Hobbyist Forums banner

21 - 40 of 877 Posts

·
Starship Class
Joined
·
11,878 Posts
Trek Ace said:
Or, it could be a flood light to illuminate the name and registry number on the top saucer...
:D

Now, I really LIKE that idea! Brilliant! (No pun intended :freak: )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
Okay, the point of TOS E size has recently been brought up in a thread in another forum(though I doubt it will last long without being locked down, I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time).

Okay, so I understand what Phil has said about designers not doing blueprints in weird butt scales like 1/84, and his reasoning that it was 1/96 makes sense.

Then the question becomes, is that large enough to fit everything we know about in the regular production series?
 

·
Starship Class
Joined
·
11,878 Posts
My guess would be yes. It would certainly give room for the bridge turbolift to scoot over sideways between the outer hull and the bridge walls whereas it really doesn't seem to have enough room at 1/84th.

Has anyone tried to fit the Jefferies' shuttlebay into 1/96th?
 

·
Starship Class
Joined
·
11,878 Posts
I appreciate what David Winfrey is saying in the other thread but wouldn't one expect a lens distortion effect of a telscopic nature due to the curvature of the transparent ceiling in the bridge?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
Sorry they closed your thread in the other forum. I sent you a head's up the moment I saw your post in the Galileo thread, as well as a PM but you mustn't have gotten either in time.

I could pretty much tell where that was going to go over there as I once had a thread that actually was shut down after the introductory question, with zero replies. I was asking about what resources the McMaster's had for his blueprints of the Romulan BOP so I could determine what he based his sizing/scaling on. Even though it was asked with the intention of evaluating the accuracy of existing model kits and perhaps a scratchbuild it was immediately shut down under the assumption that it couldn't possibly have anything to do with physical models and therefore didn't belong there.

Perhaps that might have been appropriate if the question about why the sizing was an issue and I had answered that I was only interested in the prints themselves. However, I wasn't allowed that opportunity and conclusions were jumped to prematurely.

So I could see where questions about scaling not primarily directly related to an exact model would lead.

I do not think it is just a theoretical issue for someone trying to construct a convincing 3D or paper plans. In that case it's a very pertinent issue. Here you won't have to worry about having a thread shut down the instant you're assumed to be straying from the forum or thread topic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Discussion Starter #26 (Edited)
There are serious flaws in Trekkist's chain of reasoning as presented over on Culty's BBS here:

Closed thread on CultTVman's board

First off, the scene looking in the bridge is wildly inaccurate since the perpsective, scale and even direction shifts throughout the scene. Just about every theory of bridge scale and orientation can be "proved" from this scene by merely selecting the appropriate frame from the sequence... Not to take away from the effects folks who worked on The Cage--this is just the best that could be accomplished before motion control camera rigs were invented.

Secondly, the blueprint of the hangar deck he uses to scale things from the aft end is unquestionably a drawing of the forced perspective miniature set, not the actual hangar. This is easily determined by noticing that all the lines converge toward the back of the set. Even the observation gallery gets shorter as it goes aft. By the time you get to the control booth by the doors only a midget could operate them. Obviously, this drawing has NO scale -- the little ruler is bogus.

As for Phil Broad's assertion that no one ever drafts this kind of thing at an odd scale like 1:84/85 -- he's absolutely right. However, the jump to 1:96 only makes sense if the model was blueprinted at it's current size.

As it happens, it was not. The ship was designed to be 540 feet in length initially. This means the large studio model was INTENDED to be 1:48 (a perfectly logical scale of 1/4" = 1'). Some time after the scale drawings were drafted someone (probably GR) decided the ship needed to be bigger. At that point, the decision was taken to make it 947 feet. Yes this is a bastard scale, but at that point it really didn't matter, since it was already drafted (and at least the small study model built).

What is more, I too at one time thought she was meant to be 1:96 (before I found evidence to the contrary) and back then did a thorough study to see if the bridge could be rotated to forward facing since the dome would be correspondingly bigger. Unfortunately, the answer was no. Even given the extra room, the turbo lift is still doesn't clear the tube at the back of the dome when it comes to rest at it's station. In fact, it would still be fully half way inside the tube. As a result, the only way for it to travel around the extra 36 degrees is for it to break out of the dome. There would have to be a visible structure on the port side to contain it at rest and on its path around.

She is 947 feet long -- and even it she weren't, it wouldn't make any difference to the bridge problem.

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
Actually Mark, I remember an interview with Franz Joseph in which he said that the Enterprise was drawn in the general shape it finally appeared in at three different scales, not just two.

Which reinforces the view that the blueprints and even some of the exterior details can't be taken too literally as to the designer's intentions, as at many points I don't think even they knew what they wanted in terms of design as they went along.

Originally the shape of the Enterprise was designed with only a supposition that the crew consisted of a few dozen crew members, if that many. It of course was upscaled before even the first pilot, muchless the second, as scripts were written. This change the design as we go along was constantly in evidence during the series. According to FJ the bridge set was changed three times in the first season, though they probably weren't major changes.

The reason that the turbolift was set over Kirk's left shoulder had zero to do with the model. It was because the interior shot designer/director wanted the angle for dramatic purposes. The either never even thought about the model and/or didn't care. Maybe both.

There was no such thing as a technical continuity advisor on the show. This was the infancy of Sci-fi special effect ladden series as you have pointed out. At least one that cosmetically attempted to be believable. They gradually made more and more attempts to develop a consistent formula for F/X, but these guys were largely inventing the wheel on a week to week basis.

I think they did their best. Also FJ did an admirable job trying to fit everything in the series in his blueprints. In some cases he may have taken a couple of liberties, it's hard to tell. But it should be pointed out that Roddenberry saw all his plans and other then throw 10,000 35mm clips and a few paper drawings at the guy gave little input. However that wasn't FJ's fault.

I was simply wondering if perhaps everything could be fit in a 1/96 model.

Apparently perhaps the short answer is everything but the bridge turbolift could be, if I understand you Mark.

And apparently you feel the same could be said of a 947 foot TOS Enterprise, bridge turbolift being the exception.

Maybe I misunderstood Phil, but I thought that his belief was that what happened was that the 1/48th blueprints probably had a notation to "build at double size" as 1/96 prints would have been too big to draw practically, and that what happened is that they accidentally misread the blues and assumed the miniature to be 1/84 scale instead of representing a 1/96 scale. Thus the evaluation of 11 foot model's real world length just represents a misreading of the plans and a corresponding miscalculation of the real-world length. Those kind of transposed number problems are pretty understandable, and it is questionable that a professional designer would pick an oddball 1/84th scale out of thin air. Not impossible but highly unlikely.

But as I said earlier, to me all of that is moot if everything but the bridge turbolift shaft fits within both 947 feet and a 1/96 scale 1100 foot model.

Six of one, half dozen of the other. As long as everything but the turbolift shaft fits believably both ways I'm willing to chalk up the turbolift to a sloppy set designer, or someone who irrevocably took too much artistic license with the design for the purposes of dramatic effect.

Not much can be done about it. As long as somebody can come up with a semi-plausible way to squeeze it in their 3D/physical models we just have to live with it.
 

·
Starship Class
Joined
·
11,878 Posts
Well, from the above, it seems that FJ did the reasonable thing in moving the bridge off center to accommodate the turbolift shaft. :confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
PerfesserCoffee said:
Well, from the above, it seems that FJ did the reasonable thing in moving the bridge off center to accommodate the turbolift shaft. :confused:
That's the only way it could have been arranged.
I think it wasn't made clear that what we were talking about was the supposition that perhaps the scale of the ship could be increased to the point where one could say that that alcolve wasn't actually the turbolift, but something else. That would take quite a massive rescaling was the main point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
Right John P,

If I understand Phil correctly his argument is that the roughly 11 foot model, rather then being 1/84th scale was actually a 1/96th scale miniature, representing an approximately 1100 foot realworld craft. I don't have the exact measurements right in front of me to be more exact. Unless I'm wrong Phil thinks the miniature was correctly built as it was intended(1/48 plans with an instruction to double the dimensions), but then when people later went back to look at the plans to determine the intended scale of the "real" Enterprise they somehow misread the instructions on the 1/48th plans to double the size as plans for a 1/84th scale ship.

Personally I have to agree that it's unlikely that any designer would have picked a scale like 1/84 out of thin air, plus how would you sanely display proportions of a 1/84th scale ship on a set of plans originally drawn for a 1/48th ship? It's possible I guess but unlikely.

However, personally 1/84th or 1/96th it makes little difference to me as long as a believable craft can be constructed.

The reason this particular thread started was because of some discoveries made by Phil during the construction of his 3D model.

So while these issues may seem like small ones to us to someone trying to construct a believable 3D model it might make a difference.

The real test is whether all of the reasonably measurable structures all fit. Phil Broad would be a much more qualified judge of that then I.

I'm hoping I haven't misstated any of his thoughts on this, but that's how I understand his 1/96th theory. Perhaps I've misunderstood something along the way, wouldn't be the first time I've made a mistake.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Discussion Starter #32
John P said:
1/48 scale is 1/4"=1'
1/96 is 1/8"=1'
:)
Thanks, John P! I've fixed it above. My bad...

Chuck PR: I'll have to wait until tonight to respond to you in detail. Stay tuned...

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,176 Posts
Yo, yo, yo!

My theory is that the 11 foot miniature WAS built to 1/48th scale and filmed that way for the various pilots. Afterwards it was determined to be too small of a ship so the simple answer, without having to build a whole new miniature, was to change it to twice as big. This simplifys the scale problems with existing blueprints and miniatures. The scale of the blueprint changes by changing its notation and the model changes by adding more rows of windows.

My study of the inboard profile drawing indicates that the deck heights "hit" at very desireable heights such as 8', 10' and 18' (cargo area). The FJ plans have a deck height of about 6-7', far too small. The 1/96th scale version also allows a 2 foot crawl space between decks for structure and systems which is an added plus. The bridge fits very nicely too (but the turbolift is still in its blister, not inside the bridge dome itself).

That is my operating philosophy with the ship. I can't prove that I'm right but no one else can prove that I'm wrong so it is good enogh for me. I must say that I wish the 947' measurement worked for me, it would be nice if these preproduction details were consistent but they just aren't so we are all left twisting in the wind.

Phil
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Discussion Starter #34
X15-A2 said:
Yo, yo, yo!

My theory is that the 11 foot miniature WAS built to 1/48th scale and filmed that way for the various pilots.
We are in agreement that the large model was originally intended to be in 1:48, but I now believe the rescale happened before the model was delivered. This is because footage from The Cage and the photo of the model on the day it was finished already show the extra windows on the dorsal and secondary hull (the primary hull windows were added later). If the model was still 1:48 at this point the ship would have to be manned by midgets.

Afterwards it was determined to be too small of a ship so the simple answer, without having to build a whole new miniature, was to change it to twice as big. This simplifys the scale problems with existing blueprints and miniatures.
I agree that it would have been simpler to merely double the length, but the one externally visible piece of evidence suggests that they enlarged it by about 175%. At 947' the turbolift fits exactly into the tube on the outside of the hull. I do not believe this is a coincidence.

My study of the inboard profile drawing indicates that the deck heights "hit" at very desireable heights such as 8', 10' and 18' (cargo area). The FJ plans have a deck height of about 6-7', far too small. The 1/96th scale version also allows a 2 foot crawl space between decks for structure and systems which is an added plus.
The decks work out fine at 947'. The fact that you have two feet left over between decks suggests to me that you have the scale too large. An examination of Jefferies' far more detailed cross section prepared for Phase II (which matches his TOS layout down to the turbolift tube passages) shows he intended no such interdeck space. The problem with FJ's plans is not his scale, but the fact he crammed too many decks into the ship. He followed the verbal description in TMOST rather than the clear cross section from the man who designed her.

That is my operating philosophy with the ship. I can't prove that I'm right but no one else can prove that I'm wrong so it is good enogh for me.
I would never quibble with a creative take on the subject. I myself have advocated enlarging the shuttlecraft to make it consistant with what was seen onscreen. I applaud your efforts to make the ship more realistic. However, I would encourage you to keep an open mind about evidence to the contrary. Just because we have yet to find a "smoking gun" doesn't mean there isn't one.

I must say that I wish the 947' measurement worked for me, it would be nice if these preproduction details were consistent but they just aren't so we are all left twisting in the wind.

Phil
If it is any consolation, the more I have dug into the "preproduction details" the more consistant I have found them to be. Often compromises were made -- the re-shuffling of the bridge layout comes to mind -- but my money's on the proposition that at least "out of the gate" Matt Jefferies was a man with a definite plan.

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Discussion Starter #35 (Edited)
Chuck_P.R. said:
Actually Mark, I remember an interview with Franz Joseph in which he said that the Enterprise was drawn in the general shape it finally appeared in at three different scales, not just two.
Can you give me a source for this? Did it mention why he thought so?

Which reinforces the view that the blueprints and even some of the exterior details can't be taken too literally as to the designer's intentions, as at many points I don't think even they knew what they wanted in terms of design as they went along.
I don't believe this follows logically. TMOST records the design process. There were various sketches which refined the configuration as a shape. But then it goes on to say they sat down to do "scale drawings." By the time they were delivered to Richard Datin to build the "3 footer" they were pretty close to final configuration. Only minor changes were made after that model was finished.

Originally the shape of the Enterprise was designed with only a supposition that the crew consisted of a few dozen crew members, if that many. It of course was upscaled before even the first pilot, muchless the second, as scripts were written. This change the design as we go along was constantly in evidence during the series. According to FJ the bridge set was changed three times in the first season, though they probably weren't major changes.
You are confusing very early concepts before the design was even settled with the one rescale that happened after the blueprints were prepared, but before the first pilot was finished.

The reason that the turbolift was set over Kirk's left shoulder had zero to do with the model. It was because the interior shot designer/director wanted the angle for dramatic purposes. The either never even thought about the model and/or didn't care. Maybe both.
But the position and size of the tube on the outside of the model had everything to do with the bridge set. It was purposely designed to fit in the right place at the right scale. The inconsistancy occurred when the set layout was adjusted. That in no way invalidates the intentions or planning of the model.

There was no such thing as a technical continuity advisor on the show. This was the infancy of Sci-fi special effect ladden series as you have pointed out. At least one that cosmetically attempted to be believable. They gradually made more and more attempts to develop a consistent formula for F/X, but these guys were largely inventing the wheel on a week to week basis.
Actually there was a technical advisor. Desilu paid for technical advice from a research firm (I believe it was "Kellam Deforest" oddly enough). Of course they innovated week to week -- but you speak as if this was just a 1940s space opera. They took more care to get things right than that -- and it shows!

SNIP: I am leaving out some of your post which I addressed above in response to Phil.

As long as everything but the turbolift shaft fits believably both ways I'm willing to chalk up the turbolift to a sloppy set designer, or someone who irrevocably took too much artistic license with the design for the purposes of dramatic effect.
If you had seen as much of Matt Jefferies' work as I have you'd be reluctant to put anything down to a "sloppy designer."

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,176 Posts
Mark,

"but the one externally visible piece of evidence suggests that they enlarged it by about 175%."

What external evidence of scale are you refering to here?

BTW, it does not make sense to have "no crawl space" between decks. First, there needs to be more structure than what we see on the show. Second, there must also be space there for systems to pass through (not least of which is one for generating artificial gravity on each deck). We don't see the system hardware (pipes, air ducts, etc) hanging from the ceiling so we must assume that they are in it. At 1/96th it allows for a 24 inch space which works beautifully, it is sufficient not only for the elements listed above but also allows room for maintenance crawlways as necessary. That's my thinking on it.

Phil
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
MGagen said:
Can you give me a source for this? Did it mention why he thought so?



I don't believe this follows logically. TMOST records the design process. There were various sketches which refined the configuration as a shape. But then it goes on to say they sat down to do "scale drawings." By the time they were delivered to Richard Datin to build the "3 footer" they were pretty close to final configuration. Only minor changes were made after that model was finished.

If you had seen as much of Matt Jefferies' work as I have you'd be reluctant to put anything down to a "sloppy designer."

Mark
You are confusing my comments about the interior filming director's decision to have the bridge set built with the turbolift visible over Kirk's shoulder for shooting angle purposes and somehow are assuming I was referring to Matt Jeffries.

The design process of the sets was indeed not well thought out from a continuity standpoint. In the case of the bridge set either the filming director ignored the bridge section of the external filming miniature or more likely he just wasn't concerned about it.

MGagen said:
Can you give me a source for this? Did it mention why he thought so?



I don't believe this follows logically. TMOST records the design process. There were various sketches which refined the configuration as a shape. But then it goes on to say they sat down to do "scale drawings." By the time they were delivered to Richard Datin to build the "3 footer" they were pretty close to final configuration. Only minor changes were made after that model was finished.
Mark
Why do you assume I was necessarily talking about after the 3 foot miniature was finished? The final general shape/design was decided on prior to that.

He mentioned in an interview with Paul Newitt in 1982 that when the general sketches for the ship were first done, before the first pilot, the ship was originally envisioned at an extremely smaller scale. He skips the part where they increased the scale from the pilot to the production series length(maybe because he didn't know about it). His source was supposedly correspondance and conversations with Gene Roddenberry.
Here's a quote from a Trekplace.com interview with him by Paul Newitt(http://www.trekplace.com/interviews/fj-fjnewittint01.shtml):

"When the Enterprise was first sketched in the design as it now appears, but not the arrangement used in the TV series, it was originally intended to be a vehicle about 180 feet long, with an eight-man crew riding in the cab on top. The cab was a long cab, like an Aerocommander airplane, with the pilot and co-pilot sitting in front, and the rest of the crew sitting behind with viewscreens in front of them, like in an airplane cockpit. In the course of getting from there to the basic design for the TV pilot, they talked with academic people who decided that when man ventured into space he would still be a gregarious animal, as has been proven by our astronaut program. On any extended voyage like this, of months or years, the survival potential of a few number of persons is very poor. The survival potential, of an interacting colony, like you had in the TV series, is much better. So, without changing the proportions and external arrangement of the design, they increased the length to 947 feet, raised the number of the crew to 430, and took off on shooting the TV pilot. You can figure it out from there."

But again. I think we are beating a dead horse here.

I'm satisfied with Phil's answer that a 1/96th size is needed to make the craft reasonably believable.

What was jotted down in a hastily contrived book(I contend that it was hastily, or at least inaccurately, contrived if a number they made up is unusable and results in 6-7 foot deck heights, etc, nothing personal John P. :tongue: ) or even quoted on model boxes as some scale of an assumed 947 foot craft is irrelevant.

Trekkist has made the very valid point elsewhere that these sizes were never stated anywhere onscreen in any of the series.

Good thing as 6-7 foot deck heights just don't add up.

But in the final analysis we're really just bitching about the shortcomings of "technical" people who were having to make up this stuff as they went along and probably didn't even know if the series would make a second season, muchless be picked apart like this almost four decades later.

For people like Phil who are trying to make thoroughly convincing 3D models within exact drawings of the 11 foot miniature these issues are pertinent, and I'll look forward to the day when someone such as he has finished a nice cyber-Enterprise whose decks we can roam.

But for those of us not designing such a 3D model I don't think it should be such an involved issue.

I think we're kind of beating this one to death here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Discussion Starter #38
X15-A2 said:
Mark,

"but the one externally visible piece of evidence suggests that they enlarged it by about 175%."

What external evidence of scale are you refering to here?
I'm referring to the turbolift tube. It is a specific distance from the center of the bridge dome. That distance lines up very deliberately with the distance of the turbolift from the center of the bridge set.

BTW, it does not make sense to have "no crawl space" between decks. First, there needs to be more structure than what we see on the show. Second, there must also be space there for systems to pass through (not least of which is one for generating artificial gravity on each deck). We don't see the system hardware (pipes, air ducts, etc) hanging from the ceiling so we must assume that they are in it. At 1/96th it allows for a 24 inch space which works beautifully, it is sufficient not only for the elements listed above but also allows room for maintenance crawlways as necessary. That's my thinking on it.

Phil
I don't dispute that it might make sense to have a crawlway. I'm just saying that there's evidence that Jefferies didn't design it that way. Also, I would submit that we've never seen the ceiling or what's hanging from it. The set has structures that screen our view of the (non-existant) ceiling. That area between the screening structures strikes me as quite suitable to hang any needed equipment and conduits. This has the advantage of rendering them easily accessable without the necessary wasted mass of an enclosing "floor." We see similar structure on Navy ships. The deck is sometimes merely a mesh. When it is solid it is often just a solid plate. Necessary piping and support structure runs under it.

I am not saying you couldn't enlarge the ship to make it more feasable to your way of thinking. I'm just interested in discovering the designer's intention when that is possible. When there is no compelling reason to change his vision I prefer to stick with it.

Mark
 

·
Starship Class
Joined
·
11,878 Posts
I'm not sure if there's much left to be said on the subject but I, for one at least, appreciate the posts and consider them to be very enlightening on the subject. It is obvious that a lot of digging and contemplation have gone into the subject.

I have a lot to think about now. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Discussion Starter #40
Chuck_P.R. said:
Why do you assume I was necessarily talking about after the 3 foot miniature was finished? The final general shape/design was decided on prior to that.
Because you said

It of course was upscaled before even the first pilot, muchless the second, as scripts were written. This change the design as we go along was constantly in evidence during the series.
and later on

He skips the part where they increased the scale from the pilot to the production series length(maybe because he didn't know about it).
This certainly looks like you are claiming that the ship was upscaled after the first pilot, and perhaps even later in the run of the series. I am saying the final configuration was settled by the time the 3-footer was built -- which was during the production of the first pilot. Only minor changes were made to the design after this point. The rescale happened sometime after the final configuration was settled and the blueprints for the 3 footer were drafted, but before the delivery of the large model during the production of the first pilot.

Thanks for the source of the FJ quote. It doesn't negate my argument in the least, however, since he is plainly speaking about the early, pre-scale drawing concept stage.

I'm satisfied with Phil's answer that a 1/96th size is needed to make the craft reasonably believable.
See my above response to Phil regarding just this issue.

What was jotted down in a hastily contrived book(I contend that it was hastily, or at least inaccurately, contrived if a number they made up is unusable and results in 6-7 foot deck heights, etc, nothing personal John P. :tongue: ) or even quoted on model boxes as some scale of an assumed 947 foot craft is irrelevant.

Trekkist has made the very valid point elsewhere that these sizes were never stated anywhere onscreen in any of the series.

Good thing as 6-7 foot deck heights just don't add up.
The 947 foot scale does occur on a scale drawing by Matt Jefferies. This alone, in absence of evidence suggesting that the scale marking are bogus, should count toward what he intended the dimension to be. Also, the 6-7 foot deck issue does not come from Jefferies. His 947 foot design allows plenty of head room. It merely doesn't have 11 decks in the primary hull. The error is in the written description, not the design.

But in the final analysis we're really just bitching about the shortcomings of "technical" people who were having to make up this stuff as they went along and probably didn't even know if the series would make a second season, muchless be picked apart like this almost four decades later.
I would submit that you are complaining about the "shortcomings" of "technical" people where few shortcomings exist. The inconsistancies in these matters are nearly ALL due to compromises made in the heat of production, not flaws in the initial design. The design concepts were thought out very reasonably. If you take the time to really dig into them, rather than rejecting them out of hand, you find that ol' Uncle Matt usually knew what he was doing.

For people like Phil who are trying to make thoroughly convincing 3D models within exact drawings of the 11 foot miniature these issues are pertinent, and I'll look forward to the day when someone such as he has finished a nice cyber-Enterprise whose decks we can roam.

But for those of us not designing such a 3D model I don't think it should be such an involved issue.

I think we're kind of beating this one to death here.
As one of those "like Phil" who is building a 3D model, I have been dealing with the same issues for years now. Phil and I began corresponding in fact because I contacted him about the 1:96 theory. I had arrived at the same conclusion independently and wanted to compare notes.

It has been a joy to discover, over and over again, that when I thought the design was inconsistant and obviously flawed -- when I thought I had a better solution to a given problem -- I discovered I was wrong. Many times over, upon closer examination, Matt Jefferies' clear and logical foresight has shined through.

Now as to making a cyber Enterprise, I'll bet Phil's your best choice for that. Not only does he work at lightening speed, but his version of the ship -- while it may differ from Jefferies' concept -- will be a logically well thought out ship and perfectly consistant with the design philosophy he sets for himself.

Mark
 
21 - 40 of 877 Posts
Top