• 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!

USS ENTERPRISE HAYNES OWNERS MANUAL (Part 3)

He just sort a disappeared a few years back. Even from the website he wasn't being banned at. *shrug*
 
Dennis said:
YARN said:
No doubt, the big model deserves special consideration, but there are aspects of the big model which we should ignore in favor of what was intended in the original design specs.
Click to expand...

No.
Click to expand...

So, the definitive Enterprise should be regarded as having a warped saucer?

So the most faithful reconstructions of the enterprise (e.g., orthgonals, plastic models, and CGI models) should or would have a warped saucer.

The model has been redone and existed in various states. Which one of them is definitive? Is the heavy green weathering on the latest restoration job to be taken as representing "The Enterprise"?

P.S.: do you ever make arguments in favor of a position or is it all just armchair pronouncements?
 
Frankly, I find the assertion that the definitive concept of the Enterprise is the eleven footer, out-of-round saucer, misaligned nacelles (which aren't the same length, btw), unfinished port side, and all, more than a little silly and bordering on sophistry.

Consider those instances where the reversed decals were used to enable the port side of the ship to be seen on screen. Clearly, the folks on the show felt that the port side looked just like the starboard side, and every diagram contemporaneous with production shows a circular saucer. I certainly don't recall any sketches from Jefferies with the notation "SAUCER NOT PERFECTLY ROUND! NEEDS TO BE TWEAKED IN SPOTS!"

As it was the most prominenly used, the eleven footer is certainly a starting point, but is far from the finish line.
 
Yeah, there might have been an odd hatch or decal or two here or there that wasn't meant to be symetrical, but certainly the window/portholes were.
 
Hmmmm, I wouldn't agree on the windows/portholes being symmetrical. That leads to too much symmetry internally in the deck layout. Though I do think they would be close. I doubt the port side had anything like huge arboretum windows in the secondary hull - Oh, wait!
 
I kinda like some asymmetrical designs. Look around today and you can see all manner of asymmetrical vehicles. One that immediately springs to mind are certain really big dump trucks and other big machinery. The biggest one I can think of is an aircraft carrier.
 
The point still being that holding against the book the fact that the drawings are "not true" to a flawed model is just plain stupid.
 
Heck, if you have ever seen a ship at sea, it won'e be perfectly even. Look at the mottled hull plates, weld lines and so forth. There are going to be bumps at least. So even if the ship is just a bit out of round, it is to be expected.
 
publiusr said:
Heck, if you have ever seen a ship at sea, it won'e be perfectly even. Look at the mottled hull plates, weld lines and so forth. There are going to be bumps at least. So even if the ship is just a bit out of round, it is to be expected.
Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying but...

I've never seen an aircraft carrier with exposed wires hanging out of one entire side of the ship.

I've never seen a properly functioning airliner that had one wing a 15 inches longer than the other one.

Also, are we supposed to believe that in Gene Roddenberry's idealized future, engineers cannot even make a circle?

I love the big model too, but let's not make a fetish of it.
 
Okay, well, I wasn't going to read this thread as I've seen a lot of heated debate in previous threads on this subject (both here and on other sites)... but I decided to look having posted in a tangential thread.

darkwing_duck1 said:
The point still being that holding against the book the fact that the drawings are "not true" to a flawed model is just plain stupid.
Click to expand...
Well, isn't that a significant lowering of standards?

What I mean by that is if you believe your statement, then the Franz Joseph Booklet of General Plans and Star Fleet Technical Manual are the definitive works on this subject. And with those, there is no real need to revisit this subject any further.

As an example, lets move away from the Enterprise for a moment, and lets look at the Hand Phaser. In the show, lots of Phasers were used, all flawed, many only holding a passing resemblance to each other. Some had soft details, some had sharp details, some were painted completely different colors. Given that, the Technical Manual's very detailed plans for constructing a replica Phaser should be all one needs.

Heck, most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference... the Smithsonian displayed a Phaser built using the plans from the Technical Manual as a screen-used prop for many years.

Someone posted a link to a very high resolution version of the cover, and if that is indicative of how the authors have approached the subject of the original Enterprise, then people who were generally happy with Franz Joseph's Booklet of General Plans will also be happy to know that they were used as a reference in this book.

I've been working on plans for the 33 inch model (not the fictional starship, but the first miniature to represent her), and I know the models flaws. I have a detailed list of them in case it ever shows up again. I've been working on plans of the 11 foot model (at one-quarter scale), and have been documenting it's flaws and how it was constructed. Neither of those projects do I expect to be 100%... but I can live with something above/around 98% accuracy.

We are talking about something that is flawed... as you pointed out. But it is a general target to aim for. Franz Joseph's plans were in the ball park (and were just fine for most people). But some people wanted something that was closer, and in the 1980s we got Allen Everheart's plans, which were much nicer. Since then we have the works of Gary Kerr, Alan Sinclair and Charles Casimiro (which generally represent an idealized, semi-symmetrical ship), and are far closer to the target than either Everheart or Joseph were before them.

But the point (as it pertains to this thread) is that you've got three works that have gotten quite close, why should people accept stuff that is worse, or at least equal to the plans we had back in the 70s and 80s? It isn't that anything needs to be 100% (nothing has been yet), but it should be reasonably close to the best we've had in the last 15 years or so.

But by the standards of the 70s, this should be great stuff! And even if they ignored all the references they could have used, the simple fact that those aren't easy drawings to make makes it an impressive feet.

YARN said:
I hear what you are saying but...

I've never seen an aircraft carrier with exposed wires hanging out of one entire side of the ship.

I've never seen a properly functioning airliner that had one wing a 15 inches longer than the other one.

Also, are we supposed to believe that in Gene Roddenberry's idealized future, engineers cannot even make a circle?

I love the big model too, but let's not make a fetish of it.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I understand what your argument/point is here... it seem some what disingenuous.

Most people who watched Star Trek didn't know about the unfinished side of the model, and no one here has suggested that the Haynes manual should follow that... so what point do you think you are making?

Unless people had studied the model, you wouldn't know that the saucer is slightly out of round. Unless people had studied the model, you wouldn't know that the nacelles are the same as each other. But no one here has suggested that the Haynes manual should follow that.

And if people want to make a fetish of it (which I assume means studying the details), I don't see the problem anyone else should have with them doing what they enjoy. We aren't all the same, and just because you aren't good at following details, you shouldn't hold that against those of us who really enjoy studying the details.

There are tons of hobbies out there that I (personally) find painfully boring... but I would never suggest that just because they don't appeal to me that those people should give up what they enjoy doing.



Look, the Haynes authors decided (early on it seemed) to go with pretty low standards of accurate details. If you agree with their choice, great... if not, great. The critics can show their feelings by not buying the book, and the Haynes authors don't need defenders as they are making money on this.

In the end it is all water under the bridge at this point.
 
Um, the main germ of the dispute was Dennis' snarky comment (which I think was more of a yank-the-chain variety than an actual assertion) that the 11 footer is the alpha and omega as far as the Enterprise is concerned, oddball flaws, construction shortcuts, and all, so any plans or drawings that don't include the unfinished port side, the out-of-round saucer, and the assorted oddities associated with the nacelles, are automatically "wrong."
 
Shaw said:
I'm not sure I understand what your argument/point is here... it seem some what disingenuous.
Click to expand...

Really?

The point is simple: If the big model is THE criterion of correctness, then we cannot say that any aspect of the model is incorrect (as it is the standard by which others are judged).

The model has flaws; it has always had flaws; it has existed in different states, and we do have other respectable sources from which we may adjudicate the "norm" governing the form of our beloved Starship. We have other Enterprise models, we have interviews, and we have original blue prints.

Shaw said:
Most people who watched Star Trek didn't know about the unfinished side of the model, and no one here has suggested that the Haynes manual should follow that... so what point do you think you are making?
Click to expand...

The point I am making is that the correct shape of the Enterprise is norm, not an object. The model had an unfinished side, but what we saw on screen did not reveal it to us. The norm that we inferred from watching the ship on screen was actually of an object which was more perfect in terms of shape and completion than the model!

What you say here is precisely why we should not take the model to be absolutely definitive. The audience inferred (correctly) that the intended design of the Enterprise was that of a circular (non-wobbly) saucer and nacelles of equal length mounted at a straight angles.

Shaw said:
Unless people had studied the model, you wouldn't know that the saucer is slightly out of round. Unless people had studied the model, you wouldn't know that the nacelles are the same as each other. But no one here has suggested that the Haynes manual should follow that.
Click to expand...

Consider this comment from upthread:

"I don't usually chime in to these things, but a Hot Wheels car is based on a REAL car that can be measured. To burst everyone's bubble, the only REAL Enterprise 1701 we have is the MODEL at the Smithsonian. So despite its flaws, there isn't anything else to go off of."

Dennis weighed in later and pronounced that the 11 footer is THE Enterprise.

I, on the other hand, think the model deserves special consideration, but maintain that not every feature of that model should be regarded as "correct" or "ideal".

The point, dear friend, is that there are limits to the extent to which we should simply say that the model is the final word.

And if we admit that, then we must also admit that there are also sources which govern reasonable interpretations of that ideal form fans call "the Enterprise." And this means taking the big model of the pedestal just a bit.

Shaw said:
And if people want to make a fetish of it (which I assume means studying the details), I don't see the problem anyone else should have with them doing what they enjoy. We aren't all the same, and just because you aren't good at following details, you shouldn't hold that against those of us who really enjoy studying the details.
Click to expand...

What's up with the personal jab? I am not good at following detail? Well, OK, you're obviously not good at following the details of an argument. So why don't you go play with a model instead? Have I proved anything? Being a jerk is easy, but it doesn't prove anything.

And when did I say that people should not enjoy the model or modeling?

Shaw said:
There are tons of hobbies out there that I (personally) find painfully boring... but I would never suggest that just because they don't appeal to me that those people should give up what they enjoy doing.
Click to expand...

And neither would I.

Shaw said:
Look, the Haynes authors decided (early on it seemed) to go with pretty low standards of accurate details. If you agree with their choice, great... if not, great. The critics can show their feelings by not buying the book, and the Haynes authors don't need defenders as they are making money on this.

In the end it is all water under the bridge at this point.
Click to expand...

I haven't weighed in on the issue of the quality of the Haynes book. I haven't seen, so I don't know. My point was that we should not treat one studio model of a fictional ship as if it were "the meter bar", a sacred and inviolable standard of weights and measures.
 
YARN said:
What's up with the personal jab? I am not good at following detail? Well, OK, you're obviously not good at following the details of an argument. So why don't you go play with a model instead? Have I proved anything? Being a jerk is easy, but it doesn't prove anything.

And when did I say that people should not enjoy the model or modeling?
Click to expand...
It wasn't a personal jab... you seem to think that people who follow the detail of the models have a fetish, a fetish I assume you don't share.

After all, you did say:
"I love the big model too, but let's not make a fetish of it."​
The fact that you decided to apply a wider/stronger meaning to what I said (beyond the studying of the details of the Enterprise model) isn't my fault. But it is also not surprising given how you have applied ridged definitions (of your choosing) to what others have said.

If your exaggeration of the meanings of what people say was aimed at Dennis, you should have limited your remarks to him. But it seems that you see everything as sharper and more extreme than intended... which makes discussions difficult.

:(

To recap...

Well, OK, you're obviously not good at following the details of an argument. So why don't you go play with a model instead?
Click to expand...
No, I don't take that personally. I haven't read the whole thread (but it sure looks like more of the same), so you are right and you give good advice. :techman:
 
It's interesting to see how based on a series of previews this book seems to have such an overwhelming negative connotation with fans. I have said my piece on the subject and until the book actually comes out I'll refrain from making any more comments. The fact that we're even getting this book at all is still excites me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top