U.S.S. Enterprise studio model visit

[THE DC]

Sorted some more out. Only a few decent images left!

Lesson learned; always bring a decent camera with you!!!

Pic 1; Close up of the Navigational Deflector dish:

-note the largely copper coloration, except for the inner projector spinal, which is gold.
-note the real close up of the hinge system behind the deflector dish.
-note the bronze housing system behind the dish
-note also the detail of the inner dish concentric circles; a raised pattern, not just a flat affect.
-note the detailed spindle tip bulb

Pic 2; Close up of the inner deflector housing:

-note how very deep the well is into the front of the secondary hull
-note again the outer deflector well housing edge, hull color, and then three concentric circles behind the side of bronze color. The innermost is circular but tight about the extended rectangular deflector dish shaft.
-another color difference shot of the dish from the housing and the spindle.

Pic 3; The upper Primary hull:

-note that this is the least restored portion of the ship and has two blisters of peeling paint.
-note the fore circular sensor pas, then three space-energy sensor nodes along the front of the primary hull edge.
-note the good view of the lettering.
-look closely and you can see the very subtle deflector grid along the hull...very subtle.
-note the good shote of the spinning lights in the starboard engine bussard collector dome.
-note the red light at the edge of the bridge housing, which extends outward from the hull in a pronounced fashion.


Pic 4; Underside of the primary hull:

-A decent shot; the subtle deflector grid pattern is visible and more pronounced that the upper side (opposite of how models and plans have illustrated it over the years).
-note the three tarnish yellow circles about the mid-hull.
-note one of the two red markings along the aft on either side of the saucer.
-note the lower navigational beacon (not lit).
-note the irregular detail of windows and bays (unlit) on the lower portion of the saucer, as wells a couple of ports.
-note the detail of the saucer antennae, both in design and slightly different color, leading to a pronounced ridge at the base of this shape (the level of antenna base ridge is more visible on the other (port) side..
-note also the detail of the interplanetary sensor dome base, with raised bracket ridges, bow, port (not visible), aft (not visible in the pic), and starboard.
-And forgive the Abram's lens flare () but a decent shot of the interconnecting dorsal, with a slightly different coloration along the front portion.



A few left that i can sort through for decent images to come soon.


Hope these will inspire some build/design alterations.

[gotham]

More wonderful shots. Thanks.🖖🖖🖖

[airdave]

Originally Posted by THE DC

Submarines use to have windows. The first submarine, the Turtle, has little ports, as did the CSS David.

Submarines in WWI, the real birth of modern submarine warfare, had small ports but thick glass windows. Over time the value of these was questioned in favor of hull integrity. Great depths were more valuable than the very limited visibility that a sub gains with a port.

FYI: the old german U's had their windows in the conning tower. Read Captain Von Trapp's bok for some interesting notes about them.

Yeah...the Disneyland 20,000 Fathoms Ride also had windows in its Submarines.
Which is just about the same relevance.

In the same post you agreed with me and disagreed with me. lol

"the value of these was questioned in favor of hull integrity. Great depths were more valuable than the very limited visibility that a sub gains with a port."

So, forgetting the "subs" that don't submerge to any significant depth,
installing a panoramic window is a stupid idea in many ways.
Having a remote viewing screen is a smarter idea.
Cheaper, simpler, less dangerous to the ship and its occupants.

Mercury spacecraft designers did not design any windows into the vehicles...
they only added a small porthole window to entertain the monkey inside and shut him up!

[airdave]

I didn't know the first Trek series was shot on 35mm.
And the idea that Roddenberry kept edited film and sold single frame cuttings, is amazing.
I didn't know that either.
I just hunted down some info on this.

I wonder where he sold them and to who, and how many he sold.
I have never seen one or heard of this before.

They must be really valuable?
Anybody got one?

[John Dell]

I have one somewhere. It is a shot of Majel Barrett as Number One from The Menagerie/The Cage. I got it at a retro shop in Philadelphia in the late 80’s. I can’t remember how much I paid for it. Gene Roddenberry originally sold them through a company that I believe was called Lincoln Enterprises. I’ll have to see if I can track mine down.

By the way, this has been a fascinating thread!

[THE DC]

Originally Posted by airdave

I didn't know the first Trek series was shot on 35mm.
And the idea that Roddenberry kept edited film and sold single frame cuttings, is amazing.
I didn't know that either.
I just hunted down some info on this.

I wonder where he sold them and to who, and how many he sold.
I have never seen one or heard of this before.

They must be really valuable?
Anybody got one?

I still have a few packed away with some of the original scripts passed to me.

Mr. Roddenberry sold the clips through a company he founded, Lincoln Enterprises, through which he sold copies of scripts and other "Great Bird" collectables, as they were called. H also sold stills from the animated episodes and other collectables.

Interesting too note, he designed the IDIC symbol to sell through this company; a big money maker for him, I was assured. Mr. Nimoy was unhappy running a commercial for Lincoln Enterprises in the episode Is There In Truth, No Beauty. He spoke of resenting that scene at the time but mellowed about it years later.


Sorry for my lack of clarity in that post but I often reach this forum after a long day of work, so i sometimes make errors.

The biggest problem with submarine windows is that they are of very limited use, when compared with the cost and limited structural sounds. In the old WWI German subs, their small portholes required 4" thick, hand polished glass.

I agree with your objections of many windows, just for different reasons. Whereas in the ocean, windows or portholes are of limited use to a submerged because of the dimming and clouding effect in dense water, in space you have more than limited lighting; you have vast distances. Under water, visibility is very often limited to very near objects, and during weather changes, sometimes blocked. Visibility in space, even in our present near Earth orbit, is very challenging. In the great distance of deep space, between solar system travel, windows would reveal very little of ay other vessel or object not very near the ship. Stars and galaxies would be visible, but even then would be impacted by the speeds the vessel is traveling, not to mention the affects of a theoretical warp bubble...

Literally, just shutting off deck lighting and nav beacons would make most ships invisible to the naked eye until they were upon the viewer, save where the hull or surface was reflecting a very near star's illumination.


So I agree, but for different reasons.

When Kirk order Magnification 3 or such, this is illustrating the "zooming" of a sensor image, not dependent upon ambient light and photographic limits. Sensors create the false illumination of the image on the screen.

The presumption of sensors being light cameras is an old joke passed amongst the writer's department (how to clarify that superior tech, within reasonable anticipation of current scientific potential, without losing the viewer with heavy, technobabble or engineering lectures). It's a future tech conundrum of assuming that sensor in Trek are equivalent to our modern camera systems; the sensor tech is very different from photo-tech. Sensors are focused radiations that interact with the surface of a target object; photography, digital or film, is the adaption of reflected radiation off the surface of an object and communicated in a medium that the human brain can comprehend. Sensor screens make more sense than windows as they take even the data the brain can't see (like infrared data, and translate it into a medium that appears visually perceptable.

This is similar to the common false argument that the communicators in TOS are too big because we have smaller cell phone in today's tech. A cell phone is a limited tech tool, dependent upon satellites and booster towers, using radio signals. A communicator is an independent mechanism, sending subspace signals, that are detectable and receivable without boosters and satellites, with a very limited arc of prevention during orbital travel. It also has considerably more power (enough to launch a landslide [see Friday's Child]) and required the space for that power supply.

Its important when speculating over future tech to compare apples to apples and leave the oranges to another argument.


More pics coming but I'm knackered and haven't the energy to sort tonight. I'll get back to them ASAP.

[THE DC]

Originally Posted by John Dell

I have one somewhere. It is a shot of Majel Barrett as Number One from The Menagerie/The Cage. I got it at a retro shop in Philadelphia in the late 80’s. I can’t remember how much I paid for it. Gene Roddenberry originally sold them through a company that I believe was called Lincoln Enterprises. I’ll have to see if I can track mine down.

By the way, this has been a fascinating thread!

Thanks! I was hoping a modeler's eye driven photos would be useful to other model builders or designers.

Just wanted to give back. Hearing its appreciated pays off for the looks I was getting from my Lass, for the trips back to the exhibit, through security again and again, to collect them!

[THE DC]

Something about this exercise has been tickling away at my subconscious.


When I started this effort, it was intended to provide my modeling peers with better detail toward modeling and designing a valued iconic form. I thought that there would be very small details that would augment modeling efforts and I was thinking that I might share a small detail or two about decals or minimal shape differences. What is evolving for me is the realization of how much misinformation about a simple studio model in a 50 year old television series has driven the perceptions of fans for years.


Consider; though a brilliant bit of work, the famous Franz Joseph material informed a generation about pronounced deflector grids along the upper primary hull and along the lower saucer section; details that were not quite true. Phaser banks were suggested along the starboard and port of the upper primary hull and at the lower fore of the lower saucer portion; inaccuracies illustrated on the studio model. The repeatedly built AMT kits, that inspired many who model in paper today, reflected those same pronounced deflector grid lines and added depressions in the front of the lower saucer that are not present on the studio model, and the model-kit sculptors left out both the navigational beacons on the saucer, both atop and below, while leaving out completely the upper-inner nav lights. That same model, and other models that followed, left out the upper, lit sensor pads at each quarter and the upper, forward sensor circler at the bow.

[THE DC]

My point is that these, and many other inconsistencies between Matt Jeffereis original production designs, were perpetuated by writers and replica designers, so that a whole generation had misperceptions of the actuality of the physically real studio model.


Now for those reading this who would suggest that I am obsessing too much about a fictional creation, instead of investing that attention on a historic or scientifically significant target, let me suggest how such misunderstandings of a TV show might not be that much different that our perceptions of actual historic perception.


Consider that we all grew up with a mental visual of the Turtle that was inspired by poorly researched textbooks; a false depiction of the first combat submarine that was deployed by the United States during the Revolutionary War. Though limited in actual combat effectiveness, the presence of the innovative weapon has been speculated with impacting British tactics in New York waters and staging a new direction in naval design that would more greatly impact the wars that followed, from the Civil War David to changing the very nature of warfare in WWI. This very real historic vessel was described as barrel shaped, made of slats of wood, and depicted as a well varnished, oaken barrel with brass bracing. Unfortunately, that oft repeated representation appears to have been very untrue.

[THE DC]

Historians were apparently not very attentive when reading Benjamin Franklin's description and didn’t attend to the details provided in 1885 diagrams of the Turtle, by Lieutenant Commander F. M. Barber. The actual vehicle was more clam shaped than barrel shaped, thought the construction was barrel-like in the use of wooden slats, fixed with upper and lower metal bracings. The vehicle would have been buoyant, if barrel shaped, but not very maneuverable, as demonstrated when re-enactors attempted to recreate it were attempted in recent decades.


This wooden, clam shaped vessel was able to accomplish underwater travel by knifing through the water with a rudder providing port and starboard maneuvering. Some books have corrected this error in recent years but some museums still display the older, unsubstantiated shape and form. Two hundred and fifty years after her maiden voyage we are only beginning to correct this error.