The drawings that were in TMoST show features from the production version of the ship, which puts it into sometime in 1966, whereas the writer's guide is just a beefed-up version of the May '64 format proposal.
And, again, the writer's guide is a lot less detailed than what showed up TMoST (for instance, there is no deck-by-deck description of the ship).
Hmmm, why is Dave Shaw referring to the cross section as MJ 1967 if they are from 1966? I'll reserve my comments regarding what version of the ship is being depicted for fuller discussion. While I have seen graphics from what is supposedly the writer's guide (separate from TMoST), I have never personally seen a presentation of the text contents of anything alleging to be a genuine TOS writer's guide (at least outside of the form in TMoST). So, I'll ask again: is a genuine, full writer's guide available, and if so where can we find it?
I guess my assumption is that there are several versions of the writer's guide at different times (with the earliest being little more than draft proposals), that it was also a moving target, and TMoST presents portions of these documents in its various Pilot and Production chapters. Presumably it would become more detailed over time. ButTMoST does include materials not in the writer's guide (obviously the memos and interviews fall into this category), its just that I have no way of determining what was "in" or "out" at this point.
I'll try to come up with some detailed explanations during this next week, to demonstrate why I'm backing this hypothesis, and I appreciate your input CRA.
+++++++++
DEG - that's one extremely awesome body of work you've got there!
Second the motion!
+++++++++
Tin_Man,
It's a shame we don't have more original source material. maybe someday Richard Datin or the Jefferies family will release any stuff they might be sitting on, till then it's a lot of guess work on both sides of the fence, as far as MJ's original thoughts/intents go.
Any material that would have been left with Paramount allegedly was not retained (destroyed, discarded, sold?). So it would have to have be personally retained documents. The sketchbooks indicate that they may still exist, but the studios have presumably expressed a controlling interest in the IP. Since the diagram with the Polar Lights model is being intentionally altered, its unlikely we will see unmodified, high quality source material until that attitude towards disclosing the IP to the fans changes.
On another related topic, Whorfin, (or anyone) when do you suppose the "Achernar" class was approved/launched? And was the "Enterprise" ever uprated to these spec's or did she go straight to TMP refit?
The 'short' (Treknological) answer is:
That -- with the
possible exception of weaponry -- 1701 seems to have been refitted to match Achernar class
equipment, but retained the original overall Constitution class
hull design. There was no full conversion, just a retrofitting of equipment and minor cosmetic (to us) changes. What class it is called is somewhat a matter of semantics. She is different than her original class, but she is not exactly the same as Achernar. One can make arguments either way. Basically it could be classified (loosely) as an Achernar class (there is some inference that this is the case, but I won't digress), it could (accurately) be called the refitted Constitution class (if all vessels of the class are planned to be converted, shortly -- otherwise you have ships of dissimilar capability with the same nomenclature, which is tactically/strategically confusing), or a new class name could be derived from the first ship given this type of refit (which is the procedure I normally would assume to happen when a new type is created, and is what happens in TMP).
Well, my copy is buried in storage (so I can't refer to it), but "
Ships of the Star Fleet Volume One" by Calon Riel should have his version of the dates,
I believe. There appear to be different editions, I think I'm referring to the earlier version (
http://www.well.com/~sjroby/lcars/images/shipsotsf1.jpg ) as I have read not the others (some of which may be by different authors and have nothing to do with it):
Ships of the Star Fleet: Cruisers and Frigates (1997, revised edition), by Calon Riel and Todd Guenther
http://knihy.startrek-petr.info/index.php?akce=kniha&id=711
http://knihy.startrek-petr.info/index.php?akce=kniha&id=1374
Aridas's
"Federation Reference Series: 1 Blueprints/Schematics" (also in storage) might have the same or a different dates. Dates don't always agree between fan sources, as the chronology always was muddled, and still is on certain points. FJ's Tech Manual, I think (not in storage -- as I bought another copy -- but not at this location for me to check), gives a stardate for the
approval of the contracts for the later Heavy Cruiser classes, which may or may not make much sense in the current chronology. I think you have access to these sources, so you can report back, if not I can try to find some of my older DB files.
The
long answer is:
My position is that 1701 was refitted to Achernar class
specifications in terms of
equipment, but very little was changed structurally. Somewhat, this is what we see in some real world vessels, where ships of the same class have notable differences if their production is spread over time, and if older vessels are retrofitted they may not get a full cosmetic make-over.
Basically the Achernar/FJ BoGP version of the design would be somewhat roomier, particularly in the saucer. The most notable missing component is a large 'tube room' and associated engineering section in the secondary hull (again, giving Achernar more staterooms). This is a
complicated topic, but I do believe that
MJ intended that the Engineering Set be located in the secondary hull, but the production staff may have (eventually) changed their mind about that. If we consider the Constitution class a design of the 2240s with a large secondary hull M/AM reactor, the Achernar class a design of the 2260s with a much smaller secondary hull reactor located near the nacelle pylon attachments, and the TMP Enterprise class of the 2270s with an even smaller reactor located in the secondary hull (unless we decide we are never shown the TMP reactor) there is a certain unintended design evolution taking place over 40 years. However, this isn't the only possible interpretation, and its entirely possible that the M/AM reactors are actually in the nacelles in all three designs, and what we are seeing is a mixture of power conversion and distribution equipment, and/or auxillery power systems. It could pay dividends to de-emphasize what we
think we know and concentrate on what we
merely see (the black box approach), at least as a thought experiment.
The point is that while there are differences in the designs, one doesn't invalidate the other, and looked at chronologically the differences can make a certain amount of sense. So when it comes to refitting the original 1701 (The Cage), after the Bon Homme Richard class is launched she is refitted (eventually) with that equipment (WNMHGB), and the same retrofitting policy happens when Achernar is later launched (Production). Its also possible that some equipment is entirely new, and some is an update of existing equipment (a situation that might be applied to the tube room in several different ways). By that time the ship is almost twenty years old, and not necessarily a priority, so the refit opportunity doesn't come until the galactic barrier plays havoc with its warp drive. After all, if you need to repair or replace most of the propulsion system why not apply available upgrades, and if the engines are refitted why stop there?
As an aside, inconsistencies between Okuda's timeline and the Canon timeline could be reconciled by saying that Kirk started a five year mission, the ship was damaged in 2263 (or whatever), towed back to a dock, refit to Achernar specs, and relaunched in 2265 on another five year mission so that the timeline established in VOY-"Q2" (that the mission ends in 2270) can be correct. Of course the TOS through TVH timeline needs further adjustment then, but it really already did before this change.
Refitting takes resources, so changes that don't make a difference are superfluous. So, the undercut stays, the teardrop command module stays, various other cosmetic and structural differences remain unchanged. The smaller number of staterooms remain because the bunk-bed/hot-swap arrangement should allow us to shoehorn in the existing beds, and different shifts explains how people stay out of each other's hair, so to speak, in the shared living quarters. These features stay the same because they don't make a performance difference in the ship. In terms of combat, speed, and scientific capability 1701 is now the equal of the Achernar class, and tactically and strategically can be equated. The only significant difference is the loss of the storage compartments on Deck 7 (as these can't be relocated except to other storage areas, unless we remove many more staterooms). Priority systems, such as command and control (i.e., the Bridge), sensors (i.e., the domes), Transporters, the Warp Engines, the Main Deflector are all changed, and the deflector grid is added to the top of the primary hull (indicating it was also uprated). The weapons are presumably changed, but there is now disagreement among fans on whether there ever were Laser canons on 1701 so that is a topic best left unexplored. However, if the number or power of the weapons are different than Achernar, they probably shouldn't be the same class, as they would no longer be equal.
Yes, it is possible that NCC-1700 USS Constitution was given a full refit, which would take considerable rebuilding or replacement of components. Which is why I've ignored the possibility until you've now forced me to consider it. That is a solution that brings the BoGP into full Treknological continuity while still allowing the original Constitution class design and the Achernar to both exist in Treknological continuity, and (as may be discussed shortly) possibly Canon. What is left to explain is why the BoGP registry lists the Constitution class then instead of the Achernar class plus 1700.
But we never see 1701 represented in the Achernar manner. We don't see enough detail in TAS to, in my opinion, justify introducing another refit. Frankly the TMP refit is not likely to be done directly on the heels of a refit from a few years prior (2265 is pushing it, IMHO). The TOS 1701 always has the undercut, it always has the teardrop command pod, it always has the somewhat different interconnecting dorsal and secondary hull than the FJ BoGP.
