• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Andy Probert releases prelim plans for USS Ambassador kit!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Andy Probert releases prelim plans for USS Ambassador ki

Timo said:
:lol:

To stir the canon soup, we

a) don't know that the ships on Picard's wall are supposed to be Enterprises (indeed, three of them are very poor portrayals of ships of that name in the canon universe, while all have lots of detail and seem to realistically portray whatever they are intended to portray)
>SNIKT!<
With respects, I think it's pretty obvious what the production team was aiming for with that wall the first two seasons of TNG. As mentioned above, it was a "history wall", meant to convey what the previous UFP StarFleet ships named Enterprise looked like. The only wiggle room I see is what Mr. Probert mentions as "artistic interpretation" of the ships themselves - they're art work meant to represent what those previous ships looked like. If they don't look exactly like one of the ships that proceeded the E-D, that's because they're not models, but art.

Other than that, I again assert that they were pretty obviously meant to be the previous UFP StarFleet ships named Enterprise.

You could RETCON the reason that the NX-01 isn't on the wall is because Archers Enterprise wasn't a part of the United Federation of Planets StarFleet.
 
Re: Andy Probert releases prelim plans for USS Ambassador ki

Probert said:Okay, guys, let's take a breather.

What we're all looking at is the realization of an unused "CONCEPT" for my little line of 'Concept Kit' models; nothing more, nothing less. I'm pleased that many of you seem to like it (so far) and want to incorporate it into Trekdum, but Rick's ship is canon as the Enterprise-C. Not remembering much of "Yesterday's Enterprise", I don't recall if it is actually referred to as an 'Ambassador Class' ship in the show. Nevertheless, my design was, as everyone knows, the originally intended design of Starship in use between the eras of Enterprise-B & D. The "History Wall" clearly defined that, regardless of the sculptor's less than accurate depictions, or the post Roddenberry producers' less than adequate appreciation or comprehension of continuity.

Once I get this ª¶&#ªø@+#; dorsal finished, I'll be continuing the process into that elusive engineering hull.

Meanwhile,... thanks for the support.

Andrew-
Ah, c'mon, Andrew... we're all having fun here! And there ya go, raining on our cumulative parade! :evil:

The fact is, we all come here for "debate" every bit as much as we do to check out cool stuff. Post something... ANYTHING... on here, and it's going to get critiqued, discussed, even insulted. And if we didn't want that, we wouldn't bother to post. It's half the fun. :thumbsup:

Everybody'd diggin' where you're coming from on this. Yeah, we all "get it." We know none of this is real. (Anybody here wanna argue with that one???)

But here on the TrekBBS, and IN PARTICULAR in the "Treknology" forum, we spend our time quibbling over how impulse drive could "really" work, what warp factor scales "really" are, how phasers "really" work, and so forth. We try to figure out how to make the fantasy work, in other words.

In the "art" forum, on the other hand, you'd be getting a whole 'nother take on things... folks would be complaining about style... about the color of panel J-14-HQE-74G being just the wrong shade of puce... but again, the debate would rage on.

You should be happy that the reaction, so far, to your work has been just so overwhelmingly positive. (No great surprise there from MY perspective, but then again, you and M.J. are the two Trek design guys whose work I've always really admired as being technically sound... albeit pure fantasy!)

We're having fun... that's the whole point of the board, I think... and though I know this is also a matter of some minimal revenue generation for you, too, I think we all know that you're doing this for fun as much as for any other reason... right?

If I were in your shoes, I'd just be sitting back and basking in the glow of all the positive attention. :D
 
Re: Andy Probert releases prelim plans for USS Ambassador ki

The first time I saw the term "Ambassador Class" in connection with the Enterprise-C was in a letter I got from Richard Arnold, in response to my asking the obvious question, "what class was the Enterprise-C?"

This was around the time of TNG's first season hiatus.
 
Re: Andy Probert releases prelim plans for USS Ambassador ki

Cary L. Brown said:
Probert said:Okay, guys, let's take a breather.

Ah, c'mon, Andrew... we're all having fun here! And there ya go, raining on our cumulative parade!
Gee, guys, I really didn't mean to do that.

I understand that your 'debates' are all in good fun (generally) and also serve as a great way to keep the mind(s) sharp. As acknowledged before, I do appreciate the unexpectedly enthusiastic reactions to my WIP web-postings, and am flattered by the complementary & supportive comments.

But here on the TrekBBS, and IN PARTICULAR in the "Treknology" forum, we spend our time quibbling over how impulse drive could "really" work, what warp factor scales "really" are, how phasers "really" work, and so forth. We try to figure out how to make the fantasy work, in other words.

Okay then, while you're waiting for my next Ambassador update, let me introduce you to a new Federation 'PT-Boat'...
Fed-Fighter

Probably good for a different thread,... this is an early concept model that will be refined for it's final version. Intended as a companion to my upcoming K-Fighter, both in 1:48 scale, it may be our next offering,... or not.

Have fun,
Andrew-
 
Re: Andy Probert releases prelim plans for USS Ambassador ki

Heh. I'm reminded of a quote from your own site, Andrew, about your work on TMP:
"No one goes to a movie with a slide rule in his hand!"


He don't know us vewerry well, do he?
:D
 
Re: Andy Probert releases prelim plans for USS Ambassador ki

I'd like to get an estimate of deck pitch. How many meters from the surface of one deck to the next in this ship or Federation starships in general? What's a reasonable range, at least? An answer from Andy or Rick would be nice.
 
Re: Andy Probert releases prelim plans for USS Ambassador ki

LCARS 24 said:
I'd like to get an estimate of deck pitch. How many meters from the surface of one deck to the next in this ship or Federation starships in general? What's a reasonable range, at least? An answer from Andy or Rick would be nice.

Are you talking just the "habitable" spaces, or including structural floor/ceilings and crawl spaces and duct work as well? :vulcan:
 
Re: Andy Probert releases prelim plans for USS Ambassador ki

Habitable space. The problem is that there are three guys on another forum claiming to be experts and all agreeing that Federation starships have ceiling height of 8 feet, each with a ceiling 3 inches thick that serves as the floor of the habitable deck above, denying the existance of any structure or space at all between. The cutaway of the Ent-C I did has the deck lines scaled 4.3 meters apart, assuming ample space between ceiling and habitable deck above.
 
Re: Andy Probert releases prelim plans for USS Ambassador ki

Matt Jefferies' own cross section has, IIRC, an average 10 foot deck height with one foot interstices.
 
Re: Andy Probert releases prelim plans for USS Ambassador ki

aridas sofia said:
Matt Jefferies' own cross section has, IIRC, an average 10 foot deck height with one foot interstices.

See, I always thought that was too high. It wastes a lot of space when you factor in that that volume serves no real purpos and yet has to be filled with atmo...


I always felt that 8' was a better hight choice. Tall enough to allow work to be done, and to account for taller humans/species, but not so tall as to be wasteful. Now on some decks, the hight would be taller, but that would mostly be engineering spaces, Cargo deck areas, and such.

As for the space in between each deck, your guess is as good as mine.
 
Re: Andy Probert releases prelim plans for USS Ambassador ki

hutt359 said:
aridas sofia said:
Matt Jefferies' own cross section has, IIRC, an average 10 foot deck height with one foot interstices.

See, I always thought that was too high. It wastes a lot of space when you factor in that that volume serves no real purpos and yet has to be filled with atmo...


I always felt that 8' was a better hight choice. Tall enough to allow work to be done, and to account for taller humans/species, but not so tall as to be wasteful. Now on some decks, the hight would be taller, but that would mostly be engineering spaces, Cargo deck areas, and such.

As for the space in between each deck, your guess is as good as mine.
There are a couple of things to keep in mind here.

First, I think M.J. was pretty much spot-on for the floor-to-floor distances. 11' total. So I tend to stick with that one.

Now, we know the ceiling height above the floor tended to be a bit "taller" than we'd normally see. But that was driven at least as much by filming requirements as by any technical "ship design" requirement.

I tend to assume that in the corridors, they don't have a "suspended ceiling" and we're actually seeing structural frame members on the ceilings in there (covered with some funky dress-up panels of course). If I were "redoing" that ship, I'd probably beef up the ceiling cross-members in the hallway a bit, and show a few pipes and conduits crossing through that region, but keep it pretty much as we see it.

In cabins, the ceiling height would be lower, though... somewhere between 8' and 9', most likely. 2' to 3' interstitial space, you've have both structural mechanics (frame members, tensile stringers, etc etc) and support equipment (gravity generation, life support hardware, plumbing and wiring, etc).

There is a second thing to consider, however... and that's human psychology. In particular claustrophobia concerns. The closest known information re: this comes from our space station crews and from submarine crews.

Sub crews are in tight quarters... but every so often they can surface and go up top. They also are only on maneuvers for a relatively short time, followed by MANDATORY shore-duty. This is mandatory, because it's pretty well established that putting people inside of cramped spaces for long periods results in people going whacko (speaking technically, ya see...). ;)

Given that the crew of the Trek ships can't go outside whenever they start to go stir-crazy... they have a choice... a "holodeck" type thing (even if it's just VR glasses, something we could do today!) or making the spaces large enough to reduce the claustrophobia issue.

You'd also need to go for colors that would fulfill the psychological needs of the crew. No "all metal and gray walls." You'd need a lot more color than that... and in that regards, TOS was actually far more believable than ENT (for example) was. The use of "sky blue" for wall paint, for instance... combined with "real daylight" light sources... might prove CRUCIAL to keeping earth-born humans from losing it over time.

See, I think that the TOS folks "got it RIGHT" far better than much of the latter-day Trek has. Ya've either gotta have big honkin' on-ship spaces (say, a two-story "rec deck") or individual spaces that are a bit less claustrophobic. Or you just assume your crew will be gnawing their own tongues within a few months... ;)
 
Re: Andy Probert releases prelim plans for USS Ambassador ki

Cary L. Brown said:
hutt359 said:
aridas sofia said:
Matt Jefferies' own cross section has, IIRC, an average 10 foot deck height with one foot interstices.

See, I always thought that was too high. It wastes a lot of space when you factor in that that volume serves no real purpos and yet has to be filled with atmo...


I always felt that 8' was a better hight choice. Tall enough to allow work to be done, and to account for taller humans/species, but not so tall as to be wasteful. Now on some decks, the hight would be taller, but that would mostly be engineering spaces, Cargo deck areas, and such.

As for the space in between each deck, your guess is as good as mine.
There are a couple of things to keep in mind here.

First, I think M.J. was pretty much spot-on for the floor-to-floor distances. 11' total. So I tend to stick with that one.

Now, we know the ceiling height above the floor tended to be a bit "taller" than we'd normally see. But that was driven at least as much by filming requirements as by any technical "ship design" requirement.

I tend to assume that in the corridors, they don't have a "suspended ceiling" and we're actually seeing structural frame members on the ceilings in there (covered with some funky dress-up panels of course). If I were "redoing" that ship, I'd probably beef up the ceiling cross-members in the hallway a bit, and show a few pipes and conduits crossing through that region, but keep it pretty much as we see it.

In cabins, the ceiling height would be lower, though... somewhere between 8' and 9', most likely. 2' to 3' interstitial space, you've have both structural mechanics (frame members, tensile stringers, etc etc) and support equipment (gravity generation, life support hardware, plumbing and wiring, etc).

There is a second thing to consider, however... and that's human psychology. In particular claustrophobia concerns. The closest known information re: this comes from our space station crews and from submarine crews.

Sub crews are in tight quarters... but every so often they can surface and go up top. They also are only on maneuvers for a relatively short time, followed by MANDATORY shore-duty. This is mandatory, because it's pretty well established that putting people inside of cramped spaces for long periods results in people going whacko (speaking technically, ya see...). ;)

Given that the crew of the Trek ships can't go outside whenever they start to go stir-crazy... they have a choice... a "holodeck" type thing (even if it's just VR glasses, something we could do today!) or making the spaces large enough to reduce the claustrophobia issue.

You'd also need to go for colors that would fulfill the psychological needs of the crew. No "all metal and gray walls." You'd need a lot more color than that... and in that regards, TOS was actually far more believable than ENT (for example) was. The use of "sky blue" for wall paint, for instance... combined with "real daylight" light sources... might prove CRUCIAL to keeping earth-born humans from losing it over time.

See, I think that the TOS folks "got it RIGHT" far better than much of the latter-day Trek has. Ya've either gotta have big honkin' on-ship spaces (say, a two-story "rec deck") or individual spaces that are a bit less claustrophobic. Or you just assume your crew will be gnawing their own tongues within a few months... ;)

Ok, I like everything you said. But...


There's always a but isn't there? :lol:

But, I think this would be a great point of divergence between the ships and crews of Exploratory command ships, with their five year missions and deep space exploration, and Tactical Command ships, which serve short duration patrols and medium duration defense missions.

So, while the ships decked out for ExCom, would be like the Enterprise in TOS, the Ships and crews of TacCom/Tacfleet would be more like the movies and the modern Sub service.

At least, that's what I've been developing as the makeup of SF for my tech manual for my fan fiction idea...
 
Re: Andy Probert releases prelim plans for USS Ambassador ki

LCARS 24 said:
I'd like to get an estimate of deck pitch. How many meters from the surface of one deck to the next in this ship or Federation starships in general? What's a reasonable range, at least? An answer from Andy or Rick would be nice.
I've always planed my deck spacing to be 8 ft with a 2 ft 'tween-space. So 10 feet, deck-to-deck. Obviously, there are larger spaces to give the eyes a small interior vista every now & then.

Andrew-
 
Re: Andy Probert releases prelim plans for USS Ambassador ki

Cary L. Brown said:
There is a second thing to consider, however... and that's human psychology. In particular claustrophobia concerns. The closest known information re: this comes from our space station crews and from submarine crews.

Sub crews are in tight quarters... but every so often they can surface and go up top. They also are only on maneuvers for a relatively short time, followed by MANDATORY shore-duty. This is mandatory, because it's pretty well established that putting people inside of cramped spaces for long periods results in people going whacko (speaking technically, ya see...). ;)

Given that the crew of the Trek ships can't go outside whenever they start to go stir-crazy... they have a choice... a "holodeck" type thing (even if it's just VR glasses, something we could do today!) or making the spaces large enough to reduce the claustrophobia issue.

You'd also need to go for colors that would fulfill the psychological needs of the crew. No "all metal and gray walls." You'd need a lot more color than that... and in that regards, TOS was actually far more believable than ENT (for example) was. The use of "sky blue" for wall paint, for instance... combined with "real daylight" light sources... might prove CRUCIAL to keeping earth-born humans from losing it over time.

See, I think that the TOS folks "got it RIGHT" far better than much of the latter-day Trek has. Ya've either gotta have big honkin' on-ship spaces (say, a two-story "rec deck") or individual spaces that are a bit less claustrophobic. Or you just assume your crew will be gnawing their own tongues within a few months... ;)

This is why the interiors on the NX always bothered me a little. They were so dark and gloomy. Like you said: Bright colors = less crazy peoples. Even if you didn't go totally insane after 4 months in a cramped grey room, you wouldn't be mentally fit. Under those conditions it becomes hard to consentrate, and people make more mistakes. And as they say: "In space no one hears you make the mistake."

And although they had some yellow hazard strips here and there on the NX, I think having the exits & railings clearly marked in bold red is a good safety choice if say, the gravity failed and you were on emergengy lighting, you wouldn't get totally disorientated like you would in a room with grey walls, grey doors, grey railings, grey cieling, grey floor, grey consols, etc.

And tests have shown that ANY change in the work environment is healthy. Workers become more productive if you turn the lights up (or down) slightly in a factory, for example. So switching quarters on people is a good thing. Just don't walk into the wrong room! Nooooo!
 
Re: Andy Probert releases prelim plans for USS Ambassador ki

In the "Mars" series by Kim Stanley Robinson, not only did they have coloured and lit panels for the hallways of the ship, they CHANGED the colours with the seasons on Earth to keep things sane. I always imagined they'd do something like that on a starship, especially on Enterprise where they weren't doign a bad job at all in keeping track of the dates.

Of course, dark = gritty on television, and Enterprise was SUPPOSED to be gritty...

Mark
 
Re: Andy Probert releases prelim plans for USS Ambassador ki

When did "futuristic" become "filmed in old run down factories with low lighting?" I mean, that used to be "old and rundown" looking... and it's been a staple of cheap filmmaking for a century now!

It wasn't all THAT long ago that "futuristic" involved clean, well-lit, smooth stuff. Yes, Alien gave us a different take, but since then, everyone's just ripped off Alien. If it looks like it's filmed in a junkyard, it's the future! WHOO HOOOO....
 
Re: Andy Probert releases prelim plans for USS Ambassador ki

Cary L. Brown said:
When did "futuristic" become "filmed in old run down factories with low lighting?" I mean, that used to be "old and rundown" looking... and it's been a staple of cheap filmmaking for a century now!
I blame films like BLADERUNNER & ALIEN for starting that trend. They're made by directors who think their audiences are too stupid to "get" futuristic spatial design. I, for one, am tired of grease, steam, and toggle switches in STARSHIPS.

It wasn't all THAT long ago that "futuristic" involved clean, well-lit, smooth stuff. Yes, Alien gave us a different take, but since then, everyone's just ripped off Alien. If it looks like it's filmed in a junkyard, it's the future! WHOO HOOOO....
I say we go back to the intelligence of "2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY".

As for lighting, I had proposed, on TNG, that the lighting change with the day/night hours. They did try it on at least one episode, but.... :brickwall:

Andrew-
 
Re: Andy Probert releases prelim plans for USS Ambassador ki

Probert said:
Cary L. Brown said:
When did "futuristic" become "filmed in old run down factories with low lighting?" I mean, that used to be "old and rundown" looking... and it's been a staple of cheap filmmaking for a century now!
I blame films like BLADERUNNER & ALIEN for starting that trend. They're made by directors who think their audiences are too stupid to "get" futuristic spatial design. I, for one, am tired of grease, steam, and toggle switches in STARSHIPS.

It wasn't all THAT long ago that "futuristic" involved clean, well-lit, smooth stuff. Yes, Alien gave us a different take, but since then, everyone's just ripped off Alien. If it looks like it's filmed in a junkyard, it's the future! WHOO HOOOO....
I say we go back to the intelligence of "2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY".

As for lighting, I had proposed, on TNG, that the lighting change with the day/night hours. They did try it on at least one episode, but.... :brickwall:

Andrew-

Do you have a list somewhere of all your recommendations/ideas for the trek films and shows you worked on that were ignored/not used? I'd find it an interesting thing to read.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top