# new trek book coming



## Jafo (Apr 22, 2005)

sorry if already posted a NEW trek book 

http://www.startrek.com/article/inside-the-haynes-enterprise-manual 

amazon to pre order if interested 
http://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-U-S...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1286407894&sr=1-1


----------



## Magesblood (May 12, 2008)

love love love!

Hey, you know the R2-D2 one? The innards are just a couple bicycles, a Dalek and an arcade game.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Unfortunately those illustrations of the TOS _E_ and the shuttlecraft don't bear close scrutiny. At first it looks impressive, but once you start studying them you see they get a lot of details wrong. The shuttlecraft cutaway appears to be based on the wildly inaccurate FJ drawings and bears little resemblance to what we saw onscreen. And there are a hoard of inaccuracies in details and even actual sizes and shapes of components on the TOS _E_.

I'm still going to get the book out of curiosity, but I already know what to expect.


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

Considering that Michael Okuda was a consultant on this, I'll reserve judgment on what they got wrong until I have the volume in hand.


----------



## Xenodyssey (Aug 27, 2008)

Cool.

I just bought the Deep Space Nine Technical Manual and was pretty impressed with it. I know it had been out for years but I'd never heard about it until recently.


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

well thats a chunk of my xmas shopping done. thanks!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

These views are nice: http://www.startrek.com/uploads/assets/articles/3e6f5461718bda8d227c647a466cc6e58ffec690.jpg

I don't see how the the shuttlecraft drawing is inaccurate at this point at that resolution. I doubt it will be 100% like some of the more carefully researched fan drawings but it will be in the mid- to high 90s% I'm sure.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

1701ALover said:


> Considering that Michael Okuda was a consultant on this, I'll reserve judgment on what they got wrong until I have the volume in hand.


Oh, you can tell easily enough from the cover image. this has been thoroughly hashed out at Starship Modeler and TrekBBS.com.

Here's my basic markup of the cover art:










We're modelers here, folks, and some of us have spent 40 years studying the ol' girl. If ever there was a group who could tell what was wrong with this drawing, it's us. I had people argue at TrekBBS that I shouldn't be so picky because "it isn't real," but we all know the model was real, and this drawing has significant errors.

And the first person who think's he's gonna make a point about any drawing being inaccurate that doesn't show the left side of the model undetailed and the saucer built out-of-round gets a pie in the face. I've been thru that at TBBS already.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

John P said:


> Oh, you can tell easily enough from the cover image. this has been thoroughly hashed out at Starship Modeler and TrekBBS.com.
> 
> Here's my basic markup of the cover art:
> 
> ...


Well, it isn't real and the original miniature was not perfect! It was out of round in spots, it had "detail" drawn on with pencil, and the stock footage was so poorly edited into the show the Enterprise changed appearance throughout every episode, heck, the opening credits alone! The model itself was not built to Matt's original profile, so which is right, the designers vision or the model builders who took it upon themselves to change things?

I for one am going to buy this book and enjoy it. Will I see things that might be "wrong"? Sure, but then again I didn't sit down and make my own drawings and write a book, and get a publisher to print and distribute it, all so frustrated fans could pick it apart!


----------



## Jafo (Apr 22, 2005)

oh yeah the rivet counters will have a ball! but id still like to look at it and make up my own mind


----------



## Joe Brown (Nov 16, 1999)

Don't bother counting rivets, just spend your money on the book. Then, on your next trip to DC, (bring the book with you) just go to the National Air and Space Museum on The Mall. Go to the main Gift Shop, 
http://www.nasm.si.edu/visit/concessions/shops.cfm

And take the escalator downstairs, and compare for yourself:
http://www.nasm.si.edu/visit/concessions/shops/enterprise.cfm


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

RSN said:


> Well, it isn't real and the original miniature was not perfect! It was out of round in spots, it had "detail" drawn on with pencil, and the stock footage was so poorly edited into the show the Enterprise changed appearance throughout every episode, heck, the opening credits alone! The model itself was not built to Matt's original profile, so which is right, the designers vision or the model builders who took it upon themselves to change things?
> 
> I for one am going to buy this book and enjoy it. Will I see things that might be "wrong"? Sure, but then again I didn't sit down and make my own drawings and write a book, and get a publisher to print and distribute it, all so frustrated fans could pick it apart!


Your pie is on the way.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

John P said:


> Your pie is on the way.


Cool!! : )


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

John P said:


> Your pie is on the way.


I like pie.... Can I have a slice of apple pie (no whipped cream) with my book?

I think that the book is a nice idea. As for accuracy....well, at least someone took the time and effort to craft together the book, take it to a publisher, get it made and share it with everyone else while making a bit of a profit as well. It's easy to be a critic, but I imagine that writing a book and getting it published is much harder.

Bryan


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Gemini1999 said:


> I like pie.... Can I have a slice of apple pie (no whipped cream) with my book?
> 
> I think that the book is a nice idea. As for accuracy....well, at least someone took the time and effort to craft together the book, take it to a publisher, get it made and share it with everyone else while making a bit of a profit as well. It's easy to be a critic, but I imagine that writing a book and getting it published is much harder.
> 
> Bryan


Amen Bryan!!!! Can I have your whipped cream on my pie?!!


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I agree that it's inaccurate to the original miniature but any fan could easily pick up on these changed details--it's an interpretation and we've seen versions where people try to reimagine aspects of the ship so that they make more sense given modern technology. It's an interpretation and I find different interpretations of the Enterprise entertaining--we've seen other cutaways of the ship, this is a new one. I will buy this book...


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

RSN said:


> Well, it isn't real and the original miniature was not perfect! It was out of round in spots, it had "detail" drawn on with pencil, and the stock footage was so poorly edited into the show the Enterprise changed appearance throughout every episode, heck, the opening credits alone! The model itself was not built to Matt's original profile, so which is right, the designers vision or the model builders who took it upon themselves to change things?
> 
> I for one am going to buy this book and enjoy it. Will I see things that might be "wrong"? Sure, but then again I didn't sit down and make my own drawings and write a book, and get a publisher to print and distribute it, all so frustrated fans could pick it apart!


Yes!! Amen, brother!! :thumbsup:

I can't wait to get this book, and (as I have with "Mr. Scott's Guide to the _Enterprise_", the "ST:TNG Technical Manual", the "ST:TNG NCC-1701-D Blueprints", and the old "Spaceflight Chronology", all of which have been contradicted and found to be not-without-fault) will read it cover-to-cover multiple times! Shane Johnson has been trying for MANY YEARS to get Paramount and Pocket Books to let him do a greatly-expanded update to "Mr. Scott's Guide", and they've repeatedly turned him down. Be glad that Paramount allowed this to happen, at all!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Okay, John P! Your call-outs show something I'd give about a 75% rating on. Not a good sign!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Gemini1999 said:


> I like pie.... Can I have a slice of apple pie (no whipped cream) with my book?
> 
> I think that the book is a nice idea. As for accuracy....well, at least someone took the time and effort to craft together the book, take it to a publisher, get it made and share it with everyone else while making a bit of a profit as well. It's easy to be a critic, but I imagine that writing a book and getting it published is much harder.
> 
> Bryan


It's easy to be a critic, and considering how much research and how many online references are available, it's also easy to draw the Enterprise accurately and with as few errors as possible. 

If we fans can build the models accurately, if Polar Lights can produce accurate kits, if people goofing around with 3D programs at home can make the ol' girl accurate, then a professional publication employing professional illustrators should be able to as well. There's no excuse at this point.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

John P said:


> It's easy to be a critic, and considering how much research and how many online references are available, it's also easy to draw the Enterprise accurately and with as few errors as possible.
> 
> If we fans can build the models accurately, if Polar Lights can produce accurate kits, if people goofing around with 3D programs at home can make the ol' girl accurate, then a professional publication employing professional illustrators should be able to as well. There's no excuse at this point.


Then do the leg work, contact a publisher yourself, and get a book published! I admire ANYONE who can achieve a goal like that, even if it is not perfect, rather than ones who sit back and criticize the hard work of others!!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> It's easy to be a critic, and considering how much research and how many online references are available, it's also easy to draw the Enterprise accurately and with as few errors as possible.
> 
> If we fans can build the models accurately, if Polar Lights can produce accurate kits, if people goofing around with 3D programs at home can make the ol' girl accurate, then a professional publication employing professional illustrators should be able to as well. There's no excuse at this point.


You speak words of iron!:thumbsup:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

RSN said:


> Then do the leg work, contact a publisher yourself, and get a book published! I admire ANYONE who can achieve a goal like that, even if it is not perfect, rather than ones who sit back and criticize the hard work of others!!


Did I kidnap your dog or something?

Have you never seen anyone criticize something on the internet before? This must be your first day online.

You're _really _going with the "can you do better" argument? :lol:

I'm not interested in creating a book like that, but I am interested in buying an _accurate _book.

Doing a drawing like that is indeed hard work. Researching it better before committing it to paper would have been the easy part.

One doesn't have to be a cook to know when something tastes bad.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

John P said:


> Did I kidnap your dog or something?
> 
> Have you never seen anyone criticize something on the internet before? This must be your first day online.
> 
> ...


"Take it easy Wang, it's only a parking lot!" John, it is just a book, one approved by Paramount. And from all my years of running conventions and dealing with Paramount, they don't give a rat’s you know what about the fans. People who worked on Trek and for Paramount told me point blank. If you want "accuracy" the best place is going to be the internet and fan work, until Paramount wakes up and sees where the money from their "cash cow" is coming from. By then Hell will have frozen over and it won't matter!! As I said, I plan on picking up the book because I am a graphic artist and always enjoy someone else's interpretation, as long as they stay faithful to the "spirit" of the source material.

Build on my friend and peace to you!

Ron


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

RSN said:


> "Take it easy Wang, it's only a parking lot!" John, it is just a book, one approved by Paramount. And from all my years of running conventions and dealing with Paramount, they don't give a rat’s you know what about the fans. People who worked on Trek and for Paramount told me point blank. If you want "accuracy" the best place is going to be the internet and fan work, until Paramount wakes up and sees where the money from their "cash cow" is coming from. By then Hell will have frozen over and it won't matter!! As I said, I plan on picking up the book because I am a graphic artist and always enjoy someone else's interpretation, as long as they stay faithful to the "spirit" of the source material.
> 
> Build on my friend and peace to you!


Ron -

Well said...

Bryan


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

John P said:


> It's easy to be a critic, and considering how much research and how many online references are available, it's also easy to draw the Enterprise accurately and with as few errors as possible.
> 
> If we fans can build the models accurately, if Polar Lights can produce accurate kits, if people goofing around with 3D programs at home can make the ol' girl accurate, then a professional publication employing professional illustrators should be able to as well. There's no excuse at this point.


Very well said! :thumbsup:


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

RSN said:


> "Take it easy Wang, it's only a parking lot!" John, it is just a book, one approved by Paramount. And from all my years of running conventions and dealing with Paramount, they don't give a rat’s you know what about the fans. People who worked on Trek and for Paramount told me point blank. If you want "accuracy" the best place is going to be the internet and fan work, until Paramount wakes up and sees where the money from their "cash cow" is coming from. By then Hell will have frozen over and it won't matter!! As I said, I plan on picking up the book because I am a graphic artist and always enjoy someone else's interpretation, as long as they stay faithful to the "spirit" of the source material.
> 
> Build on my friend and peace to you!
> 
> Ron


Not to stir the pot TOO much here........but.

Sure, Paramount doesn't care, however the mistakes I'm seeing were pretty obvious ones. If they goofed the interior, I can totally understand. But they goofed the exterior which does have a ton of references. This publication seems to have a good reputation, so I would expect they would want their work to live up to that reputation. And considering the target customer (people interested in mechanical stuff over a Picard/Crusher love story) I would hope that they would realize how toughly it is going to be scrutinized and make sure it stands up to that scrutiny.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Isn't it British-based? Maybe they used the Dinky Enterprise as reference...


----------



## Jafo (Apr 22, 2005)

jbond said:


> Isn't it British-based? Maybe they used the Dinky Enterprise as reference...


nah, they used the one thats included with the K-7 kit!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

John P said:


> It's easy to be a critic, and considering how much research and how many online references are available, it's also easy to draw the Enterprise accurately and with as few errors as possible.
> 
> If we fans can build the models accurately, if Polar Lights can produce accurate kits, if people goofing around with 3D programs at home can make the ol' girl accurate, then a professional publication employing professional illustrators should be able to as well. There's no excuse at this point.


*John*, we're just being a bunch of haters. :lol:


----------



## Magesblood (May 12, 2008)

Um, this is a fanfic book? Why are we getting so bent out of shape over it? I mean, it can't be any worse than Mr. Scott's Guide or Worlds of the Federation.

I just kicked the hornet's nest, didn't I?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Candidly the only stuff in the book I'm interested in is the TOS and TMP era. The rest I couldn't care less.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Warped9 said:


> Candidly the only stuff in the book I'm interested in is the TOS and TMP era. The rest I couldn't care less.


Same here!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

RSN said:


> "Take it easy Wang, it's only a parking lot!" John, it is just a book, one approved by Paramount. And from all my years of running conventions and dealing with Paramount, they don't give a rat’s you know what about the fans. People who worked on Trek and for Paramount told me point blank. If you want "accuracy" the best place is going to be the internet and fan work, until Paramount wakes up and sees where the money from their "cash cow" is coming from. By then Hell will have frozen over and it won't matter!! As I said, I plan on picking up the book because I am a graphic artist and always enjoy someone else's interpretation, as long as they stay faithful to the "spirit" of the source material.
> 
> Build on my friend and peace to you!
> 
> Ron


Well okay, then :lol: Sorry, I just hate the "can you do better" defense, it seems so last-ditch. Seriously, I'm the same as you - a technical artist who will get the book for fun, regardless of how accurate it is or isn't. I'll still enjoy the artistry of the drawings, but _being _a technical illustrator who MUST get things right in my job, I'll be ready top pick them apart on accuracy.

I once spent a month diassembling the suitcase-sized receiver/trasmitter for a military aircraft jamming system, measuring every part with calipers, and rendering a series exploded scale isometric drawings for the parts manual. What would my company have said if I drew ANY part of that as radically inaccurate as some of the mistakes I see on that Haynes cover? I'd have been out of a job! This is where I'm coming from when I criticize things like this.


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

John P said:


> It's easy to be a critic, and considering how much research and how many online references are available, it's also easy to draw the Enterprise accurately and with as few errors as possible.
> 
> If we fans can build the models accurately, if Polar Lights can produce accurate kits, if people goofing around with 3D programs at home can make the ol' girl accurate, then a professional publication employing professional illustrators should be able to as well. There's no excuse at this point.



BINGO!:thumbsup:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Warped9 said:


> *John*, we're just being a bunch of haters. :lol:


I _hate _that! :lol:


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Gotta side with John P on this one. Particularly if Okuda did consult, what's the excuse for having accurate data out there and deliberately mis-interpreting it? Unless they were told to not be too accurate??


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

John P said:


> Well okay, then :lol: Sorry, I just hate the "can you do better" defense, it seems so last-ditch. Seriously, I'm the same as you - a technical artist who will get the book for fun, regardless of how accurate it is or isn't. I'll still enjoy the artistry of the drawings, but _being _a technical illustrator who MUST get things right in my job, I'll be ready top pick them apart on accuracy.
> 
> I once spent a month diassembling the suitcase-sized receiver/trasmitter for a military aircraft jamming system, measuring every part with calipers, and rendering a series exploded scale isometric drawings for the parts manual. What would my company have said if I drew ANY part of that as radically inaccurate as some of the mistakes I see on that Haynes cover? I'd have been out of a job! This is where I'm coming from when I criticize things like this.


I used to draw medical equipment for catalogs. You may think all tissue scoops look alike, but if I was off even a fraction, they knew. But those are real world thing with real world purpose. This should be fun! I always like to see how they reconcile the curved corridors outside the engine room on the TOS Enterprise sets, or the one that exits out of the refit engine room(Which would not be able to fork off the left or right as it did!).

Have a good weekend John!!

Ron


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Ah, but fun for me would be trying to get it as accurate as possible! The exterior anyway, in this case, given that the model is so well photographed. The interior - yeah, that's going to be an excercise in compromise and creativity.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

All I know is it would be nice if the interior content is more accurate than the cover. But if the shuttlecraft sample page is true then I'm not hopeful. I'll still get it out of curiosity, but it's disappointing. If dedicated fans with limited resources can do incredibly faithful and well thought out renderings then why can't these guys do it with TPTB granting them access to all sorts of extensive resource material?

And before anyone carps, "Could any of you do any better?" the answer is, *"Hell, yeah!"* A number of folks on this site and others have _already_ done better. Go to the TBBS art forum for example and check out deck-by-deck projects for the TOS _E_ and TMP refit---awesome work!

I'll also add that I'll be paying for material I couldn't care less for.
*NX-01* - not a bad design in itself, but I really don't care.
*TOS Enterprise 1701* - the classic holy grail for me.
*TMP Enterprise 1701 refit* - the next best thing to the holy grail.
*GEN Enterprise 1701B* - ugly as sin and few really care.
*TNG Enterprise 1701C* - the frumpy one few really like.
*TNG Enterprise 1701D* - it's grown on me enough that I'm curious.
*TNG Enterprise 1701E* - the _kewl_ one that still leaves me cold.

And _Thank God_ they haven't included JJ's _Uglyprise._


----------



## Prince of Styrene II (Feb 28, 2000)

jheilman said:


> Unless they were told to not be too accurate??


I doubt it, since this wasn't exactly a project from Lucasfilm, wasn't it?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> All I know is it would be nice if the interior content is more accurate than the cover. But if the shuttlecraft sample page is true then I'm not hopeful. I'll still get it out of curiosity, but it's disappointing. If dedicated fans with limited resources can do incredibly faithful and well thought out renderings then why can't these guys do it with TPTB granting them access to all sorts of extensive resource material?
> 
> And before anyone carps, "Could any of you do any better?" the answer is, *"Hell, yeah!"* A number of folks on this site and others have _already_ done better. Go to the TBBS art forum for example and check out deck-by-deck projects for the TOS _E_ and TMP refit---awesome work!
> 
> ...


Well stated, sir!:wave:

(Though I like the B & C more than you apparently do  )


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

*Accuracy*

SciFi does not lend itself to rivet counting (as does steel navy). There are a number of problems that can be grossly grouped into two categories:

1. Visible defects
2. The TARDIS effect-the inside never fits the outside.

A good example for #1 is the screws and -brackets on the TOS warp engines. If you are doing a plan, should this be reproduced exactly or be corrected? You can look at any of the models and find things that do not match left/right that clearly should.

As far as #2, I don't know why anyone ever bothers drawing Star Trek Deck Plans. On the Refit, the engineering hull windows don't line up. If the decks are lined up with the docking ports, some of the windows are at knee level.Notice where the windows are on the engineering hull relative to the floor level in the docking port (even taking into account downward slant).

Without downward slant there is about 7.5' between the hangar deck to the bottom of the docking port opening.

Oh, and there is that little problem with the rec deck.

So, if you are doing a plan, do you move the windows? Change the position of the docking port? Make the lower ring of the saucer bigger?


----------



## Commander Dan (Mar 22, 2001)

Warped9 said:


> If dedicated fans with limited resources can do incredibly faithful and well thought out renderings then why can't these guys do it with TPTB granting them access to all sorts of extensive resource material?
> 
> And before anyone carps, "Could any of you do any better?" the answer is, *"Hell, yeah!"* A number of folks on this site and others have _already_ done better. Go to the TBBS art forum for example and check out deck-by-deck projects for the TOS _E_ and TMP refit---awesome work!



THIS!!!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

bigjimslade said:


> SciFi does not lend itself to rivet counting (as does steel navy). There are a number of problems that can be grossly grouped into two categories:
> 
> 1. Visible defects
> 2. The TARDIS effect-the inside never fits the outside.
> ...





John P said:


> Ah, but fun for me would be trying to get it as accurate as possible! The exterior anyway, in this case, given that the model is so well photographed. The interior - yeah, that's going to be an excercise in compromise and creativity.


I agree with John P above as to your questions.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I agree with John P above as to your questions.


Do that include the giant screws on the TOS warp engines?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

bigjimslade said:


> Does that include the giant screws on the TOS warp engines?


No and it doesn't include the external wiring going up the (usually) unseen side of the right nacelle strut and it doesn't include the port side of the engineering hull or the painted rather than lighted saucer deck window, etc.

Yes, there is some idealization of the ship in the so-called "accurate" version put out by modelers and others but it is based on what is already established as far as _obviously intended scale details_ on parts seen and not seen on screen. The idealized accurate version is also a result of not changing obvious proportions and other well-established details.

So it is not a binary, on or off situation here. It is a matter of degree as I earlier implied by stating that, after looking at John P's call-outs on errors, I'd only give it about a 76% grade. I'd much rather be able to give it a 96%.

Otherwise, if once you accept that it's not perfect and therefore anything goes, you might as well put a Death Star on the cover and label it NCC-1701 because there's obviously not a stopping point by that reasoning. 

We're not looking for perfection, we're looking for a reasonably high percentage of accuracy. That means there should be no arbitrary re-proportioning nor other unjustifiable changes (vs. simply filling out the unseen sides and matching that detailing to what is seen or the eliminating of electrical wiring and other items that were due to a limited special effects budget on the original production model) if the guide is supposed to represent the original ship as intended.


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

^Well said. 
I gotta go with John on this. There is no excuse for blatant inaccuracy. The run of the mill fan could care less about the original-- they have the JJ-prise to drool over. For the most part, only obsessives like us will care enough to get this thing, and only obsessives like us will be interested enough to see the many errors. For some of you it will take more viewings than others, but in the end, the book gets consigned to the heap of books we could do without. 

The question is, with so much democratically distributed expertise out here on the Internet, how could people wielding a big production budget be so wrong? Anyone with a little knowledge could put Warped on the shuttlecraft and David Shaw on the original 1701 and get amazing accuracy. But no... It has to be done by people outside the circle of interested fans, people that have to pick up the expertise on Paramount's dime -- dime they aren't willing to spend. And will Paramount, if this book tanks, take it as yet another sign that there is no market for tech publications? Instead of there being no market for halfassed tech publications?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

aridas sofia said:


> And will Paramount, if this book tanks, take it as yet another sign that there is no market for tech publications? Instead of there being no market for halfassed tech publications?


They may well do that. And frankly I wouldn't cry. The age of the personal computer and the internet allowing the sharing of information and resources has allowed those interested to fashion amazing work independent of "official" sources and publications.

Forgive me for tooting my own horn here, but I seriously doubt anyone else would have attempted to do what I did with the TOS shuttlecraft. I've seen several individuals create fantastic schematics of the TOS _E._ Scores have done incedible 3D models and animation. And as I mentioned earlier upthread there are some who are painstakingly trying to render the TOS _E_ deck-by-deck in 3D. And bless Polar Lights for producing some amazing model kits even if they're not in the scale I'd like.

And so we need those other guys (with Paramount's blessing) for...?

Since the '70s I've learned that often the fans have been the ones to really keep the spirit of _Star Trek_ alive more than those who've been paid to do it. Often we're able to do what the TOS creators couldn't afford to do and what TPTB and their underlings are unwilling to do.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> They may well do that. And frankly I wouldn't cry. The age of the personal computer and the internet allowing the sharing of information and resources has allowed those interested to fashion amazing work independent of "official" sources and publications.


Very good point, Warped9! I agree. 

The works you discuss are labors of love and people can't be paid enough to come up with that sort of devotion and respect.


----------



## chiangkaishecky (Oct 4, 2000)

Interview with co-author
http://startrek.com/article/haynes-enterprise-manual-co-author-ben-robinson-interview


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Even more baffling, after having read this interview, as to why there are so many gross errors apparent on the cover and teaser pages, considering all of these 'experts' involved in the project. Hopefully, the final release will be more accurate and the pics we've seen so far represent earlier drafts and not the final product.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Trek Ace said:


> Hopefully, the final release will be more accurate and the pics we've seen so far represent earlier drafts and not the final product.


I wouldn't hold my breath. This sort of thing isn't surprising or even unusual. If you want work that tries to be faithful and consistent then often you're best bet is to turn to work done by talented and dedicated fans.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

I saw this book at B&N last night.

pretty stink'n lame.

Loaded with images that we've all seen before and the rest of the drawings aren't that great either.

There are many better sources of info out there.
The cut away posters for example are MUCH better than whats offered here.


----------



## Gregatron (Mar 29, 2008)

The TOS orthos look to be slight mods of the CG _Defiant_ as created for "In a Mirror, Darkly...".


http://flare.solareclipse.net/cgi2/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=002611;p=0

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1324805/Haynes-publishes-owners-manual-Star-Treks-U-S-S-Enterprise.html


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

ClubTepes said:


> I saw this book at B&N last night.


You've seen this book in stores already?

According to Amazon.com, the release date isn't until this coming Tuesday (11/2) and the B&N website also lists the release date as November...

All perceived "imperfections" aside, I'll happily plunk down 20 bucks for this book. I think that the artwork, references and text shown online thus far will make it a nice book to have.

I'm not the anal-retentive type, so I'll probably enjoy it for what it has to offer.

Bryan


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Heck, it's got to be as accurate as the old Star Trek Poster Books ... and I've got all of those in a box in the attic. Hmmm, must go check those out - fun reads.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Again, what is "accurate"? The blueprints Matt Jeffries drew, the 3 foot model, the 11 foot model, the deck schematics on set pieces, the Franz Joseph blueprints, Greg Jein's model from "Trials and Tribble-ations", the CG model used in the re-mastered episodes or the "precieved" look that we each have of the ship? See my point? They are ALL different! There is NO standard to judge right or wrong!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

For the exterior, the 11-foot model as seen on screen in its final series configuration.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

John P said:


> For the exterior, the 11-foot model as seen on screen in its final series configuration.


Yes, but even that model was not crafted evenly, do you include imperfections or fix them?


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Gary Kerr was able to create 'idealized' plans based on direct measurements and examination of the 11-foot model, and input from select individuals. I would certainly imagine that any licensed technical publication would have access to those plans, and dozens of photographs and film frames for reference, in order to make the most accurate renderings possible of the original ship. 

Given the wealth of material that is available, I just don't understand how this book turned out the way it did. The horrific rendering of the original bridge I just saw is another story...


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Considering they would often shorten the railing by Spock's station, by one section, and moved the stairs slightly to the rear to compensate, what "accurate" bridge do you want? The one that was designed, or the one that was manipulated to facilitate filming? Again, there is no right or wrong, when dealing with a fictional object that was changed as story or director saw fit. As Shatner said, "....it's just a TV show, we did it on a lark!"


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

Here's to RSN for a good perspective with realistic expectations.

I'll buy it because I love Star Trek.

Is there a better reason?


----------



## chiangkaishecky (Oct 4, 2000)

NX impulse engine schematic
http://www.collider.com/2010/10/31/star-trek-haynes-uss-enterprise-owners-workshop-manual/


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Trek Ace said:


> Gary Kerr was able to create 'idealized' plans based on direct measurements and examination of the 11-foot model, and input from select individuals. I would certainly imagine that any licensed technical publication would have access to those plans, and dozens of photographs and film frames for reference, in order to make the most accurate renderings possible of the original ship.
> 
> Given the wealth of material that is available, I just don't understand how this book turned out the way it did. The horrific rendering of the original bridge I just saw is another story...


I can't speak to the accuracy of the plans in the new book as I haven't seen it yet and didn't even know about the book until I read about it on Hobby Talk. 

While I was working on plans of PL's 1/350 TOS Enterprise, I realized that any plans of the "real" ship would require either a redesign of sections of the ship - or rescaling the ship to the size of the Death Star when convenient, as a recent movie did. 

For example, below is an illustration of my plan of the 11 ft Enterprise model (in red) overlaid onto Matt Jefferies' plan of the hangar bay. Both plans are enlarged to full-scale, and are aligned at the bay's fwd bulkhead, at the aft end of the nacelle pylons. Jefferies' hangar bay is way too large to fit into a 947 ft ship, and it's as bad or worse if you compare my reconstructed plan of the original hangar bay miniature just to the 11-footer. Btw, if you examine Jefferies' plans closely, you'll see that the "horizontal" lines of the observation corridors and alcoves actually taper toward the opening at the aft end of the bay, which is relatively small. The actual size of the "real" shuttlecrafts is a whole 'nother can of worms.

Using some of the experience I've gained with reconciling the interiors & exteriors of various Irwin Allen craft for Moebius Models, I've fooled around on my own and found that I CAN fit a fully functional hangar bay and shuttlecraft maintainance garage into a 947 ft ship. You have to redesign the bay somewhat from what was seen onscreen, but you can easily retain enough design elements of the original so the redesign doesn't look out of place. I'm curious how the Haynes manual handles the TOS and other Enterprises.

Gary


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Gary K said:


> I can't speak to the accuracy of the plans in the new book as I haven't seen it yet and didn't even know about the book until I read about it on Hobby Talk.
> 
> While I was working on plans of PL's 1/350 TOS Enterprise, I realized that any plans of the "real" ship would require either a redesign of sections of the ship - or rescaling the ship to the size of the Death Star when convenient, as a recent movie did.
> 
> ...


But you know what I find fascinating?

it appears he nailed shape and contour just fine, only missed on scaling.

And here's my thought. That's something that might be worth taking into consideration. That hanger bay is likely based on the STAGE construction, which of course needs to take into account space for the camera, the massive lights overhead and so on. I kinda think that for the 'real' Enterprise one should consider all interiors about 30% smaller than as shown.

But that's the crazy world in my brain.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Well, I think it is important to recall that the hangar bay drawing by Jefferies was for building the miniature... which in turn was only going to be filmed from one perspective. But when it came to how Jefferies envisioned the hangar bay (among other things) fitting into the Enterprise, he had some specific numbers in mind.

This is an overlay of Jefferies numbers (the ones I've found so far) over my progress drawings.


_Click to enlarge_​
What is interesting is that that layout (by the numbers) isn't too different from the small drawing Jefferies did for the writers guide (and later TMoST). Even if I don't find any additional Jefferies measurements beyond these, I think it shows the level of thought behind how the Enterprise was put together (considering that it was _just a TV show_).



As for the book, I have a lot of respect for Rob Bonchune's work, and even if his Defiant/Enterprise isn't 100% accurate to the 11 foot model, it is a very nice model in and of itself.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

RSN said:


> Yes, but even that model was not crafted evenly, do you include imperfections or fix them?


Since you're pretending it's a real ship you fix them. And you can't believe how sick I am of people bringing up the same point of the slight imperfections in the effects model over and over in these conversations on multiple bboards. Next pedantic question.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Gary, wasn't that Jefferies drawing representing the forced-perspective set?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

John P said:


> Since you're pretending it's a real ship you fix them. And you can't believe how sick I am of people bringing up the same point of the slight imperfections in the effects model over and over in these conversations on multiple bboards. Next pedantic question.


Sorry, but I know the ship is not "real", but "reel", so it doesn't matter to me! I don't have any questions about the subject, I am just looking forward to a fellow drafter's work!!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Okay, okay, I just get _soooo _frustrated at that supposed "point." If you want to build a model of the _model _of the Enterprise, then sure, build it with the saucer a little out of round and the left side undetailed with wires all over it. But if you want to build a model of "The Enterprise" you build it as if you're modeling the "real" ship. The real ship is represented by the 11 foot model, as we see it on screen during the series production (yes, ignoring stock footage of the different pilot configurations), while imagining it's 947 feet long, has a round saucer, and detail on the left side. You have GOT to be flexible to be a sci fi modeler. Don't lock your brain into things like "but the saucer is 1/2 inch out of round over 54 inches!" It's not SUPPOSED to be that way on the "real" ship. Never mind what flaws ended up in the filming model; open up and imagine what the "real" ship was _supposed _to look like in the eye of the model maker.

I can't believe I have to explain this to someone on a sci fi modeling bboard.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

John P said:


> Okay, okay, I just get _soooo _frustrated at that supposed "point." If you want to build a model of the _model _of the Enterprise, then sure, build it with the saucer a little out of round and the left side undetailed with wires all over it. But if you want to build a model of "The Enterprise" you build it as if you're modeling the "real" ship. The real ship is represented by the 11 foot model, as we see it on screen during the series production (yes, ignoring stock footage of the different pilot configurations), while imagining it's 947 feet long, has a round saucer, and detail on the left side. You have GOT to be flexible to be a sci fi modeler. Don't lock your brain into things like "but the saucer is 1/2 inch out of round over 54 inches!" It's not SUPPOSED to be that way on the "real" ship. Never mind what flaws ended up in the filming model; open up and imagine what the "real" ship was _supposed _to look like in the eye of the model maker.
> 
> I can't believe I have to explain this to someone on a sci fi modeling bboard.


Are you kidding, I am getting a kick out of you thinking I take this seriously! Chill out and enjoy life, we only get one shot at it! Peace and build on my friend!!


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

John P said:


> Gary, wasn't that Jefferies drawing representing the forced-perspective set?


I don't think so. A while back I was lucky enough to see a set of behind-the-scenes photos of the hangar bay miniature, shot from both ends, and the set didn't appear to be forced-perspective. The observation corridors and other horizontal features were level & non-tapered, and the natural taper of the walls & ceiling gave the miniature the _appearance_ of being forced-perspective.

I think Matt Jefferies' drawing involved some sleight of hand to disguise a problem with the design of the hangar bay: because of the way the hull tapers, the arched opening into the bay is short & narrow, compared to the rest of the bay. On the miniature set the twin control booths on either side of the opening are the same height & elevation as the observation corridors on the sides of the bay. In the drawing, though, the booths can't be the same height or level as the observation corridor because if they were they'd be sitting side-by-side in the center of the arch. I know this is true because I spent many hours trying to make everything fit into the bay the way we saw it on TV.

In the annotated plan below check out how Jefferies subtly altered the scale/height of the booths & corridors to give the illusion that everything could fit into the bay just fine. Linear dimensions are annotated in red & blue, while angular measurements are annotated in green. The plans are reversed to match my AutoCAD plans. For what it's worth, I've drawn plans of the hangar bay miniature, which differs in a number of ways from Jefferies' drawing. If you'd stick a full-scale version of the miniature hangar bay set into a full-scale ship, the bay would extend well forward of the nacelle pylons, and the control booths would largely block the opening into the bay. Nevertheless, through the judicious application of some of Irwin Allen's non-Euclidian geometry, I was able to squeeze the hangar bay into the Polar Lights TOS Enterprise. Now if only they'll put the kit into production....

Gary


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Gary K said:


> Now if only they'll put the kit into production...


So say we all. (oops, quote from wrong series.)

Thanks for the dimensioned drawing, Gary. It's funny how I poured over the old Making of Star Trek book that had that illustration and never noticed the angles - and I think we misunderstood each other severl months back when you sent me a blown up image with your drawing overlayed. I mentioned the angles and maybe I thought you'd tweaked the image, but I think we were talking at cross purposes.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> For the exterior, the 11-foot model as seen on screen in its final series configuration.


I would modify that to say, "for the exterior, the 11-foot model in its final series configuration, idealized to eliminate obvious imperfections and areas that were not seen on screen filled in logically to match the rest of the model and elimination of practical features such as support holes and external wiring.":thumbsup:


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I like people who explain things.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Shaw said:


> Well, I think it is important to recall that the hangar bay drawing by Jefferies was for building the miniature... which in turn was only going to be filmed from one perspective. But when it came to how Jefferies envisioned the hangar bay (among other things) fitting into the Enterprise, he had some specific numbers in mind.
> 
> This is an overlay of Jefferies numbers (the ones I've found so far) over my progress drawings.
> 
> ...


Interesting drawing.
Where else can one find these dimensions as said by Jeffries??


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Trek Ace said:


> Gary Kerr was able to create 'idealized' plans based on direct measurements and examination of the 11-foot model, and input from select individuals.


I've long heard of these drawings, but I've never seen them. Is there any way to see them?

What's also maddening is some stores apparently do have them in stock while Amazon.com and Amzon.ca both list the book as not yet released until Nov. 2nd... Uh, isn't today Nov. 2nd???


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

ClubTepes said:


> Interesting drawing.
> Where else can one find these dimensions as said by Jeffries??


The numbers come from Jefferies' drawing of the Phase II Enterprise, which I did a clean up of here, the original scans were provided by *aridas sofia*. I was using the writers guide/TMoST cross section (here) as a corroborative source.








I had gotten pretty far along in my internal sketches (using the pressure hull diagram to partition up the ship and set plans as interior references) and produced this comparison...


_Click to enlarge_​
... when *MGagen* (here) pointed out that I missed important information Jefferies had put into the legend of that drawing. Of course as my sketches were an attempt to see how Jefferies saw the Enterprise, that was a massive oversight on my part and I was lucky that *MGagen* pointed it out.

The illustration I posted before is more of a collection of raw data rather than an applied cross section. One of the points of that project was to make the data available to anyone who wanted to use it for their own projects.

The thing of interest here is that Jefferies was clear (and consistent) in how he saw the hangar deck fitting into the Enterprise. And if there was any question as to how he saw the internal features of the hangar deck being arranged, he cleared that up in the Phase II cross section.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Here's a review and comments: http://trekmovie.com/2010/11/01/lib...ynes-star-trek-uss-enterprise-owners-manuarl/

The more I hear of this book the less I'm inclined to pony up the cash at this time. I think I'm going to wait to hear more from others who've already got it.

And every time I see that TOS shuttlecraft cutaway I just shake my head in disgust.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I would modify that to say, "for the exterior, the 11-foot model in its final series configuration, idealized to eliminate obvious imperfections and areas that were not seen on screen filled in logically to match the rest of the model and elimination of practical features such as support holes and external wiring.":thumbsup:


Agreed.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

RSN said:


> Are you kidding, I am getting a kick out of you thinking I take this seriously! Chill out and enjoy life, we only get one shot at it! Peace and build on my friend!!


Well, okay, then! :lol:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I just checked out some other message board discussions and the opinion seems to be roughly 2/3rds negative and maybe 1/3rd positive. Apparently while some of the art and illustrations are nice enough the technical information is disappointingly lacking. And a lot of folks are noticing inaccuracies right off as well as usage of pre-existing artwork from other sources and even purportedly uncredited artwork. Quite a few people have remarked being underwhelmed when they were able to actually peruse the book in-hand in some of their local bookstores.

I'm hanging onto my money for now. And for now I'm sticking with the good dedicated fan work.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Got my "shipped" notice last night.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

I just today got a notice from Amazon that the book has been delayed. Maybe it's just *my* book that's delayed, since John is getting his....

Larry


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

OH NO! 

Haynes manual - These are the same guys that goofed up my 1972 Oldsmobile by writing a book that covered Oldsmobiles from 1970-1985 by saying "Some models of Oldsmobile had the Holley carburator and others had the Carter" and they only showed how to fix the Holley. 

Hope they don't do the same thing in this book!


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

I've been asked why I couldn't simply transfer the Phase II hangar bay into the TOS Enterprise. The reasons why I couldn't are numerous, but hopefully the diagram below will illustrate the main stumbling block. The two plans are aligned at the aft bulkhead (with twin control booths). In accordance with Matt Jefferies' TOS E diagrams (and as a practical matter for a plastic kit) the hangar bay can extend no further forward than the aft end of the nacelle pylons. The attachment points of the swept-back pylons of the Phase II ship were much further fwd than on the TOS ship, allowing for a longer hangar bay. On the TOS ship the distance between the pylons and the aft bulkhead is only 50 ft - but my reconstruction of the original hangar bay set, which was not a forced-perspective set, is a scale 95 ft long (over 20 ft longer than the Phase II bay). When you have to cram a 95 ft long bay into a 50 ft space - well, you get the idea. 

There are a number of other complicating factors that become apparent when you reconstruct the bay in three dimensions, instead of a simple profile view. I don't have time to delve into the mater in any great depth, but I'll explain the entire design process if and when the PL kit is released. Back to Irwin Allen Land....

Gary


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Considering that Jefferies had both the Phase II and TOS secondary hulls almost the exact same length... why don't the ends match on your image?

Also, how slavishly are you sticking to the _947 ft_ length?

In my studies, I noticed that the dimensions of the components in Jefferies drawings stay very consistent, but the over all arrangement of them effects the final overall length. The arrangement of elements on his diagram that gives 947 ft is different than the arrangement on the original plans and different from the arrangements of the elements on either model.

Personally (and I know it is most likely too late for you at this point to change), I use the primary hull diameter (which is 5004 inches to 59.25 inches) as a gauge between Jefferies original _real world_ dimensions and the elements on the models. Though I do understand why people would use the length of the secondary hull as a gauge (4080 inches to 49 inches) as it stayed the same through to the Phase II drawings. Nacelle length is another reasonable gauge (6048 inches to 72.25 inches).

Applying those to the models overall length of 134.08 inches we get the following...943.65 ft (11,323.82 inches) using the primary hull as a gauge
930.35 ft (11,164.21 inches) using the secondary hull as a gauge
935.31 ft (11,223.74 inches) using the nacelles as a gauge​I don't think the Enterprise (models) can be studied based on a single overall length figure by Jefferies when Jefferies didn't know (or care) if the model builders had matched his exact arrangement. In fact his later arrangement changed from his original plans for the model. Applying the primary hull gauge (which is 5004 inches to 15 inches) to those plans (with an overall length of 33.75 inches) we get...938.25 ft (11,259 inches) using the primary hull as a gauge​Of course, I agree that Irwin Allen didn't really care about all this type of stuff, so why should we... other than the fact that Star Trek isn't an Irwin Allen production. 


For any one wanting to play with some of these numbers...


_Dimensions of the Enterprise_ (PDF, 1.0 MB)​
As for the question of the forced perspective hangar set, the real question is should we believe Gary's version or our lying eyes? Maybe Jefferies just didn't know how to draw parallel lines.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Shaw said:


> Considering that Jefferies had both the Phase II and TOS secondary hulls almost the exact same length... why don't the ends match on your image?


Because, if you'll reread my posting, I said I aligned the plans at the aft bulkhead of the hangar bay. While the size and general arrangement of the Phase II and TOS E are similar, as shown in the plans below, which are aligned at the fwd ends of the sec hull, they are two different spaceships with different proportions, and you can only draw so many comparisons between the two. 












Shaw said:


> Also, how slavishly are you sticking to the _947 ft_ length?


When I was working with Mike Okuda, who knew Matt Jefferies, he thought we should stick with 947 ft and I didn't see any reason to argue about it.



Shaw said:


> Personally (and I know it is most likely too late for you at this point to change), I use the primary hull diameter (which is 5004 inches to 59.25 inches) as a gauge between Jefferies original real world dimensions and the elements on the models. Though I do understand why people would use the length of the secondary hull as a gauge (4080 inches to 49 inches) as it stayed the same through to the Phase II drawings. Nacelle length is another reasonable gauge (6048 inches to 72.25 inches).


I don't want to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Unless we can contact Mr. Jefferies via a seance, this is all speculation. For the record, I think Jefferies' detailed blueprints of the ship, which Richard Datin used to construct the 11 ft Enterprise, match the finished model pretty darned well.



Shaw said:


> As for the question of the forced perspective hangar set, the real question is should we believe Gary's version or our lying eyes? Maybe Jefferies just didn't know how to draw parallel lines.


How very clever of you. Once you've worked from the high-res behind-the-scenes photos of the hangar bay miniature, as I did when I drew the plans, *then* we can debate the matter. Until that time I have more important matters to deal with, so I'm cloaking for now.

Gary


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Gary K said:


> ... so I'm cloaking for now.
> 
> Gary


When you feel less threatened, I'd love to talk with you about these things. It just doesn't look like this is that day. 

You have my e-mail address... my door is always open for you.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

*Don't Waste Your Money*

I bought the book that is the subject is this discussion. I view it as a total waste of money. It is not a really technical book with diagrams but rather more of a book with pictures from the various movies ("In 2254 Kirk did this.").

Yes, there are some diagrams. Typically a external views and a bridge diagram.

I won't get into the rivet counting. It's just a very lightweight book---not at all what I expected from the title and description.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

The 3D renders are awfully dark. I think a little gamma boost on the images would have made them easier to see.

The lineart cutaways vary. As I've already pointed out the TOS E has many inaccuracies. The refit cutaway seems to be a line drawing of the classic poster, and the 1702-E seems to be a line drawing of the SciPubTech poster. The rest seem new, and they all have inaccuracies in shape and detail.

In any case, it was fun to flip thru. I'll leave it on the toilet tank and study it in 10 minutes intervals for a week or so.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

I stopped by Barnes and Noble tonight to take a look at the book in question...

I was hoping that the book was good, because if it was, I was gonna order it on Amazon.com and save 10 bucks in the process. I'm glad that I gave it a good looking over first...

It's just not a good book. There's a lot of photos of sets from each Trek series that featured a version of the Enterprise. There's a smattering of diagrams and some orthographic renderings along with a healthy dollop of text. It's not worth the money - not even at 18 bucks with the Amazon discount.

I really hoped that I would like it, but I've seen better Trek books, magazines, etc. with similar diagrams and photos that pleased me much more than this. Don't get me wrong - I love this kind of stuff, but I just didn't see anything about the book that made me want to take it home with me. If I'm not going to look at it more than once, then I might as well spend an afternoon with a latte & a muffin, read the thing over and then put it back on the shelf.

If you really must have it, wait for used version to pop up on eBay and Amazon.com. Trust me, there will be some.

Bryan


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

*The Book: More Detail*

I gave this a an previously. More details.

This is the refit coverage by 2-page spread:

1. Cutaway diagram. It suffers from poor spine placement. The diagram serves as more of an introductory icon, rather than material. It has no annotations and really provides no information. There is a box of lightweight dimensions (e.g. overall length but not saucer diameter, engineering hull length, etc.). Contains text and chapter title.

2. Movie photos and a "Trek History" summarizing the movies.

3. Three views. The side view suffers from poor spine placement.
Rivet counters will find these reflect more of the Kimble view, rather than the studio model.

4. A bridge diagram. One page of movie photos. "Trek History" explaining some "A" changes.

That's it. I feel dirty having paid for it.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Well, many years ago I bought a huge Japanese coffee table book that touted itself as "the ultimate Trek book." The previews (was it at HLJ?) looked great. It cost about $100. When I got it, it turned out to be, basically, a 2-inch-thick episode guide with lots of screen grabs.

So I've spent more for less.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

On Amazon.ca it's still listed as not yet released but can be pre-ordered. Screw it. After all I've seen and read about this thing I'm passing.

There's so much archival materiel out there and they could have access to resources most fans could only dream about. And yet time after time the dedicated fans do better work. The earlier publications had enormous appeal because there was nothing else out there on that level and we were getting something new. But over the years resources have become available to those dedicated fans who really care about getting it right and they ended up often surpassing the earlier publications.

I remember drooling over FJ's _Booklet Of General Plans_ and _Star Fleet Technical Manual_ as well as other publications. And yet in most cases dedicated fans have far surpassed those venerable first works while the "official" publications have lagged. This new book is just the latest example.

I really wanted to like this book and I was intensely curious, but all the feedback has just affirmed my nagging doubts. I'll use the money to buy something I really want.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

Warped9 said:


> I really wanted to like this book and I was intensely curious, but all the feedback has just affirmed my nagging doubts. I'll use the money to buy something I really want.


This illustrates the state of Star Trek. Long ago, it simply became a mechanism to milk dollars.


----------



## Scorpitat (Oct 7, 2004)

I wish someone did a cutaway manual like this on the Battlestar Galactica ships. I'd love to see the battlestar and basestar layouts opened up to view.
They could do the original ships and the NEW series ships.

Sincerely,
Scorp.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I've been wishing DK would do a Trek Amazing Cutaways book like their Star Wars books. Someone from DK once said they'd like to as well, but can't get a deal together. I wouldn't mind a Galatica book from them either!


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

I got mine yesterday in the mail. Its OK, pretty half-baked and not really containing any new, groundbreaking or even particularly accurate information. Its like a warmed-over, super-condensed compilation of the technical manuals... I'm disappointed that it wasn't a detailed "workshop repair manual" like they claimed, especially using the Haynes name... they had a great opportunity to do something really cool that had never been done before. Too bad it had absolutely zero effort put into it. At least it was cheap. :/


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Looked through it last night at the store. Very nice art, even if some deem it "not accurate". Heck, I don't plan on building a full-size working one! What disappointed me was the renderings were lost in the fold of the book. It would have been better if the "Beauty" shots were gatefolds. I opted not to get it only because I spotted a MUCH pricier "The Making of The Empire Strikes Back" that was calling my name. That plus Bush's book and "In The President's Secret Service", was all the stimulating of the economy I needed to do in one night. But it is next on my list of purchases, unless........Santa, are you reading this?!!!!!!


----------



## spindrift (Apr 16, 2005)

Looked at it in the bookstore- very very disappointed. Very fluff, not much good in there that you haven't seen before.


----------



## lizzybus (Jun 18, 2005)

Got this frpom Amazon. Poor paper quality, renderings are generally way too dark, too many screencaps of poor quality. I was hoping for something more technical.....this is more like an old Starlog Collectors edition or something.....

Rich


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

I got mine this week from Amazon. Frankly, it looks exactly like the illustrations from the old Star Trek magazine. Hmmm...I have all of the issues of that rag somewhere here. I should look it up!

Larry


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

A friend of mine, a long time TOS fan, picked the Haynes book up yesterday. He saw some pretty pictures, but pretty much no depth or substance. He says he's gonna try to pass it off to a second hand book store. I'm familiar with his tastes and perspective so that's pretty much the last nail in the coffin for me.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

"You will buy this book, you will like it." 

I rather like the book, until John pissed in my corn flakes. 

I stopped being the "accurate" guy, if it looks good, so be it. It is fun to look at, but reading the words, I get bored.


----------

