he had a clue what he was saying, but in 2008, it makes some sense. You have to overlook the clumsy description of passing "the energy of the universe through your system" and read beyond to where he qualifies what he's just said -- "Passing it about you, in other words." He even describes the resulting bubble of spacetime that would be created. He just doesn't invoke the ideas of gravity and antigravity, or negative energy, things are now understood as being necessary to create the kind of effectively FTL drive that doesn't violate relativity's prohibitions.
It's important to remember that Franz Joseph talked directly to Matt Jefferies. He forms an interesting link in a chain between the Rand-researched underpinnings of TOS and what was done by Jesco von Puttkamer for Phase 2 and TMP. CRA says he doesn't like what FJ said, and others point out that FJ doesn't mesh with the TNG-TM explanation, and that's fine. But he wasn't some kind of country bumpkin. Quite the opposite -- those that ignore him and insist he didn't know what he was talking about aren't bothering to figure out just how much he did know, and just how sound some of his ideas were. For someone like Shaw that is limiting himself to TOS-era material, FJ's explanations are right in line with what was later developed for Phase 2. And if the Phase 2 material is fine, so is FJ's explanation of warp drive -- once it is interpreted through von Puttkamer.
1) We don't know how in-depth any discussions were between FJ and MJ.
2) It's debatable just how knowledgeable Jefferies was on the theory of warp drive (he hadn't even heard of it when Roddenberry hired him).
3) Just as you don't want to risk an embolism trying to rationalize stuff like lightsabers and Superman's powers with real world science, don't confuse real world physics with Star Trek physics. An ounce of Star Trek antimatter blew away half the atmosphere of a Class M planet. When dealing with Star Trek technology, it's important to deal, first and foremost, with Star Trek's rules of physics, and only consulting the real world when the Star Trek record is lacking.
2) It's debatable just how knowledgeable Jefferies was on the theory of warp drive (he hadn't even heard of it when Roddenberry hired him).
3) Just as you don't want to risk an embolism trying to rationalize stuff like lightsabers and Superman's powers with real world science, don't confuse real world physics with Star Trek physics. An ounce of Star Trek antimatter blew away half the atmosphere of a Class M planet. When dealing with Star Trek technology, it's important to deal, first and foremost, with Star Trek's rules of physics, and only consulting the real world when the Star Trek record is lacking.
You're right, Robert. But if you limit yourself to just TOS, the Star Trek record is lacking. They purposely avoided tying any of this stuff down, and tried to maintain a sense of magic. We're talking about what might have been tied down behind the scenes. It's only when we got hold of it that any tying down among fans occurred. More recent official publications revealing behind the scenes thinking -- like the TNG-TM -- and the resultant dependency on canon has limited that kind of "filling in the blanks" among the latest generations of fans.
But, hey... don't worry. Trekkies are as free to ignore the conclusions of physicists as they are the conclusions of anyone else.
Just trying to remind folks of the ground rules of the sandbox in which they are playing.
If we were all at MIT designing a real starship, we wouldn't have any choice but to deal with real physics and the real yield of a matter/antimatter reactor.
If we were plotting the next issue of Iron Man, we'd have all the previous suits of armor to draw upon, and their capabilities, as well as other precedents in the Marvel Universe.
If we had to figure out what happens when Superman encounters another shade of kryptonite, we'd have to first determine what the current rules are and how many varieties are around and which ones have been relegated to the pre-Crisis universe.
This is Star Trek, with its own set of physical rules and established technical capabilities and thresholds of credibility. Tread carefully when venturing outside the lines.
If we were all at MIT designing a real starship, we wouldn't have any choice but to deal with real physics and the real yield of a matter/antimatter reactor.
If we were plotting the next issue of Iron Man, we'd have all the previous suits of armor to draw upon, and their capabilities, as well as other precedents in the Marvel Universe.
If we had to figure out what happens when Superman encounters another shade of kryptonite, we'd have to first determine what the current rules are and how many varieties are around and which ones have been relegated to the pre-Crisis universe.
This is Star Trek, with its own set of physical rules and established technical capabilities and thresholds of credibility. Tread carefully when venturing outside the lines.
Well, maybe we should partition the sandbox a little more then...
See, I classify things like Iron Man, Superman and Star Wars as fantasy. As such their value pretty much ends when whatever story is being told is over. I'll watch or read Superman and I'll watch Star Wars, but that is the absolute limit of the amount of effort I'll extend towards anything that falls into the realm of fantasy.
Star Trek is science fiction. And while I am happy to pass time enjoying any given dramatic presentation of Star Trek, I'm also happy to spend years in school and putting myself thousands of dollars into debt studying science based on the inspiration of Star Trek. And I've been happy to spend hundreds of hours researching aspects of Star Trek and sharing my findings with others.
I'm interested in Star Trek as inspirational science fiction and I'm very happy to find others who are willing to expend the energy in actually thinking about what could be when projecting forward from our understanding of science today. TOS (more than any other Star Trek) worked not to trip itself up by introducing fantasy elements into itself and it lends itself nicely to different interpretations of what was happening even as our understanding of science has evolved in the intervening years since the show first aired.
If you equate Star Trek with Iron Man and Superman then I'm not sure why you would expend any effort towards technical endeavors. I do because the show holds up exceptionally well to technical scrutiny and that for many people this aspect of Star Trek inspires them to take other elements a step further in trying to actually make what they see a reality.
In my eyes the only fantasy aspect of Star Trek is the alien races. Otherwise, it is the benchmark by which all other science fiction is measured against. And as I don't watch any other science fiction (or fantasy) series with any regularity, I'd have to say nothing since Star Trek has quite measured up to it.
The fact that I'm motivated to work on this project given the vast amounts of real world mathematics and physics knowledge that I have should speak volumes about how well made Star Trek is (specially TOS). And the biggest mistake made by later Star Trek series (and why my interest in them has fallen off over the years) is their attempt to do exactly the type of fantasy science that you seem to see in all of Star Trek. By not trying to over explain everything (or explain many things at all), TOS left the science of the show open to future interpretation rather than linking it to pseudoscience or dateable technobabble. The more real world mathematics and physics I learn, the more I'm pushed back towards TOS and away from the other parts of Star Trek for anything other than a mindless pass time of watching TV.
Now, while I may be using the black box analogy in place of attempts at applying real science in my plans, I can guarantee that I do think about what might be involved in how those aspects work. And as long as no one expects me to include either my ideas or the ideas of others put forward here, I don't see what there is a problem discussing this stuff. After all, it is understood that other well most likely use what I'm putting forward here on their own projects and I highly doubt that other people will restrict themselves in the same way I am on my project.
So in this sandbox the rules should be considered that what toys you bring are brought to share, and if you don't want to play with someone else's toys you don't have to. But not wanting to play with certain toys is not a good reason to drive them out of the sandbox.
... where the sandbox in that last paragraph is this thread and the toys are ideas and concepts of others expressed here (just in case that started to get a little too abstract
).
See, I classify things like Iron Man, Superman and Star Wars as fantasy. As such their value pretty much ends when whatever story is being told is over. I'll watch or read Superman and I'll watch Star Wars, but that is the absolute limit of the amount of effort I'll extend towards anything that falls into the realm of fantasy.
Star Trek is science fiction. And while I am happy to pass time enjoying any given dramatic presentation of Star Trek, I'm also happy to spend years in school and putting myself thousands of dollars into debt studying science based on the inspiration of Star Trek. And I've been happy to spend hundreds of hours researching aspects of Star Trek and sharing my findings with others.
I'm interested in Star Trek as inspirational science fiction and I'm very happy to find others who are willing to expend the energy in actually thinking about what could be when projecting forward from our understanding of science today. TOS (more than any other Star Trek) worked not to trip itself up by introducing fantasy elements into itself and it lends itself nicely to different interpretations of what was happening even as our understanding of science has evolved in the intervening years since the show first aired.
If you equate Star Trek with Iron Man and Superman then I'm not sure why you would expend any effort towards technical endeavors. I do because the show holds up exceptionally well to technical scrutiny and that for many people this aspect of Star Trek inspires them to take other elements a step further in trying to actually make what they see a reality.
In my eyes the only fantasy aspect of Star Trek is the alien races. Otherwise, it is the benchmark by which all other science fiction is measured against. And as I don't watch any other science fiction (or fantasy) series with any regularity, I'd have to say nothing since Star Trek has quite measured up to it.
The fact that I'm motivated to work on this project given the vast amounts of real world mathematics and physics knowledge that I have should speak volumes about how well made Star Trek is (specially TOS). And the biggest mistake made by later Star Trek series (and why my interest in them has fallen off over the years) is their attempt to do exactly the type of fantasy science that you seem to see in all of Star Trek. By not trying to over explain everything (or explain many things at all), TOS left the science of the show open to future interpretation rather than linking it to pseudoscience or dateable technobabble. The more real world mathematics and physics I learn, the more I'm pushed back towards TOS and away from the other parts of Star Trek for anything other than a mindless pass time of watching TV.
Now, while I may be using the black box analogy in place of attempts at applying real science in my plans, I can guarantee that I do think about what might be involved in how those aspects work. And as long as no one expects me to include either my ideas or the ideas of others put forward here, I don't see what there is a problem discussing this stuff. After all, it is understood that other well most likely use what I'm putting forward here on their own projects and I highly doubt that other people will restrict themselves in the same way I am on my project.
So in this sandbox the rules should be considered that what toys you bring are brought to share, and if you don't want to play with someone else's toys you don't have to. But not wanting to play with certain toys is not a good reason to drive them out of the sandbox.
... where the sandbox in that last paragraph is this thread and the toys are ideas and concepts of others expressed here (just in case that started to get a little too abstract
).
Both Aridas and CRA make valid points.
Some assertions Roddenberry made, especially in the TNG-era, rubbed people the wrong way. One of the Roddenberryan assertions that FJ's 1975 Star Fleet Tecnical Manual as being apocryphal proved to be very controversial. Many people, myself included, think Roddenberry went too far. Clever how FJ took Kirk's "only twelve like it in the fleet", and turned it around to show how the Federation could have a substantial armada of starships in space. FJ also had the insight and forsight to put forth the idea of starship classes with subclasses, which fans over the years have used to suggest how starship technology evolves over time. This seemed to dovetail nicely into the refit story seen in TMP, and explain how the Enterprise on earlier missions appeared visibly different.
That having been said, FJ's Tech Manual contained deviations from TOS; always looked to me like he based it on reruns from the years 1-2 of TOS, but forgot the third. (The ill-fated Starship Defiant is not even mentioned in the Constitution-class ship list.)
Some assertions Roddenberry made, especially in the TNG-era, rubbed people the wrong way. One of the Roddenberryan assertions that FJ's 1975 Star Fleet Tecnical Manual as being apocryphal proved to be very controversial. Many people, myself included, think Roddenberry went too far. Clever how FJ took Kirk's "only twelve like it in the fleet", and turned it around to show how the Federation could have a substantial armada of starships in space. FJ also had the insight and forsight to put forth the idea of starship classes with subclasses, which fans over the years have used to suggest how starship technology evolves over time. This seemed to dovetail nicely into the refit story seen in TMP, and explain how the Enterprise on earlier missions appeared visibly different.
That having been said, FJ's Tech Manual contained deviations from TOS; always looked to me like he based it on reruns from the years 1-2 of TOS, but forgot the third. (The ill-fated Starship Defiant is not even mentioned in the Constitution-class ship list.)
Yes, but above and beyond the validity of their individual points, I think it is extremely important that they both (as well as others) feel free to continue to make them.
And, that is a worthy endeavor. Not only for personal but professional reasons and enjoyment. This is what true Trek fandom was all about.
And one of the reasons I am actively following this thread.
Thank you for the effort, it is not going unrecognized.
Your use of only existing TOS elements (actual set plans etc.) without feeling the need to flesh things out wholly just because you could is truly unique - even though I knew others would/will have that inclination to fill every space possible. I even applauded, pages ago, the use of the hull diagram schematic since it was an original element that I had not seen used in such a way before with any validity. Kudos again.
In earlier posts of this thread I lightly mocked with some subtlety fanon explanations derived from technobabble and later sources of fanon turned canon (and not!) which had been offered by others playing in your sandbox, which I had hoped served to underscore how truly unique your approach is.
Derailment by shoehorning and offered/advised adherence to elements not applicable as stated in your "Mission Statement" bothered me as a fan of not only this project, but of Trek itself - mostly I just remain silent on the issue of fanon/canon wars.
I guess that depends on if the toys are broken or not... but not my project.
Some of the ideas were inspired, such as the engineering section with two control rooms and ditching the fanon turboshaft tubing routes. Some ideas offered, not so much on inspiration but repetition of fanon/canonfan ideas.
I enjoy discussing Trek, and examining serious creative efforts, artistic and otherwise. Some may debate the merits of these pass-times, but endlessly arguing over mindless minutiae is beyond tedious and above my threshold of interest as a fan. I consider this a serious effort on your part.
Thank you again for your time and effort.
One of the biggest mistakes is to confuse Star Trek with hard science fiction. It's certainly had stories that sometimes have a harder science fiction edge than other, certainly a lot harder than its contemporaries (I'll match "Spock's Brain" up against "The Great Vegetable Rebellion" any time), but the truth of the matter is that Star Trek is basically an intelligently written and produced space opera. Enough scientific consistency to be taken seriously and not embarrass itself, but not so dry as to turn into a NASA documentary.
As has been pointed out, Roddenberry made a major point of not overexplaining the technology, mainly for believability purposes (the oft cited example of how Joe Friday doesn't go into detailed explanations of how his .38 service revolver works, so Kirk shouldn't go into detail of how his phaser works, it just does, we see it work, and it's on to the next issue), but also to avoid writing themselves into a corner (why they dropped the idea of laser sidearms; they were already getting some grief from their research folks about how lasers don't work like that).
As such, I don't feel the need to poke into the tech much further than the writers did, other than to draw in a certain level of consistency with other Star Trek incarnations (remember, the original intent of my plans was to be published by Pocket Books), but since Messrs Okuda, Sternbach, et al, started by looking back at what was presented in Star Trek and came to roughly the same conclusions I did, I feel pretty comfortable with my approach. At the very least, I'm in pretty well credentialed company.
As has been pointed out, Roddenberry made a major point of not overexplaining the technology, mainly for believability purposes (the oft cited example of how Joe Friday doesn't go into detailed explanations of how his .38 service revolver works, so Kirk shouldn't go into detail of how his phaser works, it just does, we see it work, and it's on to the next issue), but also to avoid writing themselves into a corner (why they dropped the idea of laser sidearms; they were already getting some grief from their research folks about how lasers don't work like that).
As such, I don't feel the need to poke into the tech much further than the writers did, other than to draw in a certain level of consistency with other Star Trek incarnations (remember, the original intent of my plans was to be published by Pocket Books), but since Messrs Okuda, Sternbach, et al, started by looking back at what was presented in Star Trek and came to roughly the same conclusions I did, I feel pretty comfortable with my approach. At the very least, I'm in pretty well credentialed company.
My preference is and always has been for laying a plausible scientific foundation that is used by writers and editors to set the bounds of what is possible and impossible, but does not become a feature of the story. If I am consulting on a docudrama about the battle between the Monitor and Merrimac, I'll provide the pertinent background. If I am consulting on a science fiction project, I'll help create a believable background. In the one case the facts are there to discern, in the other there is a world to build. The only question is, what will inform the building of that world? Is it the science that describes reality, or some pseudoscience? If I'm trying to create a reality, doesn't it make sense to rely on the tools that describe... reality?
I strongly believe a successful science fiction is first story, and second a richly realized vision of the future. The first is more important than the second, but the second is very important and yet happens far, far too infrequently.
I strongly believe a successful science fiction is first story, and second a richly realized vision of the future. The first is more important than the second, but the second is very important and yet happens far, far too infrequently.
Is it just me or did this deckplans thread turn into a phisophical discussion on Star Treks status as science fiction?
I'm sorry, but I'm just anxious to see some more of the great work being done here.
I'm sorry, but I'm just anxious to see some more of the great work being done here.
Sorry about that... I should be able to start investing time on this again by weeks end.
My two major short term goals are (1) to have clean drawings, all scaled, of the major set elements (including those of sets I don't have direct plans to work from) and (2) a rough placement of most known or assumed areas with the general layout so that we can discuss placement of parts that seem to have no specific reference to their location (like the transporter room/section).
The main reason I digressed on the technical stuff was that one of the things I can't get enough of is seeing tons of different takes on the Enterprise, and aside from this or that different technical rational for things, they are all intrinsically valuable because of their different views. Variety is the spice of life.
And while my work is best described by U.S.S. Republic's post, I want it to be known that I really enjoy the works of both Aridas and CRA (which is something that I don't say nearly enough considering how infrequently I post around the forum).But yeah, I hope to be back on track soon.
Beats the hell out of the typical Star Trek vs. Star Wars discussions, especially those populated by the less-housebroken Star Wars fans.
This link was posted in another thread and it made me wonder if the signage could mean that the turbo shaft network doesn't reach this far aft and that access from the hanger deck up to the observation decks and the decks below is through vertical only elevators?
I forget how far back they turboshafts go on Shaw's plans to date so I'm not sure how much impact this would have.
Of course "elevators" could just as easily refer to the turbos, but it might be worth thinking about.
I forget how far back they turboshafts go on Shaw's plans to date so I'm not sure how much impact this would have.
Of course "elevators" could just as easily refer to the turbos, but it might be worth thinking about.
I think those are just dedicated elevators for going from the hangar deck to the observation decks, but while not readable on the show, they ARE features that Shaw might want to consider for his plans.
My guess, based on the show, is that no lift go farther aft than a short distance forward of the hangar's fore wall.
- Status
