# References for "3 footer" Enterprise



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I am contemplating making a studio scale model of the original 1701 -- the 33.75" model. There are precious few pictures of the miniature. I'm starting to assemble references on it.

If you have links to good references, please post them.

The IDIC Page has some good pictures of the model. If anyone knows of other sites that feature pictures not seen there, please post.

In addition, references to effects shots that use the 33.75" model, e.g., links to frame grabs at trekcore, would be greatly appreciated.

Also, for those that have already done some of this research and detailed the differences between the 33.75" model and the 134" model, please share your descriptions and details of the specific differences.

If there are blueprints accurate to the 33.75" studio model (or known portions that are accurate), please point to those, as well.

Ultimately, I want to build a replica as accurate as possible to the "3 footer" studio miniature to display opposite a studio scale D7 (based on the CaptCBoard kit).

Note: this would be 1:336.7 scale, which is just 4% larger than a 1:350 1701. It may turn out to be feasible to use some components from the AW Studios or Infinity Reach 1/350 1701 kits. Or all parts might require scratch building.

Finally, if you have the original "3 footer" in your possession, may I please come and take detailed measurements of it? :lol: I won't tell Paramount or Roddenberry's estate a thing.


----------



## 137th Gebirg (Feb 13, 2006)

http://cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/Sets&VehiclesIndex.htm has some good shots of the TOS-E through its various states of disrepair and restoration.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^ Interesting that it's called the "48 inch Enterprise" there. (And the title even reads "14 foot Enterprise.  )

Here's the link directly to the cloudster page on this miniature.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

There's also at least one image of the model in McCullar's Trek Magazine articles that isn't on his 3-footer IDIC page. It's of the "delivery at Rigel." Not much detail can be made out, though.

I intend to build the model as modified for the series rather than the pilot configuration, BTW.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

"^ Interesting that it's called the "48 inch Enterprise" there. (And the title even reads "14 foot Enterprise."

Oops...

Phil


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^ It's the pictures that matter! 
BTW, I was just looking over your Galileo blueprints again. Really nice!


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Here's a little something to help you along your way. These are some specs taken from the construction blueprint by Richard Datin. They were posted online some time back but I have misplaced the source (sorry). I have edited and sorted them a little better by component.

Keep in mind a few things: Many of these measurements do not come from dimensional callouts, but by direct measurement of the drawing. Some interpretation is necessary. Changes were made during construction. 

Primary Hull diameter: 15"
Distance at CL of PH, from top of bridge dome to underside of lower dome: 3.9375"

Angle of Fwd edge of dorsal to the CL of Engineering Hull: 33°
Angle of Aft edge of dorsal to the CL of EH 44°
Height of Dorsal at rear of PH: 2.0625"
Distance from the underside of PH to the CL of the SH: 3.6875"

Engineering Hull length
--Excluding antenna: 12.125"
--Including antenna: 13.25"
Diameter of dish antenna 2.5625"

Nacelle length: 18.125"
Nacelle Fwd Dia.: 1.875"
Nacelle Aft Dia.: 1.5"
Nacelle Dome Dia.: 1.75"
Distance between CLs of Nacelles: 11.1875"
CL distance of Nacelles above CL of SH: 5.46875"

Nacelle Pylon width (fore-aft): 1.25"
Nacelle Pylon thickness: 0.3125"
Angle of Nacelle Pylon: 45° angle from horiz. centered 1/8" above CL of the EH

Overall length of model: 33.75"


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

*Fantastic!* :thumbsup: 



MGagen said:


> Diameter of dish antenna  2.5625"


That's the pilot-sized dish, I would think.



> Nacelle length: 18.125"


That's excluding the spikes, I would think. Can you confirm?


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

The measurements are of the original version -- pilot dish and all. I'm not sure about the spikes on the nacelles, though.

M.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^ Oh, and pilot bridge dome. I knew the precise measurements were slightly too good to be true.  I'll still have some work to do.

I was thinking it may be wise to model this thing virtually first, at least the main shapes. It should be much easier to repeatedly make changes and compare to the various photos in 3D CAD than in wood, plastic, and putty. And I've been meaning to get my hands dirty in Blender for a while now anyway.


----------



## portland182 (Jul 19, 2003)

I seem to remember reading that they used the 3 footer on the cover of the Viewmaster Reels.
I couldn't find a decent pic on line, but someone here must be able to scan it for you...

Jim


----------



## RonH (Apr 10, 2001)

Like this ?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

The classic View Master reel shot, done just for the set. The Enterprise and the Exeter.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

MGagen said:


> Angle of Nacelle Pylon: 45° angle from horiz. centered 1/8" above CL of the EH


I'm not sure what this means. It must not mean what I think it means, which is that the pylon centerlines meet at a point 1/8" above the EH CL.

If it does mean that, then the distance of nacelle CL above EH CL can't be right, or the nacelle pylons connect too high up on the inside surfaces of the pylons.
See below.









Could it be that the pylon inside surfaces rather than centerlines meet at the the specified point? That would look like this, which still doesn't look right:









Edit:
If it should read "pylon centerlines meet at a point 1/8" *below* the EH CL," it would look as shown below. Could that be it? (The nacelle pylon intersection looks ok, but the EH intersetion may be too far apart.)


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

The nacelle pylon centerline passes below both the centerline of the nacelle itself and the EH centerline.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

On the Jefferies ortho drawing that appears in TMOST (in distorted form), the pylons appear to intersect at a point above the EH centerline but appear to pass through the nacelle centerlines.

On the 11-footer, the nacelles are closer together, and the pylon passes through a point well below nacelle centerline.

Based on the dimensions on the construction drawing, as quoted by MGagen, above, the pylons would have passed through a point above the nacelle centerline.

On pictures of the 3-footer, that does not appear to be the case.

So, which is wrong:
- the spacing between nacelles (reduced in the built model)
- the vertical distance between the nacelles and the EH (increased in the built model)
- the 90 degree angle (increased in the built model (but it was decreased in the 11-footer))
- lowering the pylons relative to the secondary hull
- or some combination of the above

I'm inclined to disbelieve that the 90-degree angle between the pylons was _increased_.
The other alternatives seem reasonable. (Moving the nacelles closer together was done on the 11-footer. According to the sinclair prints, the lines along the upper edges of the pylons intersect at the EH centerline; the pylon centerlines intersect just below it.)

Note: based on the given measurements, the angle between the nacelles (i.e., on the secondary-hull vertex of the trianlge formed by the the centerlines of the nacelles and the secondary hull) is 91.295 degrees. Putting the pylons at 90 means moving the nacelle ends closer together, which causes them to mount higher on the nacelles if they proceed radially out of the secondary hull. Raising the point of intersection 1/8" above secondary hull centerline (as specified) raises thte intersection points on the nacelles still more (while causing the pylons to leave at points above the radial lines on the seconardy hull, which is expected).


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

RonH said:


> Like this ?


Are both ships here using the 3-footer, or is the Exeter represented by an even smaller miniature?


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

For now at least, I've decided to go with the nacelle and EH positions and the 90-degree angle as specified but lower the pylons such that the planes of the inner pylon surfaces intersect at the EH centerline (and thus the planes of the centers of the pylons intersect a little below the EH centerline). This keeps the maximum number of dimensions unchanged and alters the one in conflict in a way that's similar to the 11-footer configuration.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

toyroy said:


> Are both ships here using the 3-footer, or is the Exeter represented by an even smaller miniature?


The smaller one sure looks like an AMT 18" model to me.


----------



## swhite228 (Dec 31, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> The smaller one sure looks like an AMT 18" model to me.


Both of them are AMT models.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^ Why do you say that? The two models certainly aren't the same. I believe those saying the larger is the "3-footer" are correct.


----------



## RonH (Apr 10, 2001)

The larger is the 3 foot mini and the smaller is an AMT kit.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Yes. The _Enterprise_ is the three-foot miniature.
The _Exeter_ is represented by an 18" AMT kit.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> I intend to build the model as modified for the series rather than the pilot configuration, BTW.


I may have changed my mind. If I'm going to build a replica of the first Enterprise, I might as well build it the way it was delivered at Rigel.




MGagen said:


> The measurements are of the original version -- pilot dish and all. I'm not sure about the spikes on the nacelles, though.


Well, it scales out to 508.6' for the 504' nacelles. So, I'd say it excludes the spikes, which look to be about 18' long on the "real" ship size.


Interestingly, the "delivery at Rigel" images (e.g., first image here) show a low "bridge" dome on the 3-footer, not the high dome seen on the 11-footer in the two pilots. PerfessorCoffee tells me that the 3-footer never had the tall dome, and I wasn't able to find any pictures that contradict this.
Can anyone verify or disprove this?


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> For now at least, I've decided to go with the nacelle and EH positions and the 90-degree angle as specified but lower the pylons such that the planes of the inner pylon surfaces intersect at the EH centerline (and thus the planes of the centers of the pylons intersect a little below the EH centerline). This keeps the maximum number of dimensions unchanged and alters the one in conflict in a way that's similar to the 11-footer configuration.


Alternatively, I move the pylons up to the centerline and move the nacelles closer together to match the 304' spacing specified in TMOST. (As given in the measurements of the drawing cited previously, the spacing scaled to 314').











The former is more like the 11-footer while the latter is more like the Jefferies 3-view drawings seen in TMOST.

Since we don't have any measurements of the model as built, either interpretation is probably fine. But one may end up working better than the other when I compare the pylon connection points on the computer model to the photographs.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I've read the actual angle on the 11 footer is not a true 90 degrees. I have this factoid from my collection gathered on the Web:

"On the original Enterprise plans the pylons were drawn at a 90-degree angle to each other; however, on the 134" model the pylons are only 86-degrees apart."


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^ That's true of the 11-footer. We don't know about the 3-footer. I'm assuming it was closer to 90 degrees, until I learn otherwise.


I was looking through my old reference photos, and I came across this one that WizardOfFlight sent me some years back. I don't know who originally did the analysis shown, but it's certainly germane to the discussion at hand.
It seems to demonstrate that the nacelle centerline spacing is not 11 3/16" (as given earlier in the thread). The in-scale width should be 10.83" (using the 304' figure from TMOST).


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

So here it is with 9.9" spacing between nacelle centerlines, everything else according to spec (including the pylon centerline intersection point 1/8" above EH CL).









Incidently, this spacing is 88% of the specified spacing. The 11-footer's spacing ratioed to scaled 304' is also 88%.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I have a bunch of (possibly dated and corrections made by now) reference dimensions archived for the 11 footer. Don't know if it belongs here because this topic supposed to be about the 3 footer. I guess they both should have similar proportions but at different scales.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^ They were both built from the same plans, but there are substantial differences.

There's precious little reference information about the three footer. I'm trying to collect what there is.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Hasn't the 3 footer gone missing after Roddenberry died?


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

X15-A2 said:


> The nacelle pylon centerline passes below both the centerline of the nacelle itself and the EH centerline.


 This is definitely true of the "11-footer" but appears not to be the case with the "3-footer."

I noticed the problem, too, when I drafted it out. Datin specified the 1/8" above the EH centerline _twice_ in the original text. If you draft it out with the nacelles in the specified position, and the pylons at 90 degrees apart and passing through the nacelle centerlines you get the EH intersection 1/8" _below_ the centerline. One of these dimensions is not correct. However, I'd tend to lean on the nacelle distance apart as reliable since it would be an easy measurement to take, Also, the deliberate statement of the 1/8" _above_ EH centerline makes me think that one is definite, too. That leaves the pylon angles. I believe this might be the most difficult item to measure accurately, especially if the lines are not drawn in as continuing to the center of the hull. Of course, this might be a case where the angle is called out as 45 degrees on the drawing (and has been faithfully transcribed) but the actual angle doesn't match the callout in this particular. 

Ron H: Thanks for posting that image. It's the scan I made from my own Viewmaster Reel. I had never seen it posted before and thought, with "3-footer" images so rare it really _needed_ to be online! An interesting thing about that image. Not only is it in 3D, but due to the complimentary lighting gels used to light the models from different directions, you can derive two grayscale images of the model in exactly the same position, but with different lighting angles -- very useful for discerning the actual shape of the thing! Here are links:

Image 1

Image 2

And TrekACE is right (as usual), the background model is an AMT 18-incher. The squarish bridge dome is a dead giveaway.

M.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Well it looks like 9.9" might still be a hair wide.
It also looks like the nacelles may be a little short (which would push the length over 33.75).










However, it could be that the lens distortion is an issue. I played with lens settings, but it didn't seem to make a difference. (I don't know what I'm doing. This is my first attempt at solid modeling. I played around with Blender for five minutes and couldn't do anything; so I tried Art of Illusion. It was much more intuitive, but it's very limited. I have to manually calculate offsets and then enter them into each object -- there's no parametric move of grouped items (and mouse drag is too imprecise). I will try Blender one of these days.)


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Steve Mavronis said:


> Hasn't the 3 footer gone missing after Roddenberry died?


I think it went missing long before he died, actually. It seems he loaned it to someone who never returned it.

There's some info on it here.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

MGagen said:


> Datin specified the 1/8" above the EH centerline _twice_ in the original text. If you draft it out with the nacelles in the specified position, and the pylons at 90 degrees apart and passing through the nacelle centerlines you get the EH intersection 1/8" _below_ the centerline. One of these dimensions is not correct. However, I'd tend to lean on the nacelle distance apart as reliable since it would be an easy measurement to take, Also, the deliberate statement of the 1/8" _above_ EH centerline makes me think that one is definite, too. That leaves the pylon angles.


Why do you discount the photographic evidence I posted about the nacelles being more narrowly spaced? (Or perhaps you didn't get that far in the thread.)
(I don't know who did the photo analysis, but I repeated it and got very close to the same result.)

While it is entirely possible that the pylons are out of square, too. It seems clear that the nacelle spacing is smaller than expected. As you can see from my model, changing the spacing and leaving everything else as specified seems to adequately resolve the issue. (But we may yet find that the pylons are out of square in addition.)




> Ron H: Thanks for posting that image. It's the scan I made from my own Viewmaster Reel.


Interesting. Until yesterday, I'd never seen this picture; but PerfessorCoffee kindly sent me a different scan of the same picture just last night.




> An interesting thing about that image. Not only is it in 3D, but due to the complimentary lighting gels used to light the models from different directions, you can derive two grayscale images of the model in exactly the same position, but with different lighting angles -- very useful for discerning the actual shape of the thing! Here are links: Image 1
> Image 2


Very cool! Thanks for posting this.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> I was looking through my old reference photos, and I came across this one that WizardOfFlight sent me some years back. I don't know who originally did the analysis shown, but it's certainly germane to the discussion at hand.
> It seems to demonstrate that the nacelle centerline spacing is not 11 3/16" (as given earlier in the thread). The in-scale width should be 10.83" (using the 304' figure from TMOST).


Does anyone know where the 14 7/8" diameter figure shown in the image comes from? (It could be that a 15" (as specified) circle was used and 1/16" per side was sanded off during the finishing.) Anyway, is this from a measurement of the model? (I wish I knew who did that photo analysis.)


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Could the measurements in the above photo be based on the purported length of the ship model?

Great analyses, Paul! I'm following this thread with much interest. Great additional photos here for the colletion.

The 3 footer has some interesting features about it that distinguish it from the 11 footer but make it actually a little more realistic in proportions and deck levels.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I've now overlayed the model on the viewmaster picture. I lowered the saucer a smidge and increased its thickness to 0.85", which looks like a good match but is still subject to refinement.

This image shows that indeed the pylons may be just a little closer together than 90 degrees. (The model has 90 and there's a little bit of pylon visible in the photo inside the 3d model pylons at the top.)

Also, the saucer isn't an exact match (the 3d model's 15" dia; the photo may reflect a 14 7/8).

Finally, in this image the nacelle looks like it might not be short (or not as much), but it's hard to say since the nacelle in the photo is cut off. (May be lens effect again. (I did adjust the lens a lot compared to the one used with the other photo to get a match.))


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

uss_columbia said:


> Why do you discount the photographic evidence I posted about the nacelles being more narrowly spaced?


 I'm always reluctant to rely on dimensional analysis from a single picture. There are so many variables that need to be exactly accounted for. If the same result is derived from different angles, then it has more credibilty for me. 

You may be on to something, though. I am following the thread with rapt attention.

M.

EDIT: Well, in the time it took me to write this post, you've provided another angle! Keep up the good work.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

A few more images showing how the 3d model geometry matches the photos of the real miniature.


















































It's a decent fit, but I've noticed a few things.
- the pylons do appear to be slightly less than 90 degrees apart
- the nacelles might be just a little under 9.9" apart
- the nacelles seem to be higher above the EH centerline than specified
- the nacelles seem to droop -- being nearer the EH centerline at the back than at the front

When I get some time, I'll experiment with some geometry changes and see if I can get an even better correlation with the reference photos.


Paul


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

To me, easily the most prominent differences with the 11' hero are the central plateaus on the top and bottom of the primary hull. Those hull contours are pretty far out.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

toyroy said:


> To me, easily the most prominent differences with the 11' hero are the central plateaus on the top and bottom of the primary hull. Those hull contours are pretty far out.


Just eyeballing the contours you mention, it seems to me that they would give more usable space inside the saucer than the 11 footer contours.


----------



## star-art (Jul 5, 2000)

So glad to see other people using this technique. I started doing this a few years ago and it has proved extremely valuable for recreating objects from photos.

A couple of tips: First, be sure the program you are using can accurately portray objects in perspective by simulating the focal length of a "real" camera lens. The perspective view can vary dramatically by adjusting the distance from the lens and the angle of the lens. I wouldn't assume all programs do this in a way that simulates what would happen with a real 35 mm camera. I know many of the high-end programs do this (I've used InfiniD and Rhino 3D, and LightWave also does this quite well).

Second, try to determine what type of camera was used to take the reference image. If it was a 35 mm camera, you can do a good job of simulating this and trying to match up the zoom factor/focal length and lens angle. If it was taken by a view camera or motion picture camera, you might not have very good results.

Third, I try to match up a model to the real thing in "overlay" from three different angles at the same time. If I can get my model to match closely from all three angles, I know it is reasonably accurate to the original. Still, try to keep in mind how the shape and structure of the model can be distorted based on the angle of the camera, distance from the lens, zoom factor, and type of lens. I discuss these factors quite a bit in my new book (http://www.modelersnotebook.com)


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Some observations about the model:
At least by the time of Requiem for Methuselah and of Tomorrow is Yesterday, the starboard nacelle droops slightly at the stern and the saucer droops slightly at the bow. (The port nacelle and the engineering hull centerlines are parallel.)

I need to redo the photo comparisons with this in mind, and with the latest corrections I've done to the model.

I've been working on the hull contours. I'm pretty happy with the lower primary hull, but I still need to compare it to more photos. The 20th version I made of the lower hull surface is shown below, along with the main reference photo I was using.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

The funny 2-angle look of the line where the pylon meets the saucer is an illusion from the lighting. Here's another look:









It doesn't quite match the photo, but that's expected: my pylon is just a flat at centerline (no thickness even, much less curvature).


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

uss_columbia said:


> I am contemplating making a studio scale model of the original 1701 -- the 33.75" model. There are precious few pictures of the miniature. I'm starting to assemble references on it.


The thing is sitting in the Smithsonian so you can take all the reference pictures you want. For a project of this magnitude it might be worth the investment in such a trip.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

The model sitting in the Smithsonian is a little bigger than 33.75". Specifically, it's the 4X size model that's actually a little over 134".

If I were building a studio scale replica of that, my wife would kick me out of the house!

I'm going to build a replica of the original 33.75" model.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

star-art said:


> A couple of tips: First, be sure the program you are using can accurately portray objects in perspective by simulating the focal length of a "real" camera lens. The perspective view can vary dramatically by adjusting the distance from the lens and the angle of the lens.


I've noticed! I've varied the lens properties to get the best fit with each photo.



> Second, try to determine what type of camera was used to take the reference image. If it was a 35 mm camera, you can do a good job of simulating this and trying to match up the zoom factor/focal length and lens angle. If it was taken by a view camera or motion picture camera, you might not have very good results.


I don't think there's much to go on for determining the exact lenses used for these 40+ year old photos. I'm just adjusting lens properties for each picture until I get the best match. I'm starting to get a feel for what will parts of the object will distort in which direction with lens property changes.



> Third, I try to match up a model to the real thing in "overlay" from three different angles at the same time. If I can get my model to match closely from all three angles, I know it is reasonably accurate to the original.


I'm trying to get a good match from as many images as possible.


----------



## portland182 (Jul 19, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> It's a decent fit, but I've noticed a few things.
> - the pylons do appear to be slightly less than 90 degrees apart
> - the nacelles might be just a little under 9.9" apart
> - the nacelles seem to be higher above the EH centerline than specified
> - the nacelles seem to droop -- being nearer the EH centerline at the back than at the front


Also - is it just me or do the nacelles seem 'fatter' at the front with a 'steeper' taper?

Jim


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^ The taper seems fine to me (i.e., consistent with the front and aft diameters specified in the construction print). (Maybe the nacelle droop is contributing to the appearance of a taper issue.) Is there a particular photo where you notice more taper than expected?
Of course, the appearance of taper is greatly affected by the particular lens and camera distance used for the picture.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Just eyeballing the contours you mention, it seems to me that they would give more usable space inside the saucer than the 11 footer contours.


...More space for slots, and deluxe outside staterooms?


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

What ever happened to the actual construction prints? If they still existed it would settle a lot of the estimating going on with the proportions, etc.

Too bad when they did the Franz Joseph Starship Blueprints they didn't utilize them  I guess they were far gone by then.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

uss_columbia said:


> ^ The taper seems fine to me (i.e., consistent with the front and aft diameters specified in the construction print).


Actually, looking at the images of the 3 foot model compared with the 11 foot model, it seems like many of the ships angles and curves were muted quite a bit going from the 3 foot to the 11 foot.

While I like the more accentuated curves of the 3 foot model's primary hull, the more muted curves of the 11 foot work nicer in some extreme close ups.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Steve Mavronis said:


> What ever happened to the actual construction prints? If they still existed it would settle a lot of the estimating going on with the proportions, etc.


Mr. Datin still has the original construction prints. He's made a small portion available, but that's all.
He's also reported many critical dimensions from the prints (see page 1 in this thread for several of them, posted by MGagen).
However, the model as-built differs from the prints in many ways; even if we had the prints, we wouldn't know the actual miniature dimensions. The same goes for the 11-footer (which was made from the same prints); but we have a much, much larger set of references, including figures from Gary Kerr, who has twice measured the miniature. And we can go take a look at the miniature (as I did just a few years ago). (I think it's still on display in the gift shop in the Smithsonian.)


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I wish someone could do a 3D laser scan the 11 footer to get an accurate digital map of the studio model. That would be awesome! Here is a link below explaining the process:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_scanner


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^ They did scan the E-E model to help create the CGI E-E for First Contact. I don't think they did so with the refit for the CGI refit in TMP director's edition, though.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

toyroy said:


> ...More space for slots, and deluxe outside staterooms?


Exactly! In a ship full of officers, you have to have decent accommodations! :thumbsup:


----------



## portland182 (Jul 19, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> http://vpi.biz/~pjh/images/1701-3-overlay15.jpg[/img
> Paul[/QUOTE]
> 
> This is the one that 'looks' to have the fattest front of the nacelles.
> ...


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

If you devide 134" by 4 then it comes out 33.5" not 33.75. I'm just curious as to where you all get the 33.75" from.
Also according to the article on the idic page the center line distance between the warp engines is 40" and if you devide that by 4 it is 10..
Finally the Warp engines on the 11' are 72.25" in length and at a scale of 1/84 full size that comes out to a length of 510' instead of 504'. Go figure.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^ The 11-footer was supposed to be 135" but ended up almost an inch short -- nice work for a model that size, really.

The blueprints called for a wide spacing between the nacelles, but photo analysis demonstrated it was less, I started with 9.9", but even that is slightly too wide, it seems from several of the pictures.

The length specified for the model nacelles scales out to 508'; the actual model length is not known (no measurements) and the photos are inconclusive thus far. More analysis will be needed. Presently, I'm inclined to believe they were made the length called for in the blueprints. (See page 1 of this thread.)


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

portland182 said:


> This is the one that 'looks' to have the fattest front of the nacelles.


I'll redo that comparison when I get a chance. I was unable to get the saucer and the nacelles to line up with the photo at the same time, so I compromised. I later realized it's because they don't line up on the real model. (As I posted earlier, the saucer droops down at the bow, and one nacelle droops down at the stern.) With this in mind, I can readjust the lens and most likely end up with the 3d model nacelles front and rear diameters closely matching the real model. I think the model nacelles accurately match the specified dimensions (diameters and lengths).
(They may differ from the 11' model; I haven't compared the 11' nacelles to the 3-footer's nacelles.)


Paul


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

If you're reffering to the post with the measurments for the 33" model I have already read that post. Also the warp engines would come out to 18.065" length instead of 18. 125". All the others seem to match up.


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

uss_columbia said:


> I am contemplating making a studio scale model of the original 1701 -- the 33.75" model. There are precious few pictures of the miniature. I'm starting to assemble references on it.
> 
> The IDIC Page has some good pictures of the model. If anyone knows of other sites that feature pictures not seen there, please post.
> 
> ...


Keep a close watch on the Star Trek Restoration site. 
Newly discovered material of an amazing nature will be posted soon.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I wait anxiously!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I've already started resculpting an AMT/ERTL 18" model into the proportions (within reason) of the 3 footer. So far, so good.

I'll post pics when I get a chance.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

^^ Yea...sure....sure! Got a chance now?


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Star Trek Restoration site?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Lloyd Collins said:


> ^^ Yea...sure....sure! Got a chance now?


Nope. I'll _think _about doing it tonight.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

irishtrek said:


> Star Trek Restoration site?


http://www.startrekhistory.com/restoration/index.html


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

Not to run off-topic (too much) but does Trek History have a "What's New" area so we can see when this is posted?


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

Not yet... 
Capt. Mac / Curt is busy with life and work.... updates as he can.
It is after all, a labor of love.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

For those who may be interested, my conversion of the AMT/ERTL 18" kit into the proportions of the 33" FX model:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=189017


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

*Sneek Peek*









R Datin three footer on soundstage for early FX test footage.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Thanks there uss columbia.
That pic of the 33" model clearly shows indents on the impusle exhaust, so why can't the compamys that put out model kits of the E do this on the kits they make.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

That pic is AMAZING. I'm perpetually awed by what Curt & Co. ferret out!

Bravo!

M.


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

There's lots more coming.
An unbelievably lucky find as we all know there is precious little out there on the 3 footer. Prepare to be blown away.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Very cool.

I'm looking forward to seeing more images from this newly unearthed treasure trove.

Thanks for sharing.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Can't wait!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

pagni said:


> There's lots more coming.
> An unbelievably lucky find as we all know there is precious little out there on the 3 footer. Prepare to be blown away.


Oh, I can hardly wait! :thumbsup:


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

I've been working on one-to-one plans of the 33" model based on some of the information in this thread, measurements and curve tracings of images, a partial image of the original plans and *MGagen*'s measurements (where they didn't conflict with the actual model). I've also been using Casimiro's first pilot plans as a reference too (even though they are meant for the 11' model).

As has been discovered in this thread (and I reconfirmed on a few other independent images), the nacelles are about 10" apart, so this is one of the only numbers (so far) that *MGagen* has given that has been discarded. Odds are that the nacelle pylon angle will also have to go.

Still, some of the other numbers are right on and help bring the model's dimensions into focus. And the partial plans scaled perfectly to the dorsal and front of the secondary hull with those numbers.

While a lot of work needs to be done, this is where I'm at so far...

http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx/trek_stuff/1701_33in_plans.jpg​

 

There are other views, but they aren't complete enough to show yet.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Looking great so far! Keep it up! :thumbsup:


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

I'm fascinated to say the least!


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Just to clarify, I am not the source for the dimensions I posted. They were taken by Richard Datin from the construction plans and posted online by someone comparing the proportions of the 11 footer, 3-footer and the Unobtanium replica. As I stated when I reposted them, I do not recall who first put them up.

M.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Shaw: your pylon has two sets of lines. Is one set based on the angles given along with the other dimensions posted by MGagen and the other the lines from the drawing on Datin's site? (I used both versions in my computer model, but I don't recall how they differed from each other (nor which version I left visible) (and I can't check right now).)
Just curious.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

uss_columbia said:


> Shaw: your pylon has two sets of lines.


The main lines I'm using are the same as the Datin image as it matches exactly to the angles given, the second set is bleed threw of the Casimiro drawings... I had removed the primary hull from those, and most of the secondary hull, but was still comparing the window placement between them and the Datin image (though I'll be using the Datin image's window placement).

_Edit:_ This image may help to see where I'm at so far. it includes an image of the lines I've drawn so far, and what I'm seeing on my screen as I work.



MGagen said:


> Just to clarify...


I wasn't listing references as if this was a research paper... just pointing out where I was getting my information from.

I'll most likely never take this beyond the state with which we (as model builders) are likely to need. The finished product will end up pretty rough by most people's standards, but should work great for us. We are all doing research to find this info, so I consider these drawings to be community property.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I'm pretty sure your bridge dome is too tall. It looks to me like the dome on the 3-footer is about 2/3 the height of the teardrop, excluding the upper dome, which is about 1/5 the height of the rest of the dome (making the dome including the upper dome about 5/6 the height of the teardrop). (Your dome, including the upper dome, is approximately the same height as your teardrop.)


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

uss_columbia said:


> I'm pretty sure your bridge dome is too tall.


Me too... the thing that looks like it marks the center line of the primary hull, that is actually marking out the 3.9375" measurement of the overall hull thickness. I have a pretty good reference for the bottom dome, so once it is drawn in, that line will be moved down to the bottom of it. The top of the line will then tell me where the top of the bridge dome should be. Even if we were to just put the bottom dome assembly from the Casimiro plans on there, that would force the bridge to be much lower to match that number.

So yeah, this is still a major work in progress. I wouldn't suggest starting any projects based on what I've posted so far... specially as I haven't even posted any thing that is scaled correctly yet.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

And pagni's been teasing us about new reference photos coming soon! I wouldn't recommend anyone building one of these (or finishing in the case of Perfessor Coffee, who's already well on his way with his) until we get to see them.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

New photos are always welcome but there is plenty out there already. The bridge dome appears to be closer to the production 11 footer height than the pilots' versions. 

The production version of the 11 footer appears to be an attempt to bring the larger model more in line with the smaller model especially in terms of markings. 

The bridge height is something else that was apparently not changed on the smaller FX model.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

If I was to make a guess... and it is only a guess, I would say that the 11 foot bridge housing was enlarge to allow for a backlighting or some other effects aid for the opening shot in _The Cage_. It would have been less expensive to make that small modification to the model than to attempt to include a large number of effects shots to give the viewers (the network executives at the time) the illusion of being aboard the Enterprise.

When the show was picked up and they had a good library of stock footage, the dependance on a single effects shot to carry an episode would no longer be needed (plus the illusion would also be carried over by earlier episodes).

The nice thing about the primary hull is that it is made up of a lot of circles. By cutting them all at the same angle, there relative heights can be determined. I've started on making such observations and should have a good idea once I compare the various results I get against each other. That info plus the rough cross section I drew off of an image (that is shown in my progress image) should let me nail down quite a bit of detail.


Sorta off topic...

I'm sure that most of you guys are like me and thought that seeing this model in _Requiem for Methuselah_ was just too cool. I know that if I was Kirk, I wouldn't have rushed to put it back very quickly.  As a kid that and the 3" model were two _toys_ I really wanted!

I know that there is pretty much no possibility of me ever making a true replica of the 11 foot model (where would I put such a thing?), but the 33" model is within the realm of possibility and (more importantly) practicability. I know I could find room for that. 

Which I think is what has peaked my interest in this. Even if I never go as far as to build it, if I have buildable, one-to-one plans, I can at least let my imagination do the rest. 

And there would always be possibilities. :thumbsup:


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

uss_columbia said:


> And pagni's been teasing us about new reference photos coming soon! I wouldn't recommend anyone building one of these (or finishing in the case of Perfessor Coffee, who's already well on his way with his) until we get to see them.



LOL, I don't want to take away from the "exclusivity" that the Star Trek Restoration site will enjoy by the posting of the photos I'm providing them.

Rest assured that the photos show the 3 foot model from angles not seen before, and will specifically address some of the very questions mentioned in this thread, particularly in regards to nacelle placement, droop, inaccuracies etc.
(sorry, this seems more of tease.....)


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Shaw said:


> If I was to make a guess... and it is only a guess, I would say that the 11 foot bridge housing was enlarge to allow for a backlighting or some other effects aid for the opening shot in _The Cage_. It would have been less expensive to make that small modification to the model than to attempt to include a large number of effects shots to give the viewers (the network executives at the time) the illusion of being aboard the Enterprise.


The taller dome was built according to the construction blueprint (except for the top "sensor dome" part). Have a look here:
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=187865

It is unknown why the 3-footer's bridge doesn't match it.
Could be that it did originally, and that's one of those original changes requested by the Great Bird. Or it could be that it was never built that way.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

pagni said:


> (sorry, this seems more of tease.....)


Sure. Keep it up, keep it up! 
I'll wait patiently to see them. It's not like I was going to build my 33.75" model this week anyway. (I _might_ _*start*_ this year. )


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

EDIT: Took me too long to get this message up. I see my other thread's already been mentioned. Oh, well; at least here's a direct link to the graphic.
=====================

Here's something that might be useful. It's the bridge dome as depicted on the original construction blueprints. I have re-drafted it to scale, taking into account how the top and side views project together. This doesn't mean this is exactly how the "three-footer" was built, but it does show what they were _aiming_ at.

Original Dome from Construction BPs
 
The McMaster bridge drawing was added afterwards just to see how well the original dome design fits with the set. 

M.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I'm not sure "they were aiming at" that for the 3-footer.

(If I got the measurements and math right)
The as-specified dome is approximately 16.5' high (per MGagen's drawing); the saucer is 21' high (per Sinclair drawing). Ratio: 79%. Scaled to the 33.75" model: .59" / .75"

Yet, in photos such as the one with the 3-footer emerging from the pink barrier, the ratio of dome to saucer thickness looks to be more like 50%. (The resolution doesn't permit a very precise measurement.)

Other photo comparisons, such as the publicity photos of Spock holding the pilot model and Kirk holding the production model, show that the pilot and production domes are the same on the 3-footer (unlike on the 11-footer).



I see three possibilities:

1. The prints called for the tall dome at the time of 3-footer construction, and Datin made it that way. Then he modified the dome early on (probably per Roddenberry's request right after Datin first showed him the model).

2. The prints called for the tall dome at the time of 3-footer construction, but Datin made a lower dome instead. (Seems unlikely)

3. The prints did not call out the tall dome at the time of the 3-footer construction; they were changed between 3-footer and 11-footer construction.



(BTW, based on my current model and photo comparisons done to date, I actually have a best-fit saucer thickness on the 3-footer of .65" rather than .75"; but this is not final and should be given little weight at this point.)


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

What I've gotten so far playing with the lines of the primary hull is this for relative heights...

http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx/trek_stuff/1701_33in_ph.jpg​
 


My early estimate of the rim thickness is about .55", but I'm still going back and taking more measurements of other pictures.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

uss_columbia said:


> I'm not sure "they were aiming at" that for the 3-footer.


 We're talking about the _construction_ blueprint. It's what was handed to Richard Datin with the instructions: "Build this." Of course it's what they were aiming at. The only issue at hand is how closely they followed that plan for each of the models.



> Other photo comparisons, such as the publicity photos of Spock holding the pilot model and Kirk holding the production model, show that the pilot and production domes are the same on the 3-footer (unlike on the 11-footer).


 The only photos I've seen of Spock holding the pilot dress "3-footer" are one showing the underside, and another showing the top from such an overhead view it's impossible to tell how high the dome is. Other than the very low resolution "Rigel Fortress" photos, I've never seen a side view of the pilot version. If you have another angle (or a higher res "Fortress" image) I'd love to see them!

What I _can_ say is that Richard Datin told me that the same blueprint was used to construct both the small model and the larger one (at exactly 4x size).

My own guess is that both the small and large models were originally constructed with the taller domes. These would have been cut down smaller at the time of the series revision. The reason that the small model seems to have a slightly lower dome in the "Fortress" image might be because it's sitting on the squatter teardrop section of that model.

M.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

MGagen said:


> We're talking about the _construction_ blueprint. It's what was handed to Richard Datin with the instructions: "Build this." Of course it's what they were aiming at. The only issue at hand is how closely they followed that plan for each of the models.


Changes were penciled in after the print was drawn, e.g., the angle of the saucer rim. "They" may have been "aiming at" a moving target. Can you say that the dome detail you blueprinted was there from the start? (You've examined the actual drawing, right?)









Regarding the image shown above (Source: http://www.startrekman.us/pages/2/index.htm):


> What you see here is the secondary hull portion of Matt Jefferies original drawing that was used to build not only the three-foot size but the 11-foot Enterprise models for Star Trek. ... Of interest also are the small rectangular objects, or windows, indicated on the hull and pylon which are pencil additions added later to the drawing by Datin and incorporated in both models. Note the change to the shape of the saucer edge.





MGagen said:


> The only photos I've seen of Spock holding the pilot dress "3-footer" are one showing the underside, and another showing the top from such an overhead view it's impossible to tell how high the dome is. Other than the very low resolution "Rigel Fortress" photos, I've never seen a side view of the pilot version.


You can't tell the height for sure from the Spock photo, but you can tell its shape and relative height look like a match to the shape and relative height seen on the Kirk photo.












> If you have another angle (or a higher res "Fortress" image) I'd love to see them!


I've seen two "restored" images of the Rigel image, one in color and one B&W. The B&W one is the first image on this page: http://www.startrekhistory.com/restoration/bluescreen.html.
I don't know if the other one is on line, but it's not higher resolution than the B&W one. It's very clear from the B&W one that the dome is not the tall one as seen on the 11-footer in the pilots.





> What I _can_ say is that Richard Datin told me that the same blueprint was used to construct both the small model and the larger one (at exactly 4x size).


Did he tell you that no changes were made to the drawing between the construction of the 3-footer and the 4X model? Did he say just when the "penciled in" changes were made?





> My own guess is that both the small and large models were originally constructed with the taller domes. These would have been cut down smaller at the time of the series revision. The reason that the small model seems to have a slightly lower dome in the "Fortress" image might be because it's sitting on the squatter teardrop section of that model.


A full-height dome sitting on a squatter teardrop would seem even taller relative to the teardrop than it would sitting on a full-height teardrop.
Compare:
Pilot 3'er:























Pilot 11'er:


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I was merely pointing out that you should give the construction plan its due. You seemed to dismiss it out of hand; indicating that you didn't believe they were even trying to follow it. That strikes me as an absurd position. By its very nature, it's what they were trying to build.

Now don't get me wrong. I think you're developing some interesting and useful information here. But let's not start pretending we have no idea what they were trying to create, just when the actual blueprints they used are beginning to surface. Photo analysis is a great tool. But it has its limitations -- limitations that can be handicapped by bringing in other data points. New information from the construction blueprints fall under that category, and that's why I posted it here.

More directly to your questions: Changes were penciled in on the plans -- and those changes are reflected on _both_ models. The windows particularly must have been added before the revised model was presented, since they are present in the "Fortress" photo.

The bridge dome shape is hardly the largest discrepancy between the two models. The whole profile of the primary hull is radically different. Yet the construction plan shows something between the two, but much closer to the "11-footer." I quizzed Mr. Datin about this and he said both were based on the same plan and thus should be the same. Surely the most reasonable explanation is that they followed that plan to varying greater and lesser degrees while building both models. 

The pilot dome in the barrier screen shot and the "Fortress" photo do seem to be lower than the dome on the pilot "11-footer." But I'd say the jury is still out on whether it remained exactly the same after the "3-footer's" series redress.

M.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

MGagen said:


> I'm not sure what you're getting at. I was merely pointing out that you should give the construction plan its due. You seemed to dismiss it out of hand; indicating that you didn't believe they were even trying to follow it.


Not at all. My comment wasn't even about the construction plan. Rather, it was about your drawing of the bridge dome portion of the construction plan's final state which may have included penciled-in changes. We know the plan contained contemporaneous changes (pencil additions). The evidence is strong that at the time of the pilots the 3-footer did not have the dome you show. My three possible explanations for this remain, though you can perhaps narrow them down, since you've seen the plans and know what's original vs. penciled in.



uss_columbia said:


> 1. The prints called for the tall dome at the time of 3-footer construction, and Datin made it that way. Then he modified the dome early on (probably per Roddenberry's request right after Datin first showed him the model).
> 
> 2. The prints called for the tall dome at the time of 3-footer construction, but Datin made a lower dome instead. (Seems unlikely)
> 
> 3. The prints did not call out the tall dome at the time of the 3-footer construction; they were changed between 3-footer and 11-footer construction.


Far from "dismissing out of hand" and thinking they didn't even try to follow it, I explicitly stated that I think it unlikely that they simply didn't follow the plan. (See item 2.) I think Mr. Datin would have followed the plan in front of him pretty well, with some compromise if needed due to the tight schedule. That's precisely why I think item 1 or 3 is the more likely situation.

If you're sure it was not item 3 (which is what I infer though you have not stated that the bridge dome portion of the plan was free from penciled-in changes), then items 1 and 2 are the only remaining possibilities. I think 1 is more likely than 2. Too bad Datin didn't say exactly what changes the Great Bird had requested when Datin originally presented the 3-footer to him!




MGagen said:


> More directly to your questions: Changes were penciled in on the plans -- and those changes are reflected on _both_ models. The windows particularly must have been added before the revised model was presented, since they are present in the "Fortress" photo.


Don't forget that most of us have not seen the construction plans and don't know just how many penciled in changes there were. Of the small fragment on Datin's website, a good portion is attributed to penciling-in.
(Also, the "Fortress" photo is almost certainly not of the model as originally built. There were changes made at Roddenberry's request. (Hence "revised" model, as you say.) Thus, the windows may have been penciled in after the 3-footer was built, between the original presentation of the 3-footer to Roddenberry and the "Fortress" photo. This is exactly the time when I conjecture that the dome shape might have changed (item 1 in my list, can also apply to item 3).)




> Yet the construction plan shows something between the two, but much closer to the "11-footer."


Thanks for sharing this. It's news to me. (You no doubt have lots of interesting observations about the plans you haven't shared yet. Planning to mete them out over a period of months? )
One of the things I'm most interested in is the shape of the teardrop. The Jefferies drawing in TMOST has a rounder shape (viewed from top) than the shape seen on the models. Was the construction teardrop shape closer to the TMOST drawing or to the models? (And was it more like the 11-footer or the 3-footer?)



> The pilot dome in the barrier screen shot and the "Fortress" photo do seem to be lower than the dome on the pilot "11-footer." But I'd say the jury is still out on whether it remained exactly the same after the "3-footer's" series redress.


Evidence suggests that they are the same but is not conclusive. Can you point to any images that suggest that the dome _was_ changed?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

> 3. The prints did not call out the tall dome at the time of the 3-footer construction; they were changed between 3-footer and 11-footer construction.


This suggestion seems more likely to me. 

The 3-footer was the first try and 11-footer was a refinement. 

When looking at the models later, it was probably determined that many of the 3-footer features were a better way to go after all. 

I get this idea from the presence of some markings that were on the 3-footer from the beginning and didn't show up on the 11-footer until the production model. 

_*Or*_, if changed (for _WNMHGB_) from the original _Cage _features on the 11-footer that were in common with the 3 footer to begin with, _reverted_ to the original/3-footer features when the production ship was finalized.

The whole process seems experimental with some back and forth on the desired features finally settling on the production version.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^ Would you mind pointing out which markings? (Save me the trouble of playing the "how many differences can you find between these two pictures" game a hundred times. )

BTW, I find it interesting that they _removed_ windows on the teardrop between the pilot and the series on the 3-footer.



PerfesserCoffee said:


> uss_columbia said:
> 
> 
> > 3. The prints did not call out the tall dome at the time of the 3-footer construction; they were changed between 3-footer and 11-footer construction.
> ...


But MGagen seems to be ruling it out.

My suggestion #1 has the problem that if GR asked that the dome be lowered, why didn't the 11-footer crew get the memo? (Datin was coordinating. It may have simply been that the tall dome was already built and they didn't think it worth taking the time to lower it. They fixed it after the second pilot was accepted by the network. But why would it already be built before the approval model was approved?)

#2 has the problem that it requires inaccurate construction. However, the schedule was extremely tight; so this is perhaps understandable.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> ^ Would you mind pointing out which markings? (Save me the trouble of playing the "how many differences can you find between these two pictures" game a hundred times.


I'm thinking mainly of the bridge exterior and the impulse engines. 

Also, there's the odd detailing around the running lights on top of the saucer.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

BTW, when I talk about tight schedule...

These are the dates Datin gave in the McCullars article in Star Trek Communicator:

1964-11-04 Datin begins construction of "3 footer"

1964-11-15 "3 footer" is finished by this date and delivered to Gene on or shortly after this date

1964-12-08 11' model construction started approximately this date or earlier (but sometime in December)

1964-12-14 initial modifications to "3 footer" completed (used in Cage effects shots on or after this date)

1964-12-29 11' model delivered (on or about this date) (used in Cage effects shots on or after this date)



(The dates do allow for 11' model construction to have begun before 3' model modifications were _completed_ but probably not before they were _requested_.)


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

uss_columbia said:


> The evidence is strong that at the time of the pilots the 3-footer did not have the dome you show. My three possible explanations for this remain, though you can perhaps narrow them down, since you've seen the plans and know what's original vs. penciled in.


 I would suggest a fourth, more likely possibility: The plans were drawn with the taller dome. Both models were based on that plan. The "3-footer," being both a smaller scale model and originally intended as merely a "proof of concept," did not hew as closely to the plans as the larger model, which was intended for filming. BTW, I have not had the honor of handling the original plans. I have been given access to a more complete set of scans than have been published.



> Thanks for sharing this. It's news to me. (You no doubt have lots of interesting observations about the plans you haven't shared yet. Planning to mete them out over a period of months? )


 Actually, I do have more to share. And it's not that I'm holding back. I'm just taking time to be certain of what I've learned before I pass it on -- that, and the day to day press of real life.



> One of the things I'm most interested in is the shape of the teardrop. The Jefferies drawing in TMOST has a rounder shape (viewed from top) than the shape seen on the models. Was the construction teardrop shape closer to the TMOST drawing or to the models? (And was it more like the 11-footer or the 3-footer?)


 This has been one of my major "need to know" points as well. I'm happy to be able to tell you that in top view it is the tear drop shape, not the egg shape -- and the profile view is a better match for the "11-footer."

M.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

MGagen said:


> I would suggest a fourth, more likely possibility: The plans were drawn with the taller dome. Both models were based on that plan. The "3-footer," being both a smaller scale model and originally intended as merely a "proof of concept," did not hew as closely to the plans as the larger model, which was intended for filming.


That's the same as #2 in my list.



> BTW, I have not had the honor of handling the original plans. I have been given access to a more complete set of scans than have been published.


I see. Can these scans be had somewhere?
Even though they're just scans, they probably reveal what is original vs. penciled in. Were there any penciled lines in the dome area?



> Actually, I do have more to share. And it's not that I'm holding back. I'm just taking time to be certain of what I've learned before I pass it on -- that, and the day to day press of real life.


No need to filter the data; give it to me straight: I can take it. 



> This has been one of my major "need to know" points as well. I'm happy to be able to tell you that in top view it is the tear drop shape, not the egg shape -- and the profile view is a better match for the "11-footer."


Thanks. (I wonder why the TMOST drawing has the "egg" (and the wider nacelle spacing than both models). The drawing came after the models (it shows the series configuration) yet has these details incorrect.)


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

uss_columbia said:


> Were there any penciled lines in the dome area?


 None are visible in the images I have.



> I wonder why the TMOST drawing has the "egg" (and the wider nacelle spacing than both models). The drawing came after the models (it shows the series configuration) yet has these details incorrect.


 This remains a mystery to me. I had always wondered if the construction drawings might show the egg shape, and that perhaps the teardrop was one of the alterations GR asked for. Now that we know otherwise, we're still left with the oddity of the TMOST drawings. Strangely, MJ seems to have gone back to the egg shape when he redesigned the ship for Phase II. Perhaps he changed his mind about the teardrop shape after the series was in production and drew the TMOST drawing the way he wished he'd made the ship. We'll likely never know...

M.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Being more of a visual type of person (the type that prefers _maps_ to _directions_), I decided to put the dimensional info that *MGagen* gave us into a format that was easier for me to work with. I've also included a handful of additional measurements I've come up with based on my image studies and a current best guess cross section of the primary hull.

http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx/trek_stuff/1701_33in_dimensions.jpg​
 

Hopefully this will be helpful to other's like me.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Shaw said:


> Hopefully this will be helpful to other's like me.


Oh, yeah! That's the ticket! :thumbsup:


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Thanks for taking time to do those drawings, *Shaw*. It's greatly appreciated.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

MGagen said:


> Strangely, MJ seems to have gone back to the egg shape when he redesigned the ship for Phase II. Perhaps he changed his mind about the teardrop shape after the series was in production and drew the TMOST drawing the way he wished he'd made the ship.


Or perhaps, when starting on the Phase II refit, he used his drawings as seen in TMOST as the starting point. He certainly seems to have used the cross-section; why not the others?

Indeed, not only do the cross-section and teardrop shape resemble the "TMOST" drawings, but the nacelle spacing also seems to match these drawings rather than the narrower spacing seen on the models.
(The spacing on the phase II is approx. 300': quite close to the 304' figure from TMOST. In contrast, the 11-footer's spacing is 9-12% narrower than the TMOST figure (9% based on PL print, 12% based on Sinclair).) (Of course, the construction print reportedly calls out a spacing similar to that in TMOST.)


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

While a strictly _Jefferies_ interpretation of the Enterprise is quite interesting from a historical perspective, I think that studies of the models have to take into account that this type of thing was a team effort. A number of people provided input on the designs, either by making suggestions or via other environmental factors (like deadlines or effects requirements).

My impression of Jefferies' work on the Enterprise is that in his mind it was rather fluid. That is to say, even up through Phase II preproduction, he never took any of the actual physical models to be hard references (as a starting point to move forward from). It seem that he looked at them more as branches from his design evolution.

If this were a _real_ ship, once the construction was finished, the designers would gear all modifications to the ship _as built_. Neither Jefferies' Phase II plans nor the later TMP refit are based on the _as built_ Enterprise 11 foot model, but rather an idealized version of the Enterprise unconstrained by any of it's previous physical manifestations as effects models.

I doubt that Jefferies was any more wed to the shape of the primary hull's upper structure than he was to the cross sectional shape of the primary hull (which changes in many of his drawings). Moving from a tear drop shape to a more egg-like shape was more likely based on mood or esthetics than anything. And just because one shape was used on the production model, he didn't feel any constraint to continue to use that shape in his later drawings if he found a shape he liked better.


For most of us (or at least me), we are trying to capture what we saw on screen as physical (or CG) models because those are the real _Enterprise_ to us. For Jefferies, the Enterprise was an idea that was constantly evolving throughout the series, with the models as mere _stand-in_s on screen (in the same way that actors are basically _stand-in_s for the actual characters).


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Interesting analysis. It also explains a lot.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Captain April said:


> Interesting analysis. It also explains a lot.


I concur! :thumbsup:


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Shaw said:


> My impression of Jefferies' work on the Enterprise is that in his mind it was rather fluid. That is to say, even up through Phase II preproduction, he never took any of the actual physical models to be hard references (as a starting point to move forward from). It seem that he looked at them more as branches from his design evolution.


 Yes, he took them as _interpretations_ of his design -- which they are. Yet when he set out to redesign the ship for Phase II, he didn't just start over with a clean slate either -- he went back to his TOS drawings as a starting point. That tells me that he still figured that the "real" Enterprise was the one he had created on paper, not the version that resulted from the inevitable compromises of making the show. For instance, some writer decided that the primary hull had eleven decks. Does MJ take this into account when designing the Phase II cross section? No. He starts with his original, more rational eight-and-a-half deck layout and works from there.

You are right that he felt free to make whatever changes seemed good to him. The egg shape is one of them. Correcting the bridge orientation is another. But he seems to have done the same thing he did the first time around: Take GR's marching orders (in this case, a refit) and produce a believable ship by his own lights. I don't think there is any evidence of collaboration by others in the design. It was pretty much Jefferies alone, working with Roddenberry's approval, both times. Only after he went back to his job on _Little House on the Prairie_ did anyone else take the design in hand. While I like what resulted, I would rather have seen what MJ himself would have come up with had he further refined his design for the big screen.

M.


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

MGagen said:


> That tells me that he still figured that the "real" Enterprise was the one he had created on paper, not the version that resulted from the inevitable compromises of making the show.


Interesting. And also very plausible.

How detailed are the inboard of the warp nacelles on these drawings? That's an area that's always fascinated me and it's a little different on all the models.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

MGagen said:


> Yet when he set out to redesign the ship for Phase II, he didn't just start over with a clean slate either --


I hope you aren't attributing the counter argument to me... I said that his vision was an evolution of his design, which includes the Phase II plans. If I had ever thought that he _start_ed _over with a clean slate_ on them, then they would hold about as much value to me as the plans for the TMP Enterprise. The only reason I have spent hours studying (and restoring) his Phase II plans was so I could gain some insight into his thoughts and ideas about the original Enterprise.


_Click to enlarge_​
What is odd about your post is that you quote me, make statements that follow my arguments and act like you are providing something different. Seeing as we seem to concur on this, why act like we disagree? 



> That tells me that he still figured that the "real" Enterprise was the one he had created on paper...


Well, maybe we do disagree some where. 

My guess is that, for Jefferies, the only _real_ Enterprise existed in his mind. And that each time he took pencil to paper he was attempting to convey as much of the _real_ Enterprise as possible. The problem with that (if it is a problem) is that each time certain ideas were either more clear or more important than others.

I'm not completely convinced that he referred to earlier drawings of the Enterprise as a starting point the way that we are here. If I was attempting to _refit_ the Enterprise (in Jefferies place) I would have taken the best original plans, taped them to my drafting table, placed a sheet of vellum over them and got started. But for Jefferies, I think that would have been too limited a starting point.

My bet is that Jefferies drew out the major elements of the _idealized_ Enterprise from memory (and a handful of side references), and then started in on the task of refitting _that_ version of the Enterprise for Phase II. I doubt that there were any better detailed plans of the Enterprise made than the ones that Datin was given made again until the preproduction of Phase II. Which in turn means that smaller (less detailed) drawings were more like notes of the actual Enterprise that was constantly evolving in Jefferies' mind throughout the series.

Anyways, if there is a point of contention between our views, odds are that this is it.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Shaw,

In the words of a famous old Trek parody record: "Don't have a spazz, Snotty!" :roll:

We _are_ in substantial agreement; that's why I said "*Yes*, he took [the models] as interpretations of his design..." and "*You are right* that he felt free to make whatever changes seemed good to him."

Where we disagree is in your statements: "in his mind it [the design of the ship] was rather fluid" and "For Jefferies, the Enterprise was an idea that was constantly evolving throughout the series."

My response outlines why I disagree with that: Namely, that his going back to his original plans demonstrates his idea of the ship _hadn't_ been fluid. If he had gone to the model, or to the Writers' Guide description you could perhaps make that case -- but I don't think it stands in light of what he actually did.

I also disagreed with your "team effort" comment and pointed out the lack of evidence to support it.

M.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

MGagen said:


> My response outlines why I disagree with that: Namely, that his going back to his original plans demonstrates his idea of the ship hadn't been fluid. If he had gone to the model, or to the Writers' Guide description you could perhaps make that case -- but I don't think it stands in light of what he actually did.


I think you are reading more into the term _fluid_ than is really there. But to demonstrate that many aspects weren't set in stone in his mind, I pointed out the cross sectional curve of the primary hull (something that should have been easy enough to fix) which changed from drawing to drawing.

Example...







 




> I also disagreed with your "team effort" comment and pointed out the lack of evidence to support it.


Well, it depends on what we call evidence. I take this quote by a knowledgeable source as support for what I said..._"We're talking about the construction blueprint. It's what was handed to Richard Datin with the instructions: "Build this." Of course it's what they were aiming at. The only issue at hand is how closely they followed that plan for each of the models."_​Further, the fact that Roddenberry had any say in approving the model or requesting modifications would also supply further evidence. And then there is the fact that there are remarkable differences between the 11 foot model and the 33" model, which are in turn both different from the construction blueprints.


Short of Jefferies building the model by himself, the Enterprise as seen on screen was a team effort. At some point he handed off the project to others to take it the rest of the way. And the fact that it didn't turn out exactly as his plans shows that what we got was a collaboration rather than a single person's vision.

By comparison, it looks like there was less variation from Jefferies' plans in the construction of the Phase II model.



Back to the topic at hand, this is my latest progress on the 33" side view... not complete by any means, but progressing.

 ​
 

Yeah, the more I work on this the more I realize that to a large degree what I've always wanted while building various models of the Enterprise was actually to have _this_ model of the Enterprise...

​​​ 
While I love the 11 foot model, I think the 33" model sitting on a table top has been a benchmark for display models since I first saw it in _Requiem for Methuselah_.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Shaw said:


> I think you are reading more into the term _fluid_ than is really there. But to demonstrate that many aspects weren't set in stone in his mind, I pointed out the cross sectional curve of the primary hull (something that should have been easy enough to fix) which changed from drawing to drawing. Example. [pics of differences between various Phase II drawings]


 You're confusing the series ship with the Phase II Refit. We were talking about the series ship, which is the subject of both your "fluid" remark and the other remark I rebutted: "For Jefferies, the Enterprise was an idea that was constantly evolving throughout the series."

_Of course_ the Phase II design was somewhat "fluid" and "evolving" _while it was still being designed_. By definition, something that is _being designed_ always is. I never said otherwise. But you can't say MJ's idea of the ship "was constantly evolving throughout the series" when he went right back to his original blueprints as a starting point for Phase II. That implies his idea of the ship hadn't changed at all after it left his drawing board. 




Shaw said:


> MGagen said:
> 
> 
> > I also disagreed with your "team effort" comment and pointed out the lack of evidence to support it.
> ...


​Now you're confusing the model with the blueprints--a distinction I was careful to make. The design of the ship was the work of one man -- working on orders from, and for the approval of GR (which was a point made in my original post.)

The _construction_ of the models was a team effort. The models also amount to an _interpretation_ of MJ's design (along with inconsistencies introduced by various writers) -- an interpretation that was set aside by Jefferies when he designed the Refit. That one act renders moot all claims that differences between the models themselves, or between the models and the construction blueprint show the ship's design was a "team effort."

Does any of this mean that you can't take the latest verson of the ship appearing onscreen (eleven deck primary hull and all) as the _real_ ship? Of course not. In most people's minds that _is_ the real ship. I bought one of the Master Replicas 3-footers and I can say I'd have been greatly disappointed if it had come in lookng exactly like MJ's construction blueprint. _I_ wanted the ship I saw onscreen. 

M.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

MGagen said:


> You're confusing the series ship with the Phase II Refit. We were talking about the series ship, which is the subject of both your "fluid" remark and the other remark I rebutted: "For Jefferies, the Enterprise was an idea that was constantly evolving throughout the series."


Well, the cross section of the hull should have been finalized with the original drawings then... right? And by that account, so should have the shape of the upper superstructure of the primary hull (teardrop or egg shaped).

So tell us, is the shapes he used in the writer's guide drawings the same as the shapes of the original drawings for construction? The original drawings for construction were made back when the Enterprise was to be a much smaller ship, did anything change when the ship was reimagined as a larger ship for the series? 

Construction of the models based on his plans would have already begun... right?

But lets look at what we have... currently.



Now, as you are one of these people who has hoarded the original plans to himself and not shared them with us, I have to trust your judgment on this... which of those drawings does the original plans match?

The problem is that none of the drawings match each other, but yet you seem to believe that there is some consistency here. That consistency has to be based on something. Somewhere there are (at the very least) two drawings that match up. None of these do, but *you* have one that might.





You said..._"But you can't say MJ's idea of the ship "was constantly evolving throughout the series" when he went right back to his original blueprints as a starting point for Phase II."_​Okay, show us how those are consistent with the Phase II drawings then. The primary hull (and the secondary hull for that matter) shape should have stayed the same for Phase II given what he was asked to do for that series. Do the plans actually match up exactly?



Again, only you know for sure... we poor uninformed souls which don't deserve to see the _holy _original plans have to hope that you will provide us with a little insight.

Unless you have decided to stop being selfish and share the actual info with us to let us make our own decisions. 








MGagen said:


> Now you're confusing the model with the blueprints--a distinction I was careful to make.


Well, lets look at what was said...*Shaw:* _"While a strictly Jefferies interpretation of the Enterprise is quite interesting from a historical perspective, I think that *studies of the models* have to take into account that this type of thing was a *team effort*. A number of people provided input on the designs, either by making suggestions or via other environmental factors (like deadlines or effects requirements)."_



*MGagen:* _"I also disagreed with your "team effort" comment and pointed out the lack of evidence to support it."_
​So who is confusing what here? *I* was careful to make a distinction, but I sure don't see the same care taken in your comment.




I'm sure you enjoy being the _go to guy_ on all this, but there are plenty of us who are more than able to do our own analysis. I've been more than happy to provide support for all my arguments... the only reason I can think of for you refusing to do the same is that you are afraid that once the information is out, you will have lost some level of importance.

I don't think so, but if that is why you won't support your contentions, it is a rather sad state of affairs.

Maybe this is a cultural thing. In the mathematics community which I am most accustom to, we don't hide information from others to keep ourselves important or relevant. I don't hide what I learn, I share it. As the last critical source of information on a very rare operating system, I could very easily put myself in a position to use that to my advantage... but I don't. I share what I know and what information I have with anyone who wants to take the time to learn via my web site. I didn't make that operating system any more than you drew Jefferies' plans, so I don't see where either of us has any right to obstruct others from that information.

So please, stop _talking_ about this and finally show us. It would be so much easier I would think. You asked for my evidence (which I've taken the time to produce), I'm now asking for yours.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

This intermittently interesting exchange appears perilously close to degenerating into a childish pissing match. Kindly restrain your egos, remember your manners, and knock off the personal attacks or I'll have no choice but to shut the thread.

Too late.   

You guys are your own worst enemy.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Thanks, Rob. I was the one who locked the thread. 

As Rob said, this constant bickering is becoming childish once again. It's what's once again gotten my ire up, but the last post before it was locked is what made me decide that the thread has served it's purpose in that a discussion was had and information brought fourth. However, it degenerated in to what is increasingly becoming the annoying trend of one-upsman-ship in these forums. 

So, the thread stays locked for an indefinite period of time. *I'll* make that decision based on when **I** cool off a bit on this particular subject. No amount of protesting, arguing or attempts at convincing me will do anything more than to keep it locked for even longer. I'm not deleting it, so any and all information will still be there for folks to view - you just won't be able to add anything, useful or otherwise.

I honestly think that some of you folks are way too wrapped up in your obsessions. 

Go build a dang model! That's what I'm off to do.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

First off, my apologies to uss_columbia for the thread lock. I just didn't see it continuing on in a manner conducive to civil discussion for at least a few posts after *Shaw's* condescending post. The general policy that my Moderators and I have developed is to try and head things off befor they get out-of-hand. Thus both Rob/*Carson Dyle* & I locking the thread at pretty much the same time.

*Shaw* has received a 10 Day Time Out. This is because of his last post above, as well as removing the original images from his FTP site and replacing them with something inappropriate to the demeanor of this site. 

Anyhow, I'm re-opening the thread w/a provisio of Playing Well With Others. I'd appreciate if the vast majority of you who've participated in this thread would continue to behave in an adult, civilized manner. I understand how passionate we can get about these subjects - believe me. However, that still doesn't always slide with me where behavior is concerned. Especially when I've mentioned it several times in various threads that most of the Regular Posters here can't possibly have missed. 

Light-hearted banter is always appreciated, but when it gets someone else to a point where they obviously start to get upset, please don't further antagonize them. It's not fair to whom you're responding to, but it's also not fair to the rest of the folks who are behaving in a friendly manner w/in the thread. 

If you read a post that upsets you, I highly recommend that you step away from the computer for a little while. Get a drink of water, go to the bathroom, hug the wife and kids or anything else that might allow you time to cool down. Remember that someone might not mean something negative and it's possible you've taken what they had to say in the wrong way. I've done it as well as have others here. I can make allowances for the rare heated post, but when it's flagrant in it's intensity, actions will be taken - and at the discretion of the Moderator or myself who catches the incident. 

To whit: I'm reopening the thread. Follow the rules, Play Well With Others and it will remain open. Contrary to popular belief, I don't like BANNING most of the folks I have done that to, and I also don't like having to lock threads. However, I won't hesitate to do so when I see stuff along those lines going on. 

As far as I'm concerned, this off-track subject is closed. Let's keep it On Topic for the rest of the thread.

Thank you for your cooperation.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Yeee-haw! I've enjoyed the extra resources and information that have come up so far. I'd love to see more!


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

I am continually amazed, and disappointed, by the way some folks can't help but turn a reasonable exchange of views into a personal attack. 

I support Shaw's input into this project -- he's made some very valuable contributions. But it seems that disagreeing with his interpretation of things, even when I back it up with sound reasoning and hard data, is taboo. Not wanting to get personal in return, I've decided to drop out of this particular discussion. 

But before I do, I feel I must at least rebut some of the personal aspersions he directed at me.



Shaw said:


> Now, as you are one of these people who has hoarded the original plans to himself and not shared them with us, I have to trust your judgment on this...
> 
> Again, only you know for sure... we poor uninformed souls which don't deserve to see the _holy _original plans have to hope that you will provide us with a little insight.
> 
> Unless you have decided to stop being selfish and share the actual info with us to let us make our own decisions.


 For the record, I have not "hoarded the original plans to myself." I have made a very thorough collation and study of every scrap of the plans that has ever been publicly released -- Scraps that are available to everyone who wishes to make the effort to collect them. I have also freely shared what I have learned in the process; many times and in many places over the years. It's what I was _trying_ to do in this thread. If I have not released a drawing of my own which synthesizes the results of my study, it's only because I am not finished with it. It also has to do with the fact that a mere month ago I was given a new batch of scans of the various original drawings and I am still in the process of integrating them with my previous work. None of this can be fairly characterized as "hoarding."

To the charge that I am "selfish" I cry _foul!_ Those who have followed my online postings over the years will back me up that I've been quite generous in sharing any unique data I've developed. Among other things, I have posted original research that for the first time established:




 That the TMOST hangar deck plans are actually concept drawings for a forced perspective miniature set.

 The original planned scale of the Enterprise models was a workable 1:192/1:48.

 That the station numbers on the secondary hull originally represented scale inches on the "real" ship.

 That the production Bridge set was configured with nine 35.5 degree wedges and one 40.5 degree viewscreen wedge.

 That the apparent discrepancy in the callout dimensions in the famous TMOST 3-view drawing are due to distortion in reproduction.
Within the last month, I've also confirmed that the construction plans feature a teardrop, not an egg-shaped blister, and I've posted a scale drawing of the pilot bridge dome as shown on those plans. I have more to share from my study of the plan fragments, but, as should be obvious, I like to be sure of my facts before I post 'em. 

I have no desire to continue the debate with Shaw, and will recuse myself from this thread. I hope our esteemed moderators will understand my desire to defend my reputation.

M.


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

MGagen said:


> I am continually amazed, and disappointed, by the way some folks can't help but turn a reasonable exchange of views into a personal attack.


I'm very sorry to see you go, M. This sort of thing always makes me sad. I hope at some point things will cool off enough to see you come back.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Mark:

Please check your PM's.

R


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

I, too, hate that you're going to exit the discussion in this thread. For the most part, I think that it's remained a pretty thought provoking discussion. I hope that you'll reconsider your decision to leave and will check back in to the thread and give your thoughts from time-to-time. 

I also don't feel that you need to really defend yourself, tho understand the desire to do so. I would argue, however, that your reputation speaks for itself. If only to those of us who've taken note of your past involvement in various discussions here, at TrekBBS and elsewhere. You've almost always got some interesting new insight to things.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> . . . [Mark's] reputation speaks for itself. If only to those of us who've taken note of your past involvement in various discussions here, at TrekBBS and elsewhere. You've almost always got some interesting new insight to things.


I heartily concur! :thumbsup:


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Thanks, guys.

I primarily responded to set the record straight on the fallacious charge that I have "the plans" and am "hoarding" them. Unanswered charges like that can develop a life of their own on the 'net. While he can be a frustratingly unfocussed debate partner, I truly don't bear Shaw any ill will. He's doing some good work on this project and I don't want my presence here to distract him from it when he comes back.

For that reason, I think it's best for me to bow out of this thread. I _do_ have more I've learned about the construction plans that I want to share. I'll just do it in the thread I created to share the Bridge dome profile:

 A Look at the Original Pilot Bridge Dome as Depicted in the Construction BPs

Perhaps I'll have something ready to post by the end of the weekend.
In the mean time, keep up the good work, everyone.

M.


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

You protest too much. We KNOW that you have the plans (and we're prepared to destroy Alderaan to get them). AND we know that you actually HAVE the three footer in your secret base, along with the REAL 11 footer! (You think we really believe the one in the ASM got that way through "restoration"? Feh!)

Ah well, see you down the road.


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

MGagen said:


> Thanks, guys.
> 
> I primarily responded to set the record straight on the fallacious charge that I have "the plans" and am "hoarding" them. Unanswered charges like that can develop a life of their own on the 'net. While he can be a frustratingly unfocussed debate partner, I truly don't bear Shaw any ill will. He's doing some good work on this project and I don't want my presence here to distract him from it when he comes back.
> 
> ...


I think you are being far too generous with him. He's a bully, plain and simple. A well informed bully that wears his knowledge on his sleeve for all to see and praise. This post:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=2005035&postcount=46

made me swear off participating in any thread where he is active. It's not a discussion with Shaw, it's a pissing match right from the get-go. And I've participated in enough of those to consider any more to be counterproductive. It's a shame, because we all benefit from the exchange, but not with someone like that in the mix.

It's funny -- he claims to be an academic. I am a historian, and admit there are a few bullies I've crossed swords with in my own profession that even though they have degrees appended to their names, still behave like five-year olds. But the unending persistence of this one has me a bit baffled. A mathematician? That has to win every debating point..? In a Star Trek discussion? 

C'mon.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

With respects, *aridas*, there's no need to dwell on this publicly. As I said above, I'd like for us to stick to the subject at hand and keep this discussion on track. I'd rather that we didn't dwell on the negative and instead concentrate on the positive. Feel free to take it to email or PM's with myself or others, but not in these forums, please. I've got thoughts on this subject, trust me. I understand your frustrations, but this sort of conversation gets us no where and detracts from the discussion. 

So, to summarize: I'd rather nobody brought up this or any other unpleasantness publicly and instead take it to email or PM, or even to a forum that makes allowances for this sort of off-topic conversation. It does *not* have a place here, however.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Welcome to my world, Shaw.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Which part of "keep it on track" and that this "does *not* have a place here" are you not understanding, *Captain April*? This is your final warning with regards to disrupting a thread. Next time you're gone.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Okay, how's this for on-topic?

The only scraps of the construction plans I've seen are that strip of the side view. How the whatchamadoogie was MGagen able to determine the B/C deck section was a teardrop shape from that? Or that the bridge dome was "supposed" to be larger, even though every picture of the thing, from initial delivery on the Rigel Fortress set in '64 to when it sat on Roddenberry's desk in the late '70's shows it with the smaller dome.

So, either he is being less than forthcoming with his source material, or he can at least point us towards this "publicly available" info that he's using to make his conclusions. Saying the stuff is out in the open ain't enough, he needs to show his cards, every last one of 'em.

That on topic enough for ya?


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

... and your gone. For good this time, as you're way too disruptive and not nearly the asset to the community here that you seem to think you are. 

_Now, let me make this abundantly clear to everyone:_ I have no problems w/folks being silly, so long as it's lighthearted and isn't outright insulting. A friendly jab is fine. If someone takes it the wrong way, just explain yourself - and perhaps apologize - if you honestly meant nothing other than to be humorous. 

However, any further snide comments within this thread from anyone will get you an automatic BAN. If you've been a Problem Child in the past, it'll most likely get you a Perma-BAN. 

I'm tired of the attitudes from folks. This is a hobby, after all. _It's supposed to be fun!_ When you get condescending or attack another person then you're obviously not enjoying things here - or are just an outright Troll - and might as well dis-invite yourself before I do it for you. 

Grow up! 

The vast majority of folks here are great to hear from. I appreciate all that you folks do to keep this place fun and interesting. 

However, we've got the Vocal Minority that Can't Play Well With Others. That same Vocal Minority are slowly being weeded out, however - permanently. 

*Next post that's of the blatantly negative sort gets an automatic 30 Day BAN for anyone. Clear enough? You got issues with someone, TAKE IT TO EMAIL! *

*'Nuff said!*


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

Perhaps it's time for another photographic tease ?
just to smooth things out a bit....


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Speaking for me alone, I'd love to see what you can show us. Any additional information you care to share would be greatly appreciated - and go directly to my reference library.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Oh, yeah!

That'd be great, Pagni!

I've got the other photo you've shown printed out (after erasing the black background to save some ink) to use as a reference.


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

Here's another appetizer...
From what little information I can obtain regarding this film shoot it appears that these were shot either as fx test shots or as possible use in promotional materials. We've probably all seen the various stills of the 3 footer in the clouds, and on old Desilu letterhead as well as the various publicity posters with both Shatner and Nimoy....Anyway, here's another angle. Don't know when Capt. Mac will get around to posting the rest on the resto-site...(I'm a very frequent contributor....)
Now no more fighting !


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Yes, sir! 

And with many thanks!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Gorgeous! Thanks!


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Thanks again, Pagni!


----------



## HarryD (May 11, 2005)

Just popping out of the lurking to say that I'm amazed how many great 'unknown' things there still are about Star Trek (especially the early production stages), even 40 years later.

Great photographs, and I hope you, and others, will have more oppertunities to share this great stuff via the restoration project. Much appreciated.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Looks great. Too bad the secondary hull is in heavy shadow.


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

Yeah they're not all perfect, but I'm not posting the good ones, these two are just teasers...
Every time you think you've seen it all something new comes up. I have a strong suspicion that there's actually tons of material we've never seen.... I would think that
Paramount is sitting on quite a bit, and probably doesn't even know it.. 
And there are some old time collectors who were associated with the show "back then" who have not divested themselves of their collections yet. I can think of a couple of individuals who probably have some things that would have our jaws dropping to the floor in a clatter. 
I personally would love to see a newly revised edition of "The Making Of Star Trek"
hardbound with color in a "coffee-table" style...and not one of these lame knock-off "Art of" "Ships of" etc. But a truly definitive book that illuminates all the unsung heroes that were involved with the actual production of the show. The actors have already said it all, let's hear it from the artists who created the environments for those actors to act in.
(before they all pass.... : ( )


----------



## swhite228 (Dec 31, 2003)

Steve Mavronis said:


> Looks great. Too bad the secondary hull is in heavy shadow.



I tried running the photo through photoshot to adjust the light and contrast.
Didn't get any change on the secondary hull, but the cloth covered support shows up well!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

This is another helpful shot for me to help get the contours on top of the hull correct. I don't think that it is PERFECTLY flat up top but really darned close. 

The shape of the tear drop is unique to that model as well. It is flatter up top and seems lower down.


----------



## Capn Bob April (Jul 30, 2007)

So....where are the updates?


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

Ya got me...
I know he's busy working on something really special....


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Shaw has been busily working on detailed drawings of the 3-footer. You can find them over on trekbbs in the trek art forum.

Pagni: a bunch of us are still anxiously but patiently waiting to see those long lost pictures! You'll let us know when they're up, I hope. (I do check the restoration page from time to time, but I'd appreciate a heads-up. Thanks!)


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

Of course !


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 12, 2007)

*U.S.S. Enterprise Studio Scale Limited Edition Photos*

Just passing through but thought you might enjoy the following photos that are outstanding in their detail. In case you haven't seen these, enjoy!
http://www.therpf.com/showthread.php?t=8499


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

So...where are the updates?


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Hey, welcome back!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

:devil:


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

An acquiantance of mine - someone most of you know here, but who wishes to remain anonymous - emailed The Smithsonian and inquired after the 11 Foot Studio Model. He was curious to know why it was where it was and if it were going to receive another renovation, etc.... 

Here's the response he received. Permission was granted to from both parties and personal information on both sides has been removed at the request of both parties. 



> From: Weitekamp, ******
> [mailto:********@si.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 4:39 PM
> To: *******@****.***
> ...


Anyhow, there you go. Thought you all might fine it interesting in your discussions about the various studio models. I know it's not the 3 Footer, but think it's relevant.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Griffworks said:


> Anyhow, there you go. Thought you all might fine it interesting in your discussions about the various studio models. I know it's not the 3 Footer, but think it's relevant.


I wonder if they will ever display it lit up again. I remember seeing it when it was first revealed in 1991 and it was very impressive.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

That might require another renovation.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

It barely survived the last renovation! Please not another!


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Personally, I think it deserves a "restoration." Yes, much of it is in better form than the previous renovations, but I'd like to see a less intense paint job, proper brass screen back on the nacelles, etc.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Hear! Hear!


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

Restoration, or a new one built from exact measurements taken from the Original Enterprise, so the materials and internal tech could be updated, while still giving the original appearance?

I'd use that mindset on a new Jupiter 2 Hero, and even the original Battlestar Gag-ita, uh...I mean Galactica.


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

Unfortunately The Restoration site probably will not be updated until after the holidays.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

OK, we'll continue to wait patiently.


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

Well, it's been a very long wait but the site is back up looking pretty spiffy.
Some of my 3 footer pics have been posted.
Take a look.
www.startrekhistory.com


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Terrific site.

Thanks for the update.


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

It's great it's back. 
And with new stuff.


----------



## maucutt (May 22, 2008)

*Three foot Enterprise*

I also am currently working on two 1/250 scale TOS Enterprises. They come out at about 47" in length. The construction is balsa, foam, plastic and fiberglass resin, and each will be fully lighted. 
One I plan to donate to the Star Trek museum in Riverside the other I am keeping. I hope to be at the priming stage within two weeks, then I can repair any surface errors and begin detailing. I will post up dates on my website.
Clearly the saucer section has been the most difficult and taken 80% of my time but this weekend I will have each saucer section complete. 

www.mikesmodels.mysite.com


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Excellent! You've got the shapes down pat, it looks like!


----------

