BUILDING A BETTER STARSHIP | The Starship Designer

THE STARSHIP DESIGNER

TM

BUILDING A BETTER STARSHIP:

There is no Constitution Class in "Star Trek".

All Starships in "Star Trek" (1966-1969) are Starship Class.

"No bloody A, B, C, OR D!"

A QUESTION.

SINCE I BEGAN THIS WEBSITE,

AND BEFORE MANY OF YOU WERE BORN,

I HAVE BEEN AWAITING THE ANSWER TO A QUESTION:

The Star Trek Starship, the REAL STARSHIP, shown above, has NEVER done anything, EVER.

It's not a machine, tool, or instrument. It does nothing for anyone. It is only for looking at.

THE QUESTION; If this Starship had been created, but never having been in Star Trek or any other show, would it have any value, to anyone? This is the question.

TO CREATE A THING

To create a thing, to create a wonderful thing. A thing that has value, does it matter that it does nothing?

To create a thing, a thing that can be admired, isn't that value? Does it matter that it does nothing?

To create a thing, a thing that can bring joy to the viewer, isn't that value?

To create a thing, a thing that does nothing, can't that be treasure?

To create a thing, a thing that does nothing, but gives joy to someone, isn't that a valuable thing?

To create a thing, a valuable thing, does it matter that it's "worth nothing"?

To create a thing, that has no value to some, but value to others, isn't that a treasure?

To create a thing, a wonderful thing, is it the viewer that gives it value?

To create a wonderful thing, isn't that value enough, does it matter that no one sees it?

To create a thing, a picture, a drawing, a painting, these things do nothing, do they not have value?

To create a thing, a wonderful thing, does it not have any value unless someone sees it?

To create a thing is the same whether anyone sees it or not, is it the seeing that gives it value, or the creation of it?

To create a thing, a wonderfully marvelous thing, as seen by the creator, but no one sees it, does that make it not valuable?

To create a thing, that is great to the creator, will it not be great to others?

To create a thing, that is great to some, should it not be to all?

To create a thing that is great to the creator, does this make it great?

To create a thing that some people like, doesn't that give it value?

To create a thing, that is the equivalent of what many people do like, but no one sees it, then wouldn't it have the equivalent value?

To create a thing that is the same as other "great" things, but no one recognizes it as such, should it not have been created?

Matt Jefferies said; "... So the one seven stood for the seventeenth basic ship design in the Federation, and the zero one would have been serial number one, the first bird."

If you care anything about what the designer of THE STAR TREK STARSHIP (The Enterprise) thought or decided what was to be, then this means that his intention was that the Enterprise is the 17th design of Starships (17th progression), and that the Enterprise is the first one of the fleet. This is what he's saying here above.

So going with this, this means that there should be 16 different Starship designs that are ahead of THE STAR TREK STARSHIP, that no one has designed, and everyone of these designs would be Starship Class.

So if Starship progressions go for 30 years until a new design is made, then that would be 480 years until we get to the Enterprise.

So if the era of the Enterprise started in 2245, this would mean that the first Starship built would have been built in the year 1765!

This is a common mistake that is made in science fiction, setting events much too close to the current date.

So 2245 is very wrong! But it wouldn't be exactly 480 years, it would be less, but not much less.

Furthermore, what Jefferies has said also means that the U. S. S. Constitution is not in any way the first Starship. So it makes no sense that the Enterprise would be named after it. Moreover, it also means that there is no number 1700 Starship.

What's more, it also means that if there are, let's say, 14 Starships in the fleet, then the numbers would go logically starting from 1701, to 1714. This would be the numbers on the ships.

In addition, it also means that the first Starship built, would have the number NCC-101 on it; according to Matt's nomenclature. And most likely, that ship would be built hundreds of years earlier than the Enterprise.

This also means, that the next new Starship after the Enterprise; the 18th progression, would have the number NCC-1801.

No bloody A, B, C, or D!

I am doing something that no one else in the world has done or has tried to do as far as I know: I am designing starships like cars are made - according to progressions.

For Example: The first progression of the Corvette was 1953; the second was 1956; the third 1958, and so on. The first progression of the Thunderbird was 1955, but what came next for 1958 was different. Therefore, it was not the second progression, but a first progression of a different car. It makes no difference that it was given the same name. All my starship designs are based on The Star Trek Starship that people not as familiar with it as I am, will call “The Enterprise”. The name is not so important.

I am concentrating mainly on Mercedes-Benz cars, because these cars are more sensible and logical than any other cars.

This starship (The Star Trek Starship), was designed in 1964. Since then no one has tried to design true progressions of it. According to the main designer of this starship, Matt Jefferies, it was meant to be the 17th progression. Hence the "17" in the 1701, and the "01" meaning the first one of the fleet = the Flagship. The Star Trek people have long since been ignoring this.

Designing starships as cars are made, in progressions:
The Mercedes-Benz Small Sedan (Majestic Type) :

First progression 1931

Second Progression 1935

Third Progression 1949

Forth Progression 1953

Sixth Progression 1968

Eighth Progression 1984

Fifth Progression 1961

Seventh Progression 1976

Ninth Progression 1995

Tenth Progression 2002

Eleventh Progression 2010

I've been working on this project for a very long time. So long, that I have become the world's foremost expert on the design of THE STAR TREK STARSHIP, knowing things that only Matt Jefferies knew, and some things that he never knew.

"First" project; I'm working on a replica of THE STAR TREK STARSHIP that is the most innovative in the world, and also probably the smallest handmade one. I'm making it at the size of 4.15 fictional feet per millimeter. I estimate this to be about 1:1,277.

This replica makes all others (which includes all "models") obsolete. In part because it has working landing gear, of which Jefferies designed, but no one knows how it works. Matt did not get his landing gear to work, because it would have been too difficult to do for the show. This is part of what I am doing.

My replica will introduce "new" elements to THE STAR TREK STARSHIP that Matt Jefferies had intended, but he was not able to work them out and realize them for lack of money and time and necessity. So they are things that got left behind and forgotten, so no one else knows about them.

How to know the difference between a model and a replica; If you intend what you are making is to be a finished thing, then it is a replica. If you intend to make something beyond it, something further on from the thing that you have, something that will be finished, then what you have is a model. A finished thing is not a model, it is something else, because a model is not a finished thing. So in a "nutshell", if what you have is of something, then it is a replica.

This is one of the two extending landing gear that Matt Jefferies designed, shown below. That was never used, and has never been used, and has been forgotten about that it was anything more than a decoration. It's not a decoration!

The rotating hinge is here, and this is why there is a raised bump, that's the hinge!

Imagine this airplane as the Enterprise, see the broad span of the saucer on top, the two large nacelles above, the central pylon as the pylon of the primary hull, the angle of the struts at about the same angle of the nacelle struts, placed where the blisters are, and the "cut-out" notch at the end of the secondary hull...

And in addition to everything else, the Starship has landing gear that deploys and retracts in a similar way to these stabilizing floats on the wing tips!

If there is an airplane that represents the Enterprise in STAR TREK, then it is this. Aside from the obvious resemblance of design the Starship has to it, the plane's function and usage is surprisingly similar to the Starships in STAR TREK. This airplane is the PBY "Black Cat" Catalina. The PBY was a war plane, it could carry bombs, depth charges, and torpedoes. It was a rescue plane, a reconnaissance and surveying plane. It could stay in flight for long periods of time. And it could scoop up large bunches of water (for firefighting) that was a bit like a transporter beaming it in.

And in addition to it being the original stealth bomber, it was a go anywhere, do anything vehicle. Really, about the only differences was that it was a slow airplane, and it could not go into outer space. Surely Matt Jefferies knew about this airplane, the most versatile airplane of WWII. I wouldn't be surprised if Matt was thinking of this airplane when he was designing the Starship.

Anyone know what this teardrop shaped part is? It's the C/E Vehicle. It is designed as a separate vehicle that can fly on it's own. And no one knows this! Why do you think it is shaped the way it is? This is one example of my knowledge of the design of THE STAR TREK STARSHIP that no one else has.

The purpose of the C/E Vehicle is for very unusual circumstances, and as an extreme last chance for some of the crew to leave the ship if the primary hull is no longer usable. Because there are no shuttle bays or shuttles in the primary hull. And as a way for the Captain to remain with the ship until the last moment when everyone else is gone.

This is my C/E Vehicle part of my replica. And I've made it so that it can separate and come out to "fly" on it's own. And it has landing gear of it's own, but I haven't made that yet, it is very small. And it will be designed, if I can do it, probably the way Matt would have designed it, if he had been able to take it that far. The Turbolift tower housing is made from a toothpick.

QUESTIONS/COMMENTS

TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK

Powered By Chocolate

Music graciously provided by: Scarboro Aquarium Club

00:00 / 03:07

PLEASE SUPPORT MY WORK BY BUYING SOME OF MY PRODUCTS
Can be found on ebay, search; "The Starship Designer"

SHIRTS PRINTED

Comparing the difference between the Catalina and The Star Trek Starship:

SHIRTS EMBROIDERED

HATS EMBROIDERED

PANTS

BLANKETS

DRESSES

BACKPACKS

REGULAR MUGS

TRAVEL MUGS

GIFT WRAP PAPER

SPORTS BRAS

SWIMSUITS

(This was a test run, was unable to finish)

THE 180

The Cordova Nova

The Shooting Star

(Was unable to finish)

According to The Starship Designer:
The Star Trek Starship nomenclatures;

"U.S.S." is short for United Space Ship,
Registry Number is comprised of;
"NCC" stands for Starship Class,
The first number(s), is the starship progression (17),
The final two numbers are the production serial number:

U.S.S. ENTERPRISE
U.S.S. YORKTOWN
U.S.S. EXETER
U.S.S. INTREPID
U.S.S. DEFIANT
U.S.S. FARRAGUT
U.S.S. VALIANT
U.S.S. HOOD
U.S.S. EXCALIBUR
U.S.S. CONSTITUTION
U.S.S. CONSTELLATION
U.S.S. REPUBLIC
U.S.S. POTEMKIN
U.S.S. LEXINGTON

NCC-1701
NCC-1702
NCC-1703
NCC-1704
NCC-1705
NCC-1706
NCC-1707
NCC-1708
NCC-1709
NCC-1710
NCC-1711
NCC-1712
NCC-1713
NCC-1714

Starting from Star Trek, the list of Starship nomenclatures of
The Flagships of ;

   U.S.S. ENTERPRISE
U.S.S. CATALINA
   U.S.S. SARATOGA
   U.S.S. ANNABELLA
   U.S.S. CORDOVA NOVA
   U.S.S. ICON
   U.S.S. SHOOTING STAR
   U.S.S.
   U.S.S.
   U.S.S.
U.S.S.
U.S.S.
U.S.S.
   U.S.S.
U.S.S.
U.S.S.
  U.S.S.

NCC-1701
NCC-1601
NCC-1501
NCC-1401
NCC-1301
NCC-1201
NCC-1101
NCC-1001
NCC-901
NCC-801
NCC-701
NCC-601
NCC-501
NCC-401
NCC-301
NCC-201
NCC-101

A NEW TREK

WHAT DO STARSHIPS HAVE TO DO WITH ALL THESE THINGS?

EVERYTHING!

These decorative chairs, tables, cabinets, radios, and anything and everything else in the world that is decorative, has everything to do with Starships, or rather, Starships, have everything to do with these decorative things.

If you disagree with this statement, then you are simply not old enough (or smart enough) to be able to see the reality of what Starships are. If you don't see it now, then you probably won't live long enough. But if you could live long enough, then you would be seeing it someday. This is because Starships have nothing to do with space ships, and everything to do with decorative furniture and other decorative things. NO ONE WILL EVER BUILD A SPACE SHIP LIKE WHAT WE SEE IN STAR TREK SHOWS. THE STAR TREK STARSHIP is not a space ship sort of design.

But many people will never know this, and they will not live long enough to see it.

Starships are purely fiction, they have no function. This is the only difference between a Starship and furniture, because furniture has function, a Starship does not.

A Starship is simply a decoration. Gene Roddenberry needed "a ship", to decorate his show, he was not a space ship designer. No one working on the show ever had any intention of building a space ship, or designing one either.

The things shown here, is a teeny tiny fraction of the decorative things that are in the world. I picked out a bit to show you, and many were too fancy or too mind-boggling for me to include them.

So let's take chairs for example, why is a chair not simply a chair, and why are there about a zillion different chairs in the world? Why do we not have only one sort of chair to sit on? All chairs do basically the same thing, so why do we have so many different sorts of chairs? And why are they all designed and decorated in so many different ways?

It's because humans like fancy and pretty and decorated things to have around them.

Starships are no different, except most people see Starships differently: They see them as only an outer space thing. And also they see them as a thing that has function. But they are really no different, so why wouldn't most people like them?

It's because of THE SCIENCE FICTION CRAZIES who hoards Starships to themselves and turns everyone else off with their science fiction craziness.

But most decorative furniture in the world, which by the way, most people tend to like, has no science fiction to it. But when it comes to Starships, most people go; "Oh no, not that, I'm not interested". So sadly, science fiction people tend to turn everyone else off. They get too wild and crazy with all their weird ideas.

What other people do is they equate the liking of a Starship to the liking of a show that that Starship might be in. And because they don't like the show, and rightly so, because most of them ARE CRAP and too weird, so then they don't like the Starship either. What a shame.

It's the science fiction crazies who think it's all real, who spoils it for everyone else with their crazy nerdiness. And they think they are smarter than other people, but none of them could design a space ship, certainly not the way they think! I am smarter; I'm The Starship Designer.

And if these people want to know what MY STARSHIPS can do, then I can tell them that they can cruise at Warp one million, and they have Phasers and Photon torpedoes that can blast the universe out of existence.

If people could see Starships as simply a pretty thing, with nothing more to do with crazy people than a chair or a table does, then I think most people could like Starships.

I'm putting forth the idea here, that if people could see Starships as having nothing to do with space ships, then I think most people could like them. But of course one could argue that without the fiction, there would be no Starship.

But I can separate the reality from the fiction, which many people don't seem to be able to do. My Starships are simply a thing of beauty, like The Star Trek Starship is (in which the Star Trek People are doing their best to ruin). AND The Romulan Bird of Prey, and The Klingon Battle Cruiser, all of which are fantastic designs. These are fantastic designs, yes, and I'm not belittling them in any way, I love these designs, they are a part of my life, and a part of many people's lives. But none of these designs have anything to do with outer space. Associating them with outer space is the fiction of it. What I'm interested in is what's real, and THE STAR TREK STARSHIP is a real thing, AND IT IS NOT A SPACE SHIP.

But my show; "A NEW TREK", will also be purely fiction, but that doesn't mean I will take Starships any less seriously, but I know the difference...

Only the design of a Starship can be a very beautiful thing, more than most people know...