Ed Whitefire
(Interview conducted by Steven Szulecki via email in 2005)
For TREKPLACE
I first heard about Ed Whitefire back in 2005 whilst searching the Net for reference material on the USS Enterprise-D. I was intrigued by his story and of his attempt to produce the first blueprints of the Enterprise-D. I took the plunge and asked Ed if he would consent to an interview, which he did. Below are the fruits of that labour.
Szulecki:
Ed, thank you for agreeing to this interview. I would like to start off
by asking if you could tell us a little of your background?
Whitefire:
I am originally from Chicago, Illinois, USA (born and raised). In 1983
I moved to southern California where I currently reside. I have been
married for going on nine years to a wonderful and supportive woman who
is also heavily into sci-fi.
I am currently working in aerospace where I
have derived some of my knowledge of various spacecraft components and
mission prerogatives, which dictate design specifics.
I have done any number of things in the science-fiction genre side of
the house, most of which are only of marginal note (although I have won
an occassional award for costuming at conventions, and I did run a
science-fiction convention in Los Angeles one year).
Outside of that, I can tell you that I
currently work in aerospace and have a background in architectural
structural design, as well as a CONSIDERABLE interest in science
fiction.
Szulecki:
What is your view of the E-D as a ship design, and could it actually work from a "real-world" engineering viewpoint?
Whitefire:
Not a chance in Hell! (OOPS, did I say that out loud?)
Actually, I obviously really like the Enterprise-D.
I have always been fascinated with the possibility of something akin to
a long range exploratory vessel that would not only support families,
but also military, as well as have everything necessary to be a self
sufficient island in space (basically, a colony ship), but with
underlying alternate capabilities. Something like this would still have
limitations and discrepancies throughout, but would need to be
sufficiently large to handle most requirements of the stated mission.
As this is the largest ship in the fleet -- volumetrically it is still
at least 2-1/2 times larger than any other Starfleet vessel; it is not
the longest ship; that is currently the Enterprise-E -- it lends itself to all kinds of possibilities.
As to whether or not it would work from an
engineering standpoint, I would have to reserve judgement. Being that
there are so many new materials and technologies being discovered every
day (they have been growing exponentially since the '50s), who is to
say what we will have that far in the future? There are far too many
factors to consider that could sway opinion about it in either
direction. However, I am biased in that I really like this ship, so
HELL YES, it's possible!
Szulecki:
You eventually made contact with Andrew Probert at Paramount. When was
that? And how much assistance were you given in realising the drawings?
Whitefire:
I first met Andrew in 1987, very soon after the premiere of ST:TNG
season one. I got his name from some of the different publications
available at the time, which highlighted some of his pre-production
work on the show. When I saw his name in the credits, it occurred to me
that maybe I could speak with him about my possible project. When we
talked together, he was very receptive to the possibilities of the
project, so we arranged to meet to discuss it further. When I outlined
what I had in mind for the drawings, I got a very enthusiastic response
from all the designers in the shop (Andrew, Mike Okuda and Rick
Sternbach). Although they were fairly busy with the production at the
time, they were very helpful by indicating specifics that they wanted
incorporated into the design of the ship, many of which had not even
been written into scripts yet, or, for that matter, ever made it to the
screen. The four of us had numerous discussions regarding both large
and small details of the D that we collectively imagined would be not
only neat, but also logical to have on a spacecraft of this magnitude.
We even discussed how it would be constructed (at the shipyard level).
After Andrew left Paramount, I continued a
dialogue with him outside, as well as with Mike and Rick at the studio,
to be certain I was getting all the details right that were being asked
for. Mike and Rick continued to fill me in on ideas they were adding to
upcoming scripts which they wanted somehow reflected in what I was
designing. They also mentioned that some of my ideas were being used in
upcoming episodes as technical asides that were needed for things to
make sense.
Szulecki:
How much did the sets that had been built for the show's first season influence you in the overall design of the Enterprise's internal spaces? And how much access did you have to relate those internal spaces with the exterior of the actual E-D studio models?
Whitefire:
When I started this project I was told that I had to incorporate the
set spaces into the designs wherever they occurred. This was not a
difficult task as the spaces the sets represented only occupied about
maybe 1/100th of the total volume of the ship. I was thus able to work
around them pretty easily. However, it was necessary to get all the set
plans in order to incorporate them. I was thus given numerous set
blueprints, as well as given a few on-stage tours to understand some of
the spatial relationships that were supposed to be happening. Most of
the external-to-internal relationships were specified by Andrew, Mike
and Rick as to what they wanted certain elements on the surface of the
ship to be or do. With that in mind, I designed particular internal
spaces to have certain types of external accesses to account for their
instructions.
Szulecki:
The blueprints you produced are, to me, reminiscent of the original
Franz Joseph plans. Was this intentional or simply a coincidence of
style?
Whitefire:
Well, in truth, it was coincidence, but I have to tell you a little
story that goes along with that: When I was fairly young and had first
started dabbling in design, I had this great Idea - I had just been
introduced to this great show called Star Trek
with this really cool ship in it that was easily the size of an
aircraft carrier. Wouldn't it be great to design the deck plans for
something of that magnitude?
Imagine how crushed I was when, about a month
later, the Franz Joseph plans hit the stands. I eventually bought a set
to see what kind of things he had put into it and was moderately
disappointed with what I saw. It occurred to me over time that, were I
ever given a chance to do something like this in the future, I would
design it with at least SOME real science in mind, as well as a better
understanding of spatial relationships within large structures and,
more importantly, large ships.
Any graphic treatments that are similar really
ARE coincidental, because I had purposefully tried to emulate the
on-screen visuals of the show (including font usage, leader lines and
border treatment). The guys at Paramount seemed to like that idea.
Szulecki:
In both your plans and the published blueprints, the interior of the
warp nacelles is not detailed. Was this deliberate or an oversight?
Whitefire:
Actually, this was not an oversight, but a postponement, at least on my
part (I can't speak for Rick's reasons). I had every intention of doing
a fourteenth page to the blueprints (and this was actually outlined at
one point to all parties concerned) that would cover the warp engines,
but it was decided early on that it would entirely depend on time
constraints and deadlines. When the licensing problem began to rear its
head, it became obvious that I should try and wrap things up as quickly
as possible to, hopefully, still be able to go to press. Unfortunately,
this was not the case and, as such, the fourteenth drawing still
remains only in a rough pencil sketch.
Szulecki:
You mentioned that the warp nacelles were to have been the "fourteenth
sheet", Do you have any plans to complete this final part of the
blueprints?
Whitefire:
Currently I have no immediate plans regarding the warp nacelle drawing.
I am hoping to get back to it after I have finished teaching myself
some new software that will allow me to transfer the bulk of the
drawings onto the computer. Mike Okuda has done a rather good job of a
cross-section of the warp nacelles that I could scarcely improve on.
When the time comes, I will make considerations as to what I may do
with this drawing (maybe).
Szulecki:
If I could touch on one or two matters you raised earlier, you mention that you looked at the design process of the Enterprise-D
in relation to "real science" and the "spatial relationships within
large structures and, more importantly, large ships." What real-world
examples did you draw on for inspiration for the Enterprise's internal volumes and placing of major components?
Whitefire:
Well, my primary inspiration for the Enterprise-D
was an aircraft carrier, and, more specifically, an assault carrier.
The reason for this is that an assault carrier is designed to
facilitate a crew that is specifically collected for the purpose of
landing on foreign shores. To that end they are equipped with various
landing craft, surface craft and aircraft, as well as facilities for
the upkeep of these vehicles and the crews that are needed for their
use. They are also designed with hostile environments in mind, since
they are equipped with rooms that can have their atmospheres altered
for people to train in (temperature, altitude, humidity, etc.).
Although an assault carrier is in reality a vessel of war, the general
facilities on board ship could easily be swapped for a vessel of
exploration in a future society, while still retaining a modicum of
defensive capability.
Szulecki:
You told us that it took 2-1/2 years to get the plans to the inking
stage. Could you give us some insight into how much work really goes
into making a project like the Enterprise-D blueprints a reality?
Whitefire:
Oooh, well, that's a tough one. The design process of the E-D
began with having to discover the actual cross sections of the
spacecraft before I could start filling it in. This alone took over six
months. After that I was able to separate the individual decks by their
real contours, which probably took another three to four months. After
this I was able to begin adding large details to the decks, which would
eventually lead to smaller details, and finally to individual rooms and
room functions. All in all, there are probably somewhere between 20 and
30 preliminary drawings that lead up to each of the finished drawings
(that works out to between 250 and 400 drawings and sketches, give or
take around 50, not including the final inkings).
Szulecki:
A little mentioned feature of either blueprints, and never, to my
recollection, seen on screen, is the stairways connecting the various
decks. I know that some of the early designs by Andrew Probert show
them, but, given a starship with turbolifts, Jefferies tubes and
transporters, what was the thinking behind their eventual inclusion?
Whitefire:
There are actually very few stairwells throughout the ship to speak of.
I personally only recall the central stairway and corridor that runs
down through the core of the saucer, then extends back to the dorsal
and down into the engineering hull. This was meant to be a secondary
access to the entire ship (the primary being the turbolifts, and the
tertiary being the ladderways and Jefferies tubes). The stairwell(s)
and open ladderways would be for simple access from deck to deck, as in
any large scale building (i.e., Sears Tower, Empire State Building)
where elevator access is uneccessary or impractical, or merely for
exercise. As well, they serve as emergency access, alongside the
Jefferies tubes, when the turbolift system is offline. Andrew and I
both felt that the central stairway and corridor access were essential
parts of the ship.
Szulecki:
The E-D
is an immense structure and necessarily, would have to be built to
withstand unbelievable stresses. What were the constraints you faced in
creating a logical and robust engineering structure whilst
accommodating large, internal spaces to house such things as the warp
and main computer cores, main shuttle bay and deuterium storage tank?
Whitefire:
As you said, this ship is to withstand "unbelievable stresses," which
basically says there is no real way of truly addressing something of
that caliber in real life, so I decided it would be best to take what
we were already given regarding technology in the Star Trek universe and work around that.
Bearing in mind that, even though the E-D
is as large as it is, most of the vehicle is broken into sections
which, although large, are still mobile enough to be built in varying
locations and assembled as a whole in a final "dry dock." This is a
very common practice in aerospace where large-scale aircraft parts are
generally built by numerous sub-contractors and then shipped to a
central location for final assembly. Andrew Probert and I discussed
this early on and felt that it would be the best manner of construction
for a starship.
Where the E-D is
concerned, there are many existing examples of large-scale open
structures built in modern society (e.g., cruise ships, tankers) that
have vast open structures built with modern materials. Assuming the use
of many of the futuristic materials already established in the varying Star Trek
series (i.e., tritanium, various composites that I can't remember the
names of), it would not be unfeasible that similar building techniques
used in the modern day would still be workable, but with better
efficiency, higher tolerances, better flexibility and stronger
structural integrity than we have ever known.
Szulecki:
How were the Enterprise-D's structural members taken into account in designing a layout for the ship?
Whitefire:
Before anything else this ship is a large moving structure, a building
in space that just happens to be shuttled around from place to place.
Like any good building, you require a good foundation (or in this case
a skeleton) to maintain the structure's integrity. This structure has
to be able to withstand all the forces that the ship is anticipated to
go through (e.g., acceleration, bending moments, torque from various
angles, etc.) while still keeping the occupants safe and comfortable.
Therefore the ship's structure is not only a basic necessity, but is
highly critical in the case that all systems should fail.
Let me give you an example -- say that most
onboard systems shut down, the mains went offline (warp drive),
secondary power failed (the fusion reactors), and you were left only
with the batteries of which a full half were destroyed in some
catastrophe. One would think that in a situation like this, your main
concern would be to first of all stop any forward motion, or at least
get the ship into a stable descent toward a planet. Any and all systems
outside of your thrusters (and MAYBE your inertial dampers) would be
meaningless (this assumes your ship is still sealed enough to keep in
an atmosphere, so life support would also be secondary). Your ship must
now rely on its own structure to keep itself together in case of
collision, crash, enemy fire and any number of outside forces that you
come up against. Without this internal support structure, the slightest
tap from a passing asteroid would cause the ship to crumple or
disintegrate where it was hit, and would cause major damage to the
surrounding structural members that would lead to further catastrophic
failure.
As such, I integrated a simple, but thorough set of bulkheads throughout the E-D that formed its skeleton.
Szulecki:
Decks 13 and 14 of the saucer section are given over, almost entirely,
to a part of the crew complement that was never seen onscreen, namely
Tursiops, better known as dolphins. What was the thinking behind their
inclusion as part of the Enterprise crew, and were there any particular difficulties in accommodating them into the plans?
Whitefire:
This is an interesting story. As I remember it, this was the brainchild
of Mike Okuda who argued (and correctly, I might add) that aquatic
mammals are the most efficient and effective navigators in the world
and would, therefore, one day become the people who steer our ships
through space.
When he told me this, I took it as a direct
challenge to add quarters and operating areas for tursiops crew
members. My thinking regarding their movement through the ship was that
they would be individually fitted with some sort of low-gravity,
high-moisture force field unit or suit that would allow them free
movement while keeping their skin appropriately hydrated. Although they
would be able to traverse the ship, the size of their spaces on Decks
13 and 14 would be used as their quarters and primary work spaces, in
which they would have neutral bouyancy (low gravity) and high moisture
content, thus negating the need for a huge on-board 'pool' for them to
swim in. The size of the spaces would also allow for their measurably
larger masses to move around more freely.
As I recall, there was actually one door on set
that was permanently(?) labeled "Tursiops," that was only obvious in
one or two episodes, and Geordi actually specifically mentions the
tursiops crew members in one episode.
Szulecki:
In a related question, in the forward, centreline area of Deck 14, identified later in the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual
as the saucer navigational deflector, the exterior shows a recessed
"window" bay conprising 4 square panels which were often shown lit.
What was this area originally identified as?
Whitefire:
This was always meant to be a public space or, in may case, a two-level
lounge. Its location on deck 14 was useful in that it was adjacent to
the tursiops quarters and could be shared with them. My original idea
for this room (though I had no way of showing it) was to have large
transparent panels along the back wall for viewing by the tursiops
crew. Andrew even did a painting that depicted people in those windows.
Where they got any ideas for anything else in that space is beyond me.
Szulecki:
How did you design the layouts of the turbolift shafts, corridors and Jefferies tubes?
Whitefire:
The turbolifts were the easier part as they were primarily meant to
access each section of the ship. The main lines of the system follow
most of the primary bulkheads of the ship, and are therefore anchored
very securely throughout. I later added extensions to this primary
labyrinth where it seemed logical and available to do so.
The Jefferies tubes were also designed to
follow the bulkhead system, but they had a much more extensive set of
additions, as they are supposed to be the primary access trunks for all
of the subsystems; I was therefore far more liberal with their
placement, although I tried to be careful to put them where it made
sense to be able to connect into the power grid.
The corridors were designed on both a radial
and concentric pattern in both the saucer and engineering hulls. Again,
the bulkhead placement had much to do with it, but since these were
actually meant for common daily access throughout the ship, it was
easier to spread them out in a manner that broke up major sections more
logically.
Szulecki:
In all the articles I have read, including actions onscreen, no mention
is really made of how a starship, travelling at impulse speeds,
actually stops. We know that "dropping out of warp" reduces the vessel
to sublight velocities, but that seems to be the end of what is known.
Was that process, of stopping a ship at relatavistic speeds, ever
discussed during the development of the blueprints? And if so, what was
the solution?
Whitefire:
The impulse engines were supposed to have thrust reversers, much like
conventional aircraft. How they were supposed to work was never really
considered. As well, the ship has multiple high power thrusters for
steering and three-dimensional movement. What type of propulsion was to
be used by the thrusters was also something that was not really
discussed.
Szulecki:
In your blueprints, you seem to have taken on Gene Roddenberry's
principle that this was a 30-year-mission, "multi-generational" vessel,
in a literal fashion. You incorporate numerous areas that are
identified as "Towns" and "Malls", "Education Centres" and the like,
plus numerous decks that reflect a central, physical social hub. How
much did the extended, and expected, period of occupation by the
inhabitants of the E-D, influence and/or mitigate the requirements of the internal design of the E-D?
Whitefire:
Andrew, Mike, Rick and I discussed this to some extent. You will notice
that the maximum crew occupancy is listed at 18,000, but the actual
crew stated at any given time is approximately 1,000; this was for
evacuation purposes and in time of war, should the E-D
be required to carry troops. As an exploration vessel, there had to be
a certain sense of camaraderie within the crew at multiple levels
(i.e., professional, personal, educational, militarily) which had to be
accommodated for.
As an example, architectural students are
generally given a design problem that involves creating an entire town
in a one-mile square area. All things must be considered in such a
situation including education, politics, commerce, housing, and
numerous other factors that all play integral parts in the town. In
fact, the E-D is no different, but far more interesting.
Szulecki:
A variety of the ST:TNG "standing sets" for the Enterprise-D
evolved over the course of the series. For example, in "Encounter at
Farpoint," engineering intersects with a section of curved corridor,
but in most subsequent episodes, the curved corridor is obscured from
view with "wall plugs." Sickbay also underwent a change between seasons
one and two. How did you approach evolving sets when you made your
drawings?
Whitefire:
Well, as you said, the sets evolved as the series matured, and this is
actually not an uncommon event on real vessels. The standing sets were
merely my jumping-off point, and what I was asked to do was to
incorporate as much of the existing set(s) into my final layout. In the
ensuing discussion, we all agreed that any changes made to the sets
which were dynamic in nature would be explained as various and asundry
refits that occurred to the ship.
My mission was to fit in the major elements of
the sets as accurately as possible while not going overboard on
additions or deletions that might need to occur. Any variations that
people would see in any given area could be explained as having
happened in a different part of the ship. Bear in mind that the ship
has over 11-1/2 million square feet [Editor's Note: 11,500,000 ft2 is about 0.413 mi2, or about 1,070,000 m2]
of deck space, and there is a huge amount of duplication in the shapes
of many of the areas (due to the restrictions of the standing sets). As
an example, the cargo holds as depicted in season one are supposed to
be similar throughout the ship (however, in my estimation they would be
far too small to actually acccommodate real on-board stores as would be
necessary for a ship this size, which is why I only used them on
certain decks), and are also roughly the same shape and size as the
secondary shuttle bays in the neck of the ship.
Szulecki:
In your plan view of engineering, the angle of separation between the
twin power transfer conduits from the warp core is noticably less than
90 degrees, whereas on the actual set, the angle of separation appears
to be exactly 90 degrees. Why is there a discrepancy between the engine
room plan in the blueprints and the actual set plan?
Whitefire:
This was out of necessity due to the facts that were outlined to me
regarding the placement of the warp core, the central engineering deck,
and how the engine conduits were supposed to connect to the nacelles.
Although there was some discussion about the angle that ended up
between the conduits, the general feeling was that it could be
explained as being a perspective of the set that would not (with any
luck) be too obvious. (I realize this was hoping for a bit much, but
based on the given information, this was the only really good
solution.) At one point I had considered putting in curved conduits
leading away from the engine room that would allow for the 90 degree
angle, but we all felt there was no good rationalization for it.
Szulecki:
Were any areas of the Enterprise especially challenging to design or depict in the blueprints? What are some examples, and why were they so challenging?
Whitefire:
Yes. The most difficult part of the design was the intersection of the
saucer and the battle-head section of the engineering hull. Both the
positive form of the battle-head and the negative form of the
indentation in the saucer are complex, three-dimensional,
compound-curved shapes that I had a devil of a time plotting. Once the
external shapes were hammered out, and the external details were added,
I was then able to begin figuring out what the deck shapes would work
out to be through those sections. I think that this part of the design
alone took nearly 1/4 of the design time of the drawings. Among the
things that went into this were the latch locations and how they would
interact with the different decks, since the latches were
three-dimensionally flush to the battle-head (this was a MAJOR
headache, believe me!). However, I was able to exploit all of the
minute details that were included on the "battle-head" that were not
obviously used. Whenever you would see the saucer separate from the
engineering hull, the only thing that was obvious was the retracting
latches, but it would only make sense that numerous other links between
the sections would already have been closed off and sealed before the
latches were ever exposed.
Secondly were some of the major machinery areas
of the ship. Based on the specs layed out by Andrew (Probert), Mike
(Okuda) and Rick (Sternbach), there were a number of elements that I
had to allow room for, which in many cases included the movement of
these elements, which made for some interesting design allowances.
Szulecki:
How were contradictions between the starship interiors and the starship
exterior resolved? For example, Ten Forward presents a scale problem,
and Shuttlebays 2 and 3 have vertical hull-facing walls and doors,
while the actual outer hull is angled.
Whitefire:
Shuttlebays 2 and 3 were actually not that bad. The vertical walls fit
neatly into my drawings, even using the basic set layouts that were
given to me to use. The slant of the exterior outer walls gave me a
nice additional space that I could use for other purposes. I actually
was able to add a few neat little details that rounded them out better.
The vertical door situation was something that was only attributable to
the set designers and their budget, and was generally accepted as
something that we (Andrew, Mike, Rick and myself) would all ignore.
Ten Forward... Andrew and I still complain
about this area of the ship, but I managed to hammer it into place
(although I'm not very pleased with how I did it). Let's leave it at
that for the moment.... Most other exteriors fit in rather well, so you
would need to give me a few more specifics or examples on this question
for me to add anything else.
Szulecki:
In the aft area of Deck 7, what is the large feature that is to
starboard of the "Computer Link to Secondary Hull" and to port of the
"Emergency Turbolift to Battle Bridge" - essentially in the
corresponding location of the emergency generators that are on the port
side of the deck? (The large, tapering helical structure)
|
|
Deck 6 of the USS Enterprise NCC-1701-D
|
Whitefire:
Well, as it happens, it really wasn't meant to be helical, but was a
large horizontal extension of the computer that would act as a primary
data transfer interface between the engineering hull computer core and
the saucer computer cores. The fact that it looked helical didn't even
occur to me until after I had shown it to the guys at Paramount. Part
of what you see in this unusual area are a series of Jefferies tubes
that extend into the transfer bus equipment, which is what gives it the
helical appearance. The actual shape of the equipment was sort of a
flattened half cone that was attached to the computer link channel,
with a series of holes in it for access (kind of like taking a simple
wooden flute, making it taper, cutting it in half and squashing it);
unfortunately, I had no real good way of depicting this, so what I
ended up with is the helix looking shape. Were I to redo this area
(which I may still do), I think that I might actually use the idea of a
helically shaped piece of machinery that would extend above and below a
few decks. Maybe.
Szulecki:
You are quoted on
www.cloudster.com as saying the
E-D
plans took two years to complete. When you found out that your intended
publisher, FASA, had let their licence with Paramount lapse, what were
your feelings at this setback, and how did you feel, after all your
hard work, when you learned that Rick Sternbach was to publish the
E-D blueprints through Pocket Books?
Whitefire:
Let me start with a small correction: it took 2-1/2 years of straight
design work to get the drawings to where they were ready to be inked.
Unfortunately, I was never given the specifics
of why FASA lost its license. I was told about two months prior to my
completing the project that their contract was back under negotiation
due to a misunderstanding and that I should not worry about that. FASA
was fairly certain of regaining the license, so I was told to continue
to completion, which I did. In later discussions with Paramount, I
found this was not to be the case any time soon.
Admittedly, for the second time in my life regarding Star Trek,
I was crushed. I tried numerous alternative avenues to get my drawings
to see the light of day, but with no positive results. Pocket Books was
approached at least three times about possibly printing my drawings,
and each time they gave an excuse as to why they were not interested.
(I know the third time they were even offered the drawings when they
were completed, inked, and ready for a two-color press run!)
When I heard that Rick was doing his own
version, I was deeply saddened by the fact that he was doing this on
his own and had chosen not to include my input on any of his work.
The fact that Pocket Books was involved didn't surprise me as they had
the exclusive license on all Star Trek related material at the time.
Szulecki:
Have you seen the Enterprise-D
blueprints published by Pocket Books? Are there items in those drawings
that you like better than those in your drawings? What are some
examples of items in your drawings that you like better than their
counterparts in the drawings published by Pocket Books?
Whitefire:
In all truth I have not studied the Pocket Books drawings with a
fine-toothed comb. Those parts of it that I have looked at have nothing
that immediately stands out as anything that I would incorporate into
mine. I did notice that Rick (Sternbach) put in a lot of extra detail
into his crews quarters by means of creating a standard set of
"rub-down" transfers that he used over and over to fill out some of the
spaces; I purposefully left this type of detail out, as I felt that
each set of quarters would be individualized and not need that type of
minutiae based on the scale of the drawing (besides, it not would only
clutter the drawing further, and would make it more difficult to place
callouts as needed, although this could be argued).
As for things that I like better in my
drawings, I feel that the list is extensive and could easily fill a few
pages that I won't go into. A few of the immediate things that stand
out are the basic structural elements that I have running throughout
the ship, the connections between the saucer and engineering hulls
which were conspicuously missing in the Pocket Books version, and the
fact that every detail on the exterior of the ship has a corresponding
function on the interior of the ship. I would go on, but as I said, the
list would get veeery long.
Szulecki:
Were you involved in the creation of any other FASA products, such as the Star Trek: The Next Generation Officer's Manual?
Whitefire:
Yes. In fact, the Officer's Manual
was near completion when I was brought on board, and I was asked to do
an edit on the final manuscript. One or two of the drawings in the
manual are mine (I don't remember how many were actually in there), but
I did do a moderate amount of changes to the text to bring it current
to the Writer's Bibles that were out at the time, and also to the
existing proposals I had in on the blueprints.
I was also involved on a few other non-Trek related FASA publications doing drawings for maps and general illustrations.
Szulecki:
Do you think of your time spent making the E-D
blueprints in a positive or negative light, or is it one of mixed
emotions? If you had the opportunity to do other blueprints for Star Trek, say, for example, the Voyager starship or DS9 - or indeed, rework the original Enterprise 1701 plans, would you be tempted?
Whitefire:
First, I look at every drawing or sketch I do as a learning experience,
and thus a positive one. My only disappointment in the whole thing was
in the amount of red tape that ended up going along with the project. I
would have been even happier with the project if I had been allowed to
finish the 14th drawing at my leisure, rather than having to postpone
it indefinitely (reference my red tape comment).
Second, I would gladly tackle another set of blueprints were the
opportunity "afforded" me.
I would like to thank Ed
Whitefire for taking the time to talk to me and for sharing his unique,
behind-the-scenes story of the creaton of the original Enterprise-D plans.
I would also like to thank Greg Tyler at Trekplace for his invaluable
assistance in bringing this article to fruition, and for providing some
of the questions in the above interview.
Interview copyright 2005 by Steven Szulecki and
Ed Whitefire. Published here with the permission of Steven Szulecki and
Ed Whitefire.
Content ©
2009
by Greg Tyler unless otherwise noted. This web site
is a fan-produced, not-for-profit endeavor. Use of other parties' copyrighted
works is done either with permission or under the terms of Fair Use. Works
owned by other parties will be removed at the request of the copyright holder.
Opinions expressed by interviewees are their own, and they do not necessarily
represent the opinions of the authors of this web site. The authors of this web site cannot
always verify and are not responsible for the accuracy of claims made by interviewees.