Vance's Schematics
- Thread starter Vance
- Start date
I think maybe I didn't make my point clear, so I did a quick edit of your pic, to illustrate my point. I'm just talking about how the saucer things are constructed. In your pix, as in the old AMT model and the blueprints, it's just a smooth saucer with spines around the axis. In Gregg Jein's model, and I think in the original model, the saucer is segmented, so each segment could be slid inside the other, for easy transport and construction. I just like that idea, it's kind of realistic, yet kind of "World of Tomorrow"-y. Know what I mean?
At the bottom here you can see the saucer all folded up, ready for transport. Makes sense?
I used the "Trouble with Tribbles" screengrabs for the model, as well as the blueprints. No secret that the 'spines' would have been easier to construct for the show...
I get what you mean, though, but it's actually somewhat at odds with the Enterprise and Shuttlecraft in design and construction. :S
I get what you mean, though, but it's actually somewhat at odds with the Enterprise and Shuttlecraft in design and construction. :S
Okay... sorry... I'll say one more thing about this, then I'll stop bugging you.
Here's a screengrab from Trouble with Tribbles, from Trekcore.com.
If you look closely, especially at the saucer on the left, you can see foldable segments, not spines.
It seems to me a bit cynical to imply the craftspeople of TOS made design decisions based on what was easy. They may have worked on a tight schedule and a skimpy budget, but they put a lot of thought and cleverness in most of those designs, and they came up with some really cool stuff.
I'll shut up now.
Here's a screengrab from Trouble with Tribbles, from Trekcore.com.
If you look closely, especially at the saucer on the left, you can see foldable segments, not spines.
It seems to me a bit cynical to imply the craftspeople of TOS made design decisions based on what was easy. They may have worked on a tight schedule and a skimpy budget, but they put a lot of thought and cleverness in most of those designs, and they came up with some really cool stuff.
I'll shut up now.
Credit the model makers at McDonnel Douglas for that aspect. K-7 was a modification of a pre-existing model for a proposed space staion concept McDonnel Douglas had cooked up, and Matt Jefferies had gotten ahold of the model at some point.
Well, you're seeing mostly ships from FASA, SFB, and major 'fan sources' out there, which all 'root' to the FJ mentality in one form or another. From all those sources, capital ships have the traditional saucer, engine, etc, deployment - with some variations on the theme at times.
Nothing "easy" about what they did... the "Mexican Hat" space station concept was actually considered an impressive "new technology" concept at the time that this was done. A fair number of people, at the time, would have been familiar with it.
So, they abandoned the concept not long afterwards... technology has trends just like anything else, sadly enough...
So, they abandoned the concept not long afterwards... technology has trends just like anything else, sadly enough...
I agree. Of course, there is a certain logic to this... in terms of the ease of shipbuilding. If you have a production line set up to build a particular hull shape "pie wedge" over and over, you can build up a larger fleet quickly and (relatively) inexpensively. Same with engines... You can reuse all variety of components and you can save cost (and reduce the need to inventory repair parts) all over.
During the TOS era, replicators weren't even in existence yet... at least not in a "wide-use" state at least. I, personally, really dislike the idea of just replicating everything anyway, but that's something that even in the post-TNG era isn't really all that ubiquitous. They may replicate a few small components, but they can't replicate an entire ship!
So, to me, the "no two ships look remotely alike" we see in post-TNG era ship design implies a certain level of... well, ARROGANCE... in Starfleet attitudes. As if they would never have shortages or cause to conserve. (DS9 is an exception to this, but they unfortunately did it a bit TOO 'kitbashy' for my tastes.)
That said... I do wish we'd see more "top-level types" instead of just the one saucer shape. While Franz Josef may have had his reasons for this (and while they may make sense, as I've described above), I think this should still allow for SOME different shapes... ideally, those also seeing multiple applications (for the same reason that the Class One saucer shape would be reused so often).
Okay, if you refresh, you'll see the updates to the Monoceros, and the Type G and Type A starbases - all for accuracies' sake. If I get a chance tonight, I'll either work on the other LN-40 ships, or the schematic of the LN-40 itself.
Edit - Endurance updated, Endeavour updated.
Edit - Endurance updated, Endeavour updated.
Nice work on all of these Neale. I'm going to have to saving penny's to buy some of the new Starline SFB miniatures for reference work.
