# Revision of 'Mr. Scott's Guide'?



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

Since the release of the PL refit kit, I've had several folks, on this board and others, tell me that they'd like to see a revised version of my book.

I need to ask you guys honestly -- if I were again to pursue getting a revision published, how much interest do you think there would be?

A new release would contain detailed info on both the refit and 1701A versions of the Enterprise, and would be updated and revised to conform with all 'canon' established since 1987, when the original was released.

If you want to see this book revised, now's your chance to say so. If you have any comments or suggestions concerning what you'd like to see in a new edition, this is the place to post them. I can't promise anything -- the decision after all lies with Pocket Books -- but speak now and I'll see what I can do. 

Shane


----------



## enterprise_fan (May 23, 2004)

If Scotty can make a re-appearance TNG, why shouldn't his guide. After all there has been quite a few changes to ships that were called "Enterprise". Maybe He could come up with a time line of changes. What if he were to find an old data base file of an obscure NX model.


----------



## CaptDistraction (Feb 1, 2005)

Id buy a revised edition, I used to have the first one around when I was a kid. It would be a neat thing to display in front of the PL model.


----------



## norge71 (Apr 13, 2004)

You did that book? Thanks a million, I loved that book! My old copy got thrashed in basement flooding one year so I need to get a new copy. A revised version would be most desireable! I know several guys that would would be interested (ie: about 5). 
What's funny is that so many people freek out over what's cannon and what's not, but your book is one of the most consistant and well thought out (aside from Todd Guenther's Ships of the Starfleet book, wish he'd do a new one too). 
Have you ever thought about doing a Next Gen version or maybe a version for the Original Series? (I know there's that whole thing with liscensing and what not, just wondering).


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Shane, this is a great idea! How can we help in convincing Pocket Books/Paramount to let you have a crack at it?

If you do update it, I hope you'll include a chapter that details your work on the original version, the process you went through to finish it, the tales of visiting the Paramount soundstage (along with a new photo or two of that visit) and anything else you can think of about the book's development. A discussion on the items in the original publication that became non-canon because of changes in TNG and beyond would be interesting too. 

With the 40th anniversary coming up, and nothing new to give fans, you'd think they'd be very interested in a concept like this. Good luck with this!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Still have my original one. And, yes, I'd buy a revised edition in an instant.


----------



## trevanian (Jan 30, 2004)

I'd love to see a new version as well. But Pocket's aversion to nonfic trek, esp. illustrated NF trek, makes me think the odds are against (they still won't bite on Preston Jones' huge making of TMP, which has been done for a quarter century. Then again, I don't see how your volume would be controversial in most quarters, so that is probably a plus. 

Fingers crossed for you, man.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I would like an revised edition. Add the hangerbays of the 1701,and 1701A.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I'm in for a copy, Shane!


----------



## Steven Coffey (Jan 5, 2005)

I would buy it ! But what about Mr Scott's guide to the ships named Enterprise ?Since we know that Mr Scott made it too the TNG era why not do a history of the ships named Enterprise from Mr. Scott's point of view ? I know it maybe allot of work and speculation but the fans would love it .We know so little of some of these ships ,like the Enterprise B or the C .It would also be great to get a run down on the original 1701 .It is just a thought !


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

That would be fantastic, Shane.

The market has been sadly lacking in the Trek technical books for the past several years, and this would be a welcome relief from that drought.

Whatever you would decide to include in the revision would be most welcome, as would your presence, again, on the publishing scene.

Sign me up.


ACE


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

I'd definitely be interested in a copy or two! I know of a few other folks who don't come to these forums who'd be down for that, as well!


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

I still have my original copy, but I'd be in for a revised one, too! :thumbsup:


----------



## jcd132 (Jan 13, 2000)

Absolutely, I'd be interested! I love (and still have) the original and a revised version would be very desireable.


Jay


----------



## stowe (May 29, 2003)

Shane, Ditto for me!

A new one would be Great!


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

I'd buy it in a heartbeat!! I've got a copy of the original, but I'd love to see a difinitive, even more complete edition come out. Anything I can do to help get this off the ground (writing, illustrating, etc.) I'll gladly do!

Jeffrey


----------



## dan1701d (Jun 9, 2004)

Holding both my hands up, and feet, and friends hands and feet, would love to see a revision of MR. Scotts guide, Please make it happen.


----------



## frontline (May 4, 2005)

Id snap it up in a NY minute


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

Krako said:


> Shane, this is a great idea! How can we help in convincing Pocket Books/Paramount to let you have a crack at it? ... With the 40th anniversary coming up, and nothing new to give fans, you'd think they'd be very interested in a concept like this. Good luck with this!


Well, let me see first if the idea is even feasible. Down the road a bit, a few letters to the publisher asking them for such a revision might not hurt 

Shane


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Yes! I'd buy a copy!


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

I'd buy _TWO!_


----------



## Steven Coffey (Jan 5, 2005)

lastguardian said:


> Well, let me see first if the idea is even feasible. Down the road a bit, a few letters to the publisher asking them for such a revision might not hurt
> 
> Shane


Well guys lets start writing letters!Any body got an address for pocket books?


----------



## C.W. Hunter (Jan 21, 2005)

Yes, I'd buy a revised edition!

I think someone mentioned in another thread that you had prepared full deck-plans for the original edition, but the publisher decided not to include them. That's what I would most want to see in a new edition.


----------



## mechinyun (Feb 23, 2004)

Id buy!


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Oh man, definitely count me in! I'd love to see a revised version!

Brad.


----------



## John Duncan (Jan 27, 2001)

Shane, you know I'd buy one....


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Shane a revised version would be AWESOME !!

I would buy two… one to work with and one I would like to send to you to get your autograph and then place it to my beloved models never to be touched for study purposes again 


As for what I’d like to be includes: deck plans…for each and all of the decks!
Include the PL Refit VIP lounge (which is your original design as you once stated), the botanical bay (which is also based on your design) the hangar bay, the conference lounge as seen in ST VI: TUC, the forward observation lounge as seen in ST V: TFF, the bunk bed quarters, the work bee garages (originally to be included in the PL Refit), the galley,….to make a long list short……all the rooms/quarters we ever saw in any movie featuring the Refit 

Correct the dates to the “new canon” versions, somehow manage to have the Ti-Ho be the Yorktown ( hehe so you have your personal item AND the canon one  ), drop all hints of the trans warp drive. And include the various bridge modules wee have seen (TMP….ST:III, ST IV:TVH, ST V:TFF and ST VI :TUC versions), perhaps you can even clarify the mysterious turbo lift relocation with out disturbing the bridge exteriors? Where are the life boats for the 500 ppl? A nice shuttle garage would be awesome too…….

List more additions, ideas, suggestions as they pop to my mind….. 


You see there is A LOT that can be told about the Refit….which for me was, is and always shall be …THE Enterprise !!!

You know…perhaps you should have made this thread a poll!
Since not all the members care to post and just read what others said…..


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

I'd certainly buy an updated version! Some of the above suggestions are interesting, but I'd suggest sticking in the STI-VI era to keep the scope of the project about the same. More info and realignment with the new "canon" sound good.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Not that I haven't enjoyed your recent books, but I'd love to see you return to "non-fiction" again!

Yes, please!

Mark

P.S.: How about a section on the original configuration (TOS) based on Gary Kerr's drawings?


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

I'd absolutely buy it. Especially if you made it the all singing / all dancing version that has been suggested here. Don't know how feasible it would be but to include the whole history of the refit / rebuild from the Motion Picture to Generations.

Weren't the guys who did the Avenger / Miranda class deck plans going to do the Enterprise / Constitution II next?

(I pulled out my copy of the original the other night. I'd forgotten that it was signed by James Doohan and Andrew Probert.)


----------



## Commander Dan (Mar 22, 2001)

Shane,

I would buy a revised version in a heartbeat, no matter what info you include or approach you choose to take. That said, here is what I would like to see:

- Deck for deck plans would be nice, incorporating as many of the set designs from the motion pictures as feasibly possible. While I love my Strategic Design deck plans, I am sure a more comprehensive deck layout could be produced. At the very least, I would like to see more extensive charting of the rooms and bays seen in the films, and how they “fit” within the hull. 

- Notable differences in the 1701 and 1701-A. (Bridge, Torpedo Bay, Engineering, Shuttle Bay, etc…) 

- History on the lineage of the refit-Enterprise and Enterprise-A. I always thought of the Enterprise-A as a new ship, as opposed to a ship that had been renamed. However, if indeed only 7 years or so passed between TVH and TUD, then it seems unusual that a new ship would be decommissioned so soon. In any case, if you choose to go with the notion that the ship was previously the Yorktown, don’t forget that the Yorktown was mentioned and her Captain seen in TVH! Also, most everyone always assumes that Kirk and crew were shuttled to their new ship almost immediately after their hearing, but several months could have passed between those events.

While I have no objection to you updating the book to conform to “canon,” I hope you are planning to keep the Enterprise-class designation; at least for the refit 1701.  

Dan


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Lloyd Collins said:


> I would like an revised edition. Add the hangerbays of the 1701,and 1701A.


Yeah! I like that idea! :thumbsup: 

It'd also be nice to have the Aztec patterns on the hull delineated for the different versions (in color?).


----------



## Ziz (Feb 22, 1999)

Commander Dan said:


> - History on the lineage of the refit-Enterprise and Enterprise-A. I always thought of the refit-Enterprise as new ship, as opposed to a ship that had been renamed. However, if indeed only 7 years or so passed between TVH and TUD, then it seems unusual that a new ship would be decommissioned so soon.


Don't confuse yourself.

"The Refit" is the one from TMP, TWOK and TSFS. That was the one that was the TOS ship underneath.

"The A" was another ship of the same class that probably only went thru minor upgrades and a name change. Kirk may have only had it for a few years, but we don't know how old it was prior to being re-christened "Enterprise".


----------



## Commander Dan (Mar 22, 2001)

Ziz said:


> Don't confuse yourself.


Oops.

Not confused... I simply misspoke (or mistyped, as it were). I was, in fact referring to the 1701-A in regards to the "new" Enterprise as seen in IV, V, and VI. Thanks for pointing out the error!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Ya know, I'm not really SURE I want this nailed down in any "official" way, but I'd kinda like to see a seriously well-drawn series of diagrams illustrating how the TOS 1701 was refitted.

Obviously the nacelles and pylons were totally discarded and replaced, as was the A/B/C deck structure. 

But other things intrigue me, like the larger-diameter saucer. (It's my theory that a corridor was added around the rim, giving room for mess halls at the 4 corners [where the windows are] and the "new" RCS packs - I find that the simplest explanation)

You might give it a shot and devote, maybe, a 2-page spread to that.

Or not.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

That's a pretty darned good idea, John P! I'd like to see that as well!


----------



## Psion (Apr 30, 2005)

[decloaking lurker]
I'd buy it in an instant and put it right next to the original which is exactly 1 meter away from my right hand as I write this.

And I agree with John P as well.

[recloaks]


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

wpthomas said:


> (I pulled out my copy of the original the other night. I'd forgotten that it was signed by James Doohan and Andrew Probert.)


Holy cow! Now you just need to get that sent off to Shane to sign it.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Hmmmm......intriguing idea, updating "Mr. Scott's Guide..."

Shane, I may email you with a more detailed list of ideas, but off the top of my head, and as I flip through my copy of the current version, in no particular order:

Correcting the timeline and the Okudagrams.

A better depiction of the matter/antimatter integration system (maybe have the deuterium tanks on the sides of the hull with the antimatter pods on the bottom?)

Including drawings of the TMP uniforms along with the TWOK, etc, ones.

A biggie is working out the innards of the E-A, especially the engineering section. Both the use of the E-D's engineering set and the markings on the bottom of the secondary hull indicate an engine layout more akin to the original ship than the refit. I'll send you some thoughts along these lines once I get my main computer back up, which should be soon, but in short, I'm seeing the engine room much futher back in the hull, with the now familiar setup of deuterium slush tanks above, antimatter pods below, dilithium crystal assembly in the intermix chamber right in the middle, with plasma conduits leading to the nacelles.

Some color pics would be nice.

The various bridge modules seem to warrant attention.

Incorporating footnotes that give a real-world, behind-the-scenes explanation for things, ala ST:TNG Tech Manual. That's one aspect of the TNG TM that I really like.

Along those lines, perhaps a design evolution section that incorporates the Phase II designs (perhaps as an explanation for what happened to the Excalibur after getting the crap kicked out of it in "The Ultimate Computer"). Personally, I lean towards Matt Jefferies' approach to the refit, that the saucer was the only original section of the ship, and that the secondary hull and nacelles were completely new structures.

Figuring out a way to make the official line of "E-A used to be Yorktown" work. Along these lines, resolution of the "Enterprise class/Constitution reft class" issue. Again, I like the idea of the refit Enterprise being, essentially, a prototype, and thus the only ship of her class, whereas the other Constitution class ships that were refit took a different path designwise (ex: the ship that would become the E-A), and therefore retained the designation "Constitution class" with the modifier "refit".

The diagram of the rank pins needs correcting, mainly with the ranks of ensign, lietenant (jg), lieutenant, and lieutenant commander. Inclusion of the previous system of stripes on the sleeves (and epalets, on the TMP uniforms) would be a nice addtion.

Comparisons of the original ship, the refit, and the E-A perhaps?

I think that pretty much covers my concerns.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Captain April said:


> Personally, I lean towards Matt Jefferies' approach to the refit, that the saucer was the only original section of the ship, and that the secondary hull and nacelles were completely new structures.


Why do you claim this was MJ's approach to the refit? I have evidence that this is not the case.

As for how the Enterprise was refitted, I am currently working on a presentation of this -- insofar as Jefferies' Phase II design is concerned. The impossible task of squaring this with what happened to the scaling and proportions after Uncle Matt went back to Little House on the Prairie I leave to others...

Mark


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

The theory that the Enterprise-A was the renamed Yorktown, came from the Yorktown appearing in ST-IV, with no actual on-screen explination of any sort, as to where the Enterprise-A came from. For all we know, when Kirk is told that the Enterprise was to be decomissioned, the name Enterprise might have already been assigned to a new hull, under construction, which they then rushed through construction for the end of ST-IV. Shane's theory that a fresh-off-the-assembly-line ship was renamed 'Enterprise-A'.

(For those that don't know, when ST-III was written, the plan was to have the Excelsior become Kirk's new ship, but fans didn't like it, so they painted an 'A' on the old refit model and called it good}
IIRC, in the TNG episode, where the Yamato is destroyed by a computer virus, there was mention that a ship fresh out of spacedock hadn't had so many bugs [since the Enterprise-A], helping imply that it was a new ship that hadn't been properly debugged. Indeed, now that I think about it, most of the problems they had in the beginning of ST-V could have been computer problems, requiring a complete upgrade of individual modules at each station. 


They probably wired a DC computer into an AC ship.. heh heh.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

MGagen said:


> As for how the Enterprise was refitted, I am currently working on a presentation of this -- insofar as Jefferies' Phase II design is concerned. The impossible task of squaring this with what happened to the scaling and proportions after Uncle Matt went back to Little House on the Prairie I leave to others...


You da man! :thumbsup:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

woozle said:


> For those that don't know, when ST-III was written, the plan was to have the Excelsior become Kirk's new ship . . .


I could have handled that better than the 1701A. Just didn't make sense that Kirk would get a, by that time, older design.


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

Ya know.. when ST-III came out, I was one of the many fans that vocally denounced the Excelsior as looking like a 'pregnant guppy'. They didn't give us enough time to get used to the idea, or tell us what the plan was. Actually, ANYTHING would dhave worked better then the '-A'.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I remember those criticisms, Woozle. Personally, I've always liked the ship. It's got a sleek appearance that is somewhat reminiscent of nautical designs.


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I remember those criticisms, Woozle. Personally, I've always liked the ship. It's got a sleek appearance that is somewhat reminiscent of nautical designs.


Oh man, people HATED that ship in 1984! I think the Powers That Be were kind of thrown by the antipathy to what was planned to be the "new Trek ship" and chickened out, bringing back the refit classic. Of course you had to wonder how that bridge could have been anything other than an intentional joke. Plus, they set up Excelsior and everything associated with it as THE BAD GUYS. Were they really surprised?

Then we liked the Excelsior a LITTLE bit better in STIV (1986). Then it started showing up in TNG (1987) and became very well thought of. By the time of STVI (1991) it was loved and adored and there was actual campaigning to make sure that the Enterprise B was an Excelsior class as it had been seen in the Enterprise D conference room. Go figure.


----------



## Ziz (Feb 22, 1999)

It's one of those designs that had to grow on people.

I also heard that ILM designed the Excelsior the way they did as their "answer" to the design flaws in the Connie class..long thin neck, pylons that don't look strong enough to hold the engines, saucer too big compared to secondary...things like that.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Design flaws? Tell that to a bumble bee!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

MGagen said:


> Why do you claim this was MJ's approach to the refit? I have evidence that this is not the case.


Well, the man said so himself when discussing his approach to the refit, that the saucer would remain largely untouched while everything else would be brand new.

Try that book on Phase II that Judy and Gar Reeve-Stevens did. I can't locate my copy at the moment.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I think the antipathy the fans had towards the Excelsior had more to do with the anger a lot of fans had over the destruction of the Enterprise in the first place. Even Nimoy didn't fully understand why fans were so upset, since "they can always get another ship."

For those who first saw the film in the theatre: Who else heard rather thunderous applause when the Enterprise-A was first revealed?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

woozle said:


> The theory that the Enterprise-A was the renamed Yorktown, came from the Yorktown appearing in ST-IV, with no actual on-screen explination of any sort, as to where the Enterprise-A came from. For all we know, when Kirk is told that the Enterprise was to be decomissioned, the name Enterprise might have already been assigned to a new hull, under construction, which they then rushed through construction for the end of ST-IV. Shane's theory that a fresh-off-the-assembly-line ship was renamed 'Enterprise-A'.


I think invoking the Yorktown had more to do with the original format proposal in 1964 having the ship name as "S.S. Yorktown" and having the refit be the former Yorktown was an homage to that original proposal; that the Yorktown also appeared in ST IV is more of a happy coincidence that plays into it.

(For those that don't know, when ST-III was written, the plan was to have the Excelsior become Kirk's new ship, but fans didn't like it, so they painted an 'A' on the old refit model and called it good}[/quote]

I remember asking DeForest Kelley about the the crew getting Excelsior in ST IV, and he wasn't took keen on the idea, either (he said they'd have to give the ship some Alka-Seltzer beforehand).



> IIRC, in the TNG episode, where the Yamato is destroyed by a computer virus, there was mention that a ship fresh out of spacedock hadn't had so many bugs [since the Enterprise-A], helping imply that it was a new ship that hadn't been properly debugged. Indeed, now that I think about it, most of the problems they had in the beginning of ST-V could have been computer problems, requiring a complete upgrade of individual modules at each station.
> 
> 
> They probably wired a DC computer into an AC ship.. heh heh.


I don't recall any reference to any previous ships in that story, Enterprise or otherwise.


----------



## spacecraft guy (Aug 16, 2003)

Shane, 

I'd be delighted to buy an updated/revised version your book - still a have a few of the original. 

If the book were printed as a high quality trade paperback, on high quality stock in full color, with color swatches detailing the colors of paint and finishes the ship has had, along with full color detailed shots of the model as she exists today - even better.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Absolutely I would buy one! (in my best TMP Checkov voice)


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Captain April said:


> Well, the man said so himself when discussing his approach to the refit, that the saucer would remain largely untouched while everything else would be brand new.
> 
> Try that book on Phase II that Judy and Gar Reeve-Stevens did. I can't locate my copy at the moment.


Can't find mine either--everything is in boxes due to painting and repair projects around the house.

If the saucer were meant to be pretty much untouched, that would lend credence to the idea that the saucer diameter was to remain the same meaning the refit would be shorter than the classic due to more compact engines.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Ziz said:


> I also heard that ILM designed the Excelsior the way they did as their "answer" to the design flaws in the Connie class...


Bah! Excelsior had nowhere near the kind of real world thinking behind its design that the TOS-E had. Jefferies' design is a creature of deep space. It has advanced beyond rockets and action/reaction propulsion. Inertial effects do not limit it. It has shields that protect it from energy weapons so powerful that they could vaporize the thickest physical armoring. The so-called flaws are baseless.

Now look at the Excelsior. It's beautiful to look at, but what's with the big eliptical clamshell doors that could never open; but when they magically do they lead to a tiny outhouse of a hangar perched on the edge of a surfboard thin hull extension that cuts it off from any useful cargo loading or shuttle storage purpose. Then look at the big, hollow cavern under the fantail. Looks impressive, but what's it really good for? Are those cargo bay doors in there on that little box floating in the wasted void?

The TOS-E was a seriously thoughtful design of a far-future space ship. The Excelsior is a pretty bauble made to look good onscreen, as well as to echo and update the original design -- but it's just a pretty facade. There's nothing substantial behind the mask. 

IMNSHO...

Mark


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

Excelsior never did anything for me. It looks stunted..and..well.. kit-bashed! Enterprise in either class, Constitution or Enterprise, looks elegant. She exudes a grace that no other ship has equalled plus you knew she could hold her own in a fight. Ent-D didn't have it. The only one that comes close is Ent-E and that is because they got rid of the cruise ship look and went back to the warship. Yes, Enterprise is a ship of exploration first and foremost, but every sensible sentient life form knows that you have to be able to kick ass every now and again!


----------



## NJFNick (May 22, 2004)

I dont imagine that even a few hundred of us asking for a new edition will influence Pocket Books, but i would love to see someone with a feel for the love the fans have for that ship do an ultimate, anal "super-guide".
Best of luck and "may the wind be at your back"!

Nick


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

Once I get all my ducks in a row, I'll have my agent contact Pocket Books about the project. I do not know how open they'll be to the idea, but I'll do my best. The original edition sold very well and the fans' love of the refit/1701A appears undiminished, so perhaps TPTB will be receptive. It's likely to be an uphill battle, however.

While a revised edition of my book would contain much new material, it would also likely bring together many elements created by various contributors over the last fifteen years. This would be necessary due to limits on production costs and the restraints of time. While many readers likely would have seen some of them in the past, many will be new discoveries in a new context and would be together in the same volume for the first time.

We'll see what happens. 

In the meantime, please continue to offer your suggestions and wish lists in this thread. If the project goes forward, I'll do my best to give you what you'd like to see.

Shane


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

I would buy it. I was very impressed with the first version. I love all technical aspects of the ship. I would like to see more focus on deck plans (blueprints) since the book is supposed to be about the Enterprise, but understand not a whole lot of the ship was seen. In any case I would definitely purchase a revised version.


----------



## Nighteagle2001 (Jan 11, 2001)

I'd deffinately buy one


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I still have my copy of the first edition in good condition. I'd be interested to see a revision. However I did prefer your explanation of the new _E_ being formally the _Ti Ho_ as opposed to the _Yorktwon_ which I think was just too cute.

Oh, please keep any ENT references out of it where they don't belong anyway. Keep the book focused on what matters. That would pretty well kill the purchase for me.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I was hoping any ST:ENT references would have indicated that that was just a popular scifi holographic show that had little to do with reality in the ST universe.


----------



## trevanian (Jan 30, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I was hoping any ST:ENT references would have indicated that that was just a popular scifi holographic show that had little to do with reality in the ST universe.


Popular?


----------



## Ziz (Feb 22, 1999)

Ziz said:


> I also heard that ILM designed the Excelsior the way they did as their "answer" to the design flaws in the Connie class...





MGagen said:


> Bah! Excelsior had nowhere near the kind of real world thinking behind its design that the TOS-E had. Jefferies' design is a creature of deep space. It has advanced beyond rockets and action/reaction propulsion. Inertial effects do not limit it. It has shields that protect it from energy weapons so powerful that they could vaporize the thickest physical armoring. The so-called flaws are baseless.
> 
> Now look at the Excelsior. It's beautiful to look at, but what's with the big eliptical clamshell doors that could never open; but when they magically do they lead to a tiny outhouse of a hangar perched on the edge of a surfboard thin hull extension that cuts it off from any useful cargo loading or shuttle storage purpose. Then look at the big, hollow cavern under the fantail. Looks impressive, but what's it really good for? Are those cargo bay doors in there on that little box floating in the wasted void?
> 
> ...


I didn't say it was a _good_ answer...just _an_ answer.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Commander Dan said:


> Shane,
> - Deck for deck plans would be nice, incorporating as many of the set designs from the motion pictures as feasibly possible. While I love my Strategic Design deck plans, I am sure a more comprehensive deck layout could be produced. At the very least, I would like to see more extensive charting of the rooms and bays seen in the films, and how they “fit” within the hull.
> 
> - Notable differences in the 1701 and 1701-A. (Bridge, Torpedo Bay, Engineering, Shuttle Bay, etc…)
> ...


Yes ... this is definitely what I would love to see.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Ditto.

Hmm, I recall hearing once sometime ago about someone working on a Booklet of General Plans for the _TMP_ refit reminiscent of the FJ plans for the _Connie._ That's something I'd like to see as well as faithful plans of the TOS _E._

Hey *CRA* are you anywhere near gettin' those done?


----------



## Captain America (Sep 9, 2002)

Put me down for one, as well.

I can't think of anything to add to the book, other than making sure all the pictures are unflipped & right side up. I noticed a couple that were backwards and/or upside down on mine.

Shane,
I would especially agree with the poster that suggested (I think) making it into the definitave guide for both E's, the OS E & the Refit/A. It would be a bigger tome, but if done right, Pocket could still 'pocket' a hefty profit on each one...and we modellers and 3D modellers would have a guide with the definitive plans for set building... :wave: 

If you could get Jimmy Doohan to write an introduction and/or sign the opening page, that'd be the icing on the cake...


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Warped9 said:


> ^^ Ditto.
> 
> Hmm, I recall hearing once sometime ago about someone working on a Booklet of General Plans for the _TMP_ refit reminiscent of the FJ plans for the _Connie._ That's something I'd like to see as well as faithful plans of the TOS _E._
> 
> Hey *CRA* are you anywhere near gettin' those done?


Just as soon as a certain computer nerd gives my back the main hard drive for my main computer....


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Might be a couple years too late to get any real participation from Jimmy, I'm afraid.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Federation Frontiers keeps saying they're doing deck plans for the refit as well. Their Reliant plans are rather astonishing, I hope they get the hell around to it.


----------



## Commander Dan (Mar 22, 2001)

John P said:


> Federation Frontiers keeps saying they're doing deck plans for the refit as well. Their Reliant plans are rather astonishing, I hope they get the hell around to it.


I too am immensely interested in Mike Rupprecht’s (supposedly) forthcoming Enterprise plans. I have a set of his Miranda/Avenger-class plans, and they are indeed superb!

To be honest, though, I am wondering if they will ever be available. The Federation Frontiers site is somewhat out-of-date. It still states the following in regards to the Enterprise-class plans:

_“Look for this latest product from FEDERATION FRONTIERS in the first quarter of 2002.”_

I have tried emailing him a couple of times to ask about availability, but I received no reply.

Dan


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

This is kind of why I never promised any sort of completion date for my plans.

Working on them in more-or-less public also helps cut down on the questions.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Commander Dan said:


> I too am immensely interested in Mike Rupprecht’s (supposedly) forthcoming Enterprise plans. I have a set of his Miranda/Avenger-class plans, and they are indeed superb!
> 
> To be honest, though, I am wondering if they will ever be available. The Federation Frontiers site is somewhat out-of-date. It still states the following in regards to the Enterprise-class plans:
> 
> ...


 His partner Alex Rosenzwieg moderates the TrekBBS.com tech forum. I ask him every once in a while and he always says "Yeah, I sure wish he'd finish them too!" [shrug]


----------



## EvilWays (Jul 21, 2004)

I'd buy at least two...I can't think of anything outside of what everyone else has said as far as what to add/touch up on(I had a copy of the current edition, but can't find it anymore, so I can't look it over to make comments).

As far as the "flaws" in the Connie, I think the Man himself said it best: "There's nothing wrong with the bloody thing!"

And maybe we can have the book answer the one question that wasn't answered in that one movie that no one likes to talk about (STV)..."What does God need with a starship?" :jest: Ok, maybe we don't need to know the answer to that...


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

What does God need with a starship?

He needs to complete his collection, of course.


----------



## EvilWays (Jul 21, 2004)

Captain April said:


> What does God need with a starship?
> 
> He needs to complete his collection, of course.


Then why did God forsake us with those crappy AMT pops?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

That wasn't God, that was the Romans.


----------



## EvilWays (Jul 21, 2004)

Oh...those guys...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Captain April said:


> That wasn't God, that was the Romans.


I thought it was the Philistines.


----------



## Bay7 (Nov 8, 1999)

So,

Aside from deck plans, what else could be re-done?

I'm not sure I'd like one dedicated to the Ent A - as from trek IV, the ship's internal arrangement seemed to go out of the window in favour of dramtic the needs of each movie.

IMO, I think that a whole manual could be devoted to the coversion on the ToS E to the refit version!

Don't wish to sound too negative - so I'd like to say that if it was re-done - I'd buy at least 2!!

Mike


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I seriously think a book like this wouldn't fly at all without at least some space devoted to the E-A, mainly because there _are_ some significant differences between the two ships.

As far as the transition from the original configuration and the TMP refit, that will, to be honest, require a good deal of fudging, because there is not one contour that matches between the two ships, and spending too much time on that little issue only highlights the difficulty in selling the TMP version as a legitimate refit.

Best way to handle this, IMNSHO, would be to give a brief history of the ship and the class, some small utilization of my deck plans (  ), a somewhat vague, and short, description of the refit, with limited illustration, then leaving the rest of that section devoted to the technical specs of the refit.

Then the second half can cover the differences between the refit and the E-A.


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

Here's a good question.. Shane, Had you thought about whether you would re-write the information that is in the original Mr. Scott's Guide, or just add to it, with minor edits? I think a totally new book, with a more 21st century name (something like 'the starfleet technical manual for constitution class starships, post refit') would look better on my shelf... next to the original, instead of replacing it. For that matter, got a title picked out?


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

woozle said:


> Here's a good question.. Shane, Had you thought about whether you would re-write the information that is in the original Mr. Scott's Guide, or just add to it, with minor edits? I think a totally new book, with a more 21st century name (something like 'the starfleet technical manual for constitution class starships, post refit') would look better on my shelf... next to the original, instead of replacing it. For that matter, got a title picked out?


I'd probably go with the same title, with 'revised edition' under that. I'd imagine Pocket Books would want the old title for marketing purposes -- it would be deemed much more 'approachable' than a more technical one.

The book would undergo major changes, both in content and layout -- a refit, if you will. 

Shane


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

Bay7 said:


> So, aside from deck plans, what else could be re-done?


Oh, lots of stuff. It's a big ship, and there are many yet untapped resources.



Bay7 said:


> I'm not sure I'd like one dedicated to the Ent A - as from trek IV, the ship's internal arrangement seemed to go out of the window in favour of dramtic the needs of each movie.


As for the 1701A, I think you'd be pleasantly surprised! 

Shane


----------



## pcumby (Jan 24, 2004)

Shane, I don't think this is a very unbiased audience to ask this question. Of course, all of us would buy a copy (or two!!!). Hopefully, there are enough Trek fans outside the scope of this board who would also buy a copy, enough to make it econimically sound for Pocket Books to publish a version. However, with the perceived waning popularity of Trek within the general public, I have my doubts whether the editors will be willing to take the risk. I, for one, would be willing to do my part to convince them, but I don't have the slightest clue how to do it.


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

pcumby said:


> Shane, I don't think this is a very unbiased audience to ask this question.


Nope.  But I wanted to gauge the attitudes of those most likely to buy such a volume, because if _you_ guys aren't interested, no one is.



pcumby said:


> Of course, all of us would buy a copy (or two!!!). Hopefully, there are enough Trek fans outside the scope of this board who would also buy a copy, enough to make it econimically sound for Pocket Books to publish a version. However, with the perceived waning popularity of Trek within the general public, I have my doubts whether the editors will be willing to take the risk.


It all depends on whether I can convince Pocket of the truth of the matter -- the modest sales of their last few 'technical' ST books weren't due to the fact that they were 'technical,' but because they were based on properties with a more limited fan following. For most fans, I've learned, _Star Trek_ is (and always has been) Kirk, Spock, McCoy and _their_ Enterprise, not the later permutations. 

Shane


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

...and always has been.

And always will be.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

So say we all.

Now, if only PL had figured that out before the Scorpion and the 1/1000 NX.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

AMT/Ertl/RC2 would never tell us, but it would be interesting to see which Trek kit sold best per year, not just overall. I'd be willing to bet that the Ent-D would at least be close in sales to the Ent-prime.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

There is only ONE Enterprise!

NCC-1701…..refit LOL !!!!

Honest, to me the Refit/A is THE one and only true Enterprise, next to the grey lady of course, but if I had to choose between the two, I would always pick the Refit 

But the good thing is… there is only one Captain to both of them … James T. Kirk 

OK Spock was her captain in TWOK, and Decker in TMP and …no…. that’s it, just those two LOL.

Anyway… come on Pocket Books, give Shane a go!!!!


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

it occures to me that for the marketting angle, comparing the projected sales to more recent books might be a good idea, like the Okuda books.


----------



## Prowler901 (Jun 27, 2005)

LONG LIVE NCC-1701! (TOS and refit  )

ALL HAIL JAMES T. KIRK!


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

woozle said:


> it occures to me that for the marketting angle, comparing the projected sales to more recent books might be a good idea, like the Okuda books.



Except that, from Shane's last post, it sounds like the last such books didn't do too well, engendering a reluctance on the part of Pocket:



lastguardian said:


> It all depends on whether I can convince Pocket of the truth of the matter -- the modest sales of their last few 'technical' ST books weren't due to the fact that they were 'technical,' but because they were based on properties with a more limited fan following.


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

aye... but that IS how they would look at it, not actually having a clue.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

If I recall correctly Andrew Probert designed a small detachable warp sled assembly for the _E's_ new design TMP shuttlecraft, and I'm not refering to the Vulcan shuttle's warp sled. I'd think something like that should be included and with more detailed scale schematics if possible.

Here's a pic...


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

lastguardian said:


> Since the release of the PL refit kit, I've had several folks, on this board and others, tell me that they'd like to see a revised version of my book.
> 
> I need to ask you guys honestly -- if I were again to pursue getting a revision published, how much interest do you think there would be?
> 
> ...


 Shane...good golly YES! Your book was and IS still one of my favorite technical books from Star Trek ever set to print. The way you presented the images and text really made it easy for me to imagine what life would be like aboard that ship. 

It's a work of art, at least to me! If you do revise it, I definitely would purchase it as well as recommend it to all of my like-minded friends. I can imagine that any revised version would be about twice as thick...!

I'd say the addition of color graphics and images would really enhance the work, but of course cost is always an issue.

At any rate, thank you for years of enjoyment ( Mine is a first edition 1986 copy purchased in 1987...) and look forward to many more if possible!

What I find amazing about the Internet is that we can communicate directly with those who helped inspire us and you and the others here on the forum can communicate with we fellow fans and enthusiasts. How nifty is that?


----------



## capt Locknar (Dec 29, 2002)

I would most definately be interested in several copies myself.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Shane, I hope this will prove useful in working out the innards of the E-A.


----------



## enterprise_fan (May 23, 2004)

Captain April, What are the chances on getting CAD of your drawing. One that a person can zoom in on to any particular section?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

^Since he's apparently using scans of Jackill's drawings, I'd say very little chance.


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

Oddly enough, I think Shane put most of that drawing in his first book. Incedentally.. it lacks a few of the E-A elements, like the deflector grid under the fantail.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

LastGuardian, perhaps you could have your agent contact Amazon.com and Pocket Books in order to set up something like the email voting poll found here for your New "Scotty's Guide" proposal:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005JN6D/qid=1121618502/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-1555647-9893446?v=glance&s=dvd

The above is for a DVD release, but I don't see why they couldn't have one for your book proposal that would come up when someone does a Trek book search.

Probably cost very little and a wider audience would get to vote on it! 

Just a suggestion.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

If my scanner was working, I would've just taken the picture from "Mr. Scott's..." As it is, I just dug up the cross-section that most resembled it and used that.

As for the deflector grid, that wasn't the point of the composition. The point is to incorporate those markings on the underside of the hull (remember, they weren't present on the refit; they only showed up on the A) and get a bead on the internal arrangement.

Frankly, the crew that added those markings to the model made them too damn small. They should extend all the way back to the fantail cutout. As it is, they're almost too small to be of much use to anyone.


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

Captain April said:


> The point is to incorporate those markings on the underside of the hull (remember, they weren't present on the refit; they only showed up on the A) and get a bead on the internal arrangement.


I THINK they only showed up on the A in ST6. A buddy of mine and I only discovered they were there at all because of the refit kit. So we went on a hunt to see when they showed up. We could find no evidence of the markings in 4 or 5.



Captain April said:


> Frankly, the crew that added those markings to the model made them too damn small. They should extend all the way back to the fantail cutout. As it is, they're almost too small to be of much use to anyone.


Absolutely. I'm kind of relieved to hear you say that. I was wondering how useful such an endeavor would be.


----------



## trevanian (Jan 30, 2004)

wpthomas said:


> I THINK they only showed up on the A in ST6. A buddy of mine and I only discovered they were there at all because of the refit kit. So we went on a hunt to see when they showed up. We could find no evidence of the markings in 4 or 5.
> .


If you're talking about those decal like markings on the underside, yeah, they were only added for TUC, specifically because Bill George had seen pics of the series E (from an old ST postermag, the smithsonian one) that revealed these markings on the underside of the engineering hull there. He showed them to Kim Smith or whoever got stuck repainting the ship again and she added them.


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

wpthomas said:


> I THINK they only showed up on the A in ST6. A buddy of mine and I only discovered they were there at all because of the refit kit. So we went on a hunt to see when they showed up. We could find no evidence of the markings in 4 or 5.
> 
> Absolutely. I'm kind of relieved to hear you say that. I was wondering how useful such an endeavor would be.


The 1701A as presented in a new edition would likely not include the belly markings added for ST VI, but instead would show the ship as it was for ST V. The markings were an afterthought and a nice tribute to the TOS filming model, but also (for the more technically-minded among us) would be too limiting in establishing an interior arrangement, assuming the markings relate to inner workings and weren't just there for identification purposes.

The 1701A bears very little interior resemblance to the refit E, having been built some 15 years later. All interior features seen in ST V and VI would be incorporated into the book (no easy chore, believe me), and they take precedence over squeezing in engineering elements just to accommodate the belly markings. There can be no ejectable warp core (a later TNG innovation), for such would conflict with the Jefferies Tube that runs along the belly centerline of the secondary hull.

Also, I do not care for the ST VI bridge (those turbolifts are impossible), so the bridge from ST V (a very nice design) would be the one shown in the ship's deck plans. The later ST VI bridge most likely would be included in floorplan, but not in section.

Shane


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

> There can be no ejectable warp core (a later TNG innovation), for such would conflict with the Jefferies Tube that runs along the belly centerline of the secondary hull.


Putting aside the speculative timeline regarding when the ejectable warp core was developed (I think it dates back to TOS, but that's another discussion), *what* Jefferies tube along the belly? Please tell me you're not trying to work in that idiotic brig escape scene from ST V.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Another note about the markings: At the Star Trek Experience in Las Vegas, on the underbelly of the big refit model, they've erroneously included those markings.

Go figure.


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

Captain April said:


> Putting aside the speculative timeline regarding when the ejectable warp core was developed (I think it dates back to TOS, but that's another discussion), *what* Jefferies tube along the belly? Please tell me you're not trying to work in that idiotic brig escape scene from ST V.


We're accounting for ALL of the scenes from ST V and VI. Should this revision be published, a fan will be able to point to the spot where any scene in either film took place. It's already been worked out, and falls into place quite nicely -- I was pleasantly surprised.

The Jefferies tube runs fore and aft at the centerline of Deck 21, the lowest level of the ship, as seen in ST V. (This is stated, I believe, in the text commentary of the special edition DVD.) Mike and I have discussed its placement at length, and the narrow width of that deck does not allow it to go anywhere but at the centerline. From there, Kirk, Spock and McCoy went port then forward to 'turboshaft 3.' There is some complex geometry at work here, but everything fits without contortions.

The belly markings were painted on the ship in ST VI with an artistic intent, not a technological one. Their function, as far as I know, is something that has never been established on-screen, only in fan speculation.

It isn't that the markings are being ignored, but that we're depicting the ship as it was before they were painted on. Trying to accomodate them as dictating inner engineering configurations creates unnecessary headaches and forces conflicts with established interiors. I know you haven't had access to all the resources I have, so you'll have to trust me on this one -- at least for now. 

Shane


----------



## trevanian (Jan 30, 2004)

Even George didn't know their function when I talked to him. He speculated that they might be center of gravity type graphics (the kind of stuff you used to put on model rockets, if I remember my Centuri and Estes stuff), but had nothing at all to substantiate or justify. 

I think ignoring them is just fine (Even though I looked for them, I couldn't even make them out on the laserdisc -- and I used to have a machine that let me freezeframe CLV disks -- so it is only on DVD or a really good projection situation that lets you see the graphics at all, making them barely even evident for most viewers before dvd.)


----------



## mb1k (May 6, 2002)

Count me in for one -with or without ventral marking substantiation.

Joe


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

The port holes outside the brig (in ST: V) where on a slightly curved outer hull, angled upwards.. impling that it is either on the lower primary hull or the bottom of the engineering hull. I guess I need to read that ST: V commentary, but the brig is on deck 21? 

The ST: VI bridge works if the bridge is on a mezzanine between A & B decks, set slightly forward, so there is room for curved shafts to the vertical shafts seen in the earlier movies.


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

woozle said:


> The port holes outside the brig (in ST: V) where on a slightly curved outer hull, angled upwards.. impling that it is either on the lower primary hull or the bottom of the engineering hull. I guess I need to read that ST: V commentary, but the brig is on deck 21?
> 
> The ST: VI bridge works if the bridge is on a mezzanine between A & B decks, set slightly forward, so there is room for curved shafts to the vertical shafts seen in the earlier movies.


The brig is aft on Deck 20. The Jefferies tube runs fore-aft on the next level down.

While the ST VI bridge can work if dropped low enough into the hull, we're trying to avoid such contortions if we can. We are very much aware of the 'bridge module' concept, meaning that this bridge must sit where any other would and share common attachment points. 

Some things are still being worked out. 

Shane


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Well, I'm of the school of thought that ST V was just a ghost story told around the campfire in Yosemite by a very drunk Dr. McCoy, assisted by an equally drunk Capt. Kirk (the only way to make a story so nonsensical make sense).

As for those frelling markings, regardless of the real world basis of their inclusion, they are technical markings, not decorative. The Starfleet pennants on the side are decorative.

And as for a Jefferies tube interfering with a warp core ejection, I have two words: *Emergency Bulkheads.* Besides, that Jefferies tube they were running in was branching off all over the place. Not that much of a stretch to figure it looped around the warp core. Or perhaps there was an upgrade of some sort prior to ST VI, to incorporate an ejection system, hence the addition of those hull markings (if it makes ya feel better about it, call them service hatches). :thumbsup:


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

Captain April said:


> Well, I'm of the school of thought that ST V was just a ghost story told around the campfire in Yosemite by a very drunk Dr. McCoy, assisted by an equally drunk Capt. Kirk (the only way to make a story so nonsensical make sense).
> 
> As for those frelling markings, regardless of the real world basis of their inclusion, they are technical markings, not decorative. The Starfleet pennants on the side are decorative.
> 
> And as for a Jefferies tube interfering with a warp core ejection, I have two words: *Emergency Bulkheads.* Besides, that Jefferies tube they were running in was branching off all over the place. Not that much of a stretch to figure it looped around the warp core. Or perhaps there was an upgrade of some sort prior to ST VI, to incorporate an ejection system, hence the addition of those hull markings (if it makes ya feel better about it, call them service hatches). :thumbsup:


No one said the belly markings were 'decorative.' I said they were added to the model for artistic reasons, with no thought as to what they 'meant.'

We've already worked the angles, played with the geometry, analyzed the sets, studied the possibilities. No 1701A ejectable warp core tied to the pretty yellow circle. Won't work. Honest. And to imply or insist that the TOS E had such a feature is simply to engage in TNG revisionism -- no one in 1966 (or 1979, or 1982, or 1984, or 1986) ever conceived of ejectable warp cores. But I really don't want to get into that debate.

The belly markings may well be docking targets for different Starbase facilities, or shallow service hatches for refueling or recharging ship's systems, or any number of things. In any revision of MSGE (should one happen), the goal would be to maximize the technical rationalization of what was seen on-screen. Nothing gets thrown out unless it is absolutely, utterly impossible to include.

Please just trust me here. We're working to make everything fit together in as logical and reasoned a manner as possible.

Shane


----------



## TheYoshinator! (Apr 2, 2004)

Shane,

I have a question. I already commented on SM what I'd like to see. But I saw the previous posts concerning TNG revisionism so...

Well, what about reversely? Since you put out the original MSGE there has been alot of information to come out about how the ship was designed. It's evolution from Matt Jefferies and Joe Jennings' work to Probert and Taylor's, etc.

In your original MSGE the VIP structure, for example, was suggested to be two decks. It was an understanable way to compensate for the erronious error of Kirk calling out to the turboshaft to take him to deck 5 where we then see him going into his quarters. this caused many people to disregard Kimble's poster. But since then all of the works that have come out by BOTH Jefferies and Probert suggest there's only one deck and a recess near the VIP windows. At least as it pertains to ST:TMP.

Personally, I still think there's no better or accurate 'intended' layout than Kimble's who was privy to all the THEN made decisions.

After all this time. How do you now feel about it? Do you still prefer what Kirk said on screen to what the designers designed? I'm just curious is all. I'm looking forward to anything you may get to put out, really.

Thanks.

-James


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

Shane, do you know how true this it?

As I understand it, Kimble was contracted to make the 14 OFFICIAL BLUEPRINTS from the actual sets themselves, which are long gone (in the original form, anyway) and the cutaway poster was intended to show the relationship of the sets to each other, in the ship, both as a 'writer's bible' and to show the fans where they where, making it as official and cannon as they come??


----------



## trevanian (Jan 30, 2004)

Captain April said:


> Well, I'm of the school of thought that ST V was just a ghost story told around the campfire in Yosemite by a very drunk Dr. McCoy, assisted by an equally drunk Capt. Kirk (the only way to make a story so nonsensical make sense).
> 
> As for those frelling markings, regardless of the real world basis of their inclusion, they are technical markings, not decorative.


How would we know? Hey, the only time I rememeber ever seeing klingons decorating their ships with gaudy etched brass stuff was in TUC ... maybe the stuff on the underside of TUC's E is just some dock rat's idea of graffitti, pointing out where he bagged an ensign from security when he snuck aboard during night shift, or where Jimmy Hoffa's remains were eventually transported to once the mob got teleportation capacity.

As for the 'ghost story' aspect you mention ... that's pretty much how I consider SFS, since it is much harder to swallow the logic and science aspects of the resurrection and aging of Spock than ANYTHING else in the TOS movies. Stop him from speed-aging? Just take him off the planet. Easier (and smarter) to just leave him dead. 

Of course I'm biased, cuz I think TFF has the heart that SFS tries to have, and in the case of trek movies, that is much more important than plot machinations and the like. If we don't like the people in trek, there's precious little else to appreciate (outside of Goldsmith scores and Horner musical recyclings/ripoffs), given the paucity of fx shots and mostly erratic art department calls.


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

Did Matt Jefferies or anybody assign a meaning to those markings in TOS? I THINK the round circle was for the tractor beam and I notice on the Phase II plan, there was a hatch pencilled in, on the bottom.


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

I love the Kimble cutaway, but it has problems. David is extremely talented and tends to eyeball everything, creating works pleasing to the eye but sometimes lacking in exact proportions. When he did that poster he was working largely on his own, with limited input from studio artists -- and thus he had the freedom to place as much of the ship's on-screen interiors as possible along the cut-out section he chose to portray. 

His goal was to create a good looking piece of artwork, not a caliper-friendly technical study of the ship. His docking ports, for example, are much too small when compared to the ship's interiors or his human figures, and the main engineering deck simply can't sit as high in the hull as he has placed it.

If the refit's saucer rim is two decks thick (as Kimble shows it to be, and as it was in TOS), then the primary hull MUST be ten decks thick (given a consistent deck height, and not counting access space within the lower sensor dome). In designing the TMP ship, the lower saucer contour was visibly raised one deck's worth to create a sleeker profile. 

Since TOS, the officer's quarters have been well established as being on Deck 5, therefore Kirk's line in TMP. And to refit the saucer from eleven decks down to eight would require that virtually NO inner support structure remain in place from the original Constitution layout.

Shane


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

Shane.. are you planning to include that sort of FAQ in a new book? I think that the classic debates would sell as much as the usual stuff. Whenever I make an assumption, you shoot it down with information that I've never heard and logical conclusions based on that information.


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

TheYoshinator! said:


> In your original MSGE the VIP structure, for example, was suggested to be two decks. It was an understanable way to compensate for the erronious error of Kirk calling out to the turboshaft to take him to deck 5 where we then see him going into his quarters. this caused many people to disregard Kimble's poster. But since then all of the works that have come out by BOTH Jefferies and Probert suggest there's only one deck and a recess near the VIP windows. At least as it pertains to ST:TMP.


The Jefferies drawing to which you refer was for the Phase II Enterprise, and varies widely from the TMP ship ultimately created. It shows widely varying deck heights, only one deck reaching (near) the rim of the saucer, and has the Deck 2 floor cutting through the center of what eventually became the VIP lounge windows.

One of Andy Probert's sketches deals with the secondary hull. Judging from his window spacing, he puts 9-foot decks throughout the dorsal and 12-foot decks in the secondary hull. By placing those same 9-foot decks in the saucer, you get ten decks there.

One certainly can make the B-C deck superstructure a single deck if one wishes to do so. But doing so unnecessarily creates an awful lot of dead space forward of the lounge, and scaling based on the bridge docking port shows there is no need to drop the bridge low into the superstructure in order for it to seat properly.

The ship's inner layout has been a puzzlement for many at times, but not an insurmountable one.  

Shane


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

I'm going to open a new thread on the superstructure subject.. as I'm trying to flesh it out, for my cut-away model and don't want to hijack this one to much.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Howzabout if that pretty yellow circle is an ejection port for a component _other_ than the entire warp core, like, say, the anitmatter pods? That should be sufficiently downgraded technologically from TNG's fully ejectable core. Should be easier to work around, too.

Hell, I think I'll incorporate that notion into my own plans....


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

lastguardian said:


> The Jefferies drawing to which you refer was for the Phase II Enterprise, and varies widely from the TMP ship ultimately created. It shows widely varying deck heights, only one deck reaching (near) the rim of the saucer, and has the Deck 2 floor cutting through the center of what eventually became the VIP lounge windows.
> 
> One of Andy Probert's sketches deals with the secondary hull. Judging from his window spacing, he puts 9-foot decks throughout the dorsal and 12-foot decks in the secondary hull. By placing those same 9-foot decks in the saucer, you get ten decks there.
> 
> ...


This bears an uncanny resemblence to the stuff I ran up against when trying to lay out the decks of the original Enterprise, particularly the deck heights in the primary and secondary hulls (for the dorsal, I just figured there aren't any decks to speak of, just support framework, gangways, power conduits, etc.).

Ten decks fit pretty well in the TOS primary hull, and I don't recall anything particularly definitive saying there's more than ten decks in the saucer, so ten it is, from where I sit. I don't see any difference with the refit or the A on that score.


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

Do you have a link to the TOS Enterprise project? 

If the Dorsal is light on decks, do you have a good explination for the portholes? they sure bug me.


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

Captain April said:


> Ten decks fit pretty well in the TOS primary hull, and I don't recall anything particularly definitive saying there's more than ten decks in the saucer, so ten it is, from where I sit. I don't see any difference with the refit or the A on that score.


I'm not picking on any one person here and I don't intend a rant, but I've never understood why so many people these days dismiss Whitfield's _The Making of Star Trek_ out of hand. That was THE reference text during the original NBC run of the series, and was popular (and in print) for more than a decade afterward. Whitfield (a pseudonym) gathered his information directly from those involved in the making of the series, had unfettered access to production files and staff interviews, and did a great job of putting it all together between the covers of a single book. Some have said the book cannot be given heed because it wasn't weighed down in technobabble and therefore wasn't "technical enough" -- technical enough for what? It was written about _*a fictitious TV series*_.

_The Making of Star Trek_ specifically assigns the primary hull eleven decks. _*Good enough for me*_. Whitfield did not make that number up, but was provided with it. He also specified what facilities were on which decks and where those decks lay within the ship, also information he was given. The book was Franz Joseph's key reference in laying out his original deck plans, and the man did a brilliant job in translating that written word into a believable (and enjoyable) layout.

I must confess I do not understand this post-TNG tendency among fans to toss out (or diminish) anything written before 1987 and replace it with more recent invention. TNG showed ejectable warp cores, so BY GOLLY the TOS E surely had one too. TNG invented slush tanks and vector coils and structural integrity fields, so BY GOLLY the TOS E had those. Well, the clear intent in TOS was that the matter and antimatter were carried and mixed within the nacelles themselves, and that this material and these engines were so dangerous and so powerful that they had to be separated from the rest of the ship by long pylons -- but BY GOLLY we now ALL know that the matter and antimatter COULDN'T have been up there because ALL ships HAVE to have belly-mounted antimatter BOTTLES and WARP CORES.

*sigh*

Continuity is fine and desirable, but revisionism isn't. Revisionism is a poison that leads to things like the Berman and Braga situation to which so many so vocally have objected. I may not have a lot of company any more, but I for one will continue to appreciate Whitfield's book and give it the consideration and respect it deserves. For those of you who have never given it a read (and I suspect there are a lot of you), find a copy -- and let yourself enjoy it. 

Shane


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

lastguardian said:


> may not have a lot of company any more


On the contrary. You have re-enforced my desire for the book you are trying to make.

4MM


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

> Continuity is fine and desirable, but revisionism isn't. Revisionism is a poison that leads to things like the Berman and Braga situation to which so many so vocally have objected. I may not have a lot of company any more, but I for one will continue to appreciate Whitfield's book and give it the consideration and respect it deserves. For those of you who have never given it a read (and I suspect there are a LOT of you), find a copy -- and let yourself enjoy it.
> 
> Shane


I don't have to look far, because along with your book, a tattered old copy of 'The Making of Star Trek' sits proudly on my reference bookshelf.

11 decks CAN fit in the space if one considers that K deck ( deck 11 ) is really just a partial deck mostly full of sensor machinery for the planetary sensor array and not a very big space area wise owing to its location.

Anyhoo, it's funny the lengths we as fans go to to debate the 'facts' of a fictional universe. It just shows how 'real' it is to us and how passionate we are about it. Many of us are either Engineers or Technicians or at least armchair Engineers... 

But hey, it's all fun as long as we don't flame each other on minor details ( _Are_ there minor details? I dunno for sure...LOL )


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

GLU Sniffah said:


> Anyhoo, it's funny the lengths we as fans go to to debate the 'facts' of a fictional universe. It just shows how 'real' it is to us and how passionate we are about it. Many of us are either Engineers or Technicians or at least armchair Engineers...
> 
> But hey, it's all fun as long as we don't flame each other on minor details ( _Are_ there minor details? I dunno for sure...LOL )


So true.  Sometimes the enjoyment for which Star Trek was and is intended gets lost in the passion fans feel for one aspect or another.

I'm working to produce a book with a high entertainment ratio. Some folks won't like it at all, and some will love it. But anyone who tries to please everyone pleases no one, so all I can do is my best, to strive to be as faithful to the Star Trek universe as I can be. 

Shane


----------



## TheYoshinator! (Apr 2, 2004)

^^That's all you can hope for. I'm sure everyone will enjoy it. The first still is, after all.

Here's two pics from Andy Probert's old tripod site. Glad I grabed them while I could. Since you only mentioned the recent release of the Jefferies images concerning the Phase II decking layout. I thought I'd pass these along. I wonder if you have considered including the Pre-Final TMP design (in the second image) in the book?

http://webpages.charter.net/thyoshn8r/TMPE/M_STtmp2.jpg
http://webpages.charter.net/thyoshn8r/TMPE/M_STtmp3.jpg


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

While it is absolutely canon that the dilithium chamber was down in engineering (though the location may(?) have changed during the series) and it did whatever it did there and nowhere else, I must agree that there is nothing to indicate ejectable 'warp cores' in the TOS Constitution ships though the idea is interesting. 

There're plenty of other items that could be ejected, I'm sure, but a warp core doesn't seem to be an option at that time. I also agree that the refit doesn't seem to be configured, from what is seen on screen of its engineering section, to be able to eject its warp core.

Whitfield's book is really good and agrees with what is seen on screen in TOS. I've read it through and re-read many sections since several times. I especially like the fact that the secondary hull is specifically referred to as the "engineering hull" (while a duplicate engineering control section is described in the impulse engineering room, it's obvious from the Jefferies designed set that the main engineering section most often shown on the show was down in the secondary hull) and the dish on the front is the "sensor-deflector". For me, it settles many questions.

I look forward to your updated book, Shane. :thumbsup:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I'm with ya too, Shane. Nothing superceded TMoST as far as I'm concerned.

I'd be interested in a discussion about what's in the "neck" though. The existance of all those windows obviously indicates habitation. What is there room for in there? If it's work stations, why all the windows? It's always been my feeling that there really needs to be some major framing structure built in there. The masses of the two hulls, even if we retcon a SIF into the design, would certainly create some shearing force with lateral movement. The only thing that really bugged me about Franz Joseph's internals was that he showed NO framing whatsoever, anywhere! 

So it's my view that neck needs to have room for a frame structure - maybe one or two diagonal bulkheads or "spars" that carry through both hulls, plus the turbolift shaft, plus an emergency stair or ladderway.

FJ seemed to put lounges in those neck decks. I guess that would explain all the windows.

CRA? Shane? Thoughts?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Speaking as one who has had problems with FJ's drawings almost from Day One, I'd like to point out that "The Making of Star Trek" is contradicted on more than a few technical points by the episodes themselves. 

Also, it _wasn't_ perfectly clear that all the matter and antimatter was in the nacelles. Not even "The Making of Star Trek" is very definitive on this point (the Writer's Guide certainly isn't). In fact, a very strong case can, and has, been made to indicate that the matter and antimatter reaction took place in or near Engineering down in the secondary hull, based _*SOLELY*_ from the episodes themselves, beginning with "The Naked Time" and continuing from there. No need to invoke TNG at all. Things really start getting specific in the third season, when they started to get a better understanding of how much the audience was paying attention, but all through the series, the tendency seems to be that when something was wrong with the engines and resolving that problem was crucial to saving the day (Riley has shut the engines off and we need to restart them pronto; Kryton has sabotaged the dilithium crystals, and thus the warp drive; the engines are accelerating out of control and Scotty has to shut them down, etc.), the technical specifics given, almost without fail, point towards a centrally located reactor in or near Engineering, which more often than not points towards us towards the secondary hull. 

However, when the only salient point of the emergency is that the ship is going to blow up unless _something else is done_ (shut down the insane supercomputer on the planet that's pulling the sihp down; defeat the evil aliens who are trying to learn about good and evil), then the tech references are all over the map (they're not crucial to solving the crisis, so they generally weren't thought out fully).

As for the eleven decks matter, Jefferies' own cross-section shows only *eight* decks in the primary hull, so which one do you believe? Or do you believe either one? There was a lot of flying-by-the-seat-of-their-pants going on while designing some of the stuff for the show, and while a large part holds together remarkably well, there are more than a few items that can only be chalked up as something that sounded good at the time but really doesn't work very well. Like telling Stephen Poe, aka Whitfield, that Engineering was up in the primary hull after there had already been several references to it being in "the lower levels". 

And I'd still like to find the clown that told him that the shooting miniature was fourteen feet long with a ten foot diameter saucer! :freak: 

As a primer for television production, "The Making of Star Trek" is still an invaluable reference, but as a Star Trek technical manual, it leaves a lot to be desired. An error is an error, whether it was made five seconds ago or forty years ago. A long print run doesn't make it any more accurate.


----------



## TheYoshinator! (Apr 2, 2004)

Personally, I always thought that, given the lack of space, the addition of windows in the Dorsal may ease a claustrophobic feeling on anyone working there.

I think the strength of a starship never really held with viewsers. A structural integrity feild makes the ship amazingly strong. This perception of it being weak in the Dorsal, I think is very misperceived.

Imagine a PL 1/350 Refit made of Solid Steel. Now drop it off a building... do you think the dorsal connection will bend or break? The Nacelle Pylon's base might, but long before the dorsal.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

John P said:


> I'm with ya too, Shane. Nothing superceded TMoST as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> I'd be interested in a discussion about what's in the "neck" though. The existance of all those windows obviously indicates habitation. What is there room for in there? If it's work stations, why all the windows? It's always been my feeling that there really needs to be some major framing structure built in there. The masses of the two hulls, even if we retcon a SIF into the design, would certainly create some shearing force with lateral movement. The only thing that really bugged me about Franz Joseph's internals was that he showed NO framing whatsoever, anywhere!
> 
> ...


Purely asthetics. If you're working in there, or just passing through via one of the ladders, you're gonna want to look out a window once in a while.


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

The windows issue does bring out a couple points... The lack of windows on the upper hull implies non-occupied spaces, like water tanks or equipement, unlike the Enterprise-D, which had windows on the slanted hull, for quarters. 

I've seen it, but can't recall where.. but the windows around the primary hull should give a fairly accurate idea of the number of decks in the TOS and Refit primary hulls (I'm working with 9 refit-hull decks) based on the Phase II plan, adding a deck with the new lower sensor dome.


----------



## Commander Dan (Mar 22, 2001)

lastguardian said:


> I must confess I do not understand this post-TNG tendency among fans to toss out (or diminish) anything written before 1987 and replace it with more recent invention....
> 
> Continuity is fine and desirable, but revisionism isn't. Revisionism is a poison that leads to things like the Berman and Braga situation to which so many so vocally have objected. I may not have a lot of company any more, but I for one will continue to appreciate Whitfield's book and give it the consideration and respect it deserves.


Hear, hear! 
:thumbsup:


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> There're plenty of other items that could be ejected, I'm sure, but a warp core doesn't seem to be an option at that time. I also agree that the refit doesn't seem to be configured, from what is seen on screen of its engineering section, to be able to eject its warp core.


Wasn't it stated (or at least implied) in the Kimble cutaway that those anti-matter containers at the base of the secondary hull were ejectable? Not the whole freakin' core, just, you know, the DANGEROUS stuff.


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

If it was, that was a Kimble invention. Some sort of Anti-matter emergancy dump would make sense.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Shane,

I only say this

Once the new version of Mr Scott’s Guide” will be available it will be my first best source book if it comes to the Refit!

Of course the old version will be the second best… LOL


----------



## Bender23 (Nov 1, 2004)

Steven Coffey said:


> I would buy it ! But what about Mr Scott's guide to the ships named Enterprise ?Since we know that Mr Scott made it too the TNG era why not do a history of the ships named Enterprise from Mr. Scott's point of view ? I know it maybe allot of work and speculation but the fans would love it .We know so little of some of these ships ,like the Enterprise B or the C .It would also be great to get a run down on the original 1701 .It is just a thought !


I think this is a great idea. Detail the ships the Scotty himself served on but show some attention (perhaps two or three pages per vessel) to every ship named Enterprise since the days of Kirk culminating with the Enterprise-E...


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

Shane, do you think that Startrek ENTERPRISE has taught us anything technical about the Refit/Enterprise-A?, that might have a bearing on the usual debates?


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

Captain April said:


> Speaking as one who has had problems with FJ's drawings almost from Day One, I'd like to point out that "The Making of Star Trek" is contradicted on more than a few technical points by the episodes themselves.


Which is to be expected, and is pointed out by Whitfield himself. The series was still evolving at that point, as the needs of various stories defined the technology behind them. 

I'm sorry you have such a problem with FJ's work. Personally, I thought then (and think now) that they're an excellent translation into blue ink of the clear intent of the show's creators. Roddenberry himself intitally thought so, and highly approved of them. Sure, there are compromises for the sake of overall internal continuity -- when translating a few soundstage sets into 21 fully fleshed-out decks, such is unavoidable -- but the overall end product was brilliantly executed. Are they perfect? No. Are they to be appreciated as the foundation of 'Trek tech' and the splendid contribution they are? Yes.



> Also, it _wasn't_ perfectly clear that all the matter and antimatter was in the nacelles. Not even "The Making of Star Trek" is very definitive on this point (the Writer's Guide certainly isn't). In fact, a very strong case can, and has, been made to indicate that the matter and antimatter reaction took place in or near Engineering down in the secondary hull, based _*SOLELY*_ from the episodes themselves, beginning with "The Naked Time" and continuing from there. No need to invoke TNG at all. Things really start getting specific in the third season, when they started to get a better understanding of how much the audience was paying attention, but all through the series, the tendency seems to be that when something was wrong with the engines and resolving that problem was crucial to saving the day (Riley has shut the engines off and we need to restart them pronto; Kryton has sabotaged the dilithium crystals, and thus the warp drive; the engines are accelerating out of control and Scotty has to shut them down, etc.), the technical specifics given, almost without fail, point towards a centrally located reactor in or near Engineering, which more often than not points towards us towards the secondary hull.


Kirk orders Scotty to "disengage nacelles, jettison if possible" in _The Savage Curtain_ (third season) and "discard the warp drive nacelles if you have to and crack out of there with the main section" in _The Apple_ (second season). 

"Somehow the antimatter *in the warp drive pods* has been deactivated."
-- _The Doomsday Machine_

"An ounce [of antimatter] should be sufficient. _*We can drain it from the ship's engines,*_ transport it to the planet surface in a magnetic vacuum field."
-- _Obsession_

Clearly, _the nacelles_ contained the antimatter tankage and would be the center of any possible uncontrolled matter/antimatter explosion, and the clear intent was that jettisoning the nacelles freed the ship of any risk from such a catastrophic detonation. 

Any time 'reactors' are referred to in TOS, the word is almost always (if not always) plural. The clear intent of the writers was to tie in with the fact that there were _two_ warp nacelles, thus _two_ warp engines, thus (at least) _two_ reactors. The notion that the nacelles were simply 'field generators' did not arise until _more than twenty years later._

The dilithium crystals, whatever they *actually* did, were obviously part of the final stage _refinement_ of power generation, not its source. They seem to have been integral in making the power of the m/am reaction usable, perhaps by focusing it into a coherent stream. The placement of the crystals have nothing to do with the location of the m/am reactors themselves -- often in need of changing, they would have been placed in an accessable location within the engineering section. 

To place the matter and antimatter storage _within the secondary hull itself _ is nothing but pure revisionism in light of technobabble established from TNG-onward. _*Nothing in TOS suggests such a placement.*_



> As for the eleven decks matter, Jefferies' own cross-section shows only *eight* decks in the primary hull, so which one do you believe? Or do you believe either one? There was a lot of flying-by-the-seat-of-their-pants going on while designing some of the stuff for the show, and while a large part holds together remarkably well, there are more than a few items that can only be chalked up as something that sounded good at the time but really doesn't work very well. Like telling Stephen Poe, aka Whitfield, that Engineering was up in the primary hull after there had already been several references to it being in "the lower levels".


The rough Jefferies cutaway in the book shows _nine_ decks in the saucer, few of which share the same deck height. That same diagram, however, does not accurately convey the profile of the ship and shows 21 decks overall (some of which, in the secondary hull, apparently have a ceiling height of thirty feet or so). Whitfield extensively interviewed Jefferies, Roddenberry, and everyone else involved in the series' production and _they_ said the ship had eleven decks in the saucer. And Dorothy Fontana constantly 'pre-edited' the book as Whitfield wrote it, ensuring everything fell in line with _Star Trek_ as they envisioned it. While they (of course) still were ironing out a few things (they were only in the second season at that point), they had a pretty good handle on it all even then. Sure, some details slipped through the cracks or were changed afterward, but the book _as published_ conveyed _Star Trek_ as its _*creators*_ intended it to be conveyed.

Whitfield's book states that Engineering is _headquartered_ in the rear of the primary hull, and that other facilities are down in the secondary. By no means does he state that the ONLY engineering facility is in the aft saucer. I have no problem whatsoever with the 'engineering' seen in the first season being in one location, with the very different facility seen in seasons 2 and 3 being in the other. 



> As a primer for television production, "The Making of Star Trek" is still an invaluable reference, but as a Star Trek technical manual, it leaves a lot to be desired.


Only if one chooses to disregard it due to personal preference and/or in favor of revisionist elements. There is _nothing_ in that book that does not work or renders it invalid 'technically.'

I didn't intend to start yet another debate on this subject. If it makes you happy to put warp cores and slush tanks and whatever else into the TOS Enterprise, do so and enjoy yourself.  _Star Trek_ is supposed to be about entertainment and personal enjoyment. But please don't go trying to tell those of us who do _not_ wish to revise TOS in such a manner that we are wrong, or that a _perceived_ lack of clarity from the creators of the show concerning a particular technical facet is license to put words into their mouths. 

Personally, my dedication to preserving TOS _as its creators intended it to be_ precludes me from recreating it in the image of TNG, DS9, VOY, or ENT. The technical position I have conveyed will be foundational in any revision of MSGE.

Shane


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

And with that....

I can just envision people saying that Naval Vessels 100 years ago MUST have had nuclear reactors in the Age of Steam because we have them today. ( Think reciprocating engines and coal or oil-fired boilers...)

* ducks for cover *


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

Well said, Shane. (Wasn't that well said? Had a kind of poetry to it...)

My favorite line in The Making of Star Trek: "The Klingons: honor is a dispicable trait." Talk about revisions...


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

woozle said:


> Shane, do you think that Startrek ENTERPRISE has taught us anything technical about the Refit/Enterprise-A?, that might have a bearing on the usual debates?


You must be joking.


----------



## jay_barnes (Apr 11, 2002)

Warped9 said:


> You must be joking.


 I don't really see it as a joke necessarily....they never talked about ejecting the warp core on the NX-01


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

wpthomas said:


> Well said, Shane. (Wasn't that well said? Had a kind of poetry to it...)
> 
> My favorite line in The Making of Star Trek: "The Klingons: honor is a dispicable trait." Talk about revisions...


Yeah, that always bothered me, too. In TOS, the Klingons couldn't be trusted ("A thousand throats can be cut in a single night by a running man," one of their sayings went) and the Romulans were a society of honor - violent and sometimes severe, but honorable.

Then suddenly, in TNG, the Klingons are the honorable ones and the Romulans are the backstabbers. Oh, well.

Shane


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

lastguardian said:


> Then suddenly, in TNG, the Klingons are the honorable ones and the Romulans are the backstabbers. Oh, well.


My take on it has always been kinda the same thing that happened in ST3 - Shoulda been the Romulans, but the Klingons were just better known.

Before TNG, in all the books and such (worth a bucket of warm spit to TPTB, I know) it was the Romulans who were more likely to eventually make peace with the Feds. For the very reasons listed above. But when Gene comes back and wants to show "We can live together in peace!" he realizes that Romulans just don't have the OOMPH that the Klingons do. Besides, you put a Romulan on the bridge of the Enterprise? Um, pointed ears... How new! So we're now at peace with the Klingons and the Romulans are still the bad guys. So the Romulans become the Klingons and the Klingons become Vikings. Honor becomes all, and to stab someone in the back is a grave sin. Except Klingons now have cloaked ships... Darn.


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

wpthomas said:


> My take on it has always been kinda the same thing that happened in ST3 - Shoulda been the Romulans, but the Klingons were just better known.


I'm sure you're right -- hence the erroneous 'Klingon neutral zone' seen in the Kobayashi Maru test of ST II.

Shane


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Restraints of both space and decorum preclude me from recreating the entire debate that has raged over on TrekBBS over this very subject, so I'll mainly recommend that folks who wish to follow this particular topic waltz on over to the Trek Tech forum and take a look at any thread that invovles the quiestion of where Engineering was on the orginal Enterprise.

As for the points brought up...



lastguardian said:


> Kirk orders Scotty to "disengage nacelles, jettison if possible" in _The Savage Curtain_ (third season) and "discard the warp drive nacelles if you have to and crack out of there with the main section" in _The Apple_ (second season).


See my point regarding situation where resolving the situation had nothing to do with working on the engines themseves.



> "Somehow the antimatter *in the warp drive pods* has been deactivated."
> -- _The Doomsday Machine_
> 
> "An ounce [of antimatter] should be sufficient. _*We can drain it from the ship's engines,*_ transport it to the planet surface in a magnetic vacuum field."
> -- _Obsession_


Vague references at best. "Pod" is about as generic a term as you can get, and the term "engines" was often used to refer to the entire works, not just the nacelles.



> Clearly, _the nacelles_ contained the antimatter tankage and would be the center of any possible uncontrolled matter/antimatter explosion, and the clear intent was that jettisoning the nacelles freed the ship of any risk from such a catastrophic detonation.


You're engaging in just as much speculation as there is on my side when we say that there's one main matter/antimatter reactor in Engineering that feeds energy to the nacelles, if not more so, siince we've got some much more specific refereences to call upon ("That Which Survives" and "Elaan of Troyius" are practically tech manuals by themselves). 



> Any time 'reactors' are referred to in TOS, the word is almost always (if not always) plural. The clear intent of the writers was to tie in with the fact that there were _two_ warp nacelles, thus _two_ warp engines, thus (at least) _two_ reactors.


Not clear from my perspective. "Reactors" is another pretty generic term, and more than once we've seen the ship have to go on backup power. "The Doomsday Machine" made it pretty clear that the impulse engines ran on fusion reactors, so that alone shows that there are more than one type of reactor on board.



> The notion that the nacelles were simply 'field generators' did not arise until _more than twenty years later._


It didn't see clear form until twenty years later, but there are inferences of that concept all through, coming into some focus with the Phase II redesign (when those same creators, including Matt Jefferies and Gene Roddenberry, were able to go back and refine some concepts that were left pretty vague the first time around, like just how the engines and power systems were laid out).



> The dilithium crystals, whatever they *actually* did, were obviously part of the final stage _refinement_ of power generation, not its source. They seem to have been integral in making the power of the m/am reaction usable, perhaps by focusing it into a coherent stream. The placement of the crystals have nothing to do with the location of the m/am reactors themselves -- often in need of changing, they would have been placed in an accessable location within the engineering section.


With the introduction of the concept with "Mudd's Women" _very very early in the first season,_ it was pretty clear what the crystals did. The ship's power was run through them. Without them, the ship can't operate at full power.

We'll put aside the conceptual strangeness of having the M/AM reaction take place in two somewhat remote nacelles, channeling that energy down to the hull to run it through the dilithium crystals, then channeling it _back_ to the nacelles to generate the warp field, and simply fast forward a bit to the big gizmo in the middle of the completely redesigned engine room, which we eventually discover to be the "dilithium crystal converter assembly." Right in the middle of the engine room, which several times is at least strongly implied to be in the secondary hull (aka "the engineering hull"). In the very same episode where we learn about this contraption, "Elaan of Troyius", Scotty also makes reference to, and I quote, "the antimatter _*reactor.*_" Singular. There is also mention of the shape of the crystals effecting the energy flow.

On second thought, let's not put aside that question of the layout, but let's not tackle it just yet.

Factor in the situation in "That Which Survives". The engines are accelerating out of control, and if not shut down, the ship will blow up. Like I said before, when the resolution to the plot point required actual work on the engines themselves, things got pretty specific. In this case, Scotty had to insert a magnetic probe into the "matter/antimatter reaction _*chamber*_ (again, note the singular usage), thus inhibiting the reaction and bring the engines back under control.

Now, if Scotty was doing all this inside one of the nacelles, consider this: he shuts down one side, but the other one is still running wild. This would logically result in the ship suddenly cartwheeling at around warp 14. Clearly, this didn't happen, and again, the technical references all pointed to a _single_ reactor, not two reactors up in the nacelles.



> To place the matter and antimatter storage _within the secondary hull itself _ is nothing but pure revisionism in light of technobabble established from TNG-onward. _*Nothing in TOS suggests such a placement.*_
> 
> As I pointed out above, there is more than enough evidence within the series itself to say that the matter/antimatter stores and the main reactor was housed within the secondary hull.
> 
> ...


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

And now, the conclusion....



> I didn't intend to start yet another debate on this subject. If it makes you happy to put warp cores and slush tanks and whatever else into the TOS Enterprise, do so and enjoy yourself.  _Star Trek_ is supposed to be about entertainment and personal enjoyment. But please don't go trying to tell those of us who do _not_ wish to revise TOS in such a manner that we are wrong, or that a _perceived_ lack of clarity from the creators of the show concerning a particular technical facet is license to put words into their mouths.


Well, y'see, that's the thing. Those who insist that the whole works is up in the nacelles are guilty of the same thing, putting words into the mouths of the creators, because they _didn't_ clearly nail down those aspects at the time.

But consider this: When given many of those same creators got the chance to do it over, starting with Phase II and moving onward, did they revise and clarify their supposed intent of the whole works being up in the nacelles? *Or did they clarify their original intent by making it absolutely crystal clear that the main power plant was down in the secondary hull and fed power to the nacelles?* It's all in the interpretation, because the sad fact is that they _weren't_ clear about how the ship's main power worked.



> Personally, my dedication to preserving TOS _as its creators intended it to be_ precludes me from recreating it in the image of TNG, DS9, VOY, or ENT. The technical position I have conveyed will be foundational in any revision of MSGE.


Again, "clear intent" is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

For more on this, I recommend the following website:

Where on the USS Enterprise Is the Engine Room?


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

Captain April said:


> Restraints of both space and decorum preclude me from recreating the entire debate that has raged over on TrekBBS over this very subject...


Exactly, and I'm not going to go on and on about it, either. This will be my last post on the subject. I've already written way more on it than I had intended, and as I've already said I'm not looking to debate this whole thing.



> Vague references at best. "Pod" is about as generic a term as you can get, and the term "engines" was often used to refer to the entire works, not just the nacelles.


The intent was obvious to all but those determined not to hear it. The terms 'pods' and 'engines' refer to the nacelles.



> Not clear from my perspective. "Reactors" is another pretty generic term, and more than once we've seen the ship have to go on backup power. "The Doomsday Machine" made it pretty clear that the impulse engines ran on fusion reactors, so that alone shows that there are more than one type of reactor on board.


The 'reactors' of which Spock (and others) spoke were referred to as involving antimatter. These were not the fusion reactors on the impulse deck.



> It didn't see clear form until twenty years later, but there are inferences of that concept all through, coming into some focus with the Phase II redesign (when those same creators, including Matt Jefferies and Gene Roddenberry, were able to go back and refine some concepts that were left pretty vague the first time around, like just how the engines and power systems were laid out).


It was "an almost entirely new Enterprise." Its engine arrangement was entirely different from the one it had known before. Its nacelles were new, their pylons were new, the entire engineering section was new. Everything.

It was given an intermix design _that would be exciting to look at on film_. The ship's sets were designed to look good _and nothing more_.

The engine concept of the refit wasn't a refinement, it was a whole new ballgame.



> We'll put aside the conceptual strangeness of having the M/AM reaction take place in two somewhat remote nacelles, channeling that energy down to the hull to run it through the dilithium crystals, then channeling it _back_ to the nacelles to generate the warp field...


Nothing strange about it. Such systems (in principle) are used all the time. Since the dilithium must be kept accessible, it's in the engineering section. It makes no difference where the raw power is generated, so long as it's channeled to the crystals for refinement and then utilized.



> Now, if Scotty was doing all this inside one of the nacelles, consider this: he shuts down one side, but the other one is still running wild. This would logically result in the ship suddenly cartwheeling at around warp 14. Clearly, this didn't happen, and again, the technical references all pointed to a _single_ reactor, not two reactors up in the nacelles.


You apparently don't understand the principle of story economy. You show _only_ what you need to show in order to tell your story, and no more. For the sake of drama -- with time running out -- Scotty addressed the problem _once_. That does not serve as proof that there is a single m/am reactor aboard the ship, especially when there is so much contrary dialogue in so many episodes. 



> As I pointed out above, there is more than enough evidence within the series itself to say that the matter/antimatter stores and the main reactor was housed within the secondary hull.


No, there is not. You've simply chosen to interpret a few shreds of questionable scriptwriting as proving such.



> You mean the guy who designed the ship *got it wrong!?!*


You tell me. He shows nine, then he says eleven. He never thought for a moment that fans decades later would be exerting so much misused time and effort scrutinizing his every scribbled line and utterance.



> An arbitrary decision on their part, since it's clear that they hadn't actually sat down and plotted it out in relation to the actual model, because eleven decks can't fit inside that hull, unless, as one astute observor noted, you had a crew of hobbits.


Eleven decks fit fine, especially considering there are no exterior objects (such as doors of precisely known size) to establish absolute scale. Jefferies was providing specs for the use of story writers, not numbers he thought would have to stand up to calipers.

It's amazing that so many guys can sit around and arbitrarily decide one thing must be as they perceive it to be, then use their newfound 'facts' to 'prove' something else is wrong. 



> I don't think the number of decks in the saucer is quite on the same level of, oh, say, the Prime Directive or the general character of the Klingons.


Yet it's a major part of your discrediting of Whitfield and FJ.



> I think I've already pointed out a few areas where it is invalid.


No, you really haven't. You've only tried to justify your own dismissal of them.

I've read your many posts (on various boards) on the subject of the inner arrangement of the TOS Enterprise, including some where you amazingly tried to sink the bridge almost down to Deck 3. I applaud your desire to analyze the ship and your obvious interest in TOS, but you give the impression of someone trying TOO hard to redo the ship's interior, as if no one else in the last forty years has been qualified (or even simply _bright enough_) to pin it down.

I've said it several times, and I say it again -- if putting the bridge in an unusual location and adding warp cores and slush tanks and who knows what other recent Trek tech innovations to the TOS ship floats your boat, fine!  Go for it! Have fun! But I don't appreciate _the constant denigration_ of others who have worked hard (in concert with the makers of the series, unlike yourself) to provide _Star Trek_ fans with books, blueprints and any number of fine products meant to enhance their readers' enjoyment of the series.

I'm finished debating this subject.

Shane


----------



## Steven Coffey (Jan 5, 2005)

Shane was nice enough to post this thread here to get our input on his revision of 'Mr. Scott's Guide' not to hold debates about what was in the TOS Enterprise .So please let's keep this on topic and keep it civil .


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Which is why I directed folks who want to pursue this further to the appropriate venues.

However, points were raised that I felt needed to be addressed before moving on.


----------



## TheYoshinator! (Apr 2, 2004)

lastguardian said:


> Yeah, that always bothered me, too. In TOS, the Klingons couldn't be trusted ("A thousand throats can be cut in a single night by a running man," one of their sayings went) and the Romulans were a society of honor - violent and sometimes severe, but honorable.
> 
> Then suddenly, in TNG, the Klingons are the honorable ones and the Romulans are the backstabbers. Oh, well.
> 
> Shane


Maybe Q visited both worlds and had a little fun! LOL!


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

John P said:


> I'd be interested in a discussion about what's in the "neck" though. The existance of all those windows obviously indicates habitation. What is there room for in there? If it's work stations, why all the windows? It's always been my feeling that there really needs to be some major framing structure built in there. The masses of the two hulls, even if we retcon a SIF into the design, would certainly create some shearing force with lateral movement. The only thing that really bugged me about Franz Joseph's internals was that he showed NO framing whatsoever, anywhere!


FJ intended his deck plans only as a reference for the general internal arrangement of the rooms and support equipment in the ship, not as construction drawings. I think he says as much right on them. While some structural framing is indeed indicated at the base of the dorsal and in the nacelle pylon strongback, he did not include all the framework the ship would likely have.

He may also have assumed (as did Andy Probert and most of the designers for ST) that advanced construction materials and methods would render heavy structural bracing unnecessary. 



> So it's my view that neck needs to have room for a frame structure - maybe one or two diagonal bulkheads or "spars" that carry through both hulls, plus the turbolift shaft, plus an emergency stair or ladderway.


Quite reasonable. The dorsal would have served little more real purpose than to hold the two hulls together and to allow the passage of people and power between them. 



> FJ seemed to put lounges in those neck decks. I guess that would explain all the windows.


Also reasonable. No sense wasting the space, if available.  Might give crewmembers someplace pleasant and quiet to go to 'get away' and think, write or read during their off-duty hours.

Shane


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

I agree that the ship shouldn't have bracing of today's engineering.. BUT, by using the Klingon Bridge for the torpedo deck, they imply some fairly hefty bracing though those might just bo asthetic. 
A turbo shaft (or twin shafts - for the high traffic between sections), the Intermix shaft, a Torpedo magazine, Jefferies toobage, other conduits, and the seperation hardpoint really don't leave much open space. The windows might just be on access hallways. 

I've been wondering if the dorsal would be a good place for Auxilliary Control, just like the E-D's battlebridge is on the top of the dorsal.


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

Ironic...I just read in another thread that James Doohan has just passed...Only 4 hours ago.

Shane...I think he would have gotten a kick out of seeing your book be revised...here's yet another reason to try to get it done.


----------



## heiki (Aug 8, 1999)

In the early 70's, I attended a Star Trek Convention in Chicago. One of the audiance members asked James Doohan about some of the material in that book: "The Making of Star Trek" Doohan stated that some of the stuff in that book should be taken with a grain of salt. That the writer may have expanded some things or taked other stuff out of context. 

One thing in paticuler, the story of the toliet that needed a guard to prevent it from being used during filming. James Doohan stated that that was an example of a writer taking certain liberties with the material.


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

Sound Stages usually have a crack ninja assassin standing by the bathroom, to make an example of anybody flushing during filming.


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

How sad...I had so hoped to get Jimmy to sign my copy of the revised edition of "Mr. Scott's Guide...". *sigh*

Rest in Sweet Peace, dear Jimmy. You'll always be our miracle worker, and an inspiration to us all. You will be sorely missed.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

GLU Sniffah said:


> Ironic...I just read in another thread that James Doohan has just passed...Only 4 hours ago.
> 
> Shane...I think he would have gotten a kick out of seeing your book be revised...here's yet another reason to try to get it done.


Agreed. There is a need for this book now for the fans!


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

Godspeed, Jimmy. The Word is given.

Shane


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)




----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

Perfesser, that's beautiful.


----------



## CaptDistraction (Feb 1, 2005)

I'd really like to see a dedication to Mr Doohan in the revised book. He was a great example of a person. He worked hard, fought in ww2, and was charitable and cheery throughout his later years.


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

^ I've NO doubt whatsoever that Shane will dedicate any new MSGE book to Doohan's memory...As Spock would say...it is the human thing to do AND most logical.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

wpthomas said:


> Perfesser, that's beautiful.


Thanks! I thought it was appropriate. That's one of the prints sold by Lincoln Enterprises back during the '70s. I got James Doohan to sign it at a convention in Charleston, SC back in 1994 or thereabouts. Of all the Trek stars I have seen at conventions, he was probably the most entertaining of them all.

Note the artist's signature:








:thumbsup:


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

CaptDistraction said:


> I'd really like to see a dedication to Mr Doohan in the revised book.


You can count on it. 

Shane


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

Andrew Probert IS one hell of an artist.

Perfesser, I'm sure you'll wanna keep that...not just for intrinsic value, but for sentiment's sake too. I know if it were me, I'd never want to part with it.

It's a beautiful work and thanks for sharing it here.


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

I had all those Probert portraits (as well as his Spaceship Portfolio set) back in 1974. I must still have them around here someplace, but beats me where.

Shane


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

You are so lucky, Perfesser! I don't remember seeing the painting before. I will have to look up my Lincoln Enterprises catalogs. I missed ST conventions, really not many in Alabama.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Lloyd Collins said:


> You are so lucky, Perfesser! I don't remember seeing the painting before. I will have to look up my Lincoln Enterprises catalogs. I missed ST conventions, really not many in Alabama.


One of the best ones I've been to was at the coliseum in Montgomery and had as guest, Mark Lenard (someone mis-spelt his name as "Mark Leonard" on the sign outside, however--must have confused it with "Leonard Nimoy"). 

That must have been in 1990 or 1991 or thereabouts.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

lastguardian said:


> I had all those Probert portraits (as well as his Spaceship Portfolio set) back in 1974. I must still have them around here someplace, but beats me where.
> 
> Shane


Yeah, I think I have most if not all of the spaceship prints still around. That was the set with the Klingon, 1701, TAS heavily armored shuttlecraft, and the alien ship from the TAS episode, "Beyond the Farthest Star", right?


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Yeah, I think I have most if not all of the spaceship prints still around. That was the set with the Klingon, 1701, TAS heavily armored shuttlecraft, and the alien ship from the TAS episode, "Beyond the Farthest Star", right?


That's the one. 

Also had the Romulan Bird of Prey, and I think one other ship I can't recall. 

Shane


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

lastguardian said:


> That's the one.
> 
> Also had the Romulan Bird of Prey, and I think one other ship I can't recall.
> 
> Shane


Oh, yeah! I'll have to see if I can find mine.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I bought that set. So far I have found only 3 of them. It's back into the attic to find the rest. I never knew Andrew Probert did them.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

For those who also frequent Trek BBS, in the Trek Lit area I've started a poll regarding what new, updated, and/or reissued tech or behind the scenes books folks would like to see. "Mr Scott's Guide.." is one of the choices (but the poll allows you to pick as many as you'd like on the list, including the ever popular "Other" category).

Here's the link...

Deck Plans and TMs and "Making of" books, OH MY!


----------



## Bay7 (Nov 8, 1999)

its amazing what you find trawling through the web - whatever became of this plan to refit the 'guide to the enterprise'?


Steve


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Holy frak. Almost seven years! That's gotta be some kind of record.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Man- it's okay here, but the boards at TrekBBS.com have a rule against reviving any thread over 6 months old. T'Bonz would probably send a Klingon hit squad to your house for one this old! :lol:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The thread on TrekBBS isn't even around any more.


----------



## spawndude (Nov 28, 2007)

I gotta start looking at the original post date.

I thought this was new.

BTW, did the new version ever get released?


----------



## Bernard Guignar (Sep 9, 2006)

It never did get released the publishers were not interested in funding the
revised verision. . Too bad it would have been a nice addition to the original version. And much better than what was presented lately.


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

I was surprised to see just how old this thread was as well!

I would have LOVED to have seen an updated version of the book. Definitely needs some corrections even it doesn't get additional updates, and the amount of info developed since then was considerable. This book was a "bible" for my Trek group when it formed in '87. Like many groups of the day, we formed the club as a ship and this book was an invaluable resource in at least general ship layouts, which really helped the writing part of the club who started our own adventures and stories.

Those were the days!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Ya know, while there's a part of me that would also enjoy a revised version of 'Mr. Scott's Guide', I'm thinking it would need a major from the bottom up revision.

As I mentioned in another thread, there's a lot of 'legacy' baggage in the old materials, information that was if not outright incorrect then at least interpretations of things that were way way off, and much tracing to the works of Franz Joseph. We know so much more now. Folks have done so much huge work based on the actual models, the sets, the props.

Why, I've got a 'technical note' by Goeff Mandel that says the bump on the lower saucer sensor dome was the 'ion pod' from an episode, when we know it was intended to be the main Phaser cannon point (and in terms of 'Trek canon' I think it may well have been that from the 'The Cage' time of the ship, when Pike was Captain.).

And we surely don't really need to reconcile the crazy deck numbering in the turbolift shaft from ST V do we? Wouldn't it be better to just say "yeahhh, um, no. we'll ignore this and mention it only to mock the absurdity of it", hm?

(and we can also ignore Scotty banging his head on a 'GNDN' piping conduit as well).

Heck, I'd like to see a revision of Sternback and Okuda's TNG Tech Manual, adding in all the things that came up in later seasons and doing more 'editor's notes on the real world' in regards to various entries. 

Pity Paramount/S&S don't give a crap about 'Trade' size books for Trek anymore.


----------



## spawndude (Nov 28, 2007)

Bernard Guignar said:


> It never did get released the publishers were not interested in funding the
> revised verision. . Too bad it would have been a nice addition to the original version. And much better than what was presented lately.


Back in the day any book with the words "Star Trek" on it would be an instant sellout. Not anymore.

Just search for Star Trek under books on that auction site and you well see many on the books like/similar to "Mr Scotts....." go for under $10.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The sad truth is that, as much as we love the tech manuals and other big "nonfiction" Trek books, they were never really big sellers, so it didn't take much of a downward trend in the sales curve to justify cancelling them altogether. Of course, it would've helped if the later books hadn't sucked, but trying that approach gets you nowhere.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Captain April said:


> The sad truth is that, as much as we love the tech manuals and other big "nonfiction" Trek books, they were never really big sellers, so it didn't take much of a downward trend in the sales curve to justify cancelling them altogether. Of course, it would've helped if the later books hadn't sucked, but trying that approach gets you nowhere.



Point of order: The FJ Tech Manual reportedly did huge numbers back in the day, that's why we got the mass release TPB of the Concordance, and let's not forget the huge support Pocket Books/S&S threw at ST:TMP with just a metric buttload of trade publications. 

I think the bloom was off the rose with the different releases of the Okuda's ST Chronology, a grand idea that seemingly wasn't too thought out, as it was pretty obvious to anyone that it's kinda dumb to try and write an all-inclusive chronicle of Trek history when new product (episodes, movies) were still in production.

(of course, NOW such a product, maybe sub-titled 'the syndication years' or something, can be done, but it won't. I really should grab that last printing for the library, however)

And now the 'common wisdom' is that nobody buys physical media and heck, there really aren't any bookstores left to sell it anyway, so why bother. Bah.


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

On the one hand, with all the amazing photography now availableaugmented with CGI "close-ups" of various greeblies and gizmapanels*, it could be one hell of a reference.

Then, as noted, we all already have them...

Man, people used to get so stoked for the "Art of..." and "Making of..." books. But books with $50 cover prices (yes, we were paying for "the label") ended up on the under-$10 table. Trek, sci-fi, and all things it seem appear to go through some big cycle. Flavor of the month. Ice Ages.

There was a time when you would have to kill to get a NASCAR race ticket. Any event, let alone the big cornerstones like Daytona. Yet, watching this weeks July 4th event at Daytona, I was amazed at how many empty seats there were at what once was a sure-fire sellout.

*patent-pending


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

TrekFX said:


> On the one hand, with all the amazing photography now availableaugmented with CGI "close-ups" of various greeblies and gizmapanels*, it could be one hell of a reference.
> 
> Then, as noted, we all already have them...
> 
> ...


Well, *I* still get stoked. I'm just let down all too often, and the money is tight. I pre-ordered the 'making of' John Carter to put my money where my mouth was and it's an OK book but needed much more. I've been on a shopping spree for books on Gerry Anderson's creations and found some nice things (and one book that eludes me at a reasonable price, grrrr!). So I'm 'down' with the concept. Saying that:


Micro-rant (tm)

It's the same all over, and the core issue can be boiled down to 'cheap disposable' entertainment has stopped being cheap.

A $12.95 TPB sold in over 20,000 bookstores can make money. A $50 TPB (altho many are Hardcover, so that's added value) sold in a couple thousand bookstores, that's a very uphill battle. 

"*snork* but everybody buys online! Who needs a bookstore!! *snork burp*"

Clearly many people do, because otherwise sales wouldn't be declining as much as they have been. All that slack from closed retailers (B.Dalton, Waldenbooks, Borders) should, by that logic, have been picked up by Amazon and they should be making TONS more money. But that hasn't happened. Why?

Because the internet is wonderful and amazing for finding a specific item. It's pretty darn crappy for casual browsing that leads to impulse buying. And all the cookie-enabled "others who liked this also bought" page spam in the world can't replace that 'Ohhh, what's THIS?' moment of discovering something unexpected on a shelf.

So, to combat declining sales the companies decide the best thing to do is RAISE PRICES which, given that people don't magically have more money in their pocket, leads to having to make choices, and stuff goes by the wayside, and sales decline which makes the companies raise prices...

Bah. 

End of mini rant. 

I know the PTB at Paramount wouldn't allow it but I'd sure like to see a book on the 20/20 hindsight for all the choices, decisions made about Star Trek over the years. Those things that in a rational world someone could say "yeah, we really shouldn't have gone that way with that" . Never ever happen.


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

I really need to get a replacement copy. The binding is breaking down in my copy and pages are looking to start falling out before too much longer...


----------



## eagledocf15 (Nov 4, 2008)

*I still an interested in an updated Mr Scott's Guide*

I still an interested in an updated Mr Scott's Guide or technical manual. Maybe LuLu? Other printers? an e-book?


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Any news on this still being a possibility?


----------

