Pros and cons of Franz Joseph's plans

[Whorfin]

Tin_Man,

> Praeter, I don't know why Casimiro's and Sinclair's
> designs differ so much, but the fact that they do
> should serve to remind us how, even in this day
> and age of copious references, just how hard it can
> still be to pin down accurate dimensions to work
> with.

Well, without knowing all the details of their work, I can suggest a few things. First, its a really big model and measuring anything really big with precision is a lot harder than it sounds. Second, its an irregular object, and precise measuring points might not always be available (or amenable to the tools available). Third, unless they had very special access, the model has to be measured suspended in space, which makes performing measurements more difficult. Fourth, the model is imperfect and not symmetrical, so choices end up being made on what is the "correct" measurement. Fifth, experimental error: no matter how careful or what level of precision instruments are used, error tends to creep in.

So, in what might be the best case scenario (under ordinary conditions), you have a couple of guys on ladders swinging measuring tape back and forth over the model. Some people have apparently been able to better than this but they aren't necessarily able to tell us their results. Worst case scenario (but not necessarily a disaster), photographic based measurements are made from a distance.

> And on that last part, are we shure that the space
> behind the dish on the model is actually the way
> Jeffries intended the 'real' ship to be? After all,
> his plans in T.M.O.S.T show some interesting and
> complex machinery there.

Another issue is that the model as it exists today in the Smithsonian is not the model that was filmed. A certain amount of damage and loss appear to have occurred before the model arrived, it took a while before initial repairs were made, and then another "restoration" (IMHO) more or less made matters much worse (in several ways). While the major structural areas are not going to be effected by this, important details will be -- particularly concerning parts that were lost prior to the donation to the Smithsonian. Off the top of my head I don't remember if the deflector was reconstructed or not, for example. I am not assuming that the current conversation is ignoring this issue (or that it is solely, or even primarily, relying on the existing 11' model) -- frankly most of the people I'm listening to here could teach master classes in the topic -- I'm just putting it out there lest we forget that the evidence hasn't undergone a certain amount of tampering.

The other issue is that the ship that MJ designed is probably somewhat different than what was built. Both intentionally and unintentionally. We may or may not discover evidence for this in the details we find along the way in this discussion. It may or may not explain discrepancies among various pieces of evidence.

Just thoughts for consideration.

 

[Whorfin]

Just to let you guys know I'm having trouble getting into the swing of this discussion. I have been feeling increasingly ill over the last few months, and this week things have worsened considerably. This has led to me making a few more errors than usual, which I or others have thankfully caught. Last night I had intended to go through the entire thread and compose replies, but I simply didn't have a clear enough head to do it. So, today essentially all I can give are quick "peanut gallery" comments instead of a proper discussion.

Tomorrow, ironically, I have to take someone else to the doctor, so I probably won't be able to go myself (wrong clinic, wrong city), so I may end up waiting to Monday to see my GP... who wasn't able to help the first time I went in a couple months ago with less severe versions of these symptoms. Hopefully Saturday I will have something to contribute. Or, if I feel well enough tonight, I may pound something out and get it posted tomorrow... and if I'm lucky it might even pass as coherent!

And however annoying personally it is to not be fully participating -- as partial instigator of this current FJ discussion, with my partner CRA who is passionate about all things FJ related! -- I am still very pleased that there are more competent members than myself discussing the issue.

 

[Praetor]

Whorfin, sorry to hear about your difficulties, I hope you get well soon.

Here's the Sinclair comparison with the deflector parts put back in.


Personally, I'm now undecided as to what to do. But here are the main areas that I've noticed that need to happen to reconcile it:

1)Deflector
2)Lower saucer
3)Nacelle interior
4)Deck 24/secondary hull ventral
...and then whatever additional trims.

Regarding deck 11, since that's just a partial deck anyway, I recommend we just chop and move FJ's nav sensor up to fit with Sinclair, and re-curve accordingly.

So, am I going to have to redraw all this within Sinclair's outline to really make this look good? I'm going to redraw my own plans with Sinclair's outline anyway because I've become convinced they're better, and I could do FJ's too, I'm just not yet sure if I want to.

Overall thoughts?

 

[TIN_MAN]

Well, hopefully we helped each other out here, you've got a new apreciation of Sinclairs work that will help you're project, and I've got a better idea of where FJ's plans do and do not match MJ's which will help me in my future projects. So if you don't want to redraw FJ's stuff that's fine, you've been a good sport and a tremendous help already, and I thank you very much!

 

[Praetor]

Well I don't know... it's very tempting to do it anyway. We shall indeed see. And I think you as well, since I have a newfound appreciation for MJ as well.

 

[Whorfin]

Praetor,

> Whorfin, sorry to hear about your difficulties, I
> hope you get well soon.

I'm feeling a little better today. I may have some sort of infection, but if so its been going on much too long. I didn't get much done. Last night what energy I had was allocated elsewhere. I do have the "skeleton" of my own input pieced out but need to add its "flesh", and probably some "connective tissue". Today, I delivered "Patient A", retrieved and returned said patient, at which point "Patient B" showed up with a freshly blown out knee (apparently). So not much time to get things done today, so again I will supply off the cuff comments.

> Here's the Sinclair comparison with the deflector
> parts put back in.

Is it just me or did the decks get "bent" at the front going back in? Sorry if I'm nitpicking, I'm assuming its an artifact of piecing things together and that I'm not missing something important in my debilitated condition.

Given our perilous economic times, here is my two cents worth. The issue of whether FJ is accurate or inaccurate largely hinges on what one is comparing him to. This gets to be a tricky issue that I will have to deal with in detail, and the end result is largely a matter of interpretation -- though I think there will be enough conclusions to go around for everyone to take something home (some of which we have already seen).

In terms of someone making a given set of plans, putting in "equipment" is fine (they're the artist, and what they do is somewhat a matter of interpretation -- at least within reason). In terms of saying a set of plans is wrong because they lack what we expect to see in terms of equipment, that gets a little trickier. At the start of these things I recommend we follow Dave Shaw's "Black Box" approach, figure out as much as we can in general terms and only after reaching as final conclusions as possible do we -- possibly as a separate project -- start filling in the blanks. In terms of FJ, he may have been thinking along similar lines, "What does a 23rd Century deflector generator look like?" and he may have concluded -- and not just limited to this topic -- that miniaturization is part of the issue. Or we might think that the rings in the deflector base are part of what we would call equipment, or the shaft, etc. Another example is deck height, at present the discussion is about what to do with the orphan decks. One solution is to discard them. An alternate solution would be to manipulate vertical deck height in an effort to squeeze them in. Obviously, that path presents its own special set of challenges, but compared to jettisoning entire decks its an alternative to be considered at least in passing. I'm not saying that discussing anything is wrong, I'm just saying that working with assumptions at the beginning limits what the end conclusions can be. So I'm suggesting that while nothing should be ignored (even theories), until the end of the survey non-empirical observations should just be 'noted and logged'.

> Personally, I'm now undecided as to what to do. But here are
> the main areas that I've noticed that need to happen to
> reconcile it:

I'm not sure what Dave's conclusions will be at the end of his own Big-E survey, but from different threads I understand his tentative conclusions favor both Casmimiro's (sp?) and Sinclair's plans as both matching his own assessments, each in particular areas. So, for the ultimate, full-blown, fan-based reconstruction one might want to wait until we can look at each area of the ship and see if we can get a two-out-of-three (or better) agreement on accuracy. For the time being, one could either consult Dave's preliminary findings and reconstruction a tentative, hypothetical, "consensus" plan (aka Project Frankenstein???, The Six-Million Dollar Plan???) or simply pick one plan and make corrections at a latter date. If we can cross correlate more plans, that would be better, but there's not much else publicly available. Perhaps we could convince some people to consult their private plans and give us an assessment area by area for further clarification (yes, that is problematic in some ways).

> So, am I going to have to redraw all this within Sinclair's
> outline to really make this look good? I'm going to redraw
> my own plans with Sinclair's outline anyway because I've
> become convinced they're better, and I could do FJ's too,
> I'm just not yet sure if I want to.

There are a number of issues here that have a bearing of how to start such a project. First, if one is simply shoehorning FJ's internal configuration into a modern understanding of the externals of the ship, what I just discussed applies. If one is trying to use FJ in an attempt an accurate full reconstruction of the ship (as much as possible), then Dave Shaw's internal arrangement project (based on the pressure hull diagrams and other data) becomes at least as important as the external hull, and perhaps more so. Frankly, if anything can monkey-wrench a large scale reuse of FJ's plans, its Dave's work. I'm about as big a promoter of FJ as possible, but even if Dave's conclusions are severely damaging (as I suspect) I am interested in seeing as much as possible. I've already reconciled myself to the proposal that the literal FJ BoGP design applies to the Achernar class to whose performance specifications and equipment the older, different classes were refitted to (without major cosmetic structural modification). Finally, in terms of transplanting blueprints into a corrected hull shape, on whatever basis, the FJ plans are one possible organ donor but the "genetically related" FASA plans are at a higher level of resolution and detail and should be considered as well (I managed to obtain one of the "large scale" versions of these, though even the box-set version is far more detailed than FJ. Where these two sets of plans agree, obviously there is no conflict with using FASA's -- its where they disagree that a "Sophie's choice" may have to be made. Even reconstructing a higher quality FJ plan might be possible by altering the FASA version. While the BoGP is copyright by Paramount, the FJ estate might be somewhat less annoyed on a personal level by the use of the FASA clone... err... version, original or refitted. But this is just a suggestion.

> Overall thoughts?

Potentially there are at least two different reconstruction projects here. Pure FJ (or FASA, or both) internally, or a hybrid based on our current optimal fan-based reconstruction of 1701. AFAIK Dave hasn't finalized his 11' study, and so I'm not sure that his full understanding of the internal arrangement is complete (or it may be), and the latter project hinges on it. If one accepts the proposition, as I do, that the literal FJ plans are now retconned to a similar class of ships, or that they represent NCC-1700 and not 1701 (making 1701, etc., a potential subclass), then there is no pressing need to shoehorn his version in. But, I think, obviously, supplementing MJ's known work with FJ where we are working in the dark is reasonable to many of us here. But some will disagree and they can do their own version. IDIC.

I do have some comparisons I would be interested in seeing, assuming they haven't been made. I would like to see FJ compared to "The Making of Star Trek" external and internal diagrams (color coding may be required) and (to the extent that they are available and not *completely* redundant) the diagrams from the writer's guide. I'm aware that they are theoretically the same, my main concern is differences due to printing issues. We know FJ had TMoST, did he at least get a copy of the official TOS writer's guide from his visits to the production staff, and can we tell the difference? For example, if there is a 3% difference in length between the two versions, that might explain a multitude of "sins".

I would also like to see FJ's external plans compared with the Polar Lights painting guide. Basically, its implied or stated by some people that these are a close match to the "real" plans (or something to that effect), but they do not (as some have pointed out) appear to be an excellent match for the studio model. Hypothetically, if FJ's plans matched the Polar Lights better than the reconstructions in some particulars, that could be an interesting finding (not that I'm expecting this to be the case).

Apologies for any inadequacies of this post, we are working on auxillery power only down here.

 

[Praetor]

I should be able to cook up an FJ/TMoST comparison quickly as that was one of the things I was toying with. I'll see if I can find the Polar Lights plans to do such a comparison but I don't know right off where my copy is or I'd just scan it.

The more I think about the work involved in remaking FJ, and the approach that he chose to use (i.e. an amalgamation of the models, tweaks where things didn't make sense), the more I don't really want to do it.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Keep in mind that Jefferies' drawings were done on 8 1/2 x 11 pages, so the detail is pretty rough.

 

[Praetor]

With that caveat in mind:



Giving Jefferies leeway for the size of the image, I think the two line up surprisingly well.

I still can't find a Polar Light diagram anywhere to do a comparison.

 

[Captain Robert April]

The Jefferies drawing was almost certainly a reference (even if FJ had to get it from TMoST).

 

[Praetor]

I should have hoped so.

 

[Shaw]

I don't want to put too much into this thread... it is more enjoyable to see the ideas of others being expressed here.

But I have had the chance to study either complete plans (Casimiro, Sinclair) or major elements of plans (Kerr, Sasser) and can say that they are all exceptionally useful, specially when used together. The work of these people is like getting different views of the same ship. One man sees one detail that the others might miss, so taking all of their works together helps make a more complete picture. Where they disagree, go back to the model and see what looks right. I'm gaining quite a bit of respect for Kerr's plans and wish they were publicly available... and the same with Sasser's plans.

What is available of Sasser's plans is the Polar Lights diagrams, and he introduced errors into them to protect his work. Here are some comparisons of it with Casimiro and Sinclair...

Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge​

I'll leave it to you guys to figure out the errors.

On a side note... I love FJ's plans.

 

[TIN_MAN]

Whorfin, as far as the "orphan" decks are concerned, as I said upthread, I would not necesarily be adverse to capitulating to FJ's version in regards to the 8-11 deck diameters, as shrinking them becomes rather involved when one starts considering each deck floorplan as opposed to just the cross section. same for deck 24, although in this case we could just remove the deck altogether and not really lose anything important? Somebody had an interesting idea though, that maybe this deck was somehow an extra module that could be attached when necesary for mission specific cargo or equipment?
As for "Frankensteining" the ship, it had actually accured to me that maybe using Sinclair's primary hull and Casimiro's secondary hull might be the best way to go? But I don't know, I'll have to cogitate on that some more.
As for the hull pressure compartments go, after some initial misgivings, I decided that Shaw is definatly on the right track here, at least as far as a "from scratch" plan goes, but if you look closely at FJ's plans you'll see he also had similar pressure compartments, it's just that his didn't follow the same plan from deck to deck, and he incorporated the turbo-lift shafts as part of this overall structural system.
As for FJ's version repesenting the "Achernar" sub-class, I agree completly, that was really the start of this whole thing, although this thread has taken on a life of its own, which is cool. The original "Mission Statement" as it were, was to stay basically within the FJ/FASA universe and basically retcon FJ's plans to what would be essentially the "Bohnomie Richards" subclass of his version, (which is what we saw onscreen in TOS). To this end, I would eventually like to see any and all ideas as to how individual interiors from TOS that FJ did include in his plans could be made more like (or identical to) what we saw onscreen, while at the same time, seeing if we can find a home for some of those interiors that FJ did not include (for whatever reason). I know that's a tall order, but that's where the challange, and thereby ultimately the fun, is!
And finally, as for FASA's plans, I too always thought it'd be cool to combine the more detailed elements of those, with the more detailed elements of FJ's plans (mostly from the tech manual). Although the FASA artist seems to have treated all areas as if they atained full deck heigth, even areas like the undercut cargo ring on deck seven and the edges between the outer bulkheads and the hull on decks nine and ten?

 

[Whorfin]

Praetor,

> I should be able to cook up an FJ/TMoST comparison quickly as
> that was one of the things I was toying with.

Actually, that was one of the things that you had already done... did I mention I'm an idiot. Well, I'll plead reduced capacity for the moment.

> Giving Jefferies leeway for the size of the image, I think
> the two line up surprisingly well.

Yes, that was one of the things I had originally suspected, confirmed more or less with your earlier diagram, then my brain vaporized the fact that it was already confirmed. When it comes to the BoGP FJ followed the TMoST quite well. Which, considering the internal makeup of the ship, the cross-section from TMoST provided the most information. With a choice of poisons in front of him, this was the glass he picked. Not the crated 11' model, not the possibly missing 33" model, not prints from the TV series, TMoST was his primary source (I believe at this point) and any appropriate sins can be laid at its door. My current interpretation is he did not so much indulge in a series of heinous compromises, but chose the "official" version he thought gave him the best chance of a full interpretation.

> I still can't find a Polar Light diagram anywhere to do a
> comparison.

Unfortunately, 1/1000 scale hasn't had that great an appeal to me, though I did get a PL D7 as a present.

> The more I think about the work involved in remaking FJ,
> and the approach that he chose to use (i.e. an amalgamation
> of the models, tweaks where things didn't make sense),
> the more I don't really want to do it.

Well, I suggest you look at it as a design style or philosophy, not something where you slavishly have to make the same "mistakes" (as some would say). FJ did his version already, what we are discussing is reinvigorating more current interpretations with his flavor -- hybrid vigor so to speak.

 

[Whorfin]

Dave,

> I don't want to put too much into this thread... it is more
> enjoyable to see the ideas of others being expressed here.

I am extremely glad you are enjoying this thread, and that you participate at all, but frankly we are all junkies when it comes to your own input and we just can't get enough!

> But I have had the chance to study either complete plans
> (Casimiro, Sinclair) or major elements of plans (Kerr,
> Sasser) and can say that they are all exceptionally
> useful, specially when used together. The work of these
> people is like getting different views of the same ship.
> One man sees one detail that the others might miss, so
> taking all of their works together helps make a more
> complete picture. Where they disagree, go back to the
> model and see what looks right.

Exactly, like blind men describing an elephant. In the human mind we have our image (a map) of the world (the territory), but we are slow to realize that the map is not the territory. And a dozen extra eyes are always useful in spotting the overlooked.

> I'm gaining quite a bit of respect for Kerr's plans
> and wish they were publicly available... and the same
> with Sasser's plans.

'You've finally come to realize the power of the Dark Side??'

> What is available of Sasser's plans is the Polar Lights
> diagrams, and he introduced errors into them to protect
> his work. Here are some comparisons of it with Casimiro
> and Sinclair...
>
> I'll leave it to you guys to figure out the errors.

Now, remember, some of us have fried brains... at least more fried than others. But, on a serious note, some of us don't all have the same skills. Personally, I have nothing in my head that sounds anything like "visual imagery". So comparative analysis of objects has to be done in real time and doesn't work as well as it might. And while I have understood the topological implications of your pressure rings (for example) it is extraordinarily difficult for me to imagine them, in any way. So your imput and skills, as well as that of the other experts here, is highly valuable to me.

> On a side note... I love FJ's plans.

Yes, while I was somewhat disappointed to realize that they have, from our current perspective, "issues" they have never lost their charm for me. And while some people are seemingly shocked an appalled by some aspects of them, those are the same aspects that I look at and go (wow, why hadn't I thought of that), and the only issue is whether FJ or MJ should get the credit.

BTW Dave, I've made some composites using your posts, if you don't want me to use your work in this way please tell me, I don't meant to offend.

 

[Whorfin]

Here's some images to chew on. These are created using Dave Shaw's images, including his preliminary "Cage" outline and what I believe is his scan of the TMoST cross-section.

If we ignore the decks, bulkheads, bridge (understandably), pylons, and deflector dish size, this is a pretty good fit. Seems like a lot of exceptions, but in terms of total volume, particularly hull volume, its not that bad. Some portions of the hull (particularly around the hanger, secondary hull keel, and forward hull extend beyond Dave's outlines, but not too much. No manipulation was involved other than maneuvering the images together after making them transparent and changing colors.

Below is a horse of a different color. In line with my own ideas of the Pilot version of the bridge and Deck 2 (including the briefing room) I generated the following image with some cut-and-paste. While I don't insist that this is correct, or that all the lines are exactly where they should be, I hope that this will be found interesting. Deck 2 placement is meant to roughly align with Dave's decks, not TMoST. Which would be a different project and would involve disregarding his Phase II material. Again, its a "Sophie's Choice".

 

[Whorfin]

Tin_Man,

My browser isn't letting me copy large sections of text tonight (for an unknown [expletives deleted] reason), so I'm going to get back to what you said next time. I think its only letting me do one paragraph at at time, but I'm out of time tonight anyway. I'll also try to do some overlapping images based on Dave's Polar Lights diagrams.

I still think its a great thread, thank you again for starting it.

 

[Shaw]

BTW Dave, I've made some composites using your posts, if you don't want me to use your work in this way please tell me, I don't meant to offend.

All my work is intended for this type of thing... share and share alike. That is also why I share bits of my work as I meander through my studies, some of it may be useful to others and they shouldn't have to wait for a finished product. So yeah, all the stuff I've shared here as well as stuff published on other sites (like this, this and this) are meant to help people with similar pursuits.

So no worries.

 

[TIN_MAN]

Whorfin, Glad your'e enjoying this thread, everyone else seems to as well, which is great! I'm having lots of fun too. Question for any/everyone? Is the general consensus that the circular briefing room from the pilots was under the taller bridge and was removed when the dome was lowered? Thereby explaining why we never saw it again.

 

[Praetor]

That's always been my pet theory, Tin Man. It also makes sense that there might have been an incident where a ship's bridge was sheared off, thereby causing them to recess it slightly in the redesign. (Then again, the offset bridge doesn't phase me much either.) IIRC, many ships seem to have a bridge 'overlap' into deck two, for protection. Excelsior is a good probably example (at least in my figurings.)