Defiant Deck Plans?

[Boris Skrbic]

First, you're mixing up MSDs of thoroughly-designed ships with those of haphazard designs. The reason MSDs of the Galaxy-class and the Intrepid-class are more consistent is that their artists had Andrew Probert's and Rick Sternbach's respective information to work with. Doug Drexler's (once again, not Mike Okuda's) MSD was drawn up based on no such information, as if it were a ship of the week.

Second, the external design doesn't contradict the MSD, because you have no proof that those are windows. You have a reasonable hypothesis, but no proof. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by unrestrained conjecture - the 170m figure would be consistent with about two decks in those "window" areas, and the model had been built long before the MSD was drawn up. The MSD would be 120m long or so.

And no, we cannot abandon the MSD, because it's onscreen. A lot. I rewatched seasons 3-7 and it appears over and over and over and over again, with many instances of closeups where I can count four decks and see the layout. Compared to that, the references to Deck 5 appear in three episodes, the text on the turbolift schematic is invisible, the VFX is all over the place. The MSD isn't gospel if there are clear inconsistencies and needed additions, but its core layout should be maintained in order to avoid contradicting the overall experience of the show.

 

[Saquist]

First, you're mixing up MSDs of thoroughly-designed ships with those of haphazard designs. The reason MSDs of the Galaxy-class and the Intrepid-class are more consistent is that their artists had Andrew Probert's and Rick Sternbach's respective information to work with. Doug Drexler's (once again, not Mike Okuda's) MSD was drawn up based on no such information, as if it were a ship of the week.

Even the Galaxy has the wrong deck arrangement represented on the MSD for Ten Forward. But it tells us there are 42 deck nonetheless.

Second, the external design doesn't contradict the MSD, because you have no proof that those are windows.

I don't need proof because that is a self evident determination. If we have to prove they are windows on one ship then we have to prove them windows on every ship and that is unreasonable. And all for the sake of wrong MSD. Why?

You have a reasonable hypothesis, but no proof. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by unrestrained conjecture -

Unrestrained conjecture is speculation with no factual boundaries. If you are going to assume they are not windows then you have to have factual evidence to go against the establish standard that they are windows.

So if the only reason to doubt the window are what they seem to be is because the internal deck arrangement does not match... the same deck arrangement that says that the ship only has 4 decks when we know other sources say 5 decks and six decks then the MSD is no longer a tenable source to doubt the window arrangement. It's very simple.

Every reasoning point must have a cause.
There are times for baseless conjecture but it's not for determining what is canon and what is not.
It's for deciding a new course with canon. And even the governed by reason.

the 170m figure would be consistent with about two decks in those "window" areas, and the model had been built long before the MSD was drawn up. The MSD would be 120m long or so.

No the 170 meter would be no where close to accommodating the the two decks the windows suggest.
That requires a 200 meter long Defiant. That size perfectly fits the DS9 Docking Ring we see with consistency. It also fits the opening scenes of Season 4. And fits when we see Defiant Glide just over the Lower Pylon just before going after Eddington. Every DS9 Defiant shot supports the Tech manual DS9 size in combination with a 200 meter Defiant. Such a ship would have 7 decks at 3.4 meters per deck.

Once we add other ships like Galaxy, DS9 Defiant combination it's impossible to maintain Galaxy's size and Defiants 200 meter size to fit the station's size and that's because the station was blown up to fit the Galaxy at those upper pylons.

Defiant with the Excelsior and DS9 also had Defiant as large as more than half the saucer which doesn't equate to the size against the Lakota and the Defiant fight. So essentially Defiant is likely shown in the correct proportion for the station but scaled down compared to other ships.

And no, we cannot abandon the MSD, because it's onscreen. A lot. I rewatched seasons 3-7 and it appears over and over and over and over again,

Which doesn't assuage the fact that it's wrong.
It may be undesirable as a fact but it is verified agaginst two other source. Reasonably we can't weigh the production cost with the repeated use as the "meant to be arrangement." If they didn't want to afford to fix it then it wasn't going to get fixed no matter how wrong it was. Precision isn''t the usual intent for TV production. It's merely passing the cursory inspection and that is all the standard I can attribute for it.

with many instances of closeups where I can count four decks and see the layout. Compared to that, the references to Deck 5 appear in three episodes, the text on the turbolift schematic is invisible, the VFX is all over the place. The MSD isn't gospel if there are clear inconsistencies and needed additions, but its core layout should be maintained in order to avoid contradicting the overall experience of the show.

And that's an important consideration but it's one for the sake of literalness that I disregard. As a drafter I deal with what IS not merely what is apparent. Precision requires it. And canon requires only that which appears on screen. Everything else is interpretation which as part of my job is to remove from the schematics. Interpretation is just not good enough. I'm going to construct the interior of the ship at some point in 3D and so far as I can tell I can't possibly use the 4 Deck Defiant.


That's why Alexander Richardson created a MSD with 6 decks. It appeals to canon and corrects the Canon MSD that has several problems.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It'd be helpful, of course, if we knew the size of the Defiant... or how many decks she actually had.

I drew a simple AUTOCAD scalings of the Galaxy, DS9 and Defiant. This is what I found.

a. It's impossible to fit all three vessels at their proper scale as seen on screen.

b. Galaxy would never fit properly in the upper pylons as we frequently see. It would be an extremely tight fit.

c. Defiant is never shown less than 1/10 the station's diameter. It's always around 200 meters.

d. In order for Defiant to fit between those docking latches it has to be larger than 170 meters.


The Variable that really keeps changing is the station's size. Defiant aswell is scaled up to as large as a Miranda class and as small as 100 meter or less like in First Contact.

Okuda's Deck plan is decidedly wrong. In order for the windows on the lower deck and on the deflector housing to be proper the ship must have 6 plus decks. There are also no turbo lifts on his plan.

If his deck plan was to be believed in the LCARS then shuttle is too large to fit through the modified opening where the tractor beam was. The torpedo tubes forward are barely big enough to to a huge size object

If you go by the DS9 Tech Manual the shuttle deck is somewhere in the Nacelles aswell as the aft torpedo launchers aswell not the bottom of the main hull. Nor would 3 people fit to those escape pods.

Clearly a new Deck plan has to be made that actually fits the external layout which is the only consistent feature of the ship.

Would this work better? (Caution: large image)

Frankly, I think it would. Certainly better than the 3-deck design, since at 8-decks the ship actually has a logical reason to have turbolifts.

 

[Bill Morris]

Still experimental, but here's a little more of what I had in mind:

http://lcars24.com/DEFD4.PNG

 

[Reverend]

I don't think there's any need to have paired ramscoops, even if you're going with this duel coil sets concept, just one slightly larger scoop should do it. Remember that a scoop's only real function is to collect stray hydrogen. From a technical standpoint it's function has nothing to do with the operation of the coils themselves.

Speaking of which, I'm not sure I buy the idea of the defiant using 4 sets of coils. For one I'm pretty sure the tech manual only showed a single set in each cowling (it's been a while, so I might be mistaken) and for another I never really took that old nacelle visibility rule as a hard technical limitation so much as a general aesthetic guide to how Starfleet ships should look. Aside from the fact that there are numerous ships that ignore it anyway, the Defiant is supposed to be an unconventional design in the first place, so all bets are off.

 

[Bill Morris]

Well, you know that Andy Probert said it was Gene Roddenberry that stipulated that, and Andy Probert tried to follow it, sometimes in unsual ways, such as with the D'Deridex class and the Ferengi Marauder. The Freedom class, as I mentioned, a schematic of which I posted, has the dual set of coils and Bussard collectors in a single housing, likely as a nod to that rule. The Nebula class doesn't quite have the 50% line of site between its inboard warp-field grilles, though.

There are also two examples, one of which I posted on the first page of this thread (which was used in DS9), the other of which people are recently complaining is suddenly gone (which lead to this thread in the first place) David Schmidt's deck plans, that show dual sets of warp coils each with a Bussard collector in front, although I do like the idea of just one larger Bussard collector per nacelle and will probably make it like that if I keep the double hardware.

Also, since those nacelles are only 2 degrees from being parallel to the centerline of the ship, I could perhaps deviate from precedent a little more and set the coils in there straight (along direction of flight) and only have the front of the Bussard collector angled.

 

[SicOne]

LCARS, aren't the nacelles more sharply angled than what you have shown in post #24? Also, beg pardon, but the "head" looks too small. I remember seeing an orthographic drawing of Defiant from the Star Trek Fact Files and thinking that the head looked too small from other shots I'd seen of the class.

Reverend was correct; there were one row of coils per nacelle in the DS9TM and not two. I mean, you can do whatever you want to the ship, it's your website (and an excellent one at that!) but IIRC the DS9TM shows four or five big-ass coils per nacelle...which does seem more in tune with the theory of D being a ship that relied more on raw power than warp flow dynamics incorporated in the hull shape to make her speed.

 

[SicOne]

And I didn't mean to start a civil war over the 120m vs 174m Defiant argument all over again. Folks, go with what you think best supports your own personal canon. You have that right.

 

[Saquist]

It'd be helpful, of course, if we knew the size of the Defiant... or how many decks she actually had.

I drew a simple AUTOCAD scalings of the Galaxy, DS9 and Defiant. This is what I found.

a. It's impossible to fit all three vessels at their proper scale as seen on screen.

b. Galaxy would never fit properly in the upper pylons as we frequently see. It would be an extremely tight fit.

c. Defiant is never shown less than 1/10 the station's diameter. It's always around 200 meters.

d. In order for Defiant to fit between those docking latches it has to be larger than 170 meters.


The Variable that really keeps changing is the station's size. Defiant aswell is scaled up to as large as a Miranda class and as small as 100 meter or less like in First Contact.

Okuda's Deck plan is decidedly wrong. In order for the windows on the lower deck and on the deflector housing to be proper the ship must have 6 plus decks. There are also no turbo lifts on his plan.

If his deck plan was to be believed in the LCARS then shuttle is too large to fit through the modified opening where the tractor beam was. The torpedo tubes forward are barely big enough to to a huge size object

If you go by the DS9 Tech Manual the shuttle deck is somewhere in the Nacelles aswell as the aft torpedo launchers aswell not the bottom of the main hull. Nor would 3 people fit to those escape pods.

Clearly a new Deck plan has to be made that actually fits the external layout which is the only consistent feature of the ship.

Would this work better? (Caution: large image)

Frankly, I think it would. Certainly better than the 3-deck design, since at 8-decks the ship actually has a logical reason to have turbolifts.

I talked with this same gentleman on the Star Trek Movie Forum when he posted this design. It's PERFECT. He gets all the Outlines correct through the ship profile with the original MSD does not. Note that he leaves off the landing gear and as you say it makes sense to actually have turbo lifts for 8 decks. Even the shuttle is the proper size.

LCARS, aren't the nacelles more sharply angled than what you have shown in post #24? Also, beg pardon, but the "head" looks too small. I remember seeing an orthographic drawing of Defiant from the Star Trek Fact Files and thinking that the head looked too small from other shots I'd seen of the class.

Reverend was correct; there were one row of coils per nacelle in the DS9TM and not two. I mean, you can do whatever you want to the ship, it's your website (and an excellent one at that!) but IIRC the DS9TM shows four or five big-ass coils per nacelle...which does seem more in tune with the theory of D being a ship that relied more on raw power than warp flow dynamics incorporated in the hull shape to make her speed.

From my research on Defiant yes the nacelles bite that angle a bit more than that and the deflector is tapered not straight like all the schematics show.


This is wrong.
http://ngdhstech.com/student/61870/images/defiant-schtop.jpg

This is right. (Deflector dorsal view)
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/scans/defiant1.htm

We can clearly see the taper from the top and bottom and the The Magazine Specs get alot of things wrong.

 

[Bill Morris]

This is right. (Deflector dorsal view)

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/scans/defiant1.htm

We can clearly see the taper from the top and bottom and the The Magazine Specs get alot of things wrong.

My outline is traced from the one you're calling right. They match exactly if resized.

 

[SonicRanger]

As noted, there is no law of physics prohibiting Starfleet from using irregular deck numbering on occassion.

In fact, there is canon proof of this: see TFF

 

[Saquist]

I'll post the image itself.

This is the actual model. I've been struggling to recreate this in CAD so I've scouped up every drawing I could on this ship, good bad and ugly. I created my top and bottom views from these drawing and my sketches of either lined up pretty well even though I drew them separately. I't definitely a arcing taper and not a straight taper at the side of the deflectors. It's not really a big deal untill you translate it into 3D.


I used the only top ortho I could find of the real Defiant for my analysis. The tail section directly aft of the nacelles also is either a gentle slope or angle but is not straight. The whole ship seems to graduate down from the front of the nacelles sort of like a wedge.




But by no means use my sketches as a definitive. I'm still trouble shooting the details as I go. I create 2D orthos first and then construct the 3D from them. But you can see in this pictures that the Lakota is rod straight as is the Defiant. THUS I was able to trace one side of the Defiant and mirror the other side and it lined up exactly to the picture which for me is proof enough that these angles are good.

CAD says the nacelles sides are angled at 9 degrees. or more preciely 8.52 degrees.


I suggest using the Strategic Designs Defiant top view on your site.
It agrees with absolutely everything I've discovered by doing this the hard way line by line analysis and scrutiny.
Frankly this guy puts the Star Trek Fact Files specs to shame.

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/sd-defiant.php

 

[Bill Morris]

Yes, you've closely matched the photo (bravo!), and so does David Schmidt's figure. I'll go with that shape, but I still don't want to get into 6 or 8 or 47 decks, although 4.7 might be okay.

And this is not just for my Web site. That's just a bonus. All these schematics are just content for one app of my software package, and many users prefer that I put more effort into programming rather than drawing pictures. I've already got 87 MSDs to include. Maybe that's enough. How many wallpaper images come with Windows?

And any Defiant deck plans I make certainly won't be as detailed David Schmidt's or those in the tech manual, since mine would have to fit on 800 x 600 screen displays.

 

[SonicRanger]

Keep in mind that, in addition to the model, there were at least two CGI models, one of which was pretty bad.

 

[Saquist]

Yes, you've closely matched the photo (bravo!), and so does David Schmidt's figure. I'll go with that shape, but I still don't want to get into 6 or 8 or 47 decks, although 4.7 might be okay.

I wouldn't expect you to go into the fan debate. That's a huge issue that may never be resolved in canon.

I'am usually okay with most of the things you do. There is always some artist interpretation to everything. Draftsmen are obscessively precise because it's a honed skill. But precision is often difficult to achieve and artistically it's often unnecessary.

 

[Unicron]

Would this work better? (Caution: large image)

Frankly, I think it would. Certainly better than the 3-deck design, since at 8-decks the ship actually has a logical reason to have turbolifts.

I like the GNDN and random shapes labels. Cool work.

 

[Bill Morris]

I've whipped up a basic outline for how to label the four decks. I have to make sure the labels are settled before drawing in bulkheads and equipment. Here are links to all four and an image of one of them:

http://lcars24.com/deck1.html
http://lcars24.com/deck1.html
http://lcars24.com/deck3.html
http://lcars24.com/deck4.html

 

[Saquist]

That's the Defiant I know and love.

 

[Bill Morris]

That's the Defiant I know and love.

Thanks. Well, you straightened me out early on the outline shape. That's good. I'll try to squeeze it in a little bigger. I've got more callouts (labels) to add, and then I'll know the maximum outline size I can get away with and can fill everything in. It'll be nice to see it in LCARS colors.

 

[Bill Morris]

From the U.S.S. Valiant:

And a little more progress on this: