9412.07
What's Wrong With
"The Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual" by Sternbach and Okuda
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
by 'James Dixon' copyright 1994
Page Comments
---- --------
1 A note at the bottom of the page to explain all the other notes. "We
occasionally step out of the Star Trek scenario for a moment to relate
a bit of trivia or background information." Well, that's just fine for
a "Making of Star Trek" type of book, but Not for a Technical Manual.
Maybe these tidbits could be placed into an appendix or "add-on" chapter
at the back of the book after the material, because these comments
Really detract from the context of the Trek Universe and make the "manual"
all the more UN tech manual like. The Franz Joseph Star Fleet Technical
Manual didn't need commentaries on each page nor did any other manual.
More recent works like Starfleet Prototype even goes as far as bearing
the copyright date of 2292! Not a chance here. Bad enough that 4 pre-
vious pages are Introductions and Acknowlegments. The latter consisting
of a hundred names to people, and the first of X number of name-droppings
signifying that this "manual" and its drawings were done on his "trusty"
Apple Macintosh computer (p.16, p 36, p.53)... Did Okuda make a deal with
Apple in which he puts a few good words into this book and in turn they
send him free software? Digging a little niche for himself incase he
departs Paramount Pictures? Again, all Highly inappropriate for a
Treknical manual. Franz Joseph didn't need all these people and CAD to
turn out the classic Tech Manual, and neither did Todd Guenther to print
Starship Design.
2 "Gene Roddenberry tells us that there are presently five Galaxy class
starships in existence, presumably including the USS Galaxy, after which
the class is named. A sixth, the USS Yamato, was destroyed in the epi-
sode 'Contagion.' Other ship names are being left to writers of future
episodes." This tiny note appears at the bottom of the page. It's the
only reference we have to other "Galaxy" class starships. A few pages
back in the introductory section they say this manual is "pretty official"
and that they've naturally created this info, as well as emphasizing that
it would be nice for use as a reference guide for writers and such.
Why not State the names of all "Galaxy" class ships here if there are
only half a dozen? They "seem" concerned when a company like F**A be-
gins to make up TNG tech info and are fast to point it out and they now
say they're leaving the names up to writers of the future... Why not
just lay down the names and details here and now to clear up future
confusion, such as novel writers developing too many "Galaxy" class
starships as is feasible? I do know that if this were a serious Tech
Fandom reference work, not only would the sister ships be named but also
a table would be present listing the ships by name, NCC, builder, date
laid down, date launched, date commissioned, and current status... I
suppose that "leaving it up to future writers" is a good excuse which
can be used to justify many of the later failings of this "manual"...
3 The "Enterprise emblem" has always been debated, here it not only says
it was adopted UFP-wide but gives the year 2277 which, like the year of
the ship's commissioning of 2245, not only are made-up-on-the-spot dates
but conflict with all past timelines. The same is true for this year of
2285 for the destruction of the "Enterprise" (ST III). Apparently they
heard the Romulan ale date of 2283 and figured they'd just add 2 years
onto that. The hell with Ships of the Star Fleet, Federation Reference
Series, Heavy Cruiser Evolution Blueprints, and all the rest of the
exhaustively researched works which have fed a timeline which has lasted
a good 20 years and endured the animated series and films right on through
The Next Generation... The same goes for the year of NCC-1701-A's com-
missioning, 2286 appears in this manual. If that isn't enough, they are
either totally withdrawn from Fandom or stubborn beyond belief, calling
1701-A a "Constitution" class starship--not "Enterprise" class as has
been established perpetually throughout Fandom, which even F**A role
playing materials and Shane Johnson all agree with. The ST VI plans
which Scotty reads, thanks to these folks, has forced Technical Fandom
into accepting the Class and Subclass designation of starships (i.e.
1701-A is "Constitution" class and "Enterprise (II)" subclass). Finally,
it states that this new "Enterprise" was actually the originally named
"Yorktown" and redesignated "Enterprise." Do they Research anything or
are they Above Researching? While the "Yorktown" was one of many names
proposed for the classic series ship, she was also in Active Service at
the Beginning of ST IV and 1701-A was launched at the End of ST IV.
Additionally, Tech Fandom sources (Ships of the Star Fleet Volume I and
Heavy Cruiser Evolution Blueprints) accurately describe the history of
the "Yorktown" indicating how she was uprated over the years. NCC-1701-A
was built new from the keel up. Regardless of source, she was a New
ship. These guys who wrote this "manual" feel they must disagree with
Fandom's long-established publications...
4 "The third 'Enterprise,' NCC-1701-B, was an 'Excelsior' class ship built
at Starfleet's Antares Ship Yards." It sounds good on paper and was even
printed in other works such as the overpriced 1701-D cutaway poster.
In Generations, NCC-1701-B is clearly launched from a drydock in Earth
orbit! I DON'T think that they built her at Antares (a stellar system
on the fringe of UFP space) and moved her all the way to Earth just to
christen her on her "maiden" launch!
5 "The USS 'Enterprise' is categorized as an Explorer, the largest starship
in a classification system that includes cruiser, cargo carrier, tanker,
surveyer, and scout." I suppose that light cruiser, heavy cruiser and
attack cruiser fit into the "cruiser" classification, but what of the
other ships which are nearly as large as the "Galaxy" class? Such as
dreadnoughts, command cruisers, space control ships ("Excelsior" class!),
heavy frigates, battlecruisers, and in fact the whole range of frigates
and destroyers which are at least as large as scout vessels, as some of
them are based upon the scout design... Speaking of which, have we Ever
seen or heard of tankers or surveyers in the Trek Universe anywhere?
Granted, this is TNG not the old days but to rank those two vessels along-
side the "Galaxy" (Explorer) class and to leave out the other types of
vessels is rather wild... A bit picky perhaps, but when one analyzes
the large production figures of these vessels it becomes apparent that
something is Wrong here...unless the old 23rd Century frigates and de-
stroyers, no longer needed during peacetime, were retrofitted to tankers
and surveyers? I hardly think it's necessary to go That far to explain
carelessness... And if the "Enterprise" is a model Explorer, Star Fleet
doesn't seem to be doing much exploring because 1701-D's certainly
not doing much of it...
6 The front elevation view of the "Enterprise" should be the standard size
by which all later pages in this general exterior views section are
scaled. The top and bottom views on pages 8 and 9 respectively have
primary hulls which fall short by a centimeter. The beam here in this bow
view is a centimeter wider, not shorter, so it's not a question of them
not being able to fit the bow onto the page but a question of them not
caring enough to scale drawings on the following pages to match this one.
7 USS "Enterprise" aft elevation view. Problem: Shuttlebay 2 on the port
side is twice as large as Shuttlebay 3 on the starboard side. This is the
first of a couple Reversed line drawings. Again it's carelessness. Franz
Joseph didn't have Computer Aided Design when he did the technical orders
in the classic, definitive Star Fleet Technical Manual and he never made
mistakes of this magnitude...
11 The classic cross-view of the ship's interior showing all of her decks.
On a quick glance it looks okay and we can only fault them for not adding
in the extra detail which we expect from a Technical Manual. This is
basically the same diagram seen in Engineering on the show, right down to
the mouse, car, and other silouettes which are barely visible. Their
childish pranks, however, have far-reaching consequences to any serious
Treknical Trekker. In "Yesterday's Enterprise," just to name one episode,
the total number of decks, 42, are stated on-screen. This figure is also
backed up throughout this manual. Where did they get this number from?
It's the ultimate answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe,
and everything from Douglas Adams' Hichhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series.
Maybe if they were a bit more Serious about their work they'd realize
that if you count the number of levels here, it falls short by a couple of
decks, even if the various "sub decks" are included. Some "staircase"
type lines were shoved in here and there to try and compensate. This is
most apparent at the very bottom of the secondary hull. There will be
Big Trouble should the day arises when fans demand accurate deck plans of
the "Galaxy" class... This cutaway drawing comes from the same school of
drawings as Shane Johnson's cutaway of the movie "Enterprise" in "Mister
Scott's Guide to the Enterprise"--it's out of scale with the previous
pages of exterior drawings, but that's okay since there's no scale to be
found anywhere, of course. Serious fans will have to gauge the dimensions
of a turbolift shaft or shuttlecraft and convert that over to millimeters
or use something similar. Unfortunately that's not all that's wrong here.
There are 18 warp field coils easily countable in the warp drive nacelle.
Other warp drive nacelle engineering graphics seen throughout the series
give different Numbers of coils per nacelle! A good example of this is
the cutaway diagram of the "Yamato" in "Contagion" (the graphic is re-
produced in ST:TNG Magazine Volume 8) in which 16 warp coils can be
counted. Granted, she's not the "Enterprise" but she is a "Galaxy" class
sister ship and should have identical engines. Especially if almost the
same graphic is used in other episodes.
14 Here we learn that the "Enterprise" was the third "Galaxy" class starship
produced, with her predecessors being the "Galaxy" and the "Yamato." But
after it was mentioned in "Encounter at Farpoint" and "Yesterday's Enter-
prise" (granted this one's an alternate timeline) that the "Enterprise"
was the First "Galaxy" class starship, one would think that she was the
first ship produced After the class ship... I guess they ignored this
episode, and maybe they'll edit that line out just as they edited out
that scene with Geordi, changed the color of the phaser beam etc. to
correct their own clumsiness...
20 Here the "Enterprise" coordinate system is discussed. There isn't any-
thing particular Wrong here, just that the few coordinate reference points
supplied are the ONLY accurate specs we have for computing the ship's
basic dimensions... There are no records anywhere giving accurate
measurements in the manual! We'd have to wait a couple years for the
1701-D cutaway poster to be printed to get her overall exterior dimensions
and--Surprise--they don't tally very well with what can be computed from
this overly-complex tech manual drawing! If this manual were done by
the folks from MastercoM or Star Fleet Printing Office, you'd get
overall, primary hull, and nacelle length, draught, and beam listed in
table format, followed by other static specs as a true technical manual
handles such things...
28 This is hardly worth mentioning, but it is a conflict. On Emergency
Landing Of The Saucer Module, the book states that preferable landing
sites include beach sand, deep water, smooth ice, and grassy plains on
Class M worlds. In Generations, they crash the ship into a forest--with
nasty effects upon the hull! This whole portion of the movie is bizarre
in itself: first the secondary hull is destroyed and then a planet comes
up on the saucer section apparently out of nowhere (at least this is how
its presented to the audience) and they seem to have no alternative but to
ground the saucer section. No attempt to lock into a stable orbit Or
scan for a landing site.
30 Our only top view drawing of the bridge module--an Outboard view! A
ridiculously simple line drawing with nothing labeled. I tried to gauge
where the bridge deck, observation lounge, and other compartments are
located from it, but it's difficult. This drawing is supposedly very
detailed, featuring tiny dots which we take to be sensor emplacements,
rivets or whatever you'd like to call them. But it doesn't hold up.
The circular portholes on the port side we take to be the tops of the
turbolift shafts and the tiny box-like structure on the starboard side
is apparently the turbolift to the Battle Bridge. Using these as a
size guage (as Not One drawing in this "manual" has a scale attached),
what is the big circular dish smack in the middle of the module? It
should be the "skylight" porthole we see on the bridge, but it's far too
large, and it's far too small to encompass the entire bridge compartment
of Deck 1. Next I tried to find the conference/observation lounge in
the back, child's play to locate--but it conflicts with what we see in
every episode. The drawing is too wide, an 8-block curved rectangle
which is obviously the viewports. But there has always been 7 viewports
not the 8 here!
32 This portion of the ST:TNG Technical Manual covers the bridge of the
"Enterprise" which as we know is The most important set in any Trek
series. This page is significant because it gives us the only drawing
of the bridge interior in the entire book. The drawing is a crude
perspective view, lacking labels or anything else (just says "3.1.3
Main Bridge" in one corner) which could be hand-drawn for all we know.
F**A's TNG Officers Manual provides a better drawing: a top view showing
not only the bridge compartment but most outer compartments, labeling
each. Shane Johnson's future ST:TNG Technical Journal also features a
fair line drawing top view of the bridge. The classic Star Fleet Tech-
nical Manual features not only an excellent top view of the old bridge
but labels all stations and features another page showing elevations of
the bridge, with additional TOs which explore the consoles of each
station. The ST-TMP Blueprint package, which only goes into the ship in
a general way, focusing also on other vessels in the first movie, even
provides simple top and side views of the "Enterprise" bridge, with all
stations neatly labeled... Let me guess, they lost their little computer
drawing of the bridge set? Spot eat the disk? Or is this going to be
like the 1701-D cutaway poster? We have to wait a few years for them
to release it in single sheet oversized format and shell out a measly
$25 for it? This "missing page" is one observation which shows us that
this manual's clearly being penned by the Wrong people...
There is a note at the bottom of page 32 names the "Reliant" (from ST II),
the "Saratoga" (from ST IV), the "Lantree" (from "Unnatural Selection"),
and the "Brittain" (from "Night Terrors") as all being "Miranda" class
starships. Treknically this is as wrong as the movie "Enterprise" is a
"Constitution" class starship. The "Reliant" in ST II was an "Avenger"
class heavy frigate according to its designer Andrew Probert (who also,
I might add, designed the "Enterprise" model for both the films and TNG
but apparently is hardly given any credit in this manual). Every tech-
nical reference and blueprint outside of F**A classifies her as an
"Avenger" class starship. The "Saratoga" in ST IV is an improved
"Avenger" class vessel called a "Cyane" class heavy frigate. The
"Lantree" and "Brittain" from the 24th Century, however, are apparently
"Miranda" class starships, which have on occassion been classified as
supply and research vessels with a complement of under 50. The "Reliant"
and "Cyane" have each had a complement in excess of 355 per ship.
Externally similar but not internally obviously. These two ships also
were armed with 4 torpedo tubes (2 fore/2 aft) 4 megaphaser cannons (2
fore/2 aft) and a total of 12 standard phaser emplacements (6 banks: 2
each). Pretty heavy stuff for a supply ship like the "Lantree"...
Speaking of the "Brittain," she's not spelled that way in this book,
in the Okuda "Chronology," or in any other reference. She's spelled as
"BrAttain" in all of these despite it's name Clearly being legible as
"BrIttain" in "Night Terrors" on her primary hull. So why do these
people call her "BrAttain" all the time? Because Okuda did the ship's
near-impossible to read dedication plaque shoved away in a dark corner
on the ship's bridge. He therefore says that "BrAttain" is the correct
spelling. The opposite happens in "Inheritance" when we see the name
"NooniEn Soong" appear in little letters on a data screen. For over 6
years the name has always been "NooniAn" but Okuda apparently goofed just
as he did previously in his "Chronology" (and also with "NooniEn Singh" of
all people!). Maybe he wants to rewrite Trek history, but up until now
the correct spellings have always been "NooniAn" throughout countless
novels, novelizations, and the various episode guides. Sadly, these
exact same blunders have been carried over into the more recent Okuda
book The Star Trek Encyclopedia...
36-37 The coordinate system, bearing and headings are discussed here. Problem
is that it's changed around from the old days. Instead of "Elevation"
Mark "Azimuth" they're swapped with the Elevation angle cycling around
360 degrees to eliminate negative numbers. This contradicts the Star
Fleet Technical Manual as well as Line Officers Requirements, Star Trek
Maps, Star Fleet Dynamics... And, of course, The Making of Star Trek where
the system was first laid down on paper. Even more confusing is the fact
that in several early TNG episodes, headings were given which exceeded
the 360 degree limit! This would justify that a new system is in use in TNG's
time but it's obvious they've ignored episodes like "Symbiosis." I guess they
didn't do their homework yet again, or more likely expect us to forget such
things... Also changed is the Absolute heading system which, in this system,
is with respect to the center of the galaxy. Star Trek Maps says it's with respect
to the UFP's center (where a reference/time base beacon is located) which
makes more sense to me. I guess things change in a century...
39 The drawing of the Tactical systems control panel is incorrect. It has
always been TWO panels. Here it's drawn as one single panel.
44- "In the 'Galaxy' class starship, ongoing G&N system research tasks are
45 handled by a mixed consultation crew of twelve Tursiops truncatus and T.
truncatus gilli, Atlantic and Pacific bottlenose dolphins, respectively.
This crew is overseen by two additional cetaceans, Orcinus orca takayai,
or Takaya's Whale. All theoretical topics in navigation are studied by
these elite specialists, and their recommendations for system upgrades
are implemented by Starfleet." Dolphins and Whales are aboard the ship
to handle navigation! This "Hitch hikers Guide to the Galaxy" nonsense
has gone Too Far. This is Star Trek and this book is meant to be a
Serious reference--not a contest to see how many gags can be spliced in!
F**A's dreadful ST:TNG Officers Manual, on the other hand, introduced an
intriguing idea derived from the old episode "Is There in Truth No
Beauty?": a Medusan navigator onboard, in a specially shielded chamber,
serves as a navigation officer. Pretty sad that a statement from an RPG
book sounds more plausible than one in the ST:TNG Technical Manual...
47 The Battle Bridge is touched upon here in only 3 short paragraphs which
tells us little more than what we've acertained in the episodes... And
for some reason, the rest picks up on page 131.
The bottom of this page shows us a simple (unlabeled!) line drawing of
Main Engineering (looking aft). For possibly the second most important
set one would think they'd at least Label the consoles!
48 Continuing from page 47 is our second and last simple line drawing of
Engineering, this time looking forwards. Again, no labels, no scale,
not even shading is present here. Don't even ask if a scale is present,
as there isn't any, nor are there any Anywhere in this entire "technical
manual." I mean, even Johnson's TNG Tech Journal and F**A's TNG Officers
Manual both feature neat top views of the Engineering section with some
systems labeled. Neither provided scaling both its a heck of a lot more
than Okuda and Sternbach with their Macs and 100+ credited names give
fans here! Maybe NCC-1701-D: The Engineering Deck poster they're saving
it all for. Yeah, that's another $25 to put aside!
49-50 The "Enterprise" has 3 computer cores: 2 are "between Decks 5 and 14"
near the center of the primary hull while the third is located "between
Decks 30 and 37" in the engineering hull. From this we can reason that
the primary hull core is 8 decks thick and the secondary hull core is 6
decks thick. Then why is it that on the next page, page 50, a cutaway of
a computer core is illustrated which is not 6 decks high, not 8 decks
high, but 7 decks high? Now going back to the cutaway on page 11, and
counting that vertical lined region above the Captain's yacht (which on
Shane Johnson's cutaway Is labeled Computer Core) the primary hull core
occupies no less than 9 decks (and that may be without counting the
monitor room atop the core).
54 All Trek timelines I've come across usually credit Cochrane with his warp
drive developments in the 2050s not 2061. But I guess it's a matter of
how you view this "prototype field device of massive proportions" and its
capabilities. I am only pointing this out to show that they seem to be
deliberately straying from previously published works. Probably because
they don't read them... (This becomes crystal clear with Okuda's Trek
Encyclopedia book later on which is jammed-packed with 100% pure,
non-researched Invention rather than Research which he labels as
"conjecture"--pushing the long-time fan into asking whether to accept
20 years' worth of fandom research or one person's new ideas.)
55 Old territory: The note at the bottom of the page states that warp factor
10 on the TNG warp scale is infinite speed and unreachable. It goes on
to say that, despite the on-screen statement in "Where No One Has Gone
Before" that the ship was passing Warp 10, the "Enterprise" was Really
moving at Warp 9.99-something. Why invalidate it? If they wanted to
make Warp 10 the absolute top limit of the scale they should have done
so Before this episode not After this episode. So we're left with believing
that Picard, Data, and all the other officers simply misread the instruments
and the Kosinski Scale conversation had absolutely no merit. The final TNG
episode "All Good Things..." furthermore features the future "Enterprise" and
medical ship "Pasteur" moving at warp 13 speeds. Depending on how you
view it, this either contradicts the manual yet again or else implies yet another
warp speed scale. Personally, if I were handling the warp scale problems,
before the series' start I would have either kept the original series' scale of
the warp factor cubed with no upper limit and placed the maximum speed of
the "Enterprise" at something like warp 20, leaving well enough alone with no
"unreachable infinite speed limit." Or, based upon "Where No One Has Gone
Before," have left the formula at a nice round Wf^4 with warp 10 being the top
emergency speed limit For The Galaxy Class Only. But the damage is done.
We have Wf^(10/3) up until warp 9 afterwards the scale goes asymptotic with
Warp 10 being the unreachable "infinite" speed (apparently all this was done
to make the techno-creators sound more sophisticated, nothing more).
60 "The Role of Dilithium" doesn't say much but very weak babble. "The key
element in the efficient use of M/A reactions is the dilithum crystal.
This is the only material known to Federation science to be nonreactive
with antimatter when subjected to a high-frequency electromagnetic (EM)
field in the magawatt range, rendering it 'porous' to antihydrogen.
Dilithium permits the antihydrogen to pass directly through its crystal-
line structure without actually touching it..." The basis behind this
hokey junk first appeared in the F**A TNG Officers Manual and I had hoped
it would have remained there. Antimatter passing THROUGH a dilithium
crystal? For what purpose? The remaining info tries to imply that it
"tunes" the plasma and it "mediates" the matter/antimatter reaction.
In the 23rd Century, dilithium was used to "transtate" the radiation
released from the reaction into conventional energy (electricity) for
shipboard use. Dilithium was also said to focus/amplify the energy
output, absorbing and channeling the radiation output. I Guess they've
found a new use for the crystals, no matter how hilariously improbable.
61-62 The first of the plasma bunk and intermix ratios starts here. When matter
and antimatter and integrated in equal proportions raw, high-energy
radiation is produced. There is no matter left--this is called mutual
annihilation, and it makes for the most efficient release of energy in
the universe. Then what is all this bunk about electro-plasma conduits
"pumping" the resulting plasma of the reaction up to the warp nacelles
and around the ship to power high-energy systems? Plasma is defined as
the 4th state of matter. Stars are composed of plasma. As said above,
in the "old days" it was extrapolated that dilithium crystals were
exposed to this radiation output and transformed the energy into a more
useful form. I suppose it could transform the radiation into plasma,
but that's rather far-fetched and nothing is stated anywhere about this.
This manual tries to get around this problem by leaving a little extra
gas hanging about in the intermix chamber to become ionized plasma fuel:
"The ratio is adjusted to 10:1 for power generation. This is also the
base ratio for making Warp 1 entry. The relative proportions of matter
and antimatter change as warp factors rise until Warp 8, where the ratio
becomes 1:1." This contradicts everything! To begin with, if all they're
trying to accomplish here is create plasma, why not replace this deadly
antimatter reactor system with a safe fusion reactor which will generate
all the plasma they need without having to lug deadly antimatter pods
around which have endangered (and even destroyed in certain alternate
timelines) the ship? In "Coming of Age" it was stated straight out that
there is only one ratio with matter-antimatter: one-to-one. This 1:1
ratio is consistent with the highly erroneous "Spaceflight Chronology"
book from 1980 which showed the evolution of starships--as they became
more sophisticated in engine design, the ratio of matter to antimatter
became closer and closer until 1:1 was reached for the "Constitution"
class starship and beyond. Now I can see a "cold start" of the intermix
system starting off with a 25:1 matter/antimatter ratio but to run it
continuously at this rate is ridiculous. And, finally, pointing out
visual evidence: we have always seen blobs of equal size dropping from
upper and lower fuel tanks and mixing simultaneously. Show Me one
episode in which we can Visually account for non-equal integration, an
episode where a tiny blob of antimatter shoots up from below and a blob
of matter 10x its size drops from above. Never seen it and probably never
will.
62 "The (then) amazing speed of Warp 14.1, achieved by the 'Enterprise' in
under extreme duress in 'Is There in Truth No Beauty?' now works out to
around Warp 9.7, which the new ship achieved while fleeing Q during
'Encounter at Farpoint.'" Wrong. The "Enterprise" achieved Warp 14.1
(if not a little higher) in "That Which Survives" when her matter/anti-
matter integrator was fused.
63 On accessing the warp drive nacelles: "Normal monitoring visits from
within the starship are made by single-occupant turbolift through the
support pylon." In the recent episode "Eye of the Beholder" during an
emergency situation Riker and company climb to the nacelle tube through
Jefferies tubes and no service turbolift is ever seen. Furthermore, no
matter how improbable it sounds (going by classic episodes and old Trek-
nology), it's made quite clear that personnel are Posted to these nacelle
tubes! The door logo in "Eye of the Beholder" marks it as being on the
25th Deck, right at the base of the nacelle, well above the curving
engine support pylon, so there is no mistake in interpreting "nacelle
tube." The Franz Joseph blueprints of the old "Enterprise" lock-off
access to the nacelles by a serious of safety lock compartments, the
uppermost one warning that the warp drive nacelle shouldn't be accessed
without radiation suits and the engine operational. Of course, these are
different warp engines seperated by a century's progress...
70 This section states that antimatter is only produced onboard during
emergency conditions because it's incredibly power and matter intensive
using some techno-babble B.S. which supposedly is an offshoot of trans-
porter technology which produces only 8 cubic cm per hour. The classic
Geoffrey Mandel blueprint sheet supplement to the Franz Joseph prints
shows us the inboard view of the main propulsion units and of the fuel
flow. The ramjet's hydrogen is heated to plasma form and half of it is
converted to antimatter. Likewise, cross-section blueprints of warp
engines of the Movie Era in Ships of the Star Fleet and other references
show that antimatter is also processed in the nacelles. The animated
episode "One Of Our Planets Is Missing" has the ship in deep trouble
when her energy reserves are drained. Scotty says they won't regenerate
once the antimatter supply drops below 2 anti-kilos. A meter-square
force field box is rigged up and fuel imported from an antimatter cloud
entity. Less than 1 cubic meter of antimatter was all that was needed
to restart the antimatter regeneration sequence. Why isn't this done
in TNG's time? Perhaps because the ship's considerably larger and re-
quires immense amounts of antimatter fuel, but I doubt it. If replicators
exist and transporters exist to dematerialize and rematerialize matter
then it should be a simple matter to dematerialize, say, a cubic meter
of deuterium and rematerialize it with its charges reversed using a
stored transporter/replicator pattern, almost instantaneously, provided
that the transporter systems are fully force field shielded. The Tech
Manual tries to get around this by saying antimatter "cannot be moved
by transporter without extensive modifications to the pattern buffer,
transfer conduits, and transporter emitters for safety reasons due to
the highly volatile nature of antimatter" on page 68. And shoves in
parenthesis about "specific exceptions" being small quantities stored
in approved magnetic containment devices... As with most information in
the manual, it doesn't answer WHY. Why? The transporter converts matter
to energy, beams that energy, and reconstructs it from the stored pattern
so matter should be no different than antimatter provided it doesn't
come in contact with matter. In the dematerialized state, antimatter is
energy, just like any normal matter being transported. Antimatter was beamed
in the old episode "Obsession" (enough in fact to rip away half a planet's
atmosphere), again in the animated episode "One Of Our Planets Is Missing"
(as stated previously), in novels (including "The Kobayashi Alternative") and
recently in Deep Space Nine ("Tribunal").
74 "Damage sustained by the antimatter storage pod assembly may require its
rapid ejection from the Engineering Hull. Since the antimatter reactant
supply possesses the energy potential to vaporize the entire starship,
multiply-redundant safety systems are in place to minimize the failure
conditions of the pod containment devices." Before this is a paragraph
outlining how the whole intermix core would be ejected automatically
should a core breach begin. Now this all sounds quite logical and
realistic--but how come it just doesn't happen on screen? The worst
example of this was in Generations. There is simply no excuse and I
hardly believe that all of the "redundant" systems would be inoperable.
In "Yesterday's Enterprise" the ship also goes up--but this is at least
an alternate timeline, so maybe the ship's warp core isn't quite up to
the Tech Manual's specs... "The Jem'Hadar" and "Cause and Effect" are
two more examples. At least the first of them all, the destruction of the
Yamato in "Contagion," can be blamed on the Iconian computer virus.
77 "Infinite Improbability Generation" - Is this really necessary? Maybe
these guys should quit Paramount and work for Douglas Adams or become
comedians... (Just my personal opinion, being a hardcore Treknical fan.)
78 Relativistic Considerations. It says here that normal impulse operations
limit the "Enterprise" to 25% of lightspeed. I guess they never watched
Star Trek-The Motion Picture where our "Enterprise" accelerates from rest
to just under lightspeed before engaging her warp drive. I had assumed
that over the years, certainly by the 24th Century, through esoteric
fields or what have you, time dilation aboard a ship of the line like the
"Enterprise" would have been licked even with impulse drives.
91 Replication Limits. This is the first appearance of Molecular vs. Quantum
level resolutions. They simply Love It and it will be repeated over and
over again throughout this manual. In essence: transporters operate at
the quantum level and replicators operate at the molecular level. These
are called, respectively high and low resolutions in the Line Officers
Requirements Manual and Starfleet Dynamics. It's repeated throughout the
sections on Transporters amd Food Replicators, and used as the End-All
explanation for why people and rare items can't be replicated "because
replicators operate at the molecular level" and as a result bit-errors
will result. Now that's just fine but it doesn't explain why, for ex-
ample, the transporter can't have an alternate operating mode to act as
a quantum level replicator--it'd sure come in handy when they need to
have extra supplies of a rare drug or chemical compound around as we have
seen. If an item can be beamed by transporter successfully then it should
be Theoretically possible to replicate it provided one has a replicator
which operates at the quantum level--which should not be impossible to
build.
The last paragraph in this section contradicts transporter technology:
"It is not feasible to record or store quantum electron-state information,
nor can Brownian motion data be accurately re-created. Doing so would
represent another billionfold increase in the memory required to store a
given pattern. This meansO" Yet they Do This each
and every time a person is transported! Hey, maybe for Replicators but
not for Transporters--but if transporters do it routinely, again why can't
quantum-level high-resolution replicators be built? A standard transport-
er can beam 6 people simultaneously--that's the patterns of 6 people
stored in memory during transport right down to the subatomic level.
94 In one TNG episode we saw a communicator opened up. The inside layout of
the communicator illustrated here conflicts with it. Then there's Shane
Johnson's communicator drawing in his TNG Tech Journal...
It also says here that the communicator has a "micromilled duranium over-
layered with gold and silver alloys diffusion-bonding process" casing.
In "The Last Outpost" the Ferengi indicate the communicator is gold (and
one should think they would Know gold, especially after taking a little
bite at the badge!). In "Time's Arrow" Data bets his communicator and
the players seem to accept it as gold...
95 Communicator User ID Security... "For security purposes, the communicator
is a personalized Starfleet device that can be programmed to respond to
the individual crew member's bioelectrical field and temperature profiles
using the built-in dermal sensor. If an attempt is made to operate an
appropriately programmed device by another crew member without security
override authority, the communicator will fail to activate." Throughout
TNG we see "Enterprise" personnel handing over combadges to people who
need them for either transporter locks or for calling the ship. We never
have seen anyone even mention overriding this security feature or fooling
around with their badges in any noticeable way to change their mode. They
just hand them over to the guest alien and it works just fine.
100 The subspace radio relay platform illustrated here doesn't match up to
the one we see in "Aquiel." I'm sure there are many different models of
course but it would have been nice, and consistent, if the diagram matched
the model.
101 The Universal Translator is described here as being basically a software-
based speech analyzer. The classic episode "Metamorphosis" showed us that
the U.T. operates on the principles of scanning and comparing brain waves.
I suppose that both speech and a psionic scan of sorts are employed but
still and all they missed it here...
103- Something is seriously wrong here with the description of how the trans-
107 porter functions. Throughout the classic series the transporter was well-
defined as a "matter/energy scrambler" which converted the transportee
into energy, beamed that energy to predetermined coordinates, and con-
verted the energy back into the material person. This section says that
the subject is converted into a "subatomically debonded matter stream."
Matter Stream! And this Matter Stream is transmitted to the coordinates
and reconverted back into the subject transportee. We See people con-
verted into energy--a person steps onto the pad and vanishes. No matter
present. I doubt that the transportee was converted into a gas or liquid
and sucked/pumped off the pad! The novel "The Galactic Whirlpool" states
that the glitter effects are the product of the transporter's scanners.
I wonder if these guys call people who are disintegrated by phaser beams
as existing as "subatomically debonded matter streams."
108 "A transport subject that has not yet begun the materialization cycle can
be held in the pattern buffer without image degradation for up to 420
seconds, depending on payload mass." Obviously they just make these
numbers up! Why not say 7 minutes, that's what 420 seconds is isn't it?
In any case, Scotty was held suspended for 75 YEARS in a jury-rigged
transporter aboard an old spacecraft in "Relics" and stepped out intact.
While his partner, Franklin, was too far decayed to recover Scott DID
survive the process intact. If seconds are Critical, surely hours would
be Fatal. Speaking of Patterns, Picard's pattern was recalled Hours
after transport in "Lonely Among Us" to restructure Picard. From reading
these pages on the transporter I don't think the writers are aware of
what a Pattern is for. The Pattern Buffer seems to be employed as a
tank to store the physical matter stream of the dematerialized person.
Though one would think that a Pattern Buffer would rather store the
scanned molecular structure of the transportee, acting as a computer
databank. In fact the whole concept of a person's form being "digitized"
and stored is pretty much glossed over and in place is this "Pattern
Buffer" matter storage tank.
119- Two very crude drawings of the new tricorder. The Franz Joseph manual
120 puts these to shame. Simple line drawings with no shading, no labeling,
no scaling. The text attempts to compensate for the lack of graphics
by describing the "controls and indicators." The problem here is that
they're all just mumbo-jumbo flashing lights which while realistically
labeled Do Nothing. The only Practical buttons for Controlling the
tricorder are the 4 Image Record buttons (Forward, Reverse, Input, and
Erase). There is no obvious or noted way to use the tricorder to, say,
scan for a specific item on a planet's surface, analyse and compare
elements, or measure the dimensions or other physical aspects of an
specimen. The stills of tricorder props seen in the ST:TNG Companion
and in the pre-production sketches list the data displays down the left
side in this order: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta which makes sense since
that's the correct order of the Greek alphabet. But in the Tech Manual's
illustration and description they're like this: Alpha, Beta, Delta, and
Gamma...
123- A book could be written on Phasers alone and how this chapter conflicts
127 with what has been written, aired, and conjectured. Going back to The
Making of Star Trek, phasers were noted as being pure energy weapons
and descendants of lasers. Throughout the 70s PHASER was an acronym
generally taken to stand for PHoton Amplificatoin by the Stimulated
Emission of Radiation. Here is what the TNG Technical Manual says:
"The lead defensive system maintained by Starfleet Command for sublight
use for the last century is the phaser, the common term for a complicated
energy release process developed to replace pure EM devices such as
the laser and particle beam accelerators." Early 80s fandom even
speculated that phasers were fusions of lasers and particle beam weapons.
Here, if I understand the next couple pages of techno-bull, phaser beams
are created by exciting some magical crystals with plasma energy which
causes them to emit a plasma-based energy beam. This contradicts every
phaser theory I've read. "For sublight use" in quotes is explained on
page 127--in short, ship phasers are used in sublight battles only,
according to this manual. Why? Because, it says, phaser energy dissi-
pates quickly in the vicinity of moving warp fields and deflectors.
This pretty much clinches it for me: Okuda and Sternbach DO NOT watch
the classic episodes. "The Corbomite Maneuver," "Balance Of Terror,"
and "The Ultimate Computer" are only a few episodes in which the
"Enterprise's" phasers were effectively fired at warp speeds. And there
are numerous novels and animated episodes for additional examples. In
ST-TMP, in the wormhole effect (which is a warp field disaster no less)
Kirk orders phasers to be used to destroy the asteroid. Many fans do
believe that phaser beams (at least ship's phasers) are faster-than-light
and therefore tachyonic. Line Officers Requirements and the Starfleet
Dynamics manuals even go as far as saying they stand for PHased tachyon
beams. So why did they say such a stupid thing in this book? Probably
to try and differentiate the use of phasers from photon torpedoes--the
former for sublight, the latter for warp speed. Technical fans for the
past couple decades always have assumed it was a matter of Range. Phasers
being ideal for short-range combat and precision while photon torpedoes
were ideal for longer-range battle. I suppose one possible way of getting
around this mega-blunder is to assume that only the warp fields in use
in TNG's time deplete phaser energy... More trouble lies in the Number
of shipboard phaser arrays! Page 123: "The 'Galaxy' class supports
twelve phaser arrays in two sizes, located on both dorsal and ventral
surfaces, as well as two arrays for lateral coverage." I take this as
meaning 14 phasers total, but even if we take it as meaning 12 phasers
total which include the arrays for lateral coverage they don't add up.
Going by the two illustrations...
Saucer Module dorsal array: 1 - Most commonly fired phasers
Saucer Module ventral array: 1/
Battle Section upper array: 2 (being port and starboard)
Battle Section aft array: 2 (being port and starboard-topside)
Battle Section aft array: 2 (being port and starboard-underside)
Nacelle Pylon array: 2 (being port and starboard)
Battle Section ventral array:1 (underside secondary hull stripe)
-
11 phaser arrays total
Ah, but somebody pointed out to me the (unlabled) line drawing of the
topside of the detached Battle Section on page 27. In front of the
Battle Bridge module is a large slash-like mark which seems to be in
the same style as the two "Battle Section upper arrays" which could be
the missing 12th phaser array, although it doesn't say...
Some time after this manual was published the episode "Conundrum" aired.
Lt. Worf reported that the "Enterprise" was equipped with 10 phaser
arrays! Some Technical Manual...
134- Personal Phasers are discussed here with the same attention to techno-
135 babble as the shipboard phaser arrays. These two pages also feature
the most pathetic phaser drawings this side of the F**A TNG Officers
Manual. Shane Johnson's Technical Journal drawings have far more of a
Technical Manual look to them even though they're simple line drawings
done in the same unfinished style. He even covers the two versions of
the Type II phaser which this manual doesn't bother showing. The Type
II phaser features some front buttons or panels which I wonder about, and
a tiny side-mounted arrow-headed button which is undefined. Beam width
and beam intensity are controlled by single buttons beneath a power level
indicator bar. In "Arsenal Of Freedom" Data was tapping on both of these
buttons to alter the bar attempting to change the phaser's frequency to
free Riker from a confinement field. I can see how the right button can
increase the bar and the left decrease it but I can't see how each button
controls the specific setting of width and intensity. Classic series
phasers had simple setting dials/wheels and Movie Era phasers had simple
mode-specific buttons (Stun-Heat-Disrupt-Dematerialize).
137 Following some very nice phaser setting descriptions (which could have
been nicer if listed on a single page in technical order format) phaser
overload is briefly described and that's it. How are these hand phasers
set to the overload setting? It was done in "The Hunted" and phasers in
use during the classic series had specific settings for this self-destruct
mode.
138- "Deflector Shields" is, for a change, nicely consistent with the old series
139 jargon which happens to be unfortunate since it conflicts with numerous
episodes from TNG's first season! I had thought that here, for once, the
contradictory statements of "Shields and Deflectors up!" would be solved.
To me, this always sounded like saying "Torpedoes and Photons armed."
Trying to rationalize this, one would assume there are two seperate systems
in use, Shields and Deflectors, in TNG's time, much like Deflector Shields
and Deflector Screens in the past. This whole section of the manual
ignores the issue entirely...
"During Alert situations, shields are raised to defensive configuration by
increasing generator power to at least 85% of rated output. Shield mod-
ulation frequencies and bandwidths are randomly varied to prevent a Threat
force from adjusting the frequency of a directed energy weapon (such as a
phaser) to penetrate shields by matching frequency and phase." Then why
did the Duras Sister "bug" Geordi's VISOR in Generations? How were they
able to take this shield frequency number and use it to penetrate the
"Enterprise's" shields with a photon torpedo? I should think that it
would be varied by the minute, not by the hour when nose-to-nose with an
enemy vessel!
156- Holodecks are described here as using real matter replicated "props" in
157 conjunction with force field encased holograms. This is just fine and
backed up by novels and other sources. But if this book is a technical
"bible" for TNG then why does the episode "Ship In A Bottle," produced
long after the manual's publication, contradict all this and say that
all holodeck objects are composed of some sort of "unstable" matter which
loses consistency when taken off of the "holodeck grid"?
159 Another note (but at least the notes are straightforward, clearcut, and
non-wordy unlike the techno-babbly entries): "We don't have a list of the
names of all shuttlecraft and shuttlepods onboard the 'Enterprise.' The
main reason is that this is one of those things you want to leave somewhat
nebulous so that writers of future episodes have some room to play around
with." Well, that's just fine for an a quick answer to present to fans
at a con, but Not for a reference "manual" (see my comment about page 2).
They could have At Least listed the names of shuttlecraft up to the point
of publication, their numbers, and types. I've tried to compile a list
of such shuttles myself. Remember, these guys Work for TNG and oversee
the scripts (in theory!) so they should be able to keep names and numbers
consistent. From my understanding they do most of the name-picking in
most cases anyway. In The Making of Star Trek the names of the original
"Constitution" class starships were established so why can't they do so
here for the ship's shuttlecraft? At least the original complement before
being demolished...
163 Environmental suits are discussed here. The TNG novel "The Peacekeepers"
introduces us to force shield belts which are logical developments from
the short-lived life support belts from the animated series. If holodecks
are possible, capable of extremely fine force field projection and control
then why aren't personal force field environments in use? Even the ship's
fire control system utilizes ceiling-projected force fields which contain
the fire and smother it, covered in this manual and on-screen in "Up The
Long Ladder." Because budget wouldn't permit it? Should be A Lot cheaper
to fabricate one belt per person than one suit per person. Just add-in
some animated glow FX. In any case we haven't seen these suits, aside
from a quick emergency environmental outfit in "The Hunted" which hardly
counts.
171 Speaking of Fire Suppression, it's described here. But what's the fire
sensor cluster drawing doing way back on page 149 in the Medical Section
beneath the surgical support frame drawing?
175 A note here states that the "Melbourne" destroyed in "The Best of Both
Worlds" at the battle of Wolf 359 was a "Nebula" class starship. But in
the DS9 pilot episode "Emissary" we see her destroyed and she's apparently
an "Excelsior" class starship.
176 The Rescue Scenario paragraph states that the "Enterprise" is capable of
transporting up to 1,000 persons per hour to the ship via personnel
transporters. This doesn't jibe very well with the figures given to
"Captain" Beverly Crusher in part 2 of "Descent" when the ridiculously
high number of away team personnel needed to be beamed back aboard.