# Paul Olsen's $3M Refit Rebuild?



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Just got a mass emailing from Paul Olsen who is hoping to raise $3M for the original Refit miniature makers to build from scratch a new miniature. 

http://1701rebuild.com/

A very cool but terribly expensive project. 
Well, Galaxy Jason, Trekriffic, Gabaron, and other insane Refit artists, we now know how much your work is worth. 'Course this one is somewhat bigger, but, still, I hope you're charging accordingly.


----------



## barrydancer (Aug 28, 2009)

I'd love, love, LOVE, to see a Refit as close to the original as possible, built by the same people who did it before. But three million dollars? I think the original cost something like $150,000 in 1979 dollars...


----------



## NTRPRZ (Feb 23, 1999)

Somehow I think $3 million could be better spent elsewhere.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

NTRPRZ said:


> Somehow I think $3 million could be better spent elsewhere.


Eh, Wall Street bankers blow that on drugs, hookers, and cars in a week.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

I remember reading an article in Starlog I think it was that the orbital dry dock model cost $250,000 to manufacture and build.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

That same dry dock model would cost over $938,000 in 2014 dollars.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

NTRPRZ said:


> Somehow I think $3 million could be better spent elsewhere.


Agreed.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

I don’t think Paul will collect that kind of money. The TOS Trek movies are too long ago and with them the last screen appearance of the Refit in her Ent-A configuration. Besides I do not believe Paul, Taylor and the rest of the gang could truly recreate the model. Yes they could recreate the hull and shape and all, but I highly doubt they could accurately reproduce the TMP Refits paint job. 

Much of the original paint job developed as they went along building and painting the model. Only set pattern was the main Aztec as well as the lighting bolt pattern on the nacelle pylons. Everything else was added as they saw fit. Also a lot was changed after Paul left to help with the V’Ger model and FX (strong back, secondary hull belly, planetary sensor, bridge) so there is a junk of paint work he wasn’t even involved in. 

If they build a new Refit in essence it will be what we try to do with the PL 1/350: match that original model as good as we can, getting close in doing so but never truly getting it 100% right since there are too many unknown factos. For example what paint was really used for the lower sensor dome to achive that semi transparent silver look?

As for charging: my Refit is unsaleable. Too much time invested, too many nervous break downs in completing her. Can’t be paid.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

I wouldn't be at all surprised if "The Powers that Be" slap a C&D on any money raising activities.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Paulbo said:


> I wouldn't be at all surprised if "The Powers that Be" slap a C&D on any money raising activities.


Yep. The ship is still their intellectual property. I can see their wanting a piece of whatever income the finished product would generate.

Now, maybe it wouldn't generate much money at all once finished. (The original was meant to fly in a big-budget motion picture, of course.) That possibility leads me to believe that without a return on investment, we might not see many big-dollar donors step up here, and the project may not come to pass. It would take some big-A Angle investors to make this come through: they'd have to be wealthy fans who would be happy with the model's _*not*_ being in their possession. Not optimistic, sorry. 

Would the paint be terrific? No question. Would it be identical? Due to lack of detailed records on the process, I'm with Garbaron: I doubt it. Would I be okay with that? Do I have a choice?


----------



## orbital drydock (Apr 23, 2013)

It would be great to see this done, but I think it's going to be tough to raise that kind of money these days. 



Garbaron said:


> If they build a new Refit in essence it will be what we try to do with the PL 1/350: match that original model as good as we can, getting close in doing so but never truly getting it 100% right since there are too many unknown factos. For example what paint was really used for the lower sensor dome to achive that semi transparent silver look?


Hey G, just to throw this out there, we know there is a missing set of color production shots. I have to say, I don't recognize the main pic on Paul's site, it's not a screen shot & I don't have it in my reference material. If you've seen it I'd like to know where, it is definitely a pic of the studio model.


----------



## ajn6329 (May 25, 2005)

Good luck!


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

I'm not sure why this is a big deal, as Timeslip put out a studio scale refit.

What does donating to this cause, gain the donator? Another miniature in private hands?


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

ClubTepes said:


> What does donating to this cause, gain the donator? Another miniature in private hands?


Excellent question!


----------



## TIEbomber1967 (May 21, 2012)

ClubTepes said:


> What does donating to this cause, gain the donator? Another miniature in private hands?


Maybe they'll let you take a picture standing next to it, if you drive all the way out to Paul's house. But only for $100 or more.:tongue:


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

ClubTepes said:


> I'm not sure why this is a big deal, as Timeslip put out a studio scale refit..


They got a C&D recently, no studio scale kit.

The initial plan was to locate the owner of the original refit to have it restored, but the owner chose not to participate. I'm actually glad, a new finish would look awesome but would only be a recreation. The ship's current state may be bad but it _is _a screen used finish, and I feel it should be preserved as is.

They then planned on the Timeslip kit as an alternative. Too bad it won't happen it would have been the right way to go.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

ClubTepes said:


> What does donating to this cause, gain the donator? Another miniature in private hands?


Well, their sales pitch is, "If we build it they will come." Whatever that means. :dude:


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Honestly, this model wouldn't cost $3 million under any conceivable conditions. The $3 million target seems intended to make sure it never happens, but people might still throw money at it.

Think about it... if they collect any amount under $3 million and build no model, where would that money go?

It would be more honest if Paul Olsen just said _"I worked on Star Trek once, send me money."_


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Shaw said:


> Honestly, this model wouldn't cost $3 million under any conceivable conditions. The $3 million target seems intended to make sure it never happens, but people might still throw money at it.
> 
> Think about it... if they collect any amount under $3 million and build no model, where would that money go?
> 
> It would be more honest if Paul Olsen just said _"I worked on Star Trek once, send me money."_


Yep. I think you nailed it. Sounds like a scam.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

orbital drydock said:


> It would be great to see this done, but I think it's going to be tough to raise that kind of money these days.
> 
> 
> Hey G, just to throw this out there, we know there is a missing set of color production shots. I have to say,* I don't recognize the main pic on Paul's site*, it's not a screen shot & I don't have it in my reference material. If you've seen it I'd like to know where, it is definitely a pic of the studio model.


You mean the low angle port site shot on to the amber lit deflector and secondary hull? It is a still of the leaving drydock sequence from the HD / BD remaster. 

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tmp2/tmphd0723.jpg



Shaw said:


> Honestly, this model wouldn't cost $3 million under any conceivable conditions. The $3 million target seems intended to make sure it never happens, but people might still throw money at it.
> 
> Think about it... if they collect any amount under $3 million and build no model, where would that money go?
> 
> It would be more honest if Paul Olsen just said _"I worked on Star Trek once, send me money."_


Have to agree on that too. Paul does not say whatever happens to the money in case they do NOT reach their target. Refund? Lost for good? Paul finally can buy himself a new house? 

Also $3Mio? Really? The most expensive would be to recreate the hull and internal armature but I highly doubt it would be in the Millions of dollars range was regular people (e.g. Timeslip) do similar work in their home garages! For the electronics they could resort to Tena-controls as their boards deliver all the timings you need. Only thing left would be the view port lights and at such a scale I guess Ent-Ds variant of custom fluorescent tubes would be the best solution. Custom tubesn can be bought well below Millions of Dollars. The paint can be bought in big quantities at relatively cheap prizes by now. So the next big cost factor would be man hours. And sorry to say this but a lot of us Refit builders have spent ++12 -18 month on the 1/350 in our off time with spectacular results.

A guy like Olsen should be able to achieve even better in a shorter amount of time. 
$3Million is way too much even at that scale.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

robn1 said:


> They got a C&D recently, no studio scale kit.


Though I could have never afforded that kit, that's sad news. 

... but it's fun to watch the build of the parts already cast. http://www.modelermagic.com/?cat=157


----------



## Cajjunwolfman (Nov 15, 2004)

The time has passed for this one!


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Cajjunwolfman said:


> The time has passed for this one!


Yeah. The time to restore the miniature might have been right after TWOK, when enthusiasm was still high for the Kirk-movie-era franchise, and the miniature would have still generated some income for Paramount so they would have been motivated to put some money into it.

... assuming that they could get over the VFX keying issues with the TMP paint job. 

As much as I'd love to see the "gleaming opal" in person, I can't see it happening: too expensive, C & D likely, not enough deep-pocket donors with no ROI coming to them. (shrug)

(edit: Oh, and there's no friggin' way I'd put money toward it. There are plenty of good causes out there, as others have said.)


----------



## Disillusionist (Apr 19, 2003)

I'm guessing that Paul's 3 million dollar figure takes such factors into account as him moving back to the States, renting a facility in LA, buying all the necessary tooling to build the model, and hiring a crew to do most of the work. Will he raise enough money to even start any of this? I doubt it. There just aren't enough of "us" refit nuts out there to support such an endeavor. Does he even intend to raise that much money, or is he just trying to pay next month's rent? I don't know. But, I'm not about to blindly part with any of my hard earned cash when there's no mention of what happens to my money if success isn't achieved.

Actually, call me a curmudgeon if you like, but I think crowd funding campaigns to build models are frivolous abuses of the crowd funding concept. If you want a model....pay for it and build it yourself. Promises of "Send me money so I can build it....you can come to my place and see it whenever you want" just don't hold water with me. Sorry.

I have all of the Timeslip refit parts that have been made available, and plan to complete the kit as time and money become available. I won't be asking for donations for any of it....but I plan to post plenty of build photos online, and everyone is perfectly welcome to see the completed (or incomplete for that matter) model for free whenever they like.


----------



## Owen E Oulton (Jan 6, 2012)

I'd like to have some of what he's been smoking! $300,000 I could see, but 10 times that? No way, Jose!


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Disillusionist said:


> Actually, call me a curmudgeon if you like ... <snip> I have all of the Timeslip refit parts that have been made available, and plan to complete the kit as time and money become available. I won't be asking for donations for any of it....but I plan to post plenty of build photos online, and everyone is perfectly welcome to see the completed (or incomplete for that matter) model for free whenever they like.


Curmudgeon? Nope! You sound quite reasonable, actually. Looking forward to the photos. :thumbsup:


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Owen E Oulton said:


> I'd like to have some of what he's been smoking! $300,000 I could see, but 10 times that? No way, Jose!


To be fair, it all depends on what Paul is trying to accomplish here. $3 Million is reasonable if this is being treated as a retail cost of a job. But that's where he fails. He's looking for appreciated cost of services as if someone (many someones) wish to pay for it - and as this was an employment/ contract opportunity. He seems to be playing on sentimentality for a job. Put it out to bid and see how that price changes.

It won't matter because of the reasons others have already listed. Which is a shame. I'd love to see someone crowd-source a master studio model (I'd pledge $1000 for that development) then sell copies (or rent masters) to build your own depending on the price. For me, a reasonable cost of parts would up to $3000-$4000. I'm sure that differs from others.

Its also a shame that legal (like the above mentioned C&D order) can be a threat on PARTS of model, almost 40 years later. I'm not even sure it this is winnable from Paramount standpoint to begin with. 

IANAL but third party kit parts have existed for years without licensing. I wonder if kit car parts manufactures run into this dilemma often. They been doing this for almost a century, IIRC.

Fortunately, this will problem will go away in the near future (perhaps in my life). You will simply outsource the parts to 3D printing services or do it yourself. The shame here is that the studios are unwilling to think outside the box. If they were more inventive, they would already be working to generate this type of licensing legally.


----------



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

Paulbo said:


> I wouldn't be at all surprised if "The Powers that Be" slap a C&D on any money raising activities.


I don't want to be "that guy," but the first initial $24,000 dollars is to be used 

"to get the ball rolling and hire a top PR firm to arrange media appearances to get the message out to all Star Trek fans worldwide. The fund will pay for that and all expenses that will accrue over the initial 3 month period I will be knitting this whole project together."

I don't see how they can hire a legitimate PR firm to do anything to promote this fundraiser to replicate something that is Paramount's property.

What are these "knitting" expenses?


----------



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

Shaw said:


> Honestly, this model wouldn't cost $3 million under any conceivable conditions. The $3 million target seems intended to make sure it never happens, but people might still throw money at it.
> 
> Think about it... if they collect any amount under $3 million and build no model, where would that money go?
> 
> It would be more honest if Paul Olsen just said _"I worked on Star Trek once, send me money."_


How would you ever even know they had reached the goal of three million dollars, even if they did?

About the only people with the legal clout to find out would be Paramount's lawyers once they filed an infringement suit and demanded the project's paypal financial records.


----------



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

Disillusionist said:


> I'm guessing that Paul's 3 million dollar figure takes such factors into account as him moving back to the States, renting a facility in LA, buying all the necessary tooling to build the model, and hiring a crew to do most of the work. Will he raise enough money to even start any of this? I doubt it. There just aren't enough of "us" refit nuts out there to support such an endeavor. Does he even intend to raise that much money, or is he just trying to pay next month's rent? I don't know. But, I'm not about to blindly part with any of my hard earned cash when there's no mention of what happens to my money if success isn't achieved.
> 
> Actually, call me a curmudgeon if you like, but I think crowd funding campaigns to build models are frivolous abuses of the crowd funding concept. If you want a model....pay for it and build it yourself. Promises of "Send me money so I can build it....you can come to my place and see it whenever you want" just don't hold water with me. Sorry. . . .


He doesn't even promise that from what I read. "will remain in the public eye" is a pretty darn nebulous promise.

And I missed the part about him not even living in the US! 

No mention of what happens to donations if collections fall short.

No description of exactly what these expenses include.

All you are really promised for contribution levels between $15 and $500 bucks varies between pdf's of his book, a couple of printed pictures / certificates(depending on level) _and only if you drop $500 bucks_ do you even get a hard copy of his book. Everything else you get for $40 - $500 bucks can be sent to you in a 9" x 12" envelope, a 24" mailing tube, and / or emailed.

Also, as it is worded, these are not exactly "donations" at all, they are described as purchases for a finite number of things that don't seem to include any guarantee that this model will be built.

Contributions are described as purchases - with what you get for each purchase listed under each contribution level - with no promise that money will be returned if enough contributions are not collected. 

Just like when your local PBS station sets a membership goal(though theirs are usually more attainable) what you get for each contribution level is exactly listed, and there is no promise of a refund if they don't hit their goal.

So if this fails the response to contributors will likely be to remind them they received their pdf emails and/or certificates / books.

Note the small blue print right before the "contribution" links:

"Below are the various levels of contribution and what you get for your purchase."


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

I don't understand how anyone could be foolish enough to throw money at this guy. He's managed to collect $3k so far! Looks like the site is still "open for business."


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Red flags


----------



## Disillusionist (Apr 19, 2003)

You know, if Paul really wants to raise some funds for a studio scale refit rebuild (or anything else for that matter), what he really should be doing is painting aztecs on PL refits, signing them, and selling them to the highest bidder. I'm guessing a 1/350 Enterprise painted by the original artist would fetch top dollar.


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> ...the first initial $24,000 dollars is to be used
> "to get the ball rolling and hire a top PR firm to arrange media appearances to get the message out to all Star Trek fans worldwide. The fund will pay for that and all expenses that will accrue over the initial 3 month period I will be knitting this whole project together."...


The entire project could be done for that amount, if not he's doing it wrong.



Disillusionist said:


> You know, if Paul really wants to raise some funds for a studio scale refit rebuild (or anything else for that matter), what he really should be doing is painting aztecs on PL refits, signing them, and selling them to the highest bidder. I'm guessing a 1/350 Enterprise painted by the original artist would fetch top dollar.


Excellent idea.


----------



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

Disillusionist said:


> You know, if Paul really wants to raise some funds for a studio scale refit rebuild (or anything else for that matter), what he really should be doing is painting aztecs on PL refits, signing them, and selling them to the highest bidder. I'm guessing a 1/350 Enterprise painted by the original artist would fetch top dollar.


Assuming there was enough interest, he would have to make well over
2,000 1/350ths to make the kind of money he seems to want.

That sort of seems like an awful lot of real, actual work to me. :freak:


----------



## Disillusionist (Apr 19, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Assuming there was enough interest, he would have to make well over
> 2,000 1/350ths to make the kind of money he seems to want.
> 
> That sort of seems like an awful lot of real, actual work to me. :freak:


He might want to buy a new airbrush before he gets started then


----------



## Owen E Oulton (Jan 6, 2012)

I think we can all agree it's a scam.


----------



## orbital drydock (Apr 23, 2013)

Folks, this isn't a scam. Is the $$ figure too high, yes.

Let's think about a few things though. 
When were talking about the original builders, we're talking about guys that are now 40 year industry veterans who don't get paid $10-$15 an hr anymore, & have busy schedules. We are talking about a completely re-designed model, let's just throw a ballpark of $500,000 MINIMUM to build just the model. That would be using cheap art student labor at $10-$15 an hr, & cheaper materials, not a carbon fiber traveling museum display.

That would also be without most of the ideas planned for the display. They are talking about building a fully gimbal mounted & motorized interactive display, not a static pole armature, big $$ there tack on another $30,000-$50,000.
Carting the model around for science fairs, museums, & conventions will not be an easy task. Anyone ever had a road case made? I know a real road case for a fender twin reverb amp or 50' TV costs just as much, or more than the amp, or TV. A 10'x6'x6' structural road case will not be cheap between $15,000-$25,000. As well as a trained road crew to travel with it, local stagehands don't set up displays like this.
A full documentary, done right, on a budget, $25,000-$75,000.
PR campaign, this one they're probably close at $25,000-$35,000.

I can go on with this list for longer, or get to the point.

This isn't going to be cheap, $1-$1.25 mil. would not be unrealistic for overall cost. Can what they are talking about be done for less than that? I don't think so. Big issues with confidence in the project are, the scope hasn't been laid out & there isn't a progress meter on how far along the campaign is. There is way more planned for this display than just building a reproduction, & folks need to know what is going on.

A small $3000-$5000 campaign offering some cool swag & a solid outline to get the ball rolling would probably be the best way to go. More than likely they would overshoot the goal. Use that seed money to PR the hell out of the project & then start fundraising the core funds.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

So, this is not a scam, and this guy collects $500 from you. But it ends up being not enough. Do you believe that you will then get your money back? If you can answer a strong yes to that, then by all means consider it. I for one am keeping [my wallet] in my pants.


----------



## orbital drydock (Apr 23, 2013)

Proper2 said:


> So, this is not a scam, and this guy collects $500 from you. But it ends up being not enough. Do you believe that you will then get your money back? If you can answer a strong yes to that, then by all means consider it. I for one am keeping [my wallet] in my pants.


No it isn't, just because the campaign hasn't been run the best doesn't mean somethings a scam.

I think it's pretty poor form to outright call folks like Paul Olsen, Jim Dow, Richard Taylor, & Mark Stetson scammers! That is who you are calling scammers, they are all major parts of the project.

Think about it folk you are all calling the original Refit builders scammers!


----------



## Disillusionist (Apr 19, 2003)

Agreed. I don't think it's an outright intentional scam. But, they haven't taken the time, or put forth the effort to re-assure potential contributors that it isn't one...and the (most likely) unreachable 3 million dollar goal certainly doesn't help. Regardless of their good intentions, I would still be pretty upset to hear, "We didn't reach our target.....sorry no refunds".


----------



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

orbital drydock said:


> Folks, this isn't a scam. Is the $$ figure too high, yes.
> 
> Let's think about a few things though.
> When were talking about the original builders, we're talking about guys that are now 40 year industry veterans who don't get paid $10-$15 an hr anymore, & have busy schedules. We are talking about a completely re-designed model, let's just throw a ballpark of $500,000 MINIMUM to build just the model. That would be using cheap art student labor at $10-$15 an hr, & cheaper materials, not a carbon fiber traveling museum display.
> ...


I wouldn't call it a scam. But there are too many unknowns, as you are pointing out.

A project with this many facets involved with no predeveloped business plans raises too many "red flags" in my mind.

But most important to me is, how will they be able to tour the country and keep this in the public eye,

when the design is wholely the intellectual property of Paramount?!?

I've seen no indication that Paramount has approved this, did I miss something?

If it's approved by Paramount, then they wouldn't really have a lot of need for $24,000 dollars of
PR. Paramount would simply slap a notice on StarTrek.com and include it there monthly mass emailings.

Virtually every Trek fan I know of gets those. These days with all the push ads and emails PR firms
aren't as anywhere near the necessary investment they used to be.

But let's assume that this project is completed. People donate X amount of funds and it's finished.

What's to stop Paramount from issuing a C & D order?

Then at best, a great number of people have parted with their money for a studio scale model that can never leave the creators garage.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Whether it's a scam or not, nobody really knows for sure. The point is that anyway you slice it it is a very unprofessional orchestration and a very bad bet.


----------



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

orbital drydock said:


> No it isn't, just because the campaign hasn't been run the best doesn't mean somethings a scam.
> 
> I think it's pretty poor form to outright call folks like Paul Olsen, Jim Dow, Richard Taylor, & Mark Stetson scammers! That is who you are calling scammers, they are all major parts of the project.
> 
> Think about it folk you are all calling the original Refit builders scammers!


I believe only one person called it an outright scam, so that is a little unfair.

Even you yourself have raised some serious issues in your post.

And we have yet to see evidence that these people even have legal permission to as much as attempt to do this.

If they had I'd be willing to bet they would be including that info in the sales pitch, which to me is yet another red flag.

Also, while I know you personally are a model builder who delivers on all his promises - you sell to private collectors.

You aren't proposing to collect money and promising to tour the country with all the logistics that entails,

difficult logistics many of whom's problems you yourself have just outlined.


----------



## orbital drydock (Apr 23, 2013)

Disillusionist said:


> Regardless of their good intentions, I would still be pretty upset to hear, "We didn't reach our target.....sorry no refunds".


So would everyone, transparency is key.



Chuck_P.R. said:


> I wouldn't call it a scam. But there are too many unknowns, as you are pointing out.
> 
> A project with this many facets involved with no predeveloped business plans raises too many "red flags" in my mind.
> 
> ...


Trust me I see a grip of the Red Flags, the reason I'm pointing them out is to show some of what needs to be done.

Raising the funds to build the ship? Maybe, on the c&d. Going for $3 mil is way too high & wont help them there.

Touring the ship? Definitely, on the c&d. I have a feeling that something would be worked out there, if the ship were built.



Proper2 said:


> Whether it's a scam or not, nobody really knows for sure. The point is that anyway you slice it it is a very unprofessional orchestration and a very bad bet.


This is kind of why I'm a bit uppity. I do know for sure it's not a scam.
Off to a shaky start, yes, for sure. 

I agree, it's not the way to raise that sum of money. Remember, we're talking about artists & engineers, not marketing directors, or fundraising coordinators.
They need to hire those folks.



Chuck_P.R. said:


> I believe only one person called it an outright scam, so that is a little unfair.
> 
> Even you yourself have raised some serious issues in your post.
> 
> ...


More than a few people have called it a scam, or insinuated as such.

This has already attracted the attention of Paramount I guarantee it.
Folks, the industry is actually a pretty small community, word of things gets around very fast. Nothing will be done unless it gets out of hand with profit. It would cast a fairly bad light on Paramount, & they wont risk it unless they have to. Keep in mind we're not talking about quashing a garage kit builder, or some unlicensed toy manufacturer.

Which brings me to a good point/idea. If they were to make some cash off building the ship, cool, it will be a lot of hard work. Then donate most of the proceeds from renting it, to say fund science programs at schools. Something tells me they would actually reach that $3 mil goal. Also probably exceed it since it would really be setting up a non-profit to benefit education. Which would draw the attention of large donors. I think that's something Paramount would approve just to keep from looking like A-holes.

True, that's what I do know right now. Thankfully I'm not writing a proposal for a project of this scope. That costs extra You're right working with private collectors, or contract work is completely different. You get sued, if there's a breach or non-delivery of goods. That's why I say legitimize the whole thing at least as a non-profit. If it succeeds, set up the non-profit for touring. If it fails, donate the required %80 of proceeds to education & feel really good about it. 

They couldn't possibly know all the logistics involved. Again we're talking about artists & engineers, not marketing, or events project coordinators. These are the folks who need to be hired, & good ones aren't cheap.

I outlined some basics from having worked on large scale projects, & years as a corporate A/V specialist. Could I coordinate an entire project like this, PR touring, production(probably)? No way, nor would I ever want to. Could I build a refit this size? For sure, when a timeslip 8' flies in on a unicorn, or someone pony's up the $60k-80k in materials for a fiberglass/carbon fiber scratch build. I'm on it

I'd just like to see it turned into a something that could be done & benefit a bunch of people at the same time.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

orbital drydock said:


> Could I build a refit this size? For sure, when a timeslip 8' flies in on a unicorn, or someone pony's up the $60k-80k in materials for a fiberglass/carbon fiber scratch build. I'm on it
> 
> I'd just like to see it turned into a something that could be done & benefit a bunch of people at the same time.


You know something ODD, you may be on to something. 

I personally don't give a darn about who does it... just that it gets done right.

You're young and have great technical and communication skills. Perhaps this is something you should consider leading. A small fundraiser could gauge interest and keep it under the radar. 

I'd be willing to contribute.


----------



## Disillusionist (Apr 19, 2003)

This project has the right idea and goals as far as accountability, and what purpose their model will serve when complete....and the price tag is much more realistic. But, apparently they couldn't generate enough interest. Which is an obstacle I think any campaign to build a model will have difficulties overcoming.

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/a-new-enterprise-phase-1


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Disillusionist said:


> This project has the right idea and goals as far as accountability, and what purpose their model will serve when complete....and the price tag is much more realistic. But, apparently they couldn't generate enough interest. Which is an obstacle I think any campaign to build a model will have difficulties overcoming.
> 
> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/a-new-enterprise-phase-1


Thanks for the link -- good info there. It seems they may have contacted the owner of the refit and would be able to visit / photograph and measure. 

And although their pricing is extremely reasonable, they still have some of it backward. 

You don't need tens of thousands of dollars for camera / video when you can get folks to donate. Likewise with workstations, SolidWorks / Solid Edge, etc.

Don't know anything about Kim and her background but I hate this has failed though.


----------



## orbital drydock (Apr 23, 2013)

hubert said:


> You know something ODD, you may be on to something.
> 
> I personally don't give a darn about who does it... just that it gets done right.
> 
> ...


Humbly, thanks, but noooo. There's enough going on here at the Drydock to keep me busy for a bit.

I was just trying to illustrate the point that a Refit could be built by someone like myself, or other builder.



Disillusionist said:


> This project has the right idea and goals as far as accountability, and what purpose their model will serve when complete....and the price tag is much more realistic. But, apparently they couldn't generate enough interest. Which is an obstacle I think any campaign to build a model will have difficulties overcoming.
> 
> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/a-new-enterprise-phase-1





hubert said:


> Thanks for the link -- good info there. It seems they may have contacted the owner of the refit and would be able to visit / photograph and measure.
> 
> And although their pricing is extremely reasonable, they still have some of it backward.
> 
> ...


Interesting... back to my point, sure a Refit can be built by anyone, BUT we're not talking about anyone. We're talking about very well paid & experienced industry professionals, who built the original refit.

They are talking about $75,000 for start up costs in phase 1. Where is the outline for the non-profit? There isn't a single item in their cost outline about setting up a non-profit for phase 1, it's all about equipment. A non-profit is really quite expensive, & A LOT of work to set up & run.(Dad with 30+ years in fundraising & management). There should be $20,000-$35,500 or more dedicated to the non-profit, along with an outline for the non-profits structure.

Where's the end funding actually going? There is no actual statement of who is receiving the end funding. On indegogo you can run what is called a "flexible funding" campaign. Which is what this campaign is. "Flexible Funding" means if you don't reach your goal, NONE of the funds are returned, nor do you have to fulfill ANY of the perk requirements. All that happens is indiegogo takes a bigger cut. It is also directly stated that "Delivery of perks will not begin until the project is complete" No project, no perks. Also shouldn't any remaining funds go to a charity non-profit, if a non-profit is the end goal? 

One thing here, so Blue Origin's facilities are a few hours north of me. When I called them back in Sept. to ask about a grounds tour, not inside. Best response I could get was that a meeting would have to be arranged, & a non-disclosure agreement may be required before any possibility of entering the grounds. Through some questions I gathered, if I were allowed a camera anywhere(very unlikely), photos would be extremely limited, nor would ANYTHING be allowed to be published or discussed. I casually mentioned the model & they wouldn't confirm, or deny it was there. I'm a pretty nice guy on the phone, but they were extremely nervous to discuss anything at all. 

When I said $60k-$80k, that meant materials & equipment for only the model construction, & it was a BARE minimum to do it right. I would not make a dime, it would take years having to donate the labor, & more than likely have to pony $10-$30k of my own. JUST FOR CONSTRUCTION!!

Here's one project I worked on at this scale. Ahh... the year... it was a glorious 2007. Fresh out of school for machining, trained in manual machining & CAD/CAM(MasterCamX). Along with over 10yrs exp. in manufacturing, construction, & fabrication before school. I made $14 an hour as a contract worker. 

- Disney DCA "Pixar Parade 2007 Float/Puppet Fabrication & Design- Mechanical Dept.

All of these are still used in the parade as of this year & can be seen at Disney California Adventure.

Slinky Dog:
Fabricated major portions of the head mechanics, manual motion controls, support structure, tail section, final construction assembly.

Omni Droid:
Fabricated portions of the arms.

Roz:
Fabricated moving arm & rotating baton mechanics.

- Disneyland Tokyo 2007 "Happiness Parade" Float/Puppet Fabrication & Design - Mechanical Dept.

Rhino #2(purple): Mechanical Design lead (my baby!)
Fabrication of all internal mechanics, motion controls, support structures, & final assembly.

Spring Sprite:
Fabrication of portions of the main mounting base & gimbal axis.


Again, more than anything, my point. This model could be built by myself, or anyone else, but who cares about me. Would it be fun? Of course, but I personally wouldn't have any strong drive to go see it. Why? Sure it's a big model & very impressive, but it wasn't touched, or dreamed in the mind of the people who built the original Refit.

Maybe it's just me, but that ship has a special kind of magic to it only 4 people in the world could truly re-create.


----------



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

The big pink 2 ton elephant in the room to me still remains whether these people even have the legal permission to do this from Paramount.

I've heard more then one person talk about how Paramount often let's things go because they don't want to look like jerks.

But for every wishful analogy I've heard I've also known more then a couple of people who Paramount has had no problem acting like jerks toward.

It seems a bit rash to undertake a project that _*might cost millions of dollars*_, all the while _*simply hoping*_ that the hammer won't be brought down.

If this project has a chance of going forward, I'd hope those involved would stop, catch their breath and contact Paramount for permission before this goes too much further.


----------



## orbital drydock (Apr 23, 2013)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> The big pink 2 ton elephant in the room to me still remains whether these people even have the legal permission to do this from Paramount.
> 
> I've heard more then one person talk about how Paramount often let's things go because they don't want to look like jerks.
> 
> ...


It's really not that big of an issue. Again we're talking about folks who have had working relationships with Paramount & are currently working in the industry. If they didn't have some idea whether the project would be allowed, I don't think they would have even gone this far.

Working professionally & risking a c&d is far different from trying to fly under the radar & produce garage kits. If an industry prop maker or model builder receives a c&d for unauthorized reproduction, their career has just ended, permanently. It violates the non-disclosure agreement they signed, & it shows other potential employers that contracts/non-disclosures could be breached


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

They (Paul, Richard etc) should not take this as a hired job, which is what they do, but as a private project they as the guys who build the original want to be involved with. Instead of hiring guys to do x, y and z they should try to reach out to us model geeks who are in the area and could help recreate the ship! 

This would cut costs by HUGE margin and all they really need would be renting a workspace, although I think someone of us have extremely well equipped work spaces. And then rebuild the Refit as Community project with the guys that did the original at the helm!

I think that would have worked. 
Trying to raise $3mio wont. 

My opinion.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Interesting that there have been at least two different money raising attempts for this and both have failed to get off the ground. Like someone has already pointed out, the time for this has long passed.


----------



## orbital drydock (Apr 23, 2013)

Proper2 said:


> Interesting that there have been at least two different money raising attempts for this and both have failed to get off the ground. Like someone has already pointed out, the time for this has long passed.


I'm not sure about the other project, but I wouldn't count Paul & the gang out yet. Their $3mil campaign hasn't been successful, but that doesn't mean the project has failed. It just needs to be managed by someone with fundraising exp.

I definitely wouldn't say the time has passed. When these amazing craftsman are no longer with us, or folks wont go to a convention/Sci Fair to see the model, then time will have truly passed


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

orbital drydock said:


> I definitely wouldn't say the time has passed. When these amazing craftsman are no longer with us, or folks wont go to a convention/Sci Fair to see the model, then time will have truly passed


Just to be clear, by saying that "the time has passed," I wasn't saying that *nobody* is around to restore the model or that *nobody* would go see it, or that _*no*_ enthusiasm exists to either see this model or be involved in its restoration. Instead, I was saying that the time has passed for Paramount (or anybody) to commit to a large outlay of cash to be a part of the restoration this model; they would not make back their investment in exhibition fees because Kirk-movie Trek enthusiasm isn't what it used to be in the late seventies-early eighties. We fans may believe that the Refit is a slice of SF history, but is there enough enthusiasm _*in the general population*_ for the Refit to justify injecting millions of dollars into this model? Would Paramount (or any large investor) make the same amount of money back on a tour now as they would have back in 1982? Would they make enough to justify their spending millions on a new Refit? I don't think so, and that's all I was saying. 

Now, if an investor didn't care about making a return, or the budget were reduced to a more modest level, then I can see the thing happening.


----------



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

orbital drydock said:


> I'm not sure about the other project, but I wouldn't count Paul & the gang out yet. Their $3mil campaign hasn't been successful, but that doesn't mean the project has failed. It just needs to be managed by someone with fundraising exp.
> 
> I definitely wouldn't say the time has passed. When these amazing craftsman are no longer with us, or folks wont go to a convention/Sci Fair to see the model, then time will have truly passed


I'm ambivalent about the whole thing.

If it were definitely going into a museum like the Smithsonian after one or two promised tours, I might have more interest. Only if the Smithsonian agreed to take possession of it and maintain and display it properly.

Obviously, these are professionals who are proposing this. But they are approaching it like a legitimate professional contract. 

No one expects them to loose money on such a project, but this definitely isn't a strictly "labor of love" project either, like some of the fan-produced TOS webisodes. 



orbital drydock said:


> I definitely wouldn't say the time has passed. When these amazing craftsman are no longer with us, or folks wont go to a convention/Sci Fair to see the model, then time will have truly passed


For better or worse, studio scale models like the Refit are no longer in demand.

Not to seem crass, 

but this project is being proposed as if this kind of full-sized, studio-scale filming miniature model is still a cutting edge, 

fully-in-demand kind of prop that major motion picture studios with 
deep pockets need to produce movies that gross hundreds of millions of 
dollars in today's dollars at the box office.

Should fans be expected to pay that kind of top dollar to have a copy of a model reproduced? 

Especially when studios who clearly did so to turn a profit no longer do?

Who in the professional, licensed filming industry would pay $3 million dollars for a physical model anymore?

I personally believe that none of them would.


And even if they did, they would only do so if they were pretty much
guaranteed a profit, or were like ParaBorg of the 80's and could 
afford to gamble 50 million on a movie because it was only one
of many of their investments.

But Trek fans are being asked to pony up the kind of money.

Money that these guys *might* have made _*when their work was in it's greatest demand, about 10 to 30+ years ago.*_

*It's unlikely these gentlemen will ever make that kind of money again professionally*

- so why are fans being asked to pony up the kind of money to these gentlemen they may have been close to being able to demand at the height of their skills and career? 

For old times sake?

For the love of Star Trek?

You put it very well earlier in the thread . . . 



orbital drydock said:


> Folks, this isn't a scam. Is the $$ figure too high, yes.
> 
> Let's think about a few things though.
> 
> When were talking about the original builders, we're talking about guys that are now 40 year industry veterans who don't get paid $10-$15 an hr anymore, & have busy schedules. . . .


How busy are their schedules, outside of perhaps appearing at conventions?

They don't get paid $10-$15 dollars an hour anymore, are they - outside of a fan funded project like this - likely to get paid_* any *_dollars at all to do this anymore?

Again, CGI has pretty much destroyed virtually all demand for large scale props like the original Refit filming miniature.

It seems clear to me the only people who will likely pay any amount at all to do this is Trek fans.

Large scale hero ship miniatures used for filming is largely a product with near zero demand these days.

But this project seeks to have more money poured into it then was poured into creating the original Refit by Paramount which was doing so because they stood to make many times that amount of money in profits.

Which will never be the case for fans.


So why are the fans being asked to pony up Star Trek TMPicture rates that Paramount might have been able to pay 35 years ago, but would never pay today?

Maybe they might produce something for a single private collector off the radar for over ten thousand, but $3 million?


Asking Trek fans to pay more then the kind of money Paramount did in 1979 is a lot like asking your friends to buy silver from you today for $49 dollars an ounce because it has sold for that a couple of times over the last half century, even though the going rate is about $16 bucks. :freak:


----------



## orbital drydock (Apr 23, 2013)

It's funny, it's almost like no one read my previous post outlining cost. Where I clearly stated $3 mil was way too much & this should be a non-profit. Yet everyone want's to keep talking about how $3mil is too much money.

My favorite so far, is the complete lack of support, for something that could be really great.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

No one is stopping anyone from supporting anything. We are expressing opinions. And caution. I'll repeat my point: anyway you slice it this scenario is a very bad bet, at least as I see it and for the reasons mentioned; If you're someone who has already parted with a $500 check, good luck getting your money back when this proposition re-enters the atmosphere without a heat shield.


----------



## orbital drydock (Apr 23, 2013)

Proper2 said:


> No one is stopping anyone from supporting anything. We are expressing opinions. And caution. I'll repeat my point: anyway you slice it this scenario is a very bad bet, at least as I see it and for the reasons mentioned; If you're someone who has already parted with a $500 check, good luck getting your money back when this proposition re-enters the atmosphere without a heat shield.


Opinions, yes, the world is full of opinions & everyone's entitled to them.

Right now how the project started out isn't good, I agree. Call it a "bad bet" or what ever you like, that doesn't mean they aren't legitimate.

I haven't contributed anything yet because I want to see them get better organized. When they do, or are heading toward organized, if they want my help, they have it!!

When you donate money, you don't get it back, that's the whole point of a donation.

One of the main reasons were all here is to help solve problems. It's a shame when that doesn't happen

I'm going to bow out & say Happy New Year & Best of Luck!


----------



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

My concerns aren't *just *that it's too much money, Orbital Drydock. Nor is it simply that it's been thrown together in a disorganized fashion. 

Primarily it is that it's being approached as if Trek fandom is just another client who should be paying top dollar for an enterprise that is not even legal.

All in the hopes that at no time in the years they themselves predict this will take,
that no one from Paramount ever notices this . . .

and somehow they are magically allowed to rent this thing out to conventions, all of which are monitored ridiculously closely by Paraborg.

Paraborg is not going to look the other way on small stuff, yet they are going to let an 8 foot copy of their intellectual property be rented out and tour the country?

To me this project is almost screaming out to receive a Cease and Desist notice.

You yourself have said it will never be allowed to tour.

I'm struggling to come up with a legitimate reason to think that this can end in a positive way.


----------



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

orbital drydock said:


> ...
> 
> One of the main reasons were all here is to help solve problems. It's a shame when that doesn't happen
> 
> I'm going to bow out & say Happy New Year & Best of Luck!


I'm not sure there is a problem here to be solved. Those who want to will donate and I wish them the best of luck.

I think it's unlikely that Paramount would allow people to create exhibits that directly compete with their own occasional touring exhibits(most of which have been totally disappointing and not at all well done - not to mention that they seem to have forgotten that touring means you have to actually pack up the exhibit every once and awhile and actually move it! :freak: ).

To me it doesn't make sense that this will be allowed by Paraborg. But I don't see it as a problem either, people are free to do what they will with their time and money.

So if there even_* is *_a problem, I don't know that it is a solvable one.

To me it's important to note that we all agree on this subject more then we disagree.

Some people have characterized this idea in both too glowing and too negative ways.

But you are probably right that the discussion has probably run it's course, barring new information.



orbital drydock said:


> ...
> Happy New Year & Best of Luck!


To you as well, orbital drydock; and to the rest of Hobbytalk as well!


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

orbital drydock said:


> One of the main reasons were all here is to help solve problems. It's a shame when that doesn't happen.


I see your point. While the first step to solving a problem is admitting that one exists, and the next step is to define the problem, it seems that we (or some of us) have been stuck on those early steps without proceeding to attempts at a solution. This is understandable, given that the original proposition presented some large obstacles, one of which being a possible C&D. You, OD, however, have made suggestions that may move interested parties closer to a solution. 

Yes, Happy New Year to you and all ... and to those who want to make a new Refit a reality, good luck.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

*Diggin up old thread*

What ever happend to Pauls project?


----------



## crowe-t (Jul 30, 2010)

I can't see the point of donating money for someone else's project, especially one of this grand scale. Raising money to help the unfortunate would be a better cause.

If the original builders wanted to put up their own money than that's OK but to ask fans of the show to send money so they(the original builders) can feel good about themselves building a model is crazy. 

Are they going to break off pieces and send it to the people who donated??? 

I believe this new Refit will also be larger than the 8 foot studio model. What's the point? It not even the same size so it's just a model of the Refit and not an exact recreation of the original studio model. I thought they were supposed to be building a studio scale recreation to honor the original model. This new one won't be the same size and the paint won't be a 100% spot on match so again, what's the point???


----------



## holt35 (Aug 15, 2013)

I doubt this project will ever go anywhere witch makes me wonder if the people who donated money will get it back.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Beside, didn't the refit get repainted a time or 2?? If so then it's already not
"100% spot on".


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

irishtrek said:


> Beside, didn't the refit get repainted a time or 2?? If so then it's already not
> "100% spot on".


The idea was to recreate the TMP Refit with its famed Aztec paintjob after Paul failed to convince the owner of the Refit in her Ent-A configuration to restore the model to her TMP glory. 

But as was pointed out by crowe-t what they attempt now is just another Refit model - build by the guys who build the original I give them that, but only a recreation as even they - Paul included - would not be able to really hit all the colors and minute details again as most of the TMP paint job was put together as they went along. Besides Taylor, Olsen and the others surely would have possibilities to get the funding from other srouces if they rellay wanted to recreate the ship, but they decided to ask the fans of the Refit to kickstart with ~ $3-4 MILLION. 

Pauls project was doomed from day one. 

But I lose track of it and was wondering what ever happened to it.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

IMO if he wants to indulge himself with a 'perfect replica' he should do it on his own dime.


----------



## crowe-t (Jul 30, 2010)

Richard Baker said:


> IMO if he wants to indulge himself with a 'perfect replica' he should do it on his own dime.


Exactly!


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Just cheked their new website and there STILL is no pledge counter that shows how much they have gathered. There is also no FAQ detailing what happens to the money if they fail. 

Also: why build her 50% larger? What for? How so more detailed? If they change it that much it will be like a fan build but not a recreation. Recreating something means recreating the original not changing and "enhancing" on the original.


----------



## crowe-t (Jul 30, 2010)

It would have to be the exact same size and have all the same mis-matched grid lines, slightly bent dorsal... 

What they are attempting to build is another model that represents the Refit but isn't a recreation of the original studio model.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Garbaron said:


> Also: why build her 50% larger? What for? How so more detailed? If they change it that much it will be like a fan build but not a recreation. Recreating something means recreating the original not changing and "enhancing" on the original.


Wouldn't that make her the same scale as TOS 11 footer???


----------



## Disillusionist (Apr 19, 2003)

I find it interesting they originally wanted 3 million to build an exact replica of the refit and nothing else...other than a plaque with all the donors names engraved. Now the same 3 million is going to build one half again bigger that's contained inside some kind of traveling exhibit with digital lighting effects and every other vfx gizmo conceivable. Perhaps the original plan wasn't producing enough income, so a more glamorous "plan" was required? Beats me. But I still don't see this ever coming to fruition.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

It has been my dream to build a full scale Death Star. If anyone is willing to help me make my dream come true, I will etch your name on the surface, in 72pt type, for all to see!


----------



## 67657 (Mar 4, 2010)

I say: let him and the gang buy a Polar Light 1:350 and work on that, just like the rest of us.


----------



## Disillusionist (Apr 19, 2003)

Here's a question for the group. How much do you think a Polar Lights 1/350 Refit painted by the original artist (Mr Olsen) would bring at auction? Seems to me that might be a more effective fundraising technique than just asking for handouts.


----------



## Bay7 (Nov 8, 1999)

When I bought his book he was frequently emailing me additional info (I assume he was sending it to all who purchased his book via his website), I suggested that he should make up an A2 sized artwork of a section of the saucer with his fabled Aztec design airbrushed in pearlesants, I think he would have made a tidy sum from selling those, I would have got a kick out owning a small piece of trek history.

Heh, i might even make my own now.

Steve


----------



## Disillusionist (Apr 19, 2003)

That's not a bad idea! Something like that would look awesome hanging on the wall.

You know, Paul has stated numerous times how many months it took to paint the model, and that a large portion of that time was spent cutting the various masks by hand with an x-acto knife and ruler. I wonder if he's realized yet how much time can be saved nowadays due to the magic of vinyl cutters?....surely he has.

Here's another random thought. If he's planning to accurately replicate the look and "feel" of the original paint job, that might be difficult as true automotive acrylic lacquers are getting harder and harder to find these days. Not to mention the fact that it may even be illegal for him to use automotive lacquers in California these days....hmmmmm.


----------



## jlwshere (Mar 30, 2007)

barrydancer said:


> I'd love, love, LOVE, to see a Refit as close to the original as possible, built by the same people who did it before. But three million dollars? I think the original cost something like $150,000 in 1979 dollars...


That's only half a million in todays dollars. Even at 50% larger (200% more beautiful???) say you double that, What's the other 2 million for? I constantly have to remind myself that I am turning into a cynical grumpy old man, but someone is looking to make a lot of money off of donations IMHO. As mentioned, there are people on this board and others who are recreating the studio scale TMP ship and they will tell you their costs (although significant) are nowhere near 3 million.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

If I remember correctly Paul mentioned in his video log preceding the "funding campaign" that the sum aimed at includes him moving back to the US and get a new home. A valid question came up: why would we have to pay for him moving to the US? It was never answered. 

Other costs included in the sum are renting a stage where they would build the model, buy the tools needed and so on. It was than suggested they could get the help of local hobby modelers work shops like Boyeds from SciFi Model Action .. he’s got some of the needed tools there as well as room to do it … no comment. 

The "team" went on to explain how they would reinvent the lighting system to get the strobes working and such .. ppl suggested getting tena controls boards as it will do all that or get Jason “Galaxy Jason” Wares electronics board that has the TMP drydock start up timing included …. silence.

Add to it that they never said what would happen to the Backers money if they do not hit their funding goals. Refund? Lost for good? Paul buys himself a house? 

It was asked why they did not use Kickstarter as this would give some guarantees to Backers if the project failed. Silence. 

All of the above is why the whole thing was perceived as a cash crap. 

I am sure that is not waht Paul intended, he meant well as he saw there are people out there that still love the Refit as she was in TMP. But the project was handled very poorly and that is why it stalled.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Paul's still at it:
http://projectenterprise.space/project-enterprise-home.html
and "Nichelle Nichols will become our spokesperson from next month[October]".


----------

