Pros and cons of Franz Joseph's plans

Discussion in 'Fan Art' started by TIN_MAN, Feb 7, 2009.

  1. TIN_MAN

    TIN_MAN Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2007
    Well, I think most treknophiles explain the undercut as an aerodynamic assist in the event of emergency landing, this "parachute" effect would be especially useful if the hull is suffering catastrophic power failure and is attempting a "controlled" crash landing? On the other hand, I don't think MJ or any other original "official" source explained why it was there? In fact, as Whorfin pointed out above, MJ's cutaway from TMoST doesn't have it! So I would say if you want to ignore it, then do so. But I'm curious as to what you would use the space for, storage still, or cabins, or what?
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2009
  2. Whorfin

    Whorfin Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    May 27, 2007
    Brooke,

    I think the undercut is present and intended to be there on the 11' model. This is one reason why I suggested you finish your FJ version of the ship before including other information. The 11' model is different from FJ's design, its different from MJ's design circa 1967. Both designs work fine but there are enough differences that there is no simple conversion from one to the other. Both designs can be full respected, and shouldn't be ignored.

    +++++++++

    Anyone intending to accurately portray the 11' model should pay it do consideration, assuming we do actually have its depth estimated correctly (I have no reason to believe otherwise, but not enough information to confirm it).

    +++++++++


    The "VIP" quarters I addressed over in the labs thread. I'm not sure Defiant is the same class as 1701, with rear firing photons and higher registry number, etc.

    As to walls, some (all?) of sets have thick walls at the doors, I think, though I haven't studied the problem.

    I think it is intended as an aerodynamic feature that was in the original design. I don't have any actual reason to believe it was a flaw by the model makers, but that's a possibility. If it is, its pretty much irrelevant once it was filmed and presented on TV, because at that point the model becomes the official design and what is on paper is largely of historical interest only at that point. I believe probably that the undercut is not present in TMoST cutaway because MJ was rethinking the design on the ship at that point, with multiple contradictions to the physical model and presumably the original design. Whether this was a personal preoccupation, "make-work", or done (by his intention, if no one else) as something official (on the basis that viewers would never be in a position to tell the difference) is unknown to me. But its the most plausible explanation I can come up with.
     
  3. Captain Robert April

    Captain Robert April Vice Admiral Admiral

    Howzabout this: In putting together this throwaway bit of promotional artwork on that 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper, probably while working on the designs for three different episodes, he forgot about the undercut. He got other details wrong in that series of drawings, why not the undercut, too?
     
  4. deg3D

    deg3D Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2008
    Location:
    Hollywood, CA
    They're mucho fun (bought them when they first came out), but far from 100% accurate. Far cry.

    deg
     
  5. BrookeStephen

    BrookeStephen Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    DEG - that's one extremely awesome body of work you've got there!
     
  6. deg3D

    deg3D Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2008
    Location:
    Hollywood, CA
    Thanks BrookeStephen, I appreciate that! Glad you enjoy it! :D

    deg
     
  7. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    That curved undercut on the saucer always reminded me of a Frisbee. Seemed to support the notion that the saucer could separate and make a one time soft landing on a planet surface.
     
  8. TIN_MAN

    TIN_MAN Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2007
  9. Praetor

    Praetor Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Location:
    The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
    TIN MAN, I like version 1 more.

    That's probably the likeliest explanation.

    Agreed.
     
  10. BrookeStephen

    BrookeStephen Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    86 the undercut, amigos!

    "Andale! Ariba! Effa! Effa!" ... Speedy Gonzalez
     
  11. Whorfin

    Whorfin Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    May 27, 2007
    CRA,

    In part, because that's not the only difference we see. One inaccuracy is plausible as accidental, more than that doesn't seem too likely. Does it make sense that in the middle of this busy schedule he drops everything to make a special diagram just to send to a PR person along with the writer's guide (with TMoST not even being a twinkle in anyone's eye at that point), during the course of which he makes numerous changes (i.e., what some people see as errors) compared with other work. And because other, equally "incorrect" work shows up on the show itself (that was also included in TMoST), at which point we have to ask why in the middle of the show MJ is making incorrect diagrams for production use. If, as some claim, the general layout of the ship was designed by MJ from before the construction of the studio models, why wouldn't he just copy these, and do so accurately. And if not, if TMoST cross-section is just highly inaccurate promotional fluff, why are people still using it as evidence for the internal design of the ship. I think people are 'having their cake and eating it too' with this diagram.

    We hear discussion about how the pressure hull diagram, MJ 1967, and Phase II all agree, but the fact is that when one looks at the details there is considerable disagreement. It does not seem good reasoning to say: the diagrams are all in agreement, except for the parts which aren't, because those parts are actually unintentional errors, and we know this because otherwise they would all perfectly agree. It makes more sense to me to say that the design seems to be often in flux. At least as far as MJ was personally concerned.

    Assuming the writer's guide and other material used by Whitfield are only promotional artwork is potentially distorting to how one views it and other source material. AFAIK, there isn't any evidence to support the claim that the source material used in TMoST was poorly executed work frantically thrown together. To me what makes sense is that Whitfield took what he was given, what was already there in the production offices, and it was already contradictory. If someone can support the claim with documentary material that MJ (or anyone) "cooked up" the TMoST technical contents I would be very interested in hearing about that.
     
  12. TIN_MAN

    TIN_MAN Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2007
    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.

    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?
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2009
  13. Captain Robert April

    Captain Robert April Vice Admiral Admiral

    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).
     
  14. Whorfin

    Whorfin Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    May 27, 2007
    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.

    +++++++++

    Second the motion! :bolian:

    +++++++++

    Tin_Man,

    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.

    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.
     
  15. TIN_MAN

    TIN_MAN Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2007
    It's a complicated issue to be sure. But I think in the Star Trek universe upgrades generally include cosmetic changes, otherwise the ST:TMP refit would look like deg's 'E' (wouldn't that have been cool!). Anywho, my basic philosophy, FWIW, is that if the ships all look pretty much the same on the outside, then they should look pretty much the same on the inside, but that's just me.
     
  16. Captain Robert April

    Captain Robert April Vice Admiral Admiral

    The third season edition of the writer's guide that I got from Lincoln Enterprises doesn't have any diagrams at all, and I have no idea what the actual writer's guides that were given to the writers had in them other than the text.
     
  17. Whorfin

    Whorfin Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    May 27, 2007
    TM,

    Well, TMP is just so different that cosmetic changes are hardly an issue (changing everything the ship consisted of resulted in the ship looking different). And, for the most part, when I use that word I just mean "no obvious functional reason for the change".

    +++++++++

    I would be very interested in seeing that and/or hearing more about it. Its good to know that it exists in public in some form at least. Whether its a full version, representative of earlier versions, etc. is of course hard to say.
     
  18. Captain Robert April

    Captain Robert April Vice Admiral Admiral

    I suppose I could ask Bjo....
     
  19. TIN_MAN

    TIN_MAN Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2007
    Here's deck 17, not many changes, I just tweaked the forward lounges in anticipation of my reworking of the "herbarium" below. I had to take out the "hi-bay" FJ had here, which is a shame, because I actually liked it and wanted to keep it, but oh well. I also tweaked the observation gallery overlooking the hanger bay, tried to make it more like we saw onscreen, had to add a window where none was/is on the 11 model, but this is the only way to make it work.
    http://i671.photobucket.com/albums/vv73/tin_man_2009/Picture046.jpg

    Just for the heck of it, here's an ass-end view showing the 'transverse' bulkhead of the hanger deck, can't decide if I want to go w/the "A" frame alcoves or the "garage-style"? I'm also playing around with ways to detail the inside of the Nacelles, let me know what you think?
    http://i671.photobucket.com/albums/vv73/tin_man_2009/Picture072.jpg
     
  20. TIN_MAN

    TIN_MAN Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2007
    Sorry, double post.
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2009