U.S.S. Enterprise studio model visit

THE DC

Highly Esteemed Member
Got a chance to sort through some more photos and post observations:


Pic 1-
Sorry for the reflection in the glass, but this pic shows the Bussards lit up.
It also offers a great inboard view of the port engine flux chiller. Note the position of the intercooler at the fore part of the chiiler.
It also displays the three dimensional aspect of the radiators behind the bussard domes.
It also illustrates the darker gray of the impulse matrix that connects to the engine housing at the aft of the primary hull, and the shape and size of the rectangular sensor pad at the aft quarter of the primary hull [lit up].

Pic 2 displays the bow, showing the lettering.
It also displays the rectangular sensor pad inset [and lit up] in the fore quarter of the hull and the circular lit sensor pad center to the bow.

Note also how subtle the deflector grid is, as compared with kits currently available.


Pic 3 is the fore portion of the secondary hull, on the starboard side.

Note several details often not reflected on kits:

The shade difference on the interconnecting dorsal, forward section.

The copper color of the navigational deflector assembly.

The hull numbers (705 then 102 at the front).

The grill effect, like a heat sink, of the navigational deflector housing brace. In life, you can see through these ridges that stretch just in front of the pennant.

Also, another modeling detail, are the two horizontal ridges above and below the finned assembly, which are pronounced on the studio model.

A last observation is how very subtle any hull lines are.



Pic 4 illustrated the port side of the primary hull, which reveals other modeling details:

Another view of the inset, rectangular sensor pad, lit up, in the fore quarter of the dish.

The subtle weathering affect down the edge of the dish,

The lit port, red navigational beacon, then the unlit red running lit at the very edge, beside the navigational light.

A good close up of the lettering.

The small window in the center of the edge of the primary hull dish (unlit).


Pic 5: shows a close up of the starboard side of the primary hull, illustrating:

The lit green navigational light and the unlit green running light near it.

The lit white running light underside of the primary hull, just below the green navigational beacon.

The circular port hole just below the green running light.

How subtle the hull segmentation is along the rim of the hull,

The darker shade of the turbo shaft housing behind the bridge module.

How flush the sensor rectangles are along to top of the primary hull,

The lit red LED that projects out from the side of the bridge module.

How smooth the top of the primary hull appears in some images, suggesting the segmentation of deflector plating is barely present to the eye, even at this close proximity.
 

Attachments

  • Nacelles fore.JPG
    Nacelles fore.JPG
    1.3 MB · Views: 9
  • across bow.JPG
    across bow.JPG
    1.3 MB · Views: 8
  • secondadry hull fore.JPG
    secondadry hull fore.JPG
    1.4 MB · Views: 8
  • lit square upper saucer.JPG
    lit square upper saucer.JPG
    1.5 MB · Views: 8
  • green white running.JPG
    green white running.JPG
    1.4 MB · Views: 8

THE DC

Highly Esteemed Member
One more set for tonight:

Pic 1: the Main deflector dish with some interesting details; note it connects to the shaft from the hull with a coupling, suggesting a hinge effect [allowing it to flex port & starboard? Or if the shaft rotated, even with a wider range on the Y axis, ventral to dorsal or any permutation between if the shaft rotated?

Note also the concentric ridges within the very copper dish, three dimensionally ridged.

Also of interest is that there are three concentric circular bays that surround each other i thin housings, AND a separate, hull colored housing the surrounds the internal copper colored sections.

The detail of the deflector dis spindle.


Before leaving the pic, note the window details on the interconnecting dorsal and how recessed the pennant housing is before it reaches out to the deflector bay.




Pic 2: Note the best close up I could manage o the deflector dish, which illustrates the hinge effect I spoke of behind the deflector dish, where it attached to the protruding shaft.

The image also shows just how deep the deflector bay is, as it recesses into the forward section of the secondary hull.


Pic 3 further illustrates just how deep the bay is in the secondary hull, often depicted in production models as far less recessed.


Pic 4 provides a head on view, detailing the dish and illustrating how the outer housing hull is separate from the three inner copper circles in the deflector assembly.


Pic 5 shows a poor pic of the deflector bay [sorry!]

It does illustrate just how deep this bay falls into the fore section of the hull.

Pic 6 shows again how deeply the deflector bay recessed into the secondary hull, and it shows the distance between the outer housing edge and two of the three inner copper rings.
 

Attachments

  • deflector dish.JPG
    deflector dish.JPG
    1.6 MB · Views: 14
  • deflector dish detail.JPG
    deflector dish detail.JPG
    1.2 MB · Views: 15
  • deflector bay close up.JPG
    deflector bay close up.JPG
    1.3 MB · Views: 13
  • deflector fore.JPG
    deflector fore.JPG
    1.2 MB · Views: 13
  • deflector bay.JPG
    deflector bay.JPG
    1.4 MB · Views: 12
  • deflector bay recess.JPG
    deflector bay recess.JPG
    1.2 MB · Views: 13

THE DC

Highly Esteemed Member
Hope this level of detail is not getting too tedious. I just knew what I wanted as a modeler?
 

zathros

*****SENIOR ADMINISTRATOR*****
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
I think it's great. The mount on the deflector dish almost looks like a hinge! Hmm. :)
 

THE DC

Highly Esteemed Member
Glad its helpful. I am a real fan of quality and thought into any fiction. I wanted to share the detail with you all, to help increase the quality of our model work.

Zathros; it is interesting. Note my observations about there hinge potential above.

What I really respected about Jefferies was that he didn't just design things to look neat; he really sketched out purpose and reason. As a pilot himself {as was Roddenberry} he recognized the concept of function increasing the suspension of disbelief. Even to on-pilots, creating reasonable function would cost the shade of believability, even if on merely a subconscious level.

Later designers were not nearly so invested in reason over the "oooooo" factor.

I'll try sorting and sharing more about the interesting underside of the secondary hull for you next. These were hard pics to make but I thing I salvaged some of them, despite the bad angle and poor lighting.
 

zathros

*****SENIOR ADMINISTRATOR*****
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
I miss-wrote my comment, I agree with your observation. I think that hinge was meant to swivel. Why move the whole ship, especially when a few degrees would make such a difference over vast distances. :)
 

THE DC

Highly Esteemed Member
Here' my next contributions to detailing the Enterprise...

1] The stern: showing the control bay above the hangar doors, the doors, the three lower bay beacons [red green, & yellow], the red fantail marking, and note how much hull cowling surrounds the hangar doors and the sharp point where the hull breaks away on either side.

2] Underside, ventral of the secondary hull:

Hard to photo due to limited access and lighting limits.

Two undersell bays; first rectangle and the other "T" shaped.

The yellow lower sensor pad (note the red circle outline).


3] Just for your curiosity: here's the unfinished port side, never photographed during the series.

4] The inboard side of the starboard engine, never photographed either.

These last two photos show how it was wired up when used in the series.


5] The original bussard globes, made of wood. This model was revised during the series a few times; this revision made the bustards light capable, as they were replaced with clear globes and rotating lights. Note where the spike originally was placed, now missing.
 

Attachments

  • stern.JPG
    stern.JPG
    1 MB · Views: 7
  • under stern.JPG
    under stern.JPG
    1 MB · Views: 6
  • fore port side.JPG
    fore port side.JPG
    1.6 MB · Views: 9
  • inner starboard engine.JPG
    inner starboard engine.JPG
    1.5 MB · Views: 7
  • original bussard.JPG
    original bussard.JPG
    1.4 MB · Views: 8

THE DC

Highly Esteemed Member
Here's couple more details.

1) This view of the fore of the secondary hull illustrates some interesting detail:

-note the depression at the end of the deflector dish spike end.
-how deep the deflector bay recesses into the hull.
-the double rings around the edge of the deflector bay well, before the main bay cowl juts out?
-just how pronounced the antenna/sensor away, on the underside of the primary hull, is at the base of the "V".


2) The lit interplanetary sensor dome.

-note the ride detail in the frosted dome that leads to the solid bottom cap.
-note the extended probe or weapon's bay (not sure which) with the red tip that was never shown in the series, this view from behind.
-note the red tip appears partially translucent.
-note the layered effect of the housing that the frosted sensor globe is housed in [all in shadow due to the lighting effect needed to illustrate the detail of the lit globe.


3) Close up of bridge housing

-note again the red bulb extending from the side of the bridge housing.
-the row of rectangular lit windows in the hull below the bridge housing.
-the circular window/port
-that the bridge sensor dome illuminates.
-the lettering detail.

There's also some nice detail of the inner, port nacelle!
 

Attachments

  • deflector inner bay.JPG
    deflector inner bay.JPG
    1.3 MB · Views: 10
  • detailed lit interplanetary sensoor.JPG
    detailed lit interplanetary sensoor.JPG
    1,004.6 KB · Views: 10
  • bridge side.JPG
    bridge side.JPG
    1.1 MB · Views: 8

THE DC

Highly Esteemed Member
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 (like you thought Zathros!!!).
-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.
 

Attachments

  • dish close up.JPG
    dish close up.JPG
    1 MB · Views: 7
  • deflector housing.JPG
    deflector housing.JPG
    1.1 MB · Views: 7
  • saucer upper.JPG
    saucer upper.JPG
    1.4 MB · Views: 8
  • saucer underside.JPG
    saucer underside.JPG
    1.3 MB · Views: 7

THE DC

Highly Esteemed Member
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.
 

Attachments

  • FG Plans.jpeg
    FG Plans.jpeg
    9.7 KB · Views: 5
  • AMT_Enterprise_002.jpg
    AMT_Enterprise_002.jpg
    16.6 KB · Views: 4

THE DC

Highly Esteemed Member
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.
 

Attachments

  • 3443509.jpg
    3443509.jpg
    19.9 KB · Views: 6
  • 94806.jpg
    94806.jpg
    36.6 KB · Views: 6

THE DC

Highly Esteemed Member
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.
 

Attachments

  • Lieutenant Commander F. M. Barber in 1885.jpg
    Lieutenant Commander F. M. Barber in 1885.jpg
    62.2 KB · Views: 3
  • David-Bushnell-Turtle-Submarine-Paper-Model.jpg
    David-Bushnell-Turtle-Submarine-Paper-Model.jpg
    23.7 KB · Views: 3
  • 220px-Turtle_model_at_the_Royal_navy_submarine_museum.jpg
    220px-Turtle_model_at_the_Royal_navy_submarine_museum.jpg
    15.6 KB · Views: 3
  • harbor stir.png
    harbor stir.png
    382.4 KB · Views: 3

THE DC

Highly Esteemed Member
And I say only beginning because another detail, not included in TV’s most recent representation of the Turtle, on the TV show TURN, was of her perceived, polished wooden hull, ready for antique quality display. It has been further suggested, that to make the Turtle more water secure, the craft was covered in pitch and tar. If this is true, than the pretty, catalogue-quality polished wooden image that we are all cling to, is probably no more accurate than the hull shape that was misapplied for over two centuries. It more likely resemble a big, black, wet snot than the model we would all prefer building.
 

Attachments

  • turtle-2.jpg
    turtle-2.jpg
    107.4 KB · Views: 2

THE DC

Highly Esteemed Member
Now, before you think that I have completed lost track of this thread’s purpose, (hijacking my own thread) let me suggest, that in this time of instant images and text, we all might be a little cautious before accepting that our “facts” are factual. If a historic benchmark of naval history can be even more misrepresented in popular access than a fifty year old, fictional device to inspire the imagination, then our being suspicious and judicious in our conclusions might be well warranted.


I know that there are countless other inaccuracies in our public consciousness. From the public historic perception of what the fabric of the Hindenburg actually looked like to the inaccurate conceptualization of molecular shape, I wonder how these inaccuracies might be more harmful than of mere Trivial Pursuit detail scores. These misunderstandings can influence perception and even limit the effort to learn more. We think we know, so we stop looking. We think we understand, so we stop searching. We think we have enough information, so we stop listening. In an age of acerbic tribal politics and social-media promoted schema, maybe this little exercise, to share details of a studio model, can illustrate an even deeper understanding of the nature of truth; the seeking of it requires constant diligence and repeated verification.


Well, Mr. Roddenberry liked to promote thinking more than to relate strongly held convictions; something from which more recent incarnations of Star Trek have deviated. I’ll post some more images soon but I had to wax a bit philosophical about just how misinformed we can be, and that it can be due to agenda-driven propaganda or to honest error that becomes more cherished than truth.
 

Attachments

  • england-hampshire-gosport-royal-navy-submarine-museum-replica-of-turtle-D6T1JR.jpg
    england-hampshire-gosport-royal-navy-submarine-museum-replica-of-turtle-D6T1JR.jpg
    161.2 KB · Views: 8
  • CKIG9cXUwAASU7e.jpg
    CKIG9cXUwAASU7e.jpg
    62.9 KB · Views: 9

spaceagent-9

Right Hand Man and Confidant
Moderator
Gene promoted a larger than life perspective on what humanity would be in 200 years. Usually the #1 concept is Kirk/mankind vs. godlike evil beings, and Kirk/mankind winning. #2 is having to beat aliens who attack the Federation boundaries, and The Team beating them at their own game, bluffing or out-gutting them in a poker-like bluff scenario. You are right about recently, [right about the time deep space nine got popular, and since ] ST spinoffs abandoning Gene's promotions of mankind rising to meet the situation, to shows that are just plain unsatisfying. If hardcore fans complain, then it's their problem. changing a show like DR. Who into dramedy half hour sitcom, would bring outrage from the fan base, but do it to Gene's vision or established episode format, and that's just too bad for anyone who is unsettled at uncomfortable changes. Same thing with the props and this particular show model. No, it's ok to over-obsess about details and make the re-construction perfect. It's OK. do it. Please the hard core obsessive fanbase, and you will please them all. If you want something different, go watch Matt Mercury or some other show. Or at the very least, continue with Original Trek and go on with your variants, but don't force feed us star crap and eliminate anyone else's fan flicks or toys or whatever. You will never own Star Trek or My Heart.

[thank you, there is my asinine viewpoint and it's mine.]
 

bigpetr

Designer/Master Modeler
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.

This question strike me ( = mainly fiction paper model builder) from time to time. After a few days of doubt I alway come to conclusion, that I do it because I just like it:).

Your deeper thought on this subject is great, THE DC. I agree with everything you wrote. People should do such excersice not to stunt.
 
Top