DS9 tech manual - disappointed

[Galactic Alignment]

Picked one up late on Friday afternoon for a mere 50 pence from a charidee shop. Now, that's odd in itself as I haven't been inside a charity shop since 2002, even moreso that I picked up a item of DS9 merchandise that I'd wanted for a while. We're living in strange times (or at least, I am).

Anyway, it's a bit uninspiring isn't it? There's virtually nothing on the promenade or habitat rings in terms of content, and the pictures of the Ops centre and bridges just don't give enough visual information for my liking. Basically, on the bits I'm interested in on the station, there's not enough decent pictures or interesting enough text for most of the book, IMO. Haven't read the earlier TNG tech manual since I was a schoolkid, but that seemed a heck of a lot more inspiring, for want of a better word.

 

[Michael]

Yeah, I agree, the TNG Tech Manual is way more interesting to read. I think it's because of the behind-the-scenes bits (which the DS9 manual lacks). The made-up tech details aren't all that interesting to me. But I actually like the runabout pictures because they showed something that was never seen on the show ...

 

[nx1701g]

I have it and didn't think that it was all the bad. If you want a more technical based book though - believe it or not - there was a behind the scenes book a few years ago that chronicled DS9's early seasons. It had detailed schematics of the sets.

 

[Timo]

That's what I found disappointing in both the TNG and DS9 tech manuals: after seeing the set plan reproductions in Shane Johnson's Mr Scott's Guide to the Enterprise, I was expecting those in the Sternbach/Okuda books as well.

Of course, it's a bit "out-universe" when a tech manual covers in detail a random part of the ship just because a set exists of it, but neglects another important part because there isn't a set for it. Say, Mr Scott's could have used some good plan views of the shuttle hangar area, even if most of that was just a matte in the movie. Or some detail on the power and propulsion system outside the facilities visible in the Main Engineering set.

At least the TNG manual eventually was fleshed out with the separate blueprints set - even if that isn't the most detailed product imaginable. And at least the DS9 manual had the foldout plans at the end. But I was disappointed that the Promenade plans failed to show threefold symmetry and instead tried to work too literally on the basis of the existing set - and that the Defiant had massive scale problems which the plans could have resolved there and then.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[C.E. Evans]

I thought it was pretty comprehensive myself. Yeah, it didn't go into much detail about the Promenade, but the manual really seemed to stick just with those areas vital to Starfleet operations. And yes, there are problems with the scale of the Defiant, but I don't think the final size of the ship had actually been "determined" by the time of the manual's publication (I tend to go with the 120 meter length rather than the manual's 170 meter figure).

Still, I thought the foldout deck plans for the station and the Defiant were great and it was nice they included the basic specs on the most commonly seen starships--both friend and foe--during the Dominion War. The data on the upgraded equipment and weaponry since the TNG Manual was a bonus too.

 

[Timo]

...it was nice they included the basic specs on the most commonly seen starships--both friend and foe--during the Dominion War.

Although that part really was a mess.

They had the Norway class there instead of Steamrunner, even though the latter was the one that made a DS9 appearance. They then erroneously cut-and-pasted the Norway specs on the Saber. And it was hit and miss whether any particular datapoint would be present or absent in a certain Starfleet ship's specs. The kitbash ships were only coarsely reproduced and their dimensions made little sense.

As for the alien ships, Dominion specs were nonsensically cut-and-pasted on Bajoran vessels. And much of the Klingon and Romulan stuff was iffy in terms of suggested dimensions and armament vs. onscreen dimensions and armament.

That section might have been really cool. But rushed as it was, it left a poor taste in my mouth.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[nx1701g]

^ Agreed. The other ship specs were very poorly done I'm afraid.

 

[Trekwatcher]

I read this years ago and do not know where my copy is (I have moved about 5 times since then). It was great fun to read, but not as much as the TNG or TOS tech manuals, IMHO.

 

[FalTorPan]

I thought a "perfect" TNG Tech Manual would have been what we got, plus the layouts of significant areas, as seen in Shane Johnson's TNG Tech Journal. Similarly a "perfect" DS9 Tech Manual would have been what we got, plus layouts of significant areas, minus the material about the kitbashed ships.

 

[Timo]

I really wonder why there was no effort to insert set plans in any of the spinoff show manuals. It sounds like such an obvious thing to do - especially considering that the things would have been written by fans of original Trek and the original manuals.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mr. Fergy]

I really wonder why there was no effort to insert set plans in any of the spinoff show manuals. It sounds like such an obvious thing to do - especially considering that the things would have been written by fans of original Trek and the original manuals.

Timo Saloniemi

It was a means to a quick buck.