• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Unseen TOS....

Jeffries always liked thinly supported warp engines...;) Have you decided on a scale/size of the ship, yet?
Depends on how I choose to orient the decks. My previous 3D model was about 8 decks oriented lengthwise.

Now that I have the main design sorted I’m pondering what the remaining details will look like.
 
Last edited:
Here's my take on it so far. I'll make my own thread to document the project once it's all done. But I figured I would throw this out there just as a contribution to the ideas being discussed.

I'm making slow progress. Here I'm showing you my working drawing and the current status of the model. I'm definitely going for skyscraper decks. The ring is about 4 inches across. I'm thinking the scale is the same as the old 18" AMT model kit.


(Clickable thumbnails so I don't visually dominate W9's thread.)

--Alex
 
Last edited:
Cool! What is the ring made of?

Was installing a dryer some years ago and this ring was a fitting for the dryer hose, but didn't actually fit so I tossed it into my "save for a future modeling project" box. There's a lot more structure to the dryer hose fitting that I cut off to make it the right depth. Then I cut a couple small slots to accept the brass armature. Next I'll build a jig to make sure I'm setting the thing true square to the armature and use plumber's putty to take out the slop in the slots. Once all is said and done, the slots will be covered by the pylons.

--Alex
 
I went with a dual ring setup because it emulates what Jefferies drew in his concepts, but I did toy with a single ring as it’s tidier (and pissible more structurally sound).

Although originally I was going to have two support pylons I went with Jefferies’ idea of one support pylon as it makes it look a bit less like a conventional rocketship.

It would be interesting to know if and illustrator ever drew a fictional rocketship with rings on some old pulp sci-di book cover or magazine.
 
That's weird. Looks like it’s from the 1920s or ‘30s.

And from the color palette, it might be the work of Frank R. Paul.

( placed that qualifier because odds are, somebody will come along to prove I was mistaken.)
 
Third revision progress.



There are elements and cues from different sources here. No, this doesn't actually immitate the silhuoette of a 1960's era rocket, but the visual influence is there. It also takes cues from my early photoshop effort as well as my previous 3D model. It also borrows the odd tidbit from Jefferies' ringship concept although this design is more...muscular...than Jefferires' design. My hope as I flesh it out is for it to evoke something familiar yet for it to be its own thing with its own integrity. It is meant to look less advanced (although more advanced than what a 1960's audience would be familiar with), but I also want it to look heroic in its own right. I like the look of a design to suggest its own stories.

The centre section is a cylinder, but the fore section tapers forward subtlely at .5 degrees before angling down further at 10 degrees. I ended the bow more abruptly to avoid the sci-fi rocket nose cone look. I emulated Jefferies' idea of a single ring support pylon rather than two as I think the counterintuitive look feels more futuristic.
I know the notion isn't Star Trek, but is there any thought this thing could land? Ignoring ENT as anything related to TOS which it isn't to me, I was thinking with this design did the United Space Probe Agency already had a prototype transporter? Probably larger and maybe had one or two transporter pad.
 
I think at this point, mid to late 21st century (Trek wise) we can safely rule out the transporter. And if we don’t land the entire ship, still approximately the size of the Enterprise’s secondary hull, that leaves a landing craft.

That could be approached two ways. First is the conventional hangar bay idea where a vehicle is berthed inside the ship. The alternate approach is to have a perhaps larger craft attached to the mother ship’s exterior hull, wherein the craft can dock and undock yet always remains outside. This approach makes maintenance and repair more complicated yet it frees up space inside the mother ship’s hull.

Also, depending on the crew complement, one or two sufficiently large auxiliary craft can serve as emergency lifeboats should the main ship need to be abandoned.
 
I've been giving the Valiant some further thought as I progress with the model.

Perhaps the ship wouldn't look too rudimentary albeit still somewhat "primitive" compared to the Enterprise. Although the Valiant is meant to be an early FTL vessel remember that it would have to be sufficiently advanced to warrant the designation Galactic Survey Cruiser. That said I want to try avoiding any visual cues that could be misconstrued as having been lifted from Jefferies' Enterprise design. I sometimes finding myself slipping into the habit of considering things I've seen relatively recently rather than focus on what one would have been exposed to in the 1950s to mid 1960s.

It has been reccounted numerous times that Jefferies had acquired images of sci-fi spacecraft as illustrated on the covers of books and magazines of the day. And that is besides whatever real world conjectural spacecraft art depicting what NASA might have been specularing about. It would be awesome to see examples of that rather than trying to go strictly by my own memory even though I do recall a general mindset and aesthetic from that time.

I think one thing we can easily adhere to is the same constraint Roddenberry put upon ship design from the very beginning: no flaming exhausts and rocketship fins particularly as depicted in so much sci-fi art of the time.
 
Would that be mandatory? I can see that "no fins or rocket exhausts" rule for the Enterprise, But if the Valiant is 200 years older and the series is set about 200 years in our future, then maybe a more twentieth century approach to the older ship might have been on the table?

--Alex
 
Yeah, it’s tricky. The Botany Bay is somewhat advanced looking (by 1960’s standards), but it’s not radically different from what NASA was thinking about then. I’m aiming for something fifty or so years beyond that. It would most certainly look sophisticated and large enough to be beyond what they could contemplate building in the 1960s.

If the Enterprise XCV-330 represents a prototype stage of this concept then thats a clue I can build on. The ringship E looks sizeable because of the rings, but the habitable part of the ship is rather modest. We can speculate once the concept is proven then the next purpose built ships could have significantly larger habitable areas and the rings needn’t be quite so large in relation to the ship’s overall size. The fact that Jefferies used only one support pylon suggests he was already contemplating as yet unknown materials and construction methods resulting in constructs structurally questionable (by our standards) yet nonetheless actually very sound and robust.

We know warp nacelles (and warp rings) don’t actually produce thrust, but they convey the idea of very advanced “magical” science and technology. Impulse drives are very advanced in TOS’ era given how small and compact they can be in relation to the size of a starship. In the Valiant’s era impulse drives are more advanced then that used in the Botany Bay era, but could be sufficiently bulky for interstellar propulsion rather than interplanetary.

I am basically thinking aloud, here, to check my reasoning.
 
The fact that Jefferies used only one support pylon suggests he was already contemplating as yet unknown materials and construction methods resulting in constructs structurally questionable (by our standards) yet nonetheless actually very sound and robust.
I bet his thinking was that the support pylons would be as small as possible to minimize the negative effects on the warp fields (warp drag?) similar to planes that got rid of second wings and wires and anything else that caused drag. And I agree, warp propulsion does not generate structural stress on the ship (unless you go warp 11 via Nomad improvements).
 
I think I am well on the way having finally established the right overall look. Now it's more detailing and finally colouring.



Although I don't actually use a 1960's rocket to build on the rocket influence can clearly be seen. To a 1960's audience this would evoke a rocket yet not like one they have actually seen. And they would surely wonder what the rings were about given they are far too thin to be habitable. And this design looks to have a sort of tail fin, but it's far too thick and there is only one of them. I think it clearly looks like some sort of powerful rocket shape yet suggesting something much more advanced than anything they might have heard of or read about. And it doesn't look Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon or 1940s-'50s sci-fi although perhaps something similar might have graced the cover of a pulp sci-fi novel or magazine.

I have tried to integrate Matt Jefferies' general ringship concept with a vaguely 1960's rocket booster shape as well as the general sense of TOS' established aesthetic as reflected in the TOS E, which was really the only major example of Star Trek design in 1965. I have also tried to avoid obvious post 1960s science fiction and real world aerospace influences.


When the space warp was discovered in the mid 21st century what sort of spacecraft could Earth have been flying then? Note that we are free to ignore TNG's post atomic horror and their take on Zefram Cochrane and 21st century Earth. In WNMHGB we have not yet learned of the Eugenics Wars although the idea of a third world war was something people then might have thought was yet again possible in the future. We haven't learned of sleeper ships yet or Zefram Cochrane.

People of the 1960s likely would have thought that space propulsion would steadily improve over the coming years and decades. Science fiction in print and film had already spread the ideas of interstellar travel and even suspended animation. The idea of relativistic ships reaching high percentages of light and thus taking advantage of time dilation (in hand with suspended animation) were popular ideas floating around at the time and not considered unreasonable within the coming decades.

When the space warp is discovered and FTL made possible and practical the first ships might not have been clean sheet designs, but rather adaptations of existing design concepts, much like early automobiles still evoked horse drawn wagons and early steamships still evoked wind driven sailing ships. Thus Earth's early FTL ships could have been based upon existing relativistic vessels.

And a design like this, while looking suitably advanced compared to 1960's chemical rocket boosters would still look outdated compared to the exotic looking Enterprise.
 
Last edited:
This looks great! I love the way you've set up the aft engines.

I'm still trucking along with my own build, but, predictably, it's taken it's own direction and will end up different (but surprisingly not as different as I'd expected) from yours.

I'll post my own thread of it eventually.

--Alex
 
I'm not firmly decided, but I am playing with the idea of having a landing craft docked outside under the main hull rather than a smallish craft berthed inside (and unseen) a hangar bay. I'm also not firmly settled on scale of the ship so there is the open question as to what the crew complement could be and whether the landing craft could be big enough to accommodate the entire crew under emergency situations as an escape boat to possibly seek haven on a nearby planet.

And maybe I'm overthinking this as I doubt this much thought would go into a design meant to be only glimpsed onscreen. I just like bringing a certain logic to the design, but it could be seen as obsessive.
 
Last edited:
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top