Pros and cons of Franz Joseph's plans
- Thread starter TIN_MAN
- Start date
I'm very glad to hear that, as I think you are making major contributions to the topic yourself. And I appreciate the other compliments, even those that are somewhat divided, such as those of CRA & Albertese. Tin_Man, and his enthusiasim, is always appreciated of course.
Well, I can parse some of what he said in several different ways, and I can take (some) parts at different levels of seriousness and in terms of their official nature. He's had opportunities to chime in and correct any misinterpretation on my part. That's the problem with language: its imprecise, particularly when there are no visual cues. [Which is one reason I write too much, trying to make up for that.] I chose to interpret him strictly and literally as I could, while referencing the BBS rules, in part because my laxness in other matters of interpretation had been pointed out.
To try to resolve anyone's issues with my posts I'm going to spin off my own thread (which is not FJ specific, but he'll probably be a topic I draw on repeatedly). People are free to use it on a limited basis (much as one might consult a reference book or web page) or they can contribute to it by posting in it, or they can discuss it in this thread or others (and if I feel a need to reply I'll do it in my own thread). If people want to summarize what I'm doing and post it here, that's fine with me too. I'm not trying to kill this thread, quite the opposite, I just want to stop disrupting it. This way, hopefully, I can still contribute and maybe people will find it useful.
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?p=2657423
Your suggestion is much appreciated. I'm going to take you up on your offer and steal your divider, perhaps you'll find something of mine to steal at some point.
'That's the ticket, laddie!'
Now I just have to survive the trip home. Hope you're having better weather up there Dave.
It's interesting you've decided to integrate FJ's deck layout into MJ's external scheme. I've long nursed the idea of doing just the opposite. Someday, when I get around to it, I want to "Matt Jefferies-ize" the FJ Constitution design. FJ's external arrangement, and an internal deck arrangement based on the one drawn up by Matt Jefferies.
That way I can deal with some of the things that have always irked me about the BGP. Like that swimming pool right behind the deflector housing, and the hangar deck/pylon arrangement.
That way I can deal with some of the things that have always irked me about the BGP. Like that swimming pool right behind the deflector housing, and the hangar deck/pylon arrangement.
Maybe they have 3 feet of lead between the deflector machinery and the pool? Or, um, I mean 3 feet of "trilidium osmiate"....yeah, that's the ticket.
It has been a long time since I've looked at FJ's deckplans for the Enteprrise, but my lasting impression is that most of the stuff you actually need to run a starship is crammed in as an afterthought. Most of the decks look like a hotel floorplan. And there is, as I recall, a serious lack of lab space in a ship that was suppossedly on the leading edge of scientific exploration. There is no need whatsover for there to be an individual toilet and shower for each person assigned to a cabin, nor for there to only be two-person cabins for that matter - just a really bad use of space in an environment where you'd think space is at something of a premium. There is also a decided lack of access points to the ship as a whole. Other than the shuttlebay, you pretty much gotta crawl in through a window to get in, it seems. And I think the dorsal levels need ot be more strucural reinforcement and utility umbilical runs and less lounges full of chairs.
Mysterion, you must be a Spartan, or a Klingon? 
Anywho, most of your points pertain to the original Jeffries design and and the 'writers guide' that was Whitfields referance for his book 'The Making of Star Trek', which in turn was Joseph's main source, so you can't blame him for these 'percieved' shortcomings. I'm sure if he had designed it from scratch, Joseph would come up with something completely different. And as for the labs, well, if you include both Dr.s research labs, then Joseph included 13 of the 14 science labs refered to onscreen as being on the ship. The only one missing is the biopsy lab, which I'm sure we can find a place for if we try?
Anywho, most of your points pertain to the original Jeffries design and and the 'writers guide' that was Whitfields referance for his book 'The Making of Star Trek', which in turn was Joseph's main source, so you can't blame him for these 'percieved' shortcomings. I'm sure if he had designed it from scratch, Joseph would come up with something completely different. And as for the labs, well, if you include both Dr.s research labs, then Joseph included 13 of the 14 science labs refered to onscreen as being on the ship. The only one missing is the biopsy lab, which I'm sure we can find a place for if we try?
Then I guess, heresey this may be, my gripes are with Jeffries and the Writer's guide as well.
Exactly. This, IMO, extends to most of the ST and SF oriented spacecraft/starship deckplans I've seen. Most of them seem to have picked a shape they like and just fill it with stuff while not really thinking about what needs to be there versus what would be really kewl.
And you're right Forbin, "criticism" is probably a better word than "gripe".
Agreed. When interpreting the shape of the Enterprise, like it or not, one must assume that form follows function and what we find within is logically responsible for how the ship looks on the outside.
I wonder if FJ was operating from a standpoint that the ship's hull itself was sturdy enough (or made of sturdy enough materials) that it, in conert with the decks and bulkheads themselves, would provide a lot of the structural strength of the ship with minimal thickness or internal support? I've personally always suspected that ship's hulls do provide a degree of structural 'shaping' in concert with actual structural load members, of course, which his plans seem to lack.
I wonder if FJ was operating from a standpoint that the ship's hull itself was sturdy enough (or made of sturdy enough materials) that it, in conert with the decks and bulkheads themselves, would provide a lot of the structural strength of the ship with minimal thickness or internal support? I've personally always suspected that ship's hulls do provide a degree of structural 'shaping' in concert with actual structural load members, of course, which his plans seem to lack.
I think FJ was assuming a strong monocoque structure (after all, he was familiar with such things), rather than one which relied on bulkheads or supports, based on what was shown in the series. (The series did MENTION bulkheads more than once, but never provided a clue where they possibly could be.)
I agree with the idea of a monocoque structure, but even a modern aircraft designed with such a structure needs things like a carry-thru spar to support the wings and a solid bulkhead or frame to mount the engines. FJ has the nacelle pylons mounted to the skin outside the hollow shuttle bay!
To his credit, FJ did include two partial ring bulkheads where the leading and trailing edges of the pylons attach to the secondary hull. These are located just below the skin. They are labeled at the aft end of deck 15 and can be followed down to deck 20. They appear to have a cross section of about 1.2 x 0.8m. Still, given the mass of the nacelles, I would expect a deeper "root". That is my personal opinion. YMMV.
I think you should study his plans a little closer... because he make sure that there is additional structural support for both the nacelle supports and the dorsal in the form of four structural rings.FJ has the nacelle pylons mounted to the skin outside the hollow shuttle bay!
I agree with the idea of a monocoque structure, but even a modern aircraft designed with such a structure needs things like a carry-thru spar to support the wings and a solid bulkhead or frame to mount the engines. FJ has the nacelle pylons mounted to the skin outside the hollow shuttle bay!
Unfortunately, that's pretty much what we see, isn't it? It's definately one of the more problematic areas of the Enterprise (as many artists here will attest), since you expect some sore of structural support there. Of course, it could root vertically into the frame, now that I think on it, rather than cut into the set-piece of the shuttlebay.
I also just loved the FJ stuff, and still do. As we all know, it's not accurate to what was seen on-screen, but it's not nearly so far off as most people today tend to think. It wasn't too long ago that someone was doing a fully-realized FJ-compliant CGI starship model in the Trek Art forum... can't recall who, though. The model, eventually, looked very nice indeed, and even for most of us, we'd have to do a double-take to recognize it as not being "the real ship" under most conditions.
I often wonder how much access FJ was given to the original materials. Did he have a chance to talk to Matt Jefferies? Did he have access to either of the models? (Based upon his primary hull, I suspect he at least had some exposure to the 3' version... possibly as limited as "a few polaroids from Roddenberry's desk?")
I suspect, quite strongly, that his main resources were limited to production stills and watching reruns in the afternoon. (Remember, this isn't just before DVD, it's before anyone but the richest of the rich had video recording capability at all, and there was NO "home video" market whatsoever.)
Given that, he took what he could see, and his own "common sense," and he created an AMAZING set of works.
Now, as for the "quibbles,"
"DAMMIT, REARRANGE THIS BRIDGE, MR. TYLER! I WILL NOT BE FORCED TO CHANGE MY PANTS MID-SHIFT AGAIN!!!
So, FJ was forced to put main engineering in that location. Obviously, the physical set would not work there (undercut and all that) but he made sufficient tweaks to make it "mostly work."
Had he not been under that constraint, I'm sure he would have done what any one of us would (but nobody was allowed to 'til Roddenberry was finally sort of handcuffed re: Trek back in the mid-late 80s).
The first time we EVER saw "engineering in the secondary hull" in any technical work was in the "SciPubTech" poster, which was published in the 90s, in fact. '98, if memory serves.
Since then, everyone has gone along with it. It just makes more sense (and clearly was the original intent anyway).
We know what Jefferies intended... it's clearly spelled out in his concept sketches (equipment and storage). And his section view has spaces that actually match main engineering pretty well (wasn't it David Shaw do demonstrated that in his "deckplans" thread recently?)
That said... I have NO PROBLEM whatsoever with there being no "warp core." Because Jefferies was thinking in aviation terms.
In an airliner, you have power units... in the form of jet turbines... mounted externally, in nacelles. These provide propulsive power, and "taps" off of these units provide all the secondary power for all the rest of the ship's systems.
With TMP, all that changed... it went from an "aircraft model" to an "automotive model." Since TMP, we've had a central engine, transferring power to "tires" through a transmission, differential, etc.
I prefer the aircraft analogy, personally. So I don't WANT a "warp core" on the Enterprise.
FYI, I don't call the thing in main engineering a warp core or reactor or whatever. I think that what we're seeing is what converts the power being channeled from the power sources into "usable energy" to drive other ship systems. And I think that dilithium is central to that process... converting raw annihilation reaction products into something you can use... most likely conventional electricity, for the most part (though perhaps some ultra-high-frequency AC form?)
This is one of those things that I harp on sometimes. Two ships being of the same class doesn't mean "they look identical." It doesn't mean "they look mostly identical" for that matter. It ONLY means "they are entirely interchangable from a fleet-management perspective." They have to be able to make use of the same repair facilities, use the same components in their maintenance and upkeep, and have the same capabilities and functions.
Perhaps the Constitution was built in orbit over Mars, versus the Enterprise being built in sections off San Francisco Bay and assembled in orbit (and yes, I'm ignoring the Abrams "alternate reality")
I often wonder how much access FJ was given to the original materials. Did he have a chance to talk to Matt Jefferies? Did he have access to either of the models? (Based upon his primary hull, I suspect he at least had some exposure to the 3' version... possibly as limited as "a few polaroids from Roddenberry's desk?")
I suspect, quite strongly, that his main resources were limited to production stills and watching reruns in the afternoon. (Remember, this isn't just before DVD, it's before anyone but the richest of the rich had video recording capability at all, and there was NO "home video" market whatsoever.)
Given that, he took what he could see, and his own "common sense," and he created an AMAZING set of works.
Now, as for the "quibbles,"
That's just because you weren't there on the bridge when Chris Pike took command, and kept jumping when people snuck up behind him!
"DAMMIT, REARRANGE THIS BRIDGE, MR. TYLER! I WILL NOT BE FORCED TO CHANGE MY PANTS MID-SHIFT AGAIN!!!
Well, he was under a really bad constraint on that. Remember, it was RODDENBERRY who'd come out, publicly, stating that "engineering is in the primary hull, by the impulse engines." I seem to recall he did it at a convention in the early or mid 70s... but he just basically pulled it out of his... back pocket... and refused to ever bend on it after that point (regardless of what Jefferies may have intended).
So, FJ was forced to put main engineering in that location. Obviously, the physical set would not work there (undercut and all that) but he made sufficient tweaks to make it "mostly work."
Had he not been under that constraint, I'm sure he would have done what any one of us would (but nobody was allowed to 'til Roddenberry was finally sort of handcuffed re: Trek back in the mid-late 80s).
The first time we EVER saw "engineering in the secondary hull" in any technical work was in the "SciPubTech" poster, which was published in the 90s, in fact. '98, if memory serves.
Since then, everyone has gone along with it. It just makes more sense (and clearly was the original intent anyway).
Well, I don't recall it every being called the "engine hull" in TOS. Or anything else, for that matter.
We know what Jefferies intended... it's clearly spelled out in his concept sketches (equipment and storage). And his section view has spaces that actually match main engineering pretty well (wasn't it David Shaw do demonstrated that in his "deckplans" thread recently?)
That said... I have NO PROBLEM whatsoever with there being no "warp core." Because Jefferies was thinking in aviation terms.
In an airliner, you have power units... in the form of jet turbines... mounted externally, in nacelles. These provide propulsive power, and "taps" off of these units provide all the secondary power for all the rest of the ship's systems.
With TMP, all that changed... it went from an "aircraft model" to an "automotive model." Since TMP, we've had a central engine, transferring power to "tires" through a transmission, differential, etc.
I prefer the aircraft analogy, personally. So I don't WANT a "warp core" on the Enterprise.
FYI, I don't call the thing in main engineering a warp core or reactor or whatever. I think that what we're seeing is what converts the power being channeled from the power sources into "usable energy" to drive other ship systems. And I think that dilithium is central to that process... converting raw annihilation reaction products into something you can use... most likely conventional electricity, for the most part (though perhaps some ultra-high-frequency AC form?)
Agreed. The ENTERPRISE never looked like that. But (as was mentioned above), perhaps the Constitution did.
This is one of those things that I harp on sometimes. Two ships being of the same class doesn't mean "they look identical." It doesn't mean "they look mostly identical" for that matter. It ONLY means "they are entirely interchangable from a fleet-management perspective." They have to be able to make use of the same repair facilities, use the same components in their maintenance and upkeep, and have the same capabilities and functions.
Perhaps the Constitution was built in orbit over Mars, versus the Enterprise being built in sections off San Francisco Bay and assembled in orbit (and yes, I'm ignoring the Abrams "alternate reality")
This is part of what I think demonstrates that he only had a few production stills and occasional afternoon-viewings to work from. His windows are just about as well-placed as they could be, based upon the handful of photos I'd seen over the years, back when information was harder to come by. And, in his case, at least we know that they line up with his decks.
No, it's a jihad, an anti-FJ jihad, I tell ya!
Last edited:
Capital Idea Praeter, I was hopeing someone would volunteer.I have some ideas for such a project, but my drafting skills are mediocre at best and my computer art skills are non-existant.
However, a good place to get some ideas on what would be required in the project is "Dave's Holodeck", He has an article w/ a deck-by-deck internal/external comparison, I don't agree w/ everything he says , but its a good place to get started?
I can help with your computer art skills - I've been building a TOS Enterprise, life-sized, from the inside-out using the FJ BP's. I use VRML 2. Essentially I type a bunch of 3d points into a text file, point to the points I want to make surfaces of a specific colour (or texture), and view the result in a free web browser add-in - the cycle time for edit/review is really short. There's no expensive software to buy, no tricky software-specific stuff to learn, no modeling courses to take, and with VRML you get to walk around in whatever you build, just using a mouse (having a wheel-mouse helps!)
I've taken it to the extreme with animation within the VRML scenes I build. I was able to make the workstation screens on the bridge actually work! My point is, that you can do this if I can do this... all it takes is a little trig. How's your math skills?
Here's something you don't see everyday - the turbolift system of the TOS Enterprise - a larger version here:
Yes, I know, it's incomplete - I just haven't gotten around to building deck 16 and 17 yet!!!
Last edited:
This is also one of those ideas I've been toying around with to occupy my spare time. I've had a strange couple of years which have, honestly, distracted me from taking on any new projects recently. But, I'm seriously considering getting down to a serious, hard-core 1701 model sometime soon.Capital Idea Praeter, I was hopeing someone would volunteer.
I can help with your computer art skills - I've been building a TOS Enterprise, life-sized, from the inside-out using the FJ BP's. I use VRML 2. Essentially I type a bunch of 3d points into a text file, point to the points I want to make surfaces of a specific colour (or texture), and view the result in a free web browser add-in - the cycle time for edit/review is really short. There's no expensive software to buy, no tricky software-specific stuff to learn, no modeling courses to take, and with VRML you get to walk around in whatever you build, just using a mouse (having a wheel-mouse helps!)
I've taken it to the extreme with animation within the VRML scenes I build. I was able to make the workstation screens on the bridge actually work! My point is, that you can do this if I can do this... all it takes is a little trig. How's your math skills?
Here's something you don't see everyday - the turbolift system of the TOS Enterprise - a larger version here:
Yes, I know, it's incomplete - I just haven't gotten around to building deck 16 and 17 yet!!!
In my case, I'd be treating it the same as I previously treated my (now complete, but not "film ready") Vega Class. That is, make the exterior, then create real (if not-heavily-detailed) interior "sets" inside. Because it would be created from the outside in, I could fit everything as-intended.
I know most of you have seen this before, but for anyone who hasn't, click the thumbnails to see what I did with "Vega." The images are large-scale animated GIF images. (With "Imageshacks" new user interface, you'll first see a partial-scale preview, and have to click that to get to the full image.)
and 
My goal (once I find the time to do a really top-quality 1701 exterior in my CAD software) will be to do very much the same thing as you see here.
Capital Idea Praeter, I was hopeing someone would volunteer.
I can help with your computer art skills - I've been building a TOS Enterprise, life-sized, from the inside-out using the FJ BP's. I use VRML 2. Essentially I type a bunch of 3d points into a text file, point to the points I want to make surfaces of a specific colour (or texture), and view the result in a free web browser add-in - the cycle time for edit/review is really short. There's no expensive software to buy, no tricky software-specific stuff to learn, no modeling courses to take, and with VRML you get to walk around in whatever you build, just using a mouse (having a wheel-mouse helps!)
I've taken it to the extreme with animation within the VRML scenes I build. I was able to make the workstation screens on the bridge actually work! My point is, that you can do this if I can do this... all it takes is a little trig. How's your math skills?
Here's something you don't see everyday - the turbolift system of the TOS Enterprise - a larger version here:
Yes, I know, it's incomplete - I just haven't gotten around to building deck 16 and 17 yet!!!
Ooooh!
Great stuff! I mentioned you're work upthread, I like the way you combine FJ's plans with elements and details we actually saw onscreen! As for my math skills, they suck, so no go there. I hope you will be a regular contributer to this thread and/or site as you've definately got something that most of us would really like to see more of! BTW, what are you're thoughts as to (eventually?) detailing areas of the ship we never saw onscreen? I always thought it was fun to speculate on what some of these areas would look like in 3D, and I'd very much like to hear your thoughts on the matter.Similar threads
