# Any accurate K-7 blueprints or CGI out there? Original or Greg Jein?



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Are there any accurate K-7 blueprints or CGI out there? Original or Greg Jein?
Photo links? Etc.?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

ChucK,

How can you get accurate? When Greg built the K-7 model for DS9, he used drawings that were made from looking at the original episode. I have drawings by David Winfrey, and Kenneth Altman/Geoffrey Mandel. These are the only drawings I know of.

Lloyd


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Lloyd Collins said:


> ChucK,
> 
> How can you get accurate? When Greg built the K-7 model for DS9, he used drawings that were made from looking at the original episode. I have drawings by David Winfrey, and Kenneth Altman/Geoffrey Mandel. These are the only drawings I know of.
> 
> Lloyd


I guess you meant to say "how can you get *more* accurate?"

I heard John P. quip that he read something about Greg Jein considering his version to be an interpretation. 

I have the Mandel Altman drawings. I wasn't aware David Winfrey(who goes by the name of Trekist on this board) had done a set.

So, see! Now I know there's more then one set of blues already!

What size are Dave Winfrey's?(physical size of the blues, not scale)

I was also hoping perhaps there were copies of either Jein's blueprints or extensive pictures of his and/or the TOS model.

Anyone know the fate of the TOS filming model?

Is the Jein model on display anywhere?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Dave's set, some sheets are 8 1/2 x11 and some are 11 x 17. http://members.aol.com/IDICPage/main.html has photos of Greg's K-7. Also, on the box set season 5 DS9 has videos of the model.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Here are screen caps of the DS9 episode:

http://ds9.trekpulse.com/album/thumbnails.php?album=20&page=2


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

I built one in CG about as close to Jein's model as I could get.










Complete with the shuttlebay...





















Someday, I'll even get around to texturing it.


BTW, if you're interested I did a test shot with it and the Enterprise together.
This is a 3.9MB Divx file.
TOS Stock Footage Test


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Whoa! Excellent job, dude. Don't guess you could scale a set of three views to 1/2500, could you...?  

- - - - - - 

Jeffrey Griffin
Griffworks Shipyards

* * * * * *

Star Trek Scale Modeling WebRing


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Just beautiful! Now if PL would come out with one. I was reading that the original filming model extreme outside diameter was about 20 inches, and the hanger deck section was about 6 inches in diameter. And on the smaller cones had the decals K-A, K-B ,and K-C.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Does anyone know more about the scale of K-7? In the old AMT kit, the station simply dwarfs the Enterprise. However, Greg Jein put a little shuttlecraft in his K-7 that makes the station look roughly the same size as the Enterprise. Personally, I prefer such a station to be at least two to three times bigger than the Enterprise.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Yup. This was one kit I would have loved to have seen from PL. I thought Thomas had suggested to them and the idea had been rejected (at least for now). I could be wrong about that, though.

Brad.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^ Thanks Lloyd, Trek Ace, and Nova Designs!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> I built one in CG about as close to Jein's model as I could get.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


Cool!!!!

I have to repeat Griffwork's question and ask if you'd consider doing some orthographic 3 views(promise not to post elsewhere without your permission)?

What did you use for reference? Screengrabs only?


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

KUROK said:


> Does anyone know more about the scale of K-7? In the old AMT kit, the station simply dwarfs the Enterprise. However, Greg Jein put a little shuttlecraft in his K-7 that makes the station look roughly the same size as the Enterprise. Personally, I prefer such a station to be at least two to three times bigger than the Enterprise.


The old AMT K-7 kit and the teensy-tiny _Enterprise_ that come with it aren't in scale with each other. That model of the station, however, is 1/1360 scale - close enough to put a Starcraft Models TOS Enterprise next to it and call it "good". I don't recall the exact dimensions that one of the guys over at Starship Modeler came up with, but want to say the diameter was somewhere around 350m. 

Should you have any model questions related to this, check out the Starship Modeler - Star Trek Scale Listing

- - - - - - 

Jeffrey Griffin
Griffworks Shipyards
 
* * * * * *

Star Trek Scale Modeling WebRing


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Jeffrey, it is good to know the scale for the AMT K-7. I have pieces of that model enough to build the station. Now I can find some scale ship. Thanks for the info.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Null perspiration. I'd love to see someone build a K-7 in 1/2500 scale, but am willing to give it a try. Just need some scale plans. I'll try and dig up some firm stat's on a "real" station, if that'll help anyone. 

- - - - - - 

Jeffrey Griffin
Griffworks Shipyards

* * * * * *

Star Trek Scale Modeling WebRing


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Thanks for the kind words guys  
My model was built in Lightwave a couple of years ago using only the photos in Star Trek Mechanics IV. Unfortunately there aren't really any decent blueprints around. My model has a few inconsistencies though, namely the edges of the scalloped main hull shapes are rounder than Jein's model. I tried to get a compromise between his sharper edged model and the original K-7's rounder look.

I don't mind making ortho views for you guys, but I don't really know what scale this thing is, or how best to get that across. It always seems to look different.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> Thanks for the kind words guys
> My model was built in Lightwave a couple of years ago using only the photos in Star Trek Mechanics IV. Unfortunately there aren't really any decent blueprints around. My model has a few inconsistencies though, namely the edges of the scalloped main hull shapes are rounder than Jein's model. I tried to get a compromise between his sharper edged model and the original K-7's rounder look.
> 
> I don't mind making ortho views for you guys, but I don't really know what scale this thing is, or how best to get that across. It always seems to look different.


Kewl!!!

Thanks!

And I have to agree that with what Kurok said earlier about the scale.
Even though Jein had a glimpse of a shuttlecraft sticking out of a hanger, the shuttlecraft made the hanger, and thereby the station, look WAAAAAAAAY - very - too small.

I'm inclined to ignore that glimpse altogether(don't think it was very noticeable onscreen) as it made no sense that you would have such a cramp landing bay on a space station! That thing looked smaller then the TOS Enterprise landing bay!!!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

So no one knows what happened to the original TOS filming miniature?

Are there any studio photos, other then what we saw onscreen?
Sounds like a subject Phil Broad might know a little about...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I actually like the idea of a landing bay there, maybe not exactly the way it's represented here but not totaly dissimilar either. And if *Nova Designs* sees fit to release those orthos I've probably got my next Blender subject.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> I actually like the idea of a landing bay there, maybe not exactly the way it's represented here but not totaly dissimilar either. And if *Nova Designs* sees fit to release those orthos I've probably got my next Blender subject.


I agree with the idea of a landing bay there. I just feel that it should be represented as being much larger then Jein did...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I actually envision it as a through deck (or partially through deck) shuttle/maintenance-craft bay.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> I actually envision it as a through deck (or partially through deck) shuttle/maintenance-craft bay.


It definitely could be, as long as there are identical doors on both sides. Then one could argue we just never saw a complete revolution, and thus didn't see the opposing door.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Well about the landing bay...
I built mine to the scale represented by Jein's model, whatever that is (as I had no other reference for that bay--the original model was just black in there.) so any major change in overall scale would force me to rebuild the bay in order for the interior components to remain in scale. I'm not sure I want to do that 

Its definitely not a through-deck bay.

In any case if everyone wants to try to do this thing at 1/2500 I can use the Enterprise as reference--if someone can give me an overall length for the E at 1/2500. Then we can look at it and see if its a scale you guys can live with.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^
At 1/2500th scale the TOS Enterprise E would be 4.5456" inches long(947 ft x 12 divided by 2500).

The problem with relying on the TOS E size is not enough information. They have never been shown together orthographically. Which to me is actually a good thing, as it leaves a lot open to interpretation.

One rule of thumb I was considering for scaling purposes was the cones with the rows of lights.

I'd recommend using a scale that assumed each row of "windows" on the larger cone to be 20 feet high. Ten feet for floor to ceiling spacing, then 3 feet top and bottom bulkhead space, with a roughly 6 ft crawl space between floors for servicing.

On the scaling issue, the screen grabs look a little murky, but your bay appears right for them. 

I once saw an actual photo of the bay crammed with two miniatures, one being a TOS shuttlecraft of undeterminant size and that photo made the bay look WAY too small. Granted the screen grabs show a slightly larger size then that photo I remember seeing(anyone else remember it?).


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Yeah I was actually going to scale the K-7 to match the windows and the bay/shuttlecraft sizes of the Enterprise, so we are thinking along the same lines.  
I agree that the shuttlecraft should be somewhat smaller than the one in that photo. I would expect Cyrano Jones's ship to be quite a bit larger than a standard shuttlecraft.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I was doing a search on Spacestation K-7, and found this site. Also, look under spacedocks for pictures of TOS 1701 in STMP dock. Really nice site for research.
http://www.stguardian.to/starbase/


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^ Great link, Lloyd! Thanks! As you can imagine I've been a little distracted lately so I haven't gotten the chance to thank you earlier.

Nova, once you get a chance to do the Orthographics we'll take a look at the window info and see about doing a rough scaling...

Do you have the ability to do wirelines with the backfaces removed(non-visible wirelines hidden)?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I will keep checking, maybe I have some information in my collection of books and magazines. K-7 is one of my favorite TOS wessels.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

OK Looked thru my piles of reference info and came upon a set of dimensions in "Jackill's Star Fleet Reference Manual - Ships of the Fleet - Volume II". it lists the following dimensions: 


Length: 634.43m
Width: 704.80m
Height: 318.31m
 
As for the shuttlebay and Cyrano Jones', I don't have a problem with what Greg Jein came up with being the correct size for both. I realize Jein didn't do the shuttlebay himself, but it was his baby, so had to give his blessings. That seems like a decent enough sized shuttlebay, IMO, same w/the ship. Cyrano Jones didn't strike me as being the type of fellow to need too much, and that ship appears to be at least three times the size of a shuttlecraft, plenty large enough for a basic trader like Jones. That ship would be roughly the same size as the _Millenium Falcon_, after all. 

I also figure that there's got to be another shuttlebay, seeing as there's a bit "2" on the upper right-hand cornor of the bay.  

- - - - - - 

Jeffrey Griffin
Griffworks Shipyards
 
* * * * * *

Star Trek Scale Modeling WebRing


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I also just remembered I do have the Trek Ship Comparison Chart that has a rendering of the K-7 that Trekist claimed was the best done of the TOS K-7.

I think using the window height on the cones would be the best way to start scaling, then let that dictate the two shuttle bay sizes...

Anybody have any internal K-7 screencaps where they show the larger floor to ceiling windows, the one where they beam someone in on the small transporter platform?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I found this while searching. :wave:


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Griffworks said:


> OK Looked thru my piles of reference info and came upon a set of dimensions in "Jackill's Star Fleet Reference Manual - Ships of the Fleet - Volume II". it lists the following dimensions:
> 
> 
> Length: 634.43m
> ...


Right. Emailed Owen Oulton, another one of us who's studied the subject of various Trek ships and the like. According to Owen's calcuations, the radius of the K-7 should be 242m, which gives a diameter of 484m. The complete email is below: 



Owen Oulton said:


> Based on evidence from the Greg Jein model constructed for DS9's Trials
> and Tribble-ations, the station is 242 metres in radius - that's using
> the little Class-F shuttlecraft in the bay as a referent, and using the
> canon figure of 20' for the length of the shuttle. Images of the shuttle
> ...


Note that he says if you go w/the on-screen dialogue for the shuttle length. While Owen's only human like the rest of us and might well be off, he's not wrong too often. He's usually pretty thorough in his calculatoins and so I accede to his rasoning on this. I'd have preferred a slightly larger station, because at 704m diameter, tho, as it would be a fairly decent sized model in 1/2500 scale w/o being too small. 

Note that the link above doesn't seem to work at the time of this writing. At least, not for me. 

- - - - - - 

Jeffrey Griffin
Griffworks Shipyards

* * * * * *

Star Trek Scale Modeling WebRing


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Jeffrey,

The link worked fine for me. I think that Owen Oulton's scale is reasonable. This issue is so hard to figure out. If some how we can all agree on the size then let go with it. I still have a book to check to see if any info is in it, but unless someone can do better, I will go with Owen.

Lloyd


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

The image loads for me. I dunno, the station seems smaller in that comparision than in the T&T screencaps. You guys really want to go with it being that small?

Also I was wondering if you guys were fine with my more rounded hulls or would you like them sharper edged? I'm kind of torn but it wouldn't be a huge deal to change them.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

The main purpose of the station was for manufactoring and storage. Now the size of a starship and the size of the crew, I am sure that the station would not need that many crew members. So the smaller size should be right.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

OK, first off the softness of the large, center hull edge was really bothering me so I remodeled it to more closely match the Jein model.

Before









And After









I think it looks a lot better! :thumbsup:


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Next up, I tried to match the scale of the K-7 to the Enterprise based on the Gif Image posted earlier. Here are a few views. They are in perspective but all lens distortion is removed (ie they are isometric) I think it gives a better sense of the size of them together than orthographics do. 

Note the very similar window sizes, but also the huge difference in shuttlebay scales!




























So what do you think? Close?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I think you have it. The similar window size is what I was thinking should be considered. I was going to mention it, but with the pictures, it makes sense. 
Now we just need a 1/1000 K-7 mdel.


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

I love it. Great Shots of the station. Any More?


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Excellent work, "Nova Designs"! Love how that turned out. 

- - - - - - 

Jeffrey Griffin
Griffworks Shipyards
 
* * * * * *

Star Trek Scale Modeling WebRing


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

I have to say those renderings are too cool!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

> Originally Posted by Owen Oulton
> Based on evidence from the Greg Jein model constructed for DS9's Trials
> and Tribble-ations, the station is 242 metres in radius - that's using
> the little Class-F shuttlecraft in the bay as a referent, and using the
> ...


Problem: The only onscreen dialogue regarding the size of the shuttlecraft is Kirk's line in "The Galileo Seven", "...a *twenty-four foot* shuttlecraft."

Adjust your numbers accordingly, and I think you'll have your larger station.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

At the scales we're dealing with, 4 feet would ne a nearly invisible difference!


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

Any chance you could do a version of the station in it's collapsed delivery configuration? I'd love to see a pic with the arms telescoped in and the habitat and command sections folded away for delivery to their deepspace destinations.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> Right. Emailed Owen Oulton, another one of us who's studied the subject of various Trek ships and the like. According to Owen's calcuations, the radius of the K-7 should be 242m, which gives a diameter of 484m. The complete email is below:
> 
> 
> Note that he says if you go w/the on-screen dialogue for the shuttle length. While Owen's only human like the rest of us and might well be off, he's not wrong too often. He's usually pretty thorough in his calculatoins and so I accede to his rasoning on this. I'd have preferred a slightly larger station, because at 704m diameter, tho, as it would be a fairly decent sized model in 1/2500 scale w/o being too small.
> ...


Also, I'm fairly sure that the stated onscreen dialogue length was 24 feet, not 20 feet. That's a 20% difference!

Also, as someone once quipped, Kirk - who was deep in thought and quite distressed at the time he was thinking out loud - could also have been absentmindedly reffering to the interior size of the craft.

Perhaps after a few long trips in a shuttlecraft pacing back and forth the interior length might have stuck in his brain. Because the interior itself is definitely that long - thus making it "canonically" impossible for the 24 foot length to be right without Class F shuttlecrafts incorporating Dr. Who Tardis Technology! :lol:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> At the scales we're dealing with, 4 feet would ne a nearly invisible difference!


^^^ Sorry, just saw Capt April's comment about the 24 foot length.

Actually, Nova if the 24 foot length is taken literally that is a 20% increase.
Pretty substantial!

Also, if one were to assume that Kirk was absentmindedly talking about the interior size of the shuttle(it is literally *impossible *for the shuttle to only be only 24 feet long, based on the onscreen views of the shuttlecraft interior) the difference should be much bigger then that. If we were to assume the craft to be at least 30 feet long(I'd guess 30.68feet  ) it should be 33% larger.

The question one has to answer on the shuttlecraft size is what to take as canon - an offhanded, thinking-out-loud-while-worried comment by Kirk, or the visual evidence we saw onscreen with our own eyes that makes the interior itself to be at or above 24 feet in length.

I vote for what we saw with our eyes, which would make the station 33% larger, approximately.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

I meant that I don't think that a 4-foot increase in size for the station would be noticeable. A 20% to 33% increase in the station's size would not make sense since the bay on the station is already far more massive than the Enterprise's shuttlebay, so I really think that the shuttle's scale is irrelevant. Going by the windows alone I think the scale is probably close enough for Jazz. I couldn't care less about what's "canon," only what looks good. After all, Jein's model isn't very "canon" with its TNG-era transporter emitters and all.  

I think this looks good and several other people think so too. Unless _everyone_ is hard set on making this thing bigger... remember I wasn't hired to design a kit prototype, someone asked for reference and I replied as a favor. I'd like to wrap this up, make the orthos, and see what people can come up with for scratchbuilds.

In any case I'm not _at all_ interested in a nitpicky canonical debate that will quickly make this absolutely no fun at all.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Agreed. I wasn't trying to open a debate, just point out that if the shuttle were 20% larger everything else would be too. It was more a point of math I was trying to make rather then a canon issue.

I too, think the scale is pretty irrelevant.

As I should have said earlier, I think your latest, more sharpened renders are the best yet and am ready to see the orthos myself, irregardless of scale.

They're gorgeous and that is what counts! :thumbsup:


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Captain April said:


> Problem: The only onscreen dialogue regarding the size of the shuttlecraft is Kirk's line in "The Galileo Seven", "...a *twenty-four foot* shuttlecraft."
> 
> Adjust your numbers accordingly, and I think you'll have your larger station.


Not *my* problem, dude. RE-read what I wrote.... 

'Sides, what "Nova Design" came up with works just fine for me. And a 242m radius would still work fine for either a 20ft *or* a 24ft shuttlecraft. 

Now, go find your bowling alley for your drawings, "Bob". 

- - - - - - 

Jeffrey Griffin
Griffworks Shipyards
 
* * * * * *

Star Trek Scale Modeling WebRing


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^

Speaking on behalf of myself and no one else, I again feel compelled to say that I think scale is no biggie, regardless of any disagreement someone else might have over the issue(though I don't know that anyone even has a disagreement, I think a couple of people were just being picky about the math - myself included - the way some people are about spelling  ).

What I'd real love to see is some great Nova Designs orthos, please!

The updated design looks even better then the first!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

A few people seem to be oblivious to the point, while others got it quite clearly.

The shuttlecraft was being used as a unit of measure, assumed to be 20', when it's actually substantially larger.

Adjust measurements of the station surrounding the larger-than-twenty-feet shuttlecraft, and the increase in the size of the station will be a helluva lot more than four feet.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I spent a few minutes working out a quick and easy method for creating the overlapping hull structure. It's actually quite easy and can be created in about 5 to 10 minutes. Anyway here's the results of my test (the shape is not entirely correct and the sections are way too thick but it's really only a test). Click on the picture for a small animation (72KB, DivX)...


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

It didn't work for me. What does the animation show?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Although this one is probably abit more "realistic" (142KB, DivX)...



--EDIT--
Corrected note on filesize.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Stimpson J. Cat said:


> It didn't work for me. What does the animation show?


Well, I figure with the overlapping shells the things bound to open up. So these two animations demonstrate a couple of way it might do that. You should be able to download the DivX codec from divx.com.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Captain April said:


> A few people seem to be oblivious to the point, while others got it quite clearly.


I got what you were saying. _You_ didn't get it, tho: I didn't come up with the measurements, thus it's not *my* problem. 


> The shuttlecraft was being used as a unit of measure, assumed to be 20', when it's actually substantially larger.
> 
> Adjust measurements of the station surrounding the larger-than-twenty-feet shuttlecraft, and the increase in the size of the station will be a helluva lot more than four feet.


Sure thing, buddy! :thumbsup: 

Just for clarifications sake, I never once said the difference of four feet on a shuttlecraft would make no difference when used to scale the station. Nope, t'werent' me. 

Not that it's that big a deal when you consider that the station as "Nova Designs" scaled it works out quite nicely for a 20ft or 24ft shuttlecraft to fit in that shuttlebay. 

- - - - - - 

Jeffrey Griffin
Griffworks Shipyards
 
* * * * * *

Star Trek Scale Modeling WebRing


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Stimpson J. Cat said:


> It didn't work for me. What does the animation show?


Don't feel bad, Woody. I can't see it either. The purty pikshurs that both "Nova Hobbies" and "Four Mad Men" came up with are awesome, tho. I find myself envious of their skills, yet strangely elated that I don't know how to do that. I'd prolly never leave the 'puter so would never get any physical models done and likely end up divorced....  

- - - - - - 

Jeffrey Griffin
Griffworks Shipyards
 
* * * * * *

Star Trek Scale Modeling WebRing


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

That's always a risk. For those that can't see here's a couple frames...

First animation, frame 37 (of 60)









Second animation, frame 34 (of 58)


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Four Mad Men,

The animation is unique, but confusing. If that is the way the station was assembled, what about the interior rooms and machinery? 
Just a thought, don't send death threats. I can't handle pressure. :jest:

Lloyd :thumbsup:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Who me?

Apart from how the exterior pieces fit together, I haven't really considered the machinery to make it work. As for the rooms, if the shells do open then perhaps the majority of the interior is empty. And by empty I mean used for non-living purposes (like storage). With perhaps a core that has rooms in it. And then there are the cones on top (not shown in my pictures/animations) that obviously have habitable spaces in them.


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

The station isn't an original Star Trek idea. It was a real concept that they borrowed for the TV show. The original idea has the station small enough to be launched to orbit by rocket. The overlaping shells should collapse and the arms compress. Anyway this unfolding would only happen once and then this empty shell of a station would be out fitted with an interior once the station arrives at it's final destination.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Four Mad Men said:


> ...if the shells do open then perhaps the majority of the interior is empty. And by empty I mean used for non-living purposes (like storage).


You've hit on exactly the interpretation I came up with when I saw Jein's reconstruction. The station looks like each section opens up like giant cargo doors. What would be inside are probably storage compartments of various sizes and types.

For what it's worth, here are links to my own model based on the Jein reconstruction (including orthograhic renders). I made a very careful study of the photo evidence and I'm pretty sure about the contours. I am less sure about the boom lengths, though. Please note that this is a very old model that I did with an early version of Strata 3D. I will finish it one day but at present this is how it stands. Be advised that there are render errors in some of the views that make surfaces that are actually smooth look like two or more levels. Also, some of the surface ring detail on the cones rendered funny at such low resolution.

It should also be noted that I envisioned the drum-like module as repositionable and have placed it "on axis" for ease of modeling. 

Mark



















Click the following links for Orthographic Views:

Top Ortho 
Front Ortho 
Rear Ortho 
Side Ortho 
Bottom Ortho


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Nicely done,Mark! :thumbsup:


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

That looks really nice, Mark.

There are a couple of small details off, but the rest of it looks great!

The main antenna is not a straight pole with a small pointy end. The pole should be 2.25 times the diameter of the top at the base. It should be a tapering cone.

At the top there is a pyramid shape that is the same height as the shape you have there. When viewed from the side it is pyramid shape, and from the top it is round. It looks very much like a Hershey's kiss. The 'base' of the Kiss has a vertical side that is about .4 the height of the Kiss. The bottom of that shape has the same contour as the bottom of the hangar pod.

There are also two tiny straight pole antennas that are about the same length as the height of the hangar door that stick out at about 35 degrees. The entire antenna is a silver color.

Your arm pod connector boxes are too tall. They should be equal the height of the pod itself. The base of the habitat cones rise above the pod top and are not part of the connecting box structure.

Your open hangar door should be about 1/3 again as tall total. It should remain centered on the side as you have already. The number next to it reads 3.

There are 2 other doors that were built in, but not opened. They are positioned at every 120 degress on center, numbered 1, 2, 3 clockwise when viewed from the top.

Each door should have 7 vertical engraved lines. Between each bay of doors, there are three deck of windows. One single, then 2 grouped in the top row, one single then 3 grouped in the mid row and 3 widely spaced in the bottom row. There are some variation in the groupings in the 3 sets of windows, so go for it.


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

Here are a couple images of the real space concept model that was made by Douglas.
http://www.cloudster.com/RealHardware/SIVBStage/Models/Display10tn.jpg
http://www.cloudster.com/RealHardware/SIVBStage/Models/Display09.jpg


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Well guys, I'm sorry that I have to say guys that this thread is sort of starting to feel like a "trek expert" competition and that's something I was never interested in being a part of. 

I was only offering a quick help to someone who wanted some orthos and now its becoming something a _lot_ more hardcore. That's fine for some people, but for me it takes all the fun out of it.

I'm simply an artist and a fan, I'm not an expert or rabidly interested breaking down Star Trek into its component atoms to logically make everything work, or to claim ultimate authority over "The Way It Is" I used to be like that and in the end I realized that I wasn't enjoying Star Trek any more, nor interacting with other fans who were like that.

I'm quite happy to let those who are more interested in doing so debate the canonical virtues of the station, the scales realtive to everything from shuttles, to tribbles, to Kirk's hairpiece, and revising various people's models a hundred times until all 10,000 internet Trek "experts" can agree that the interior matches the exterior, that the contours are within a millimeter's tolerance and the correct brand of vintage GM paint was used for the hull.

Mark clearly has a more accurate station that I do, has more interest in nailing every iota of detail and has far more resource access, and Trek authority to say "how it is" than I do. FourMadMen is clearly interested in rationalizing the functionality of the hulls (Hell, I thought the modelers just used that idea because it _looked_ cool and futuristic, I didn't realize it needed explanation) and would be well suited to working with Mark to make a functional version of the K-7 that everyone can ooh and ahh over.

Me? I'm happy with what I have and will probably just go play with it. I appreciate the enthusiam and ravenous obsession that some of you have with Star Trek. I just don't share it.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I have to agree with Nova Designs, it is getting to serious. For years I collected books, magazines, drawing, blueprints, and other research material. I wanted to get the models perfect. I never did build any models. Now that I have relaxed and just build models that I am happy with, I have built some. I like the way Nova Designs came to the scale issue, and when I build my AMT K-7, I will use his picture. 

I am enjoying the different artist views of the K-7. The original model is lost,and photos that are good are rare, so best guess will have to do. Unless Thomas has more he wishes to share.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Wow...talk about tossing a pebble into a still pond!

Thomas,

Thanks very much for the detailed input. I'll definitely file it away for when I get around to finishing this model. I do have one question, though. Are you describing the Jein model or the original model? Some of the details in your critique seem to fit the original better than Jein's. I prefer the look of the original, but as I didn't have nearly the same amount of good reference shots of it, I modeled Jein's version instead.

Nova Designs:

I didn't mean anything by posting my version other than to answer a request that was repeated more than once for straight-on ortho views. I used the same references you did: pix of the Greg Jein reconstruction in the volume 4 of that Japanese book. I'm also not in anyone's camp about the scaling of the model. I think it's fine to try to puzzle it out based on the various clues, but I have no strong opinions on the outcome.

I'm sorry if you took offense.

Mark


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

No offense taken Mark. And I hope I didn't offend you either. I have tremendous respect for you and appreciate your contributions and work. I'm not even really concerned about who uses who's pictures, or even whether anyone likes my model vs anyone else's. I hope I didn't make it sound like my ego was hurt, its not that at all. I know a lot of you guys liked my model, and that's cool. I happen to think Mark's is very cool too. 

I also was still trying to get a sense of scale between the Enterprise and the K-7 that orthos don't quite get across. At least to me they don't. Once the people who asked for the orthos were satisfied with the scale I was going to render them to size with measurements for patternmaking. There didn't seem to be much point in going to all that effort until the scale was resolved. Its definitely a point of confusion for everyone. I honestly didn't want to spend a lot of time on this---and yet here I am spending a lot of time on it 

Anyway, if people what to use yours, that's fine with me. I won't have to do any more work.

My issue is that it seems that there are always people who flock in to get in on the debating of every detail until its so beaten up the focus is completely lost. I think the internet has done a lot to damage Trek, insofar as it gives fans this ambiguous power to become "authorities" and "experts." Huge camps of thought develop, people take sides, and fights begin. Even when those opinions and ideas have no relevance to the point of a particular thread. TrekBBS is the ultimate example of my point. I can't stand that place which is a shame when you consider that its a forum dedicated to my very favorite TV show! Unfortunately too much of the aggressive attitude at that place (and the people who perpetuate it) is spreading to _anywhere_ that Trek is discussed. There are so many inconsistencies in Star Trek involving sets and models that absolutely will _never_ be resolved. But that doesn't seem to disuade people from trying. Hehehe.

Oh well. :wave:


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

MGagen said:


> Are you describing the Jein model or the original model? Some of the details in your critique seem to fit the original better than Jein's.


 There is of course only *one* original!

Nova, I'm heading back to the bench....


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

ThomasModels said:


> There is of course only *one* original!



Yeah but does it even still exist?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Griffworks said:


> I got what you were saying. _You_ didn't get it, tho: I didn't come up with the measurements, thus it's not *my* problem.
> 
> Just for clarifications sake, I never once said the difference of four feet on a shuttlecraft would make no difference when used to scale the station. Nope, t'werent' me.
> 
> Not that it's that big a deal when you consider that the station as "Nova Designs" scaled it works out quite nicely for a 20ft or 24ft shuttlecraft to fit in that shuttlebay.


  

I was addressing the topic, not you. Get over yourself already.

And the point isn't whether or not a 24' shuttlecraft will fit in the bay as well as a 20' one, it's a question of determining the size of the item being used as a unit of measure, be it a shuttlecraft, tribble, or Shatner's haripiece.

Change the size of the shuttle, change the size of the bay it's in to match.

Get it now?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Nova Designs said:


> Yeah but does it even still exist?


My understanding is that the original wasn't exactly all that sturdy to begin with, so it wouldn't surprise me if it was trashed right after filming (they got all the stock footage they'd need of the thing, so what the hey....)


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Captain April said:


> I was addressing the topic, not you. Get over yourself already.


"Hello! Pot, calling kettle!"


> And the point isn't whether or not a 24' shuttlecraft will fit in the bay as well as a 20' one, it's a question of determining the size of the item being used as a unit of measure, be it a shuttlecraft, tribble, or Shatner's haripiece.
> 
> Change the size of the shuttle, change the size of the bay it's in to match.
> 
> Get it now?


Yeah, I got it well before you joined in. But thanks for using a condescending tone and making sure I "got it".  

- - - - - - 

Jeffrey Griffin
Griffworks Shipyards

* * * * * *

Star Trek Scale Modeling WebRing


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Nova Designs said:


> *>SNIPPERS*
> My issue is that it seems that there are always people who flock in to get in on the debating of every detail until its so beaten up the focus is completely lost. I think the internet has done a lot to damage Trek, insofar as it gives fans this ambiguous power to become "authorities" and "experts." Huge camps of thought develop, people take sides, and fights begin. Even when those opinions and ideas have no relevance to the point of a particular thread. TrekBBS is the ultimate example of my point. I can't stand that place which is a shame when you consider that its a forum dedicated to my very favorite TV show! Unfortunately too much of the aggressive attitude at that place (and the people who perpetuate it) is spreading to _anywhere_ that Trek is discussed. There are so many inconsistencies in Star Trek involving sets and models that absolutely will _never_ be resolved. But that doesn't seem to disuade people from trying. Hehehe.
> 
> Oh well. :wave:


Hey, don't let the so-called "experts" get you down, man. At the base, we're all fans, tho some folks go overboard w/their... enthusiasm. I made an error and could have been corrected in a much more cordial manner, but wasn't. Unfortunately, as you say, the 'net is rife with people with an aggressive "in your face" attitude. Ain't no call for such and it's downright disheartening, to say the least. 

I'd still love to see you do up some ortho's to-scale for pattern making. I can rationalize what the interior likely has with the best of them, but I'd like to try my hand at making a 1/2500 scale model of the thing. Gives me something better to do with my time than to be rude and piss others in the online world off. 

- - - - - - 

Jeffrey Griffin
Griffworks Shipyards

* * * * * *

Star Trek Scale Modeling WebRing


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I don't know what everybody gets so upset about. If someone has detail information to assist someone with the accuracy of their work, why is it so wrong to share it? I thought that this was what these boards were all about: raising the bar.

Take the angelfire TOS Enterprise plans, for example. They continue to improve in accuracy with each revision because he welcomes critiques and detail information from those who know. His "Revision C" plans contained many corrections and improvements to make the ship even closer to the studio model. I'm sure that in "Revision D" there will be even more corrections. 

For instance, the plans still show three different contours for the secondary hull (a "top" contour, a "bottom" contour, and another for the sides). There should only be one. The original was turned on a lathe - there can be only one. I'm certain that on his next revision, that, and a few other details, will be improved upon, and the plans will be one more step closer to accurate.

Now, none of this would happen without the input of constructive criticism and information from others generous enough to share.

We all benefit from it.


Okay. Enough of my opinion. 

Please continue.


----------



## John O (Mar 8, 2000)

FWIW, any bickering aside, this thread inspired me to take out my old AMT kit and get to work sawing and hacking. There's no way to modify the kit enough to make it accurate without throwing almost all of it away. Seriously, there isn't one thing that's right about it, except maybe the basic flavor. So instead, I decided to merely modify it a bit while retaining the inaccurate but well intended attempt that AMT made. Kinda keeping the kitsch value of the kit, but with updated details, if that makes any sense. When you look at the very fuzzy available screen shots, its not hard to see how they got it so wrong. First things first - ribs be gone! Then that weird bump/ blob on the back of the main hull: Outta here!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Go fo it John! Let's see what can be done with the kit.


----------



## John O (Mar 8, 2000)

It probably won't be too much or too soon, but this seemed a good time to start. 

The biggest trouble with the AMT kit is that the hull halves are represented as sections of very shallow cones, as opposed to sections of a sphere, joined with a round-over/half-round at the edges. Thus they are too tall (in elevation) and not large enough in diameter. Also, they are not symmetrical, top to bottom. Only some of this can be "fixed" before it makes more sense to just make them from scratch - which is not going to be the point of my little exercise.

John O


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

I'm sorry for my part in the discussion turning South, folks. In the interests of having fun, I'm done with being baited by the man from Colorado. My apologies to my fellow hobbyests.... 

JohnO, 

How did you remove the "ribs"? Just sand them off or fill them from the inside. Been a while since I've done anything w/my either of my old K-7 stations or pieces/parts, so don't recall what the interior looks like. You could call it a J-7 station, if you want. Something similar to the K-7 design? 

I was thinking the other day whether it would be worth trying to salvage that kit for an "as is" or modify it even further. I had given some thought to making major modifications to the hub so that it had four arms, instead of three, and doing further stuff so that it would be more in keeping with a 1/2500 scale station of some sort, tho.... 

- - - - - - 

Jeffrey Griffin
Griffworks Shipyards
 
* * * * * *

Star Trek Scale Modeling WebRing


----------



## Barry Yoner (Mar 6, 1999)

If RC actually re-popped the K-7 model (assuming the molds haven't been lost and/or destroyed) I feel that most participants in this discussion would pick up multiple kits...! I know I would, even though I do have a badly-damaged-but-repairable model myself.

So... does anyone know what really did happen to the K-7 miniature? I can't find any reference to it other than it existed and the FX shots re-used for "The Ultimate Computer".... Or did it "disappear" like the RBOP? (I heard a rumour that it is in some private collector's stash and won't give it up. Truth? Or speculation? Who really knows?)


----------



## John O (Mar 8, 2000)

Jeffrey, I just used a #18 (I think?) X-Acto blade and just started scraping them down. They'll need a little filling for those areas that will show. Took about 2 hours to do all eight sides. I think sanding would take _foooor ever! _At some point in the rebuild I'll be laminating strip styrene over the kit parts to achieve something like the layering on the Jein K-7 hulls.

Barry, if you had an AMT K-7 kit in front of you, you might think differently. When I received the kit I bought off of eBay, I realized how much I'd romanticized it in my mind. I didn't regret buying it, but I wouldn't buy another even if it was $8.99. Seriously, you can build a more accurate K-7 with spare kitchen utensils and junk from the curb on trash day.

John O


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

John O said:


> Barry, if you had an AMT K-7 kit in front of you, you might think differently. When I received the kit I bought off of <a href=http://www.dpbolvw.net/click-1606754-2202639 target=_blank>eBay</a><img src=http://www.awltovhc.com/image-1606754-2202639 width=1 height=1 border=0>, I realized how much I'd romanticized it in my mind. I didn't regret buying it, but I wouldn't buy another even if it was $8.99. Seriously, you can build a more accurate K-7 with spare kitchen utensils and junk from the curb on trash day.
> 
> John O


Boy, I wish my trash had good stuff in it like that.  I'd still like to pick up a kit someday. But then, I don't building the Ertl refit (except for all those idiotic panels aside)

Brad.


----------



## Barry Yoner (Mar 6, 1999)

John, I _do_ have one of those K-7's in front of me..!!

Call it romanitizing, but I don't think that badly of the model! Sure, it's inaccurate. In spite of the shape difficulties it still looks like K-7 to me. Few AMT Trek models are accurate, after all, so it goes well with my 18" Enterprise, the 1/1600 Spaceship Set, the Galileo, Bridge, etc! 

I don't think I want the trouble of accurizing kitchen utensils and the like to build a better K-7.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Trek Ace said:


> I don't know what everybody gets so upset about. If someone has detail information to assist someone with the accuracy of their work, why is it so wrong to share it? I thought that this was what these boards were all about: raising the bar.
> 
> Take the angelfire TOS Enterprise plans, for example. They continue to improve in accuracy with each revision because he welcomes critiques and detail information from those who know. His "Revision C" plans contained many corrections and improvements to make the ship even closer to the studio model. I'm sure that in "Revision D" there will be even more corrections.
> 
> ...


I agree!
I love all of the pics, views and 3D models we've seen in the thread.
I don't think anyone's tried to slam anyone doing the work we've just gotten side tracked here and there.

Personally I love the views MGagen and Nova Designs, as well as Four Mad Men and others have put together.

Somewhere in the sythesis of all of these models and pictures is everyone's idea of an ideal K-7 station.

Would love to see some more orthographics from others.
Don't look at it as some sort of competition or think you will be chastised.
Yep, everybody here who notices one or too things will chime in, but that need not be seen as a criticism.

As Trek Ace has pointed out, it's just a way to help each other come up with an even more accurate model/blueprints/ etc...

Now everybody sing Combaya' and post some more pics/views/blues, whatever!!!


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

This is a great thread.

Thomas,

As you seem to have the finer details on the original K-7 model pretty well documented, can you answer a nagging question?

Is the doo-hicky hanging off the back of the large module merely the rounded box of the source Douglas Aircraft space habitat, or was it replaced by Richard Datin with a drum-like construction more like the Jein reconstruction?

Inquiring minds want to know...

Mark


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Mark, I'm pretty sure that its more of the hanging drum thing. I'm sure Thom will clue us in.

John O.. I really am looking forward to seeing what you do with that AMT kit. I once had ambitions of accurizing that kit. But its so far off I decided it wasn't worth the effort.


----------



## John O (Mar 8, 2000)

_all it romanitizing, but I don't think that badly of the model!_ 

I don't either, which is why I want to leave certain inaccuracies intact ...for nostalgia's sake.

_
Sure, it's inaccurate. In spite of the shape difficulties it still looks like K-7 to me._ 

Right. Like I said, the *flavor* is there, but that's about it.


_Few AMT Trek models are accurate, after all, so it goes well with my 18" Enterprise, the 1/1600 Spaceship Set, the Galileo, Bridge, etc! _

Ya. Okay. The completely brilliant Klingon Battle Cruiser aside, some of the early kits are a mess ...I surely loved them as a kid. But I think AMT/Ertl gets an undeserved rap as being the vortex for all inaccurate sci-fi kits. Would anyone deny that AMT/Ertl's kits from TNG forward have been great companions on the work bench? I still think their TNG Vorcha was outstanding for under 20 bucks and might have been their best modern Trek kit. FWIW, I have also purchased many garage kits which were lauded highly for being accurate, yet were far from it. I'm working over a couple very expensive GK kit's right now that aren't as good as Ertl's mediocre work. That's not a complaint, just acknowledgment of reality.


_ I don't think I want the trouble of accurizing kitchen utensils and the like to build a better K-7._

Me either. However, the Plastruct catalog has just about everything in it to easily build a more accurate K-7.:thumbsup:

Oh ya. Next.










Looks like a toilet seat on a stick.

John O.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> Next up, I tried to match the scale of the K-7 to the Enterprise based on the Gif Image posted earlier. Here are a few views. They are in perspective but all lens distortion is removed (ie they are isometric) I think it gives a better sense of the size of them together than orthographics do.
> 
> Note the very similar window sizes, but also the huge difference in shuttlebay scales!
> 
> ...


^^^ These are gorgeous, Nova! Any chance we'll see a set of orthographic views, sans the Enterprise?


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

MGagen said:


> This is a great thread.
> 
> Thomas,
> 
> ...


I always thought that was the Storage areas where they keep the Grain. Kinda fit the story line. And it does look as if it could be removable for a Space Tug.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

According to the IDICpage, there is a photograph of the K-7 model in-studio in issue number 133 of Star Trek Communicator magazine. Unfortunately it is long out of print and not available as a back issue via the company. It's the second issue of the two part article William did on the models of Trek.

In it, to quote him "Original model-maker, Richard C. Datin, continues his story with the series production revisions to the 11-foot Starship Enterprise studio model. Additionally, Datin tells about the construction of the Enterprise's flight deck miniature, the Deep Space Station K-7 studio model, and much more. Loaded with rare, never-before-published photos and also three all-new renderings by Petri Blomqvist."

Photos vs. screengrabs would be a great help! Anyone here who has the article and could scan it, would be greatly appreciated. I know one of you guys must have it somewhere...


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I have it! The photo is so small,it can not help. I bought the magazine because of the big photo of the hanger deck. If you want any scans of the magazine PM your E-mail.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

*k7 scan*

K-7 model.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

For me, this thread is very frustrating. I work at Boeing (formerly McDonnell Douglas, formerly the Douglas Aircraft CO.) and our Engineering Library should contain whatever technical reports were written about the original self-erecting station concept which the Trek model was originally built to represent. I believe that the concept originated at Douglas but it is possible that it was concieved at NASA then made available to industry for further development (this happens allot). At any rate, Douglas did do work on the concept so there should be not only reports but also DRAWINGS. If nothing else there should be a model drawing (usually crude, just meant for making simple display models). So far, I have not found them/it...

You would all be appalled to see the drawing files here, the only way to find a drawing is by its sheet number. If you don't know that and you are brave, you can go to the printed drawing lists. There is one such list in the Boeing History Office here in Long Beach, it consists of tens of thousands of single-spaced, type written sheets occupying TWO filing cabinets, listing every drawing ever drawn going back nearly to the very first Douglas plane. Imagine trying to read through all that just to find one drawing...

I haven't found it yet.

So close yet so far.

If I ever do find it, rest assured that I WILL share it.

Phil Broad

BTW, Many thanks to Lloyd Collins for posting that great shot of the filming model! Very cool!


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Okay, I got online at work and tried once again to find info about the space station concept and guess what? I found some!

Not much, but a little. So here are a few illustrations (all there were) and some descriptive text to go with it. The mechanics of the unfolding sequence seem a little hard to believe but they must have done some basic design work that indicated it was possible to do. Have to keep looking for more information. M. W. Root would appear to be the designer.

Here are the reports listed as reference for the station concept:

"Structural Concept Satelite Space Station" M. W. Root, Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc., SM-35661, 20 March 1959

"Structural Design Criteria for Manned Satelites" Douglas Engineering Paper No. 908 (in preparation)

All the above just provides a little historical context to the K-7 design.


Phil Broad


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^ Those are fantastic!!!

Did they give you any reference to any sheet call-out numbers?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Great stuff, Phil! Looks like Four Mad Men got the folding animation really close. I hope he doesn't swell up too much.LOL


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^ Phil, when first being designed, I'm sure the project engineering details were probably not just proprietary but quite possibly secret as well.

While such an older design wouldn't be classified by the government anymore(unless no one has bothered to ask Uncle Sam to declassify them), perhaps within McDonnell Douglas the designs are still in a big black box somewhere? Perhaps even some of the design elements still proprietary? Would that be causing you to not be able to find much?


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Wow, that's cool! I never realized that they had all that worked out. I thought it was just a concept model.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Great info, Phil! Thanks!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Lloyd: maybe I'm seeing things but is there a small circular piece on the outside of the central cone perhaps representing an antenna?

Oh, wait! I get it now. The circular antenna is for UHF and the rabbit ears on the very top are for VHF.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Hi Guys,

Chuck, these things weren't classified, only obscure. They were done as a way to bounce ideas back and forth between the contractors, NASA and the military. It is hard to say exactly where this particular idea originated from but it would appear to be something that was sent up for discusson by this Douglas engineer, Mr Root. The "primes" (prime contractors) had these guys who were basically "idea men". They would be allowed the freedom and budget to create answers to requirements which seemed to be on the horizon (other times they might be assigned specific projects). The results of this effort would be the issuing of these technical reports detailing their concepts. As time went on, if these concepts were still considered valid, they would be folded into later projects so, for example, if another study were being done about space stations they might bring out this concept again and use it as a starting point. In this manner the K-7 design might appear in many reports over a period of years but the titles might be something wholly other such as "Incorporating High Engergy Power Sources into Manned Orbiting Space Stations".

The reason I can't find it is not because it was classified but rather because it is effectively "lost" in the system. With out knowing the specific titles, library numbers or drawing numbers, there is no way to find them because there is no way to "browse". We use to have an actual Engineering Library where you could go look through the book stacks just to see what you could find but that is no more. They moved everything into storage and we are left with a electronic list. Often times there is only the basic title, author, etc. No description. No pictures. No way to evaluate whether or not the given report is what you're really looking for. This is the frustration. It is really hit and miss. As a side note, there is nothing left in our library system that is still classified (at Long Beach), the Pentagon had people come through and purge the classified material many years ago (I got that info directly from the head librarian).

The reports I found so far contain no reference to drawing numbers unfortunately but I will keep looking. I may pay the Boeing History Office a visit this monday and see what I can find.

Phil Broad


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^ I'm sure everyone appreciates whatever you can dig up and I appreciate the insights. With all the talk about saving Hollywood classics, you would think that a company like Boeing would have scanned all of those drawings, even if they hadn't cross-referenced them!

Think of all the engineering and draftsmanship history that could be lost to a simple infestation of paper mites, or a simple fire! Let's hope that Boeing eventually digitizes everything before time or some simple accident deals those documents a deadly blow.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Chuck,are you going to scratch build your own K-7?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^ Maybe eventually. But I'm going to concentrate on the Class F shuttlecraft for the time being and just collect info on the K-7, even if I never build it. Perhaps this thread will eventually inspire someone else to do a more accurate K-7 kit we can buy. 

Don't want to start another build when I'm not even finished with the first one!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Ok, just wanted to know. I wish there were better photos of K-7. I will keep looking for more information.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Thanks, Phil!

This is just another example of why I'm pulling for you to be officially named a "Benefactor of the Human Race"!

Mark


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

In the studio pic that Lloyd provided a scan of here:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=14646

looks like the sections on the original K-7 were widely alternating widths.

N.B. The pic is from an article written by IDICpage.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> In the studio pic that Lloyd provided a scan of here:
> 
> http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=14646
> 
> ...


I believe what you're seeing is that the center (or lowest) segment is actually twice as wide as the others. On the Jein model there is a seam in the middle, implying that this is where the "doors" split open. 

I'm not sure if there was any seam on the original. Thomas?

Mark


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^ I thought that might be the case, that there might just be two different widths, but how would the wider collapse? Or would just those thin slices collapse? That later would seem to be a waste of space and the former inexplicable. At least to me...


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Hi Guys,

I made a chart that has images from all the TOS appearances of the Space Station K-7, including the behind-the-scenes shot of the model on the stand. They aren't great images but they are all we have. Here's a link to my Yahoo Photo Album where the chart is located (hopefully this link works because the image is too big to post directly to the board):

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/c367516/detail?.dir=e9b1&.dnm=7cd5.jpg&.src=ph

Hopefully you will find this image useful.

Phil Broad


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Okay,

I haven't used the Yahoo Photo Album in a very long time and I just discovered that there doesn't seem to be a way to view the full size image, only the thumbnail created by the Yahoo utility. Anyone have any suggestions about it might be posted so the full image can be view or downloaded?

Phil


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Phil,

My suggestion is PhotoBucket.

Yahoo is pretty useless anymore. Photobucket is free and very generous with their features. You can even place images hosted there directly into your postings.

Give it a try.

Mark


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Okay,

I took Mark's advice and loaded the image to PhotoBucket. This seems to work well so here is the link:

http://photobucket.com/albums/v636/pwbroad/

Thanks Mark!

Phil


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> Okay,
> 
> I haven't used the Yahoo Photo Album in a very long time and I just discovered that there doesn't seem to be a way to view the full size image, only the thumbnail created by the Yahoo utility. Anyone have any suggestions about it might be posted so the full image can be view or downloaded?
> 
> Phil


Not enough info yet for a cloudster page?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> Okay,
> 
> I took Mark's advice and loaded the image to PhotoBucket. This seems to work well so here is the link:
> 
> ...


Is is supposed to be one full sized pic?
I'm able to get to a larger pic of the initial thumbnail, but not to individual larger pics?

Maybe I'm just doing something wrong. They are great pics though, especially the first three!

Thanks!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Just noticed from the first studio pic Phil posted, there seems to be an "eye-shaped"(the shape two elipses studk together) raised detail where the three extension arms plug into the central core...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^ Here is both a crudely enhanced(green oval) and non-enhanced photo of what I was talking about to make it a little clearer.

Were these photos from a higher res source, Phil, or just scanned from the William McCullars(IDICpage) article?

P.S. forgot the photos, here they are:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Could someone with the Troubles with Tribbles episode on DVD so some screen captures of the internal offices/rooms/bars (especially of the rooms with the windows overlooking space) please post a few interior pics that that are far enough back to show both ceilings and floors so I could get an idea of a consistent deck height(assuming there isn't a variation between the shown K-7 interiors)?


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Just noticed from the first studio pic Phil posted, there seems to be an "eye-shaped"(the shape two elipses studk together) raised detail where the three extension arms plug into the central core...


To me it looks like a shadow from the section above. The light source looks like it is coming down from a high angle.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I thought that at first too.
But if you download and blowup the picture,
you'll see that the "shadow" has it's own "shadow" further to the right, showing that it's definitely a raised surface.
Also the shadow dips at a curve on the left side too...


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

There also seems to be a "loop antenna" on a pole sticking up from that drum/blister on the back of the main hull.

Looks like between the rabbit ears on the center pole and the loop antenna on the drum, K-7 is hooked up to recieve both VHF and UHF stations.

(Note to youngsters born in the cable/satellite era: Ask your mom or dad about the above comment...)

Mark "back in my day we only had 4 channels" Gagen


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

MGagen said:


> There also seems to be a "loop antenna" on a pole sticking up from that drum/blister on the back of the main hull.
> 
> Looks like between the rabbit ears on the center pole and the loop antenna on the drum, K-7 is hooked up to recieve both VHF and UHF stations.


  Now why didn't_ I _notice that?

[see post #101]


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Hey Phil!!!

Just actually read the text from that William McCullars article Lloyd was nice enough to send me. Thanks again, Lloyd!

It seems(I'm sure many of you know this, perhaps everybody BUT me) that the original K-7 *was actually a cosmetically modified model sent directly to Gene Roddenberry from the guys at Douglas Aircraft!!!*

Ya' think they might have another one of them kicking around in the vaults, Phil?

If so, they would be in possession of a really rare Trek prototype!!!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

MGagen said:


> There also seems to be a "loop antenna" on a pole sticking up from that drum/blister on the back of the main hull.
> 
> Looks like between the rabbit ears on the center pole and the loop antenna on the drum, K-7 is hooked up to recieve both VHF and UHF stations.
> 
> ...


Thought you were kidding, but nope, there it is!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Lloyd Collins said:


> I think you have it. The similar window size is what I was thinking should be considered. I was going to mention it, but with the pictures, it makes sense.
> Now we just need a 1/1000 K-7 mdel.


It doesn't make sense that the window sizes would be similar.
The space station windows were fairly big. I think the only outside hull window pics we saw onscreen(the episode in which Kirk is kidnapped and placed on an empty Enterprise replica with the alien chick  ) had very small windows.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

ThomasModels said:


> Between each bay of doors, there are three deck of windows. One single, then 2 grouped in the top row, one single then 3 grouped in the mid row and 3 widely spaced in the bottom row. There are some variation in the groupings in the 3 sets of windows, so go for it.


I know you didn't address this to me, but I was just wondering about the above Thomas. Might I ask the question "Huh?"


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Hi Chuck,

Yes, you can see my photos of some of the original elements of this station model on my web site here:

http://www.cloudster.com/RealHardware/SIVBStage/Models/ModelsTop.htm

See? All you had to do was to go to the "Vault" across the hall from the "Sets & Vehicles" one and you would have found these...

Tee hee...

The station was meant to be modular in design so what you see on my page is some of the smaller sections. I believe that, by the time "Star Trek" needed a space station, this design was considered obsolete in favor of stations made directly from existing rocket stages, such as MORL (Manned Orbiting Research Laboratory) which was to made from the S-II stage of the Saturn V.

I believe that the K-7 model was obtained directly from Douglas by either Matt Jefferies or Richard Datin, both of which had strong connections with the aerospace communities.

If any of those models survived the '60s at McDonnell Douglas, they were trashed in the '70s. A friend of mine at the Long Beach plant who had worked here since that time told me of how one day he saw a flatbed truck driving out of the plant with open-topped wooden crates. The crates had the tails and noses of all manner of model sticking out of them. Apparently they were trashed! The company just drove them to the dump...  

Oh well...

Phil


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^ Oh my god!

There they are!

Thanks again, Phil!

http://www.cloudster.com/RealHardware/SIVBStage/Models/Display10.jpg

http://www.cloudster.com/RealHardware/SIVBStage/Models/Display09.jpg

These pics are the first ones I've seen that seem to completely solve the number of segments and segment overlay size questions!

Also makes it look as if the squared off parts of the AMT kit may not have been that far off either.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> I believe that the K-7 model was obtained directly from Douglas by either Matt Jefferies or Richard Datin, both of which had strong connections with the aerospace communities.


Datin said they had sent it to Gene Roddenberry who gave it to him to re-work.



X15-A2 said:


> If any of those models survived the '60s at McDonnell Douglas, they were trashed in the '70s. A friend of mine at the Long Beach plant who had worked here since that time told me of how one day he saw a flatbed truck driving out of the plant with open-topped wooden crates. The crates had the tails and noses of all manner of model sticking out of them. Apparently they were trashed! The company just drove them to the dump...
> 
> Oh well...
> 
> Phil


That is a gigantic freakin' crime!!!!!!!!!! 

Think of everything that was lost!!! 

They could have at least given a few of the employees a few days notice and let them take them home instead of dropping them in a landfill!!!

Truly sad...

But once again, thanks for the incredible pics!!!


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Now why didn't_ I _notice that?
> 
> [see post #101]


 :drunk: That's what I get for skimming! I was rivited by Phil Broad's posts about the research library with possible blueprints in it at that point and skipped right over your (if I may say) very astute observation.

Sorry about that!

I do suspect the "rabbit ears/loop antenna" combo was a deliberate joke on the part of Richard Datin. Every TV back then had 'em...

Mark


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Oh, and to answer your question Chuck, the station image I posted is just one big combo-chart. It isn't meant to be separate images. Enjoy.

Phil


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

MGagen said:


> I do suspect the "rabbit ears/loop antenna" combo was a deliberate joke on the part of Richard Datin. Every TV back then had 'em...


One of mine still does.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

MGagen said:


> :drunk: That's what I get for skimming! I was rivited by Phil Broad's posts about the research library with possible blueprints in it at that point and skipped right over your (if I may say) very astute observation.
> 
> Sorry about that!
> 
> ...


That's all right, Mark! At least folks paid attention to it when you brought it up. Apparently they thought I was kidding or something.  

I agree with you about the deliberate joke aspect. I suspect the same thing.

The antennae would be great things to include on a model especially since I don't think anyone has put included those details before.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Anyone else other then 4MadMen working on any new K-7 stuff?


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

I am modifying my model, but I don't have anything to show at the moment.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^ Kewl!

Can hardly wait to see your new renders!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I though I would mention this. I got an e-mail newsletter from Larson Designs, that soon they will have an 18 inch 1/1000 scale model of the K-7. I do not know when it will be out, but I am intrested to see it.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Well that's cool


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Lloyd Collins said:


> I though I would mention this. I got an e-mail newsletter from Larson Designs, that soon they will have an 18 inch 1/1000 scale model of the K-7. I do not know when it will be out, but I am intrested to see it.


18", huh? If that's in diameter, then it makes for a 457.2m diameter station in 1/1000 scale. 

- - - - - - 

Jeffrey Griffin
Griffworks Shipyards
 
* * * * * *

Star Trek Scale Modeling WebRing


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I was thinking the same thing. According to what FourMadMen and I have figured out so far, based on a deck/window height of 12 feet the main module should be up to about 824' feet, making it alone to be about 9.88 inches wide.

Would love to tell you how big we think the whole thing might be, but 4MadMen is still working on his first set of orthographics.

Suffice it to say 18" would be a little small.

However the Larson Design guy might have just taken a non-canon source like something from a tech guide and gone with that. Not a big deal, but not all that logical either. 

If he makes it close enough to accurate though, it might turn out to be a good kit, regardless of scale.

We'll have to wait and see.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I am on his e-mail list. He told me what is new and what is coming.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

This one wasn't so shabby either. Lot's of great info thanks to Phil Broad's input.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

ThomasModels said:


> That looks really nice, Mark.
> 
> There are a couple of small details off, but the rest of it looks great!
> ...
> ...


I know you were addressing someone else, but any chance of seeing a rough sketch of how the hanger(s) should look?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

With the info that Thomas has given us, it is a shame he is too busy, to really get into it with us.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Since it seems that most of the latest plans seem to reflect the Greg Jein DS9 K-7 model, which differs significantly from the original series model, it would be neat to see plans based solely on the original.


----------



## lunadude (Oct 21, 2006)

Trek Ace said:


> Since it seems that most of the latest plans seem to reflect the Greg Jein DS9 K-7 model, which differs significantly from the original series model, it would be neat to see plans based solely on the original.


Or perhaps two separate drawing sets, to compare.


----------

