Unseen TOS....
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
In 1966? Not really. I lived in 1966. We had nothing of the sort. Where are you getting the idea that voice activated computers existed in 1966?
You wrote "Star Trek TOS was forging new ground with their description of computers." But talking computers—let alone robots—were old hat on TV and movies by Star Trek's time, so I don't understand how they were "forging" anything. That was my question.
Talking robots had been seen, but the idea of the library computer as seen on ST was new. We call it Google. Anything they designed was whole cloth. Their computer designs could not be wrong because they did not exist. We have firm ideas what a desktop of a mobile computer look like. Some of them look like Star Trek.
Hey, W9, I was just taking a look at this thread and found that list of things-to-do and had an idea based on your "what-if" for the Constellation that I decided to sketch out. Mind if I toss it here for you to look over? Just. again. for your consideration.
I understand there may be some similarities structurally to your second Valiant, but the pylons attach to the saucer here rather than an aftward impulse block. I imagine this ship to be a mite smaller than that one, too.
Based this upon some early Jefferies work, also included in the picture. Chesapeake-class, perhaps?
ah, so that was based on the same concept, then...
Starting to shape up. This could be partially a kitbash, but this take is actually using the basic shape of the Atlas rocket for inspration then building on it from there. If this had been built as a physical miniature perhaps it could be simplified a bit, but for this exercise this model will serve two purposes: to see what this ship could actually look like in 3D and to serve as a basis for a schematic or illustration.
The bump on the top of the main cylinder is not intended to be the bridge, but more likely a housing for a deep space telescope. I toyed with the idea of using Jefferies' original idea of a radar dome style housing in some form or other for the navigational deflector, but opted for this more familiar look, at least for now.
I have stated above, more than once, that this ship is something that would not need to be built as a miniature. That offers a bit of leeway because then I don’t have to think a lot about what might have been laying around as bits and pieces to be used for more detail. Yes, an actual model kit of an Atlas rocket booster could work as the basis of a kitbash, but that wasn’t really a go-to practice in those days. They thought more in terms of building from scratch. And so I’m thinking in terms of, a) what references were available then in terms of influence and inspiration, and, b) keeping it relatively straightforward in terms of materials and construction. (Hmm, does anyone know if sheet plastic was a thing back in the day?)
Simplifying things is that as a miniature this would not need to be lighted internally in any way (like most TOS miniatures) so it needn’t be hollow. The main section could be carved or lathed out of one piece. The deflector could be fabricated from scratch or it could be lifted from somewhere and repurposed here. Rings were fabricated for the deflector housing on the 11 ft. Enterprise so I see no problem with rings fabricated for a Valiant miniature.
One of the greatest things Matt Jefferies achieved with his design of the Enterprise, as well as other things, was what the design conveyed without any explanation. I am not talking about what it conveyed emotionally. I mean his design conveyed the idea of advanced and sophisticated engineering and technology far beyond what was then (and still is) considered possible. He made the far future and the fantastic seem credible. He grounded his ideas with a general sense of logic of how things worked. It’s all telegraphed visually without a word of “gee-whiz” exposition.
That is a lesson I’ve tried to emulate, particularly with TOS based designs—conveying an idea strictly through form.
The bump on the top of the main cylinder is not intended to be the bridge, but more likely a housing for a deep space telescope. I toyed with the idea of using Jefferies' original idea of a radar dome style housing in some form or other for the navigational deflector, but opted for this more familiar look, at least for now.
I have stated above, more than once, that this ship is something that would not need to be built as a miniature. That offers a bit of leeway because then I don’t have to think a lot about what might have been laying around as bits and pieces to be used for more detail. Yes, an actual model kit of an Atlas rocket booster could work as the basis of a kitbash, but that wasn’t really a go-to practice in those days. They thought more in terms of building from scratch. And so I’m thinking in terms of, a) what references were available then in terms of influence and inspiration, and, b) keeping it relatively straightforward in terms of materials and construction. (Hmm, does anyone know if sheet plastic was a thing back in the day?)
Simplifying things is that as a miniature this would not need to be lighted internally in any way (like most TOS miniatures) so it needn’t be hollow. The main section could be carved or lathed out of one piece. The deflector could be fabricated from scratch or it could be lifted from somewhere and repurposed here. Rings were fabricated for the deflector housing on the 11 ft. Enterprise so I see no problem with rings fabricated for a Valiant miniature.
One of the greatest things Matt Jefferies achieved with his design of the Enterprise, as well as other things, was what the design conveyed without any explanation. I am not talking about what it conveyed emotionally. I mean his design conveyed the idea of advanced and sophisticated engineering and technology far beyond what was then (and still is) considered possible. He made the far future and the fantastic seem credible. He grounded his ideas with a general sense of logic of how things worked. It’s all telegraphed visually without a word of “gee-whiz” exposition.
That is a lesson I’ve tried to emulate, particularly with TOS based designs—conveying an idea strictly through form.
Last edited:
I was wondering how large should the deflector dish would be during that era of the spacecraft before TOS? Viewing the early episodes the Enterprise dish appeared larger and had a brownish color. Despite of the color which could've been a presentation of age and wear and tears of travelling through outer space; could the deflector from your concept be as large as what first seen on Star Trek?Starting to shape up. This could be partially a kitbash, but this take is actually using the basic shape of the Atlas rocket for inspration then building on it from there. If this had been built as a physical miniature perhaps it could be simplified a bit, but for this exercise this model will serve two purposes: to see what this ship could actually look like in 3D and to serve as a basis for a schematic or illustration.
The bump on the top of the main cylinder is not intended to be the bridge, but more likely a housing for a deep space telescope. I toyed with the idea of using Jefferies' original idea of a radar dome style housing in some form or other for the navigational deflector, but opted for this more familiar look, at least for now.
I have stated above, more than once, that this ship is something that would not need to be built as a miniature. That offers a bit of leeway because then I don’t have to think a lot about what might have been laying around as bits and pieces to be used for more detail. Yes, an actual model kit of an Atlas rocket booster could work as the basis of a kitbash, but that wasn’t really a go-to practice in those days. They thought more in terms of building from scratch. And so I’m thinking in terms of, a) what references were available then in terms of influence and inspiration, and, b) keeping it relatively straightforward in terms of materials and construction. (Hmm, does anyone know if sheet plastic was a thing back in the day?)
Simplifying things is that as a miniature this would not need to be lighted internally in any way (like most TOS miniatures) so it needn’t be hollow. The main section could be carved or lathed out of one piece. The deflector could be fabricated from scratch or it could be lifted from somewhere and repurposed here. Rings were fabricated for the deflector housing on the 11 ft. Enterprise so I see no problem with rings fabricated for a Valiant miniature.
One of the greatest things Matt Jefferies achieved with his design of the Enterprise, as well as other things, was what the design conveyed without any explanation. I am not talking about what it conveyed emotionally. I mean his design conveyed the idea of advanced and sophisticated engineering and technology far beyond what was then (and still is) considered possible. He made the far future and the fantastic seem credible. He grounded his ideas with a general sense of logic of how things worked. It’s all telegraphed visually without a word of “gee-whiz” exposition.
That is a lesson I’ve tried to emulate, particularly with TOS based designs—conveying an idea strictly through form.
I haven't scaled this ship yet. I haven't even decided whether the decks will run lengthwise as is usual practice with what we see on Star Trek or if I might consider orienting them so the ceiling points toward the forward direction of travel. So at this point I can't say how large the navigational deflector will be.
Making progress. Sometimes I try something, don't like it, scratch it and try something else. But here is where we are presently.
While working on this I found myself thinking about the backstory of TOS that will build over the series and into TAS, TMP and even later productions.
The Valiant is referenced as a centuries old vessel. What isn’t clearly established in WNMHGB is whether the Valiant was a strictly sublight vessel (“the old impulse engines”) or if it was an early FTL ship (galactic survey cruiser). Seriously “galactic survey cruiser” is an awfully grandiose description to give a vessel incapable of FTL speeds to reach other star systems. Given the choice I’d give more weight to the galactic cruiser designation.
Much later TAS will claim a ship named Bonaventure was the first ship with warp drive. This can mean two things: another form of FTL propulsion existed before warp drive or Earth’s FTL capability has always been warp drive.
There is also Scotty’s reference that the Bonaventure disappeared 150 years earlier, which is fifty years less than when the Valiant disappeared. So how can the first ship with warp drive be younger than the “galactic survey cruiser” Valiant if we assume it, too, had early warp drive?
150 to 200 years can be fudged to mean they are approximate time frames. And Scotty said the Bonaventure disappeared 150 years ago, not that it was built 150 years ago. That allows us to have the Valiant and the Bonaventure being of the same era, and thus the Bonaventure could have been built first and yet it disappeared after the Valiant.
The bone of contention here is the Bonaventure’s appearance in TAS. It’s simply too advanced looking for the era from which it supposedly originates. Of course, it isn’t that hard to basically ignore the Bonaventure’s design if we accept Matt Jefferies would have done it differently if he had been doing it. In that case than the two ships could actually have been similar in appearance.
Another possibility is that Scotty’s definition of warp drive somehow doesn’t include ships without nacelles—weird. In that case the Bonaventure could have a different configuration with nacelles.
Hmm, now where does the ringship Enterprise figure into all of this? Which one is really the first?
It’s somewhat regrettable that no one was really keeping track of these little tidbits of backstory as the series progressed. Then again they had no idea the show would go on to be scrutinized by devoted fans for decades to come.
Making progress. Sometimes I try something, don't like it, scratch it and try something else. But here is where we are presently.
While working on this I found myself thinking about the backstory of TOS that will build over the series and into TAS, TMP and even later productions.
The Valiant is referenced as a centuries old vessel. What isn’t clearly established in WNMHGB is whether the Valiant was a strictly sublight vessel (“the old impulse engines”) or if it was an early FTL ship (galactic survey cruiser). Seriously “galactic survey cruiser” is an awfully grandiose description to give a vessel incapable of FTL speeds to reach other star systems. Given the choice I’d give more weight to the galactic cruiser designation.
Much later TAS will claim a ship named Bonaventure was the first ship with warp drive. This can mean two things: another form of FTL propulsion existed before warp drive or Earth’s FTL capability has always been warp drive.
There is also Scotty’s reference that the Bonaventure disappeared 150 years earlier, which is fifty years less than when the Valiant disappeared. So how can the first ship with warp drive be younger than the “galactic survey cruiser” Valiant if we assume it, too, had early warp drive?
150 to 200 years can be fudged to mean they are approximate time frames. And Scotty said the Bonaventure disappeared 150 years ago, not that it was built 150 years ago. That allows us to have the Valiant and the Bonaventure being of the same era, and thus the Bonaventure could have been built first and yet it disappeared after the Valiant.
The bone of contention here is the Bonaventure’s appearance in TAS. It’s simply too advanced looking for the era from which it supposedly originates. Of course, it isn’t that hard to basically ignore the Bonaventure’s design if we accept Matt Jefferies would have done it differently if he had been doing it. In that case than the two ships could actually have been similar in appearance.
Another possibility is that Scotty’s definition of warp drive somehow doesn’t include ships without nacelles—weird. In that case the Bonaventure could have a different configuration with nacelles.
Hmm, now where does the ringship Enterprise figure into all of this? Which one is really the first?
It’s somewhat regrettable that no one was really keeping track of these little tidbits of backstory as the series progressed. Then again they had no idea the show would go on to be scrutinized by devoted fans for decades to come.
Last edited:
He only says that it disappeared on its third voyage.
My own plastic approach to your kernel of an idea is going down it's own road at this point. For instance, I'm going with a single ring rather than a double ring and I'm going with more literal Atlas shapes as I'm literally using a model of one as a kitbash. If you're curious, I'm leaning strongly towards decks with "up" being direction of travel. My logic being twofold; first it's a more efficient use of space not having to deal with the slope of curved ceilings on the top deck and wasted space on the bottom deck, but also with more primitive technology, it's likely easier to handle changes in acceleration and inertia with velocity being parallel to deck gravity instead of perpendicular.
I've been wondering more about the time period and the operating authority. If WNMHGB is set in 2265 and the Valiant is lost in 2065, then is there a chance the writers intended it to be an American ship? Some sort of U.S. Space Force (imagined half a century before any real such thing was ever started)? Could there be room on the livery for "UNITED STATES" like your mock up above, and perhaps a 52 star flag? Or would they already have been thinking of a United Nations or some fictional United Earth Space Navy thing?
--Alex
I've been wondering more about the time period and the operating authority. If WNMHGB is set in 2265 and the Valiant is lost in 2065, then is there a chance the writers intended it to be an American ship? Some sort of U.S. Space Force (imagined half a century before any real such thing was ever started)? Could there be room on the livery for "UNITED STATES" like your mock up above, and perhaps a 52 star flag? Or would they already have been thinking of a United Nations or some fictional United Earth Space Navy thing?
--Alex
Yeah, coming up with stuff on the fly and then having it have to be reinterpreted later on must be very challenging now.
My spitballing:
Actual dialog about the Bonaventure:
Perhaps, an installed warp drive refers to the full warp drive system we see on the Enterprise, i.e. dual external warp nacelles powered by M/AM reactors with dilithium crystal magic. Prior to this technological development, warp engines may be singular and/or integral to the ship's primary hull and powered by fusion reactors needing huge fuel storage. Or something visually like this. If so, then Earth spaceships prior to this drive development (pick your era for the Bonnie) all could be single hull, rocket-looking ships. As for a ring(s), it could be one large warp coil.
Alternately, if no artificial gravity, the ring could be the normal living areas with either the whole ship or just the ring is spun for artificial gravity a la 2001: ASO. (Maybe Frank Poole and Gary Mitchell are related, too...)
Actual dialog about the Bonaventure:
Spock's line about "Some of them have been here for centuries" was given before Scotty saw the Bonnie, so, it's age was not being referenced by Spock. And after Scotty's line, Spock's comment about "The crew's descendants may still be living," probably is about the Bonnie. If so, then Spock implies that all the crew would be dead of old age and only their descendants may be alive. If the Bonnie is crewed like the Enterprise, then the youngest would be around 20 (+/-), and death due to old age around 90 (+/-), so about 70 (+/-) years at minimum may have passed, but it gives room for more years. Spock wouldn't be talking about descendants is he thought the crew died by other factors such as starvation or lack of life support. I'd put the Bonaventure at about 100 years before TAS. Maybe just after the Earth-Romulan War since it was fought in primitive space vessels.
Perhaps, an installed warp drive refers to the full warp drive system we see on the Enterprise, i.e. dual external warp nacelles powered by M/AM reactors with dilithium crystal magic. Prior to this technological development, warp engines may be singular and/or integral to the ship's primary hull and powered by fusion reactors needing huge fuel storage. Or something visually like this. If so, then Earth spaceships prior to this drive development (pick your era for the Bonnie) all could be single hull, rocket-looking ships. As for a ring(s), it could be one large warp coil.
Alternately, if no artificial gravity, the ring could be the normal living areas with either the whole ship or just the ring is spun for artificial gravity a la 2001: ASO. (Maybe Frank Poole and Gary Mitchell are related, too...)
Last edited:
My bad. Somehow I misremembered thinking they had mentioned 150 years although I do remember the mention of the Bonaventure’s third voyage. That allows leeway.
It’s possible I tied the reference “first ship with warp drive” to the reference in TOS of Zefram Cochrane disappearing 150 years earlier and he was the developer of the space warp (warp drive). Even so that still sort of ties them to the same era.
Even so the Bonaventure’s appearance in TAS is irrelevant to this exercise regarding the Valiant’s design given TAS would not exist for several more years.
It’s possible I tied the reference “first ship with warp drive” to the reference in TOS of Zefram Cochrane disappearing 150 years earlier and he was the developer of the space warp (warp drive). Even so that still sort of ties them to the same era.
Even so the Bonaventure’s appearance in TAS is irrelevant to this exercise regarding the Valiant’s design given TAS would not exist for several more years.
The word could be “crews’ “ not “crew’s”. In other words, Spock says he is picking up life and energy readings from a “cluster of ships”, not the ship Scott singled out. It is a statement to Kirk, not to Scott.
Similar threads
