# Botany Bay Detail and Color Information



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I am starting this thread so we can keep the new info on the Botany Bay separate from the thread on the TOS-E Nacelle Domes.
I do not have any personal images to add a this time, but icopied one over to get things rolling...


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)




----------



## JeffBond (Dec 9, 2013)

Everyone interested in this subject should check out the new Roddenberry Vault blu-ray release. There's about 10 minutes of amazing, pristine raw effects footage of the Enterprise and other miniatures, including a super cool slow pull-in on the Botany Bay that shows off the color and details of the miniature in a way that has never been seen before.


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

To me it is pretty clear that the base color is a brown / bronze color with various shades of white, brown, gray and black weathering

Here are some more images:










From the Smithsonian exhibit:


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

Here are a few more:


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

feek61 said:


> To me it is pretty clear that the base color is a brown / bronze color with various shades of white, brown, gray and black weathering...
> ...


Agreed! I don't see how the general color of the Botany Bay can be denied as anything other than what these photos show, which as you describe above is mainly brownish/tan. This great picture in particular appears to be unfiltered, unretouched and in fairly pure light.

Oops, you removed the great picture that I was pointing out! The Smithsonian picture also appears unfiltered. But the last 4 from Greg's shop have been over-saturated. Still, they're in the ballpark.



Richard Baker said:


>


Unfortunately this pic exhibits a red filter and is not really accurate.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

I doubt if there was a red filter used in that photo. It looks more like the difference between incandescent light and fluorescent. The last photo seems to be daylight-balanced film shot under incandescent lights. The other photos of the model look like daylight film shot under workshop fluorescents. 

The footage on the soundstage looks like film that has color shifted with age. 

All three sets of images need color balancing before you can compare apples to apples.

M.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

MGagen said:


> I doubt if there was a red filter used in that photo. It looks more like the difference between incandescent light and fluorescent. The last photo seems to be daylight-balanced film shot under incandescent lights. The other photos of the model look like daylight film shot under workshop fluorescents.
> 
> The footage on the soundstage looks like film that has color shifted with age.
> 
> ...


No photo of the Botany Bay miniature will be 100% "purely" lit, but the point is that she was mainly brownish-tan, not grey—but not that red, either, as the pic posted by Richard shows it. Whether that's a camera filter or the lighting is not clear. Of all the photos here, the Smithsonian exhibit photo shows it in it most accurate colors:


----------



## swhite228 (Dec 31, 2003)

Some nice photos of the studio miniature in Greg Jein's shop are still available in this RPF thread...
Length of DY-100 SS Botany Bay


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

swhite228 said:


> Some nice photos of the studio miniature in Greg Jein's shop are still available in this RPF thread...
> Length of DY-100 SS Botany Bay


Yes, I posted those same photos like three posts above your post, lol.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Yeah, those on that other forum show more accurate color, as they have not been hyper-saturated.

And the most accurate build of the original miniature that I've seen: 

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/99-sc...ny-bay-1-350-scale-my-first-commission-7.html

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/99-sc...ny-bay-1-350-scale-my-first-commission-6.html


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

No matter what y'all say, I still see a gray base coat with heavy brown weathering. Maybe I just can't alter 50 years of thinking of it that way...


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

John P said:


> No matter what y'all say, I still see a gray base coat with heavy brown weathering. Maybe I just can't alter 50 years of thinking of it that way...


I have no skin in this game, and I have an open mind to whatever evidence is out there, but I have to agree. I see a grey base with browns and blacks weathered on top. But I'm willing to accept any documented alternative.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

I simply can't see the difference between a grey base with heavy brown, tan and black paint added on top, and a brown, tan, and black with some grey showing through. I mean even if it's just grey primer, I don't think anybody is denying that there's grey underneath poking through in areas. I'm not sure what we're debating here when all the pictures clearly show a model sporting mostly browns and tans. I have no doubt that the "real ship," when fresh out of the late 20th century warehouse, could very well have been solid grey! But she ain't very grey in the condition as filmed. The end result is: she be brownish-tan with some faint grayish areas. See all the photos.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I suspect part of the problem is mental. I don't mean anyone is crazy, I mean it depends on what is going on inside one's head in regard to "When that ship was launched it was this color and everything else is 'space weathering' " , dig?

We know that the intended visual effect was 'rusty old freighter, a ghost ship'. 

So then one has to decide if tan was the 'original' color, or a gray, or gold, or even a rusty red-brown-orange (like the shuttle main tank) that has the red leached out due to solar radiation. 

Myself, I have no clue. Given my relatively recent learning that 'Skydiver' from UFO was gold and not green, without an intensive deconstruction of the original filming miniature ala the 11 foot Enterprise, I am super hesitant to commit to any one color.


----------



## Captain Robert April (Jul 5, 2016)

feek61 said:


> To me it is pretty clear that the base color is a brown / bronze color with various shades of white, brown, gray and black weathering
> 
> Here are some more images:


To me it's pretty clear that the base color is gray with helluva lot of brownish weathering.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

The dress is GOLD!

The dress is BLUE!

The ship is GREY!

The ship is BROWN!


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Captain Robert April said:


> To me it's pretty clear that the base color is gray with helluva lot of brownish weathering.


Or it's pretty clear that the main color is brownish, with some faint grayish coloring coming through. >


----------



## Captain Robert April (Jul 5, 2016)

If it's coming through, doesn't that mean that it's the base color?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Captain Robert April said:


> If it's coming through, doesn't that mean that it's the base color?


But see, it's the semantics. By 'base color' does one count primer? Is primer a 'base color' or just a coating that the 'basic main color' is sprayed over?

If the paint is primer+gray+weathering overspray, that's one thing, right?

if the paint is primer+tan+gray+weathering, that's an entirely different beast. 

I don't think this can be figured out short of a NA&SM level deconstruction analysis. Looking at pictures we're back to "the dorsal was painted metallic blue" discussions.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Captain Robert April said:


> If it's coming through, doesn't that mean that it's the base color?


My reply is also in post # 14. Good grief, what does it matter what the "base" color is, if the base color can barely be seen and is affected and thus altered by the dominant colors on top of it? :surprise:

And here's a good indication of how little of the "base" color can actually be seen: 


















This is actually a beautiful ship and model, in my opinion. I just watched the original (not remastered) episode again available for free on Amazon-Prime. It's very disappointing and shameful that so little of the ship detailing and true color can be seen due to the extreme wide angle and the bleached look of the original footage! In fact, you can't see any detail.


----------



## Captain Robert April (Jul 5, 2016)

Again, the camera that took those pics wasn't properly white balanced. When that's corrected, the ship suddenly becomes a lot grayer.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Captain Robert April said:


> Again, the camera that took those pics wasn't properly white balanced. When that's corrected, the ship suddenly becomes a lot grayer.


Well then, clearly you're the Captain of your gray ship.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

OK, may I respectfully suggest, be cool. 

Without objective proof of anything, all we have is emotion. If a person feels a thing is one way and another says, no, it's this other way, we can agree to disagree. 

We have seen, in glaring...look, I don't mean to pick on the guy, he was VERY confident in his conclusions based on what information he had and what science he knew. he made a very good case on that "the 11 foot Enterprise had metallic blue paint on the interconnecting pylon".

And Gary shut him down with even more science and I feel bad for that guy. He was SO sure, and built a pretty convincing case and heck, I was willing to go along, I think many of us were. But in the end it was that guy 'felt' he was correct by all he knew, but harsh reality proved different. You just can't trump primary source data like the actual model in hand and micro analyzed by accredited experts. 

So we're left with feeling. Some feel a kind of tan is the true main color of the 
Botany Bay. Some feel Gray is the true main color and ALL else is 'space weathering'. A minority view may be the ship was tan AND gray (Gray used mainly around the nominal propulsion mechanics area) but that would probably cause a war if true. 

What do we know, I mean REALLY know? Well, we know this was meant to be a derelict in space, taking its cue from rusty, abandoned ocean freighters. Those things can look pretty bad. We know Jefferies liked to use paint as 'make-up' to help define and highlight shapes so they would not lose definition during passes thru the optical printer and when an effect gets printed 'stepped down' to help kill the mattes. We see it on the 11 foot Enterprise, we see it on the Klingon Battlecruiser, there's no reason to assume it's not the same on the Botany Bay. I think everything else is up to the preference of the individual.

It's all cool. Nobody has to hate.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

We're going over this again?

Does no one remember the extensive discussion and resolution of this very topic a few years ago?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Trek Ace said:


> We're going over this again?
> 
> Does no one remember the extensive discussion and resolution of this very topic a few years ago?


It appears not. 

To be fair, all I recall is that pictures of the Botany Bay were discovered, I don't recall any brouhaha over the color other maybe the surprise over how much painting there was (as the way it was seen in the show you couldn't see much detail).


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Steve H said:


> To be fair, all I recall is that pictures of the Botany Bay were discovered, I don't recall any brouhaha over the color other maybe the surprise over how much painting there was (as the way it was seen in the show you couldn't see much detail).


Exactly. The original footage show a very bleached out image of the BB as well as the Enterprise. In fact, even the spinning domes look almost entirely pale gray with hardly a hint of color!

But honestly, I don't know what the debate is here. Everyone probably agrees that the BB basecoat was a gray that was pretty much dominated by brown, rust and black top-coats. There is visual proof that THAT is what the color of the filming BB was. In fact, Roddenberry's instructions to Jefferies and or to the crew who built her was to make a gray space vessel with lots and lots of space "age." Voila, the filming BB as we see it in dozens of photos. Now, if you want to paint your model the virgin gray of the DY-100 as it was launched in the late 20th century, that's fine, it's your build. On the other hand, this is the most accurate build of the filming miniature that I have seen to date. Keep in mind at 1/350 this makes this only a foot long: http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/99-sc...ny-bay-1-350-scale-my-first-commission-6.html


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I had always thought the BB was a darker gray than the Enterprise myself- no behind the scenes photos to go by, just what I saw on TV. When a friend sent me the 1:1000 BB from the combo kit to build I was surprised to find the 'molded in color' styrene to be a fairly dark rust color. I am not building this model to be screen accurate anyway- I am adding some detail to make the surface textures interesting and will likely paint it medium gray and then add the rust and space dirt weathering with pastels.

That does not detract from my interest in how the original filming model was constructed and painted. It has a lot more visual interest in these stills than I ever expected. For a ship of the week on the starvation budget Trek was using it has a surprising amount of detail, almost none of which showed up on the screen. 

I honestly do not recall the heated discussion about the BB color thread several years ago but with these new vault pictures I think we are learning more and more about this subject.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Yeah, it's a real shame that virtually none of the detailing of the Botany Bay can be seen in the original footage. Even a single close-up shot would have added a lot of dimension. I mean, you take the trouble to make those intricate array of screened panels along with the paint job and then practically all of it is lost on screen. I think the remastered version does a lot more justice to this vessel, even though it looks very different than the original.


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

Not to through another theory into the mix but based on the color under the missing the piece; the base color was black! 



I honestly don't care what the base color was because it is immaterial; what matters is the final finish.

Speaking of the missing piece; it appears those were intended to possibly be portholes looking out the back. I agree that it is too bad that none of the details made it on screen.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Could be portholes, could be an aux. propulsion exhaust, could be a connection point for some module that might connect aft of the cargo containers...

Just no way to know. 

Interesting about the black color there. Might that be the material of that part? Do we know what it was made from, or heck, who made it? One might assume it's all wood with different materials for detail and trim but who can say? I don't think it was designed to come apart to find out...


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

feek61 said:


> Not to through another theory into the mix but based on the color under the missing the piece; the base color was black!
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of the missing piece; it appears those were possibly portholes looking out the back.


I never noticed the missing piece in those photos. I wonder if the black color under it was a primer coat or if the gray was the primer and the black was over the gray... or if the black was only behind this piece to act as a dark porthole for the holes in the missing piece. No way to ever know probably.



feek61 said:


> I honestly don't care what the base color was because it is immaterial; what matters is the final finish.


*Precisely.*


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

Steve H said:


> Interesting about the black color there. Might that be the material of that part? Do we know what it was made from, or heck, who made it? One might assume it's all wood with different materials for detail and trim but who can say? I don't think it was designed to come apart to find out...


It's a model kit part:


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

feek61 said:


> It's a model kit part:



Yeah, that's right, I remember learning this at the RPF forum a few years back. It's part of the dashboard of the Modet T!

There are half a dozen or so other parts from other car model kits that were used, like the oil pan on the back of the sail that you can see on the pic above.


----------



## Owen E Oulton (Jan 6, 2012)

I just got the _Ships of the Line_ 2017 calendar for Christmas and was disappointed in the painting of the Botany Bay in the calendar. It shows the Botany Bay being launched with the same load as when it was found by the _Enterprise_ - completely unbalanced with only a partial load of 5 panniers. Matt Jefferies design drawings distinctly establish that a full load is 16 panniers - two full rings of panniers. If launched with such an unbalanced load flown by a bunch of untrained pilots (even genetic supermen), it would not have been a successful launch. Jefferies' original sketch is shown below:








Whenever I get around to getting the 1/1000 kit, I plan to cast extra panniers to show it with a full load and paint it in shuttle orbiter-inspired black'n'white to depict as launched and before its original finish got worn away by interstellar crud.

BTW, note the colour note: light grey + age


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Owen E Oulton said:


> I just got the _Ships of the Line_ 2017 calendar for Christmas and was disappointed in the painting of the Botany Bay in the calendar. It shows the Botany Bay being launched with the same load as when it was found by the _Enterprise_ - completely unbalanced with only a partial load of 5 panniers. Matt Jefferies design drawings distinctly establish that a full load is 16 panniers - two full rings of panniers. If launched with such an unbalanced load flown by a bunch of untrained pilots (even genetic supermen), it would not have been a successful launch. Jefferies' original sketch is shown below:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'll skip over my disbelief that Botany Bay was Earth launched, as clearly it's not designed to land. Built in space, lives in space, or so it seems to me. 

(and yes that does raise a point about just what was Kahn and company going to do when they arrived at their whatever was the intended destination? Sadly, we're putting more thought into this than the writers/designer did, because none of this matters to the story as told )

How would one account for the missing containers? if they launched frozen, if the only crew was Kahn and maybe one other person (who then went into frozen sleep once the course was set), would there be time to jettison containers? Even if they were empty they would have value as raw materials or shelter. 

There's a giant knowledge gap about the Botany Bay. All we have is what's seen on the screen. Everything else is sheer conjecture. Of course that's the fun.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Owen E Oulton said:


> I just got the _Ships of the Line_ 2017 calendar for Christmas and was disappointed in the painting of the Botany Bay in the calendar. It shows the Botany Bay being launched with the same load as when it was found by the _Enterprise_ - completely unbalanced with only a partial load of 5 panniers. Matt Jefferies design drawings distinctly establish that a full load is 16 panniers - two full rings of panniers. If launched with such an unbalanced load flown by a bunch of untrained pilots (even genetic supermen), it would not have been a successful launch. Jefferies' original sketch is shown below:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is no image in your post, but you must mean this image from the 2017 calendar, as I can't imagine that there is a second image of the BB in the calendar: 









First, this clearly cannot be showing the launch of the BB since the Enterprise is present. We don't even know that that's Earth! And what does the title, "Descent" mean? Could it be Ceti Alpha V? Second, this is simply an illustration, an artist's representation, of the BB that in fact is not meant to show the original studio miniature version. It is clearly not Jefferies' Botany Bay in style or color.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

well, heck, it shows windows where clearly cargo containers can be fitted there. 

Of course if we assume 'tramp freighter' it could be the owner sacrificed cargo capacity in favor of increased passenger space. 

That's a pretty picture but yeah, that's not Jefferies Botany Bay.


----------



## Owen E Oulton (Jan 6, 2012)

Proper2 said:


> There is no image in your post, but you must mean this image from the 2017 calendar, as I can't imagine that there is a second image of the BB in the calendar:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wrong image. This is the March image, by Doug Drexler. I'm talking about the February launch image by Gabriel Koerner. The launch stack is based on the Greg Jein model seen on the windowsill in Rain Robinson's Griffith Observatory office in the Voyager episode _Future's End_, Part II. Curiously, this model also ignores the full load/balance issue. BTW, to address an earlier reply, no there is no provision for reentry, but it would have to get into orbit in the first place, and I suspect even given Trek's timeline that Earth would not have orbital ship construction facilities in the early nineteen-nineties.


----------



## Captain Robert April (Jul 5, 2016)

If the space program hadn't been cut to the bone following Apollo, we could've had orbital construction facilities by the late 70's. That was how the proposed Mars ship was supposed to be built. Artificial gravity would've required a "then a miracle happens" bit in the math, but there ya go.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Captain Robert April said:


> If the space program hadn't been cut to the bone following Apollo, we could've had orbital construction facilities by the late 70's. That was how the proposed Mars ship was supposed to be built. Artificial gravity would've required a "then a miracle happens" bit in the math, but there ya go.


It wasn't quite following Apollo, the cutting began just before the first landing. Sheer shortsighted foolishness. 

The core problem was, I think, when it became a 'race' so many shortcuts were taken. I tend to think corporate greed and the promise of endless government 'food troughs' made it impossible to do more than one thing at a time. We should have been working on a space station concurrent with the moon landing. Kept the Saturn V production line in place so we had heavy lift while working on Nova. Apollo Applications should have moved forward, those plans for extended lunar stay were pretty interesting. 

But cut and cut and cut. 

The 'can do' spirit was gone. Aerospace manufacturers died or got bought up so no more real competition. Everyone got so used to the idea of endless government money that when it dried up, they completely forgot how to survive. 

Take the Shuttle. Not perfect, way less than promised, but it did work. Contrary to decades of aerospace manufacturing, NOBODY started work on the next generation of Shuttle, learning from and improving on the current product. Instead they sat back and waited and waited for NASA to say "Hey, OK, do this next" and NASA kinda sorta forgot.

Imagine if you will back in the '50s, Boeing build the 707 and said "OK, we make that airplane. It's all anyone will ever need and there's no reason to make a plane that's any larger. We'll just sit over here and wait until someone tells us to make something new". 

(If I recall correctly the 707 came to be because SAC needed a jet powered tanker for it's anticipated all-jet bomber fleet and Boeing said "Hey, we can make a passenger plane out of this as well, soooo" and history was made. )

So here we sit with no 'organic' way to loft men into space. We're waiting for private industry to do the job but I'm sure not seeing much movement on that front. Pieces, tiny baby steps and that's it. We're re-inventing the wheel and can't figure out where to put the axle. It's a sad joke. 

I try not to think about how much we've lost.


----------



## The_Engineer (Dec 8, 2012)

Steve H said:


> I'll skip over my disbelief that Botany Bay was Earth launched, as clearly it's not designed to land. Built in space, lives in space, or so it seems to me.
> 
> (and yes that does raise a point about just what was Kahn and company going to do when they arrived at their whatever was the intended destination? Sadly, we're putting more thought into this than the writers/designer did, because none of this matters to the story as told )
> 
> ...


My take on the missing containers would be during the long voyage (200-300 years) that those containers were damaged and the ship's computer probably jettison them.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

The_Engineer said:


> My take on the missing containers would be during the long voyage (200-300 years) that those containers were damaged and the ship's computer probably jettison them.


Yeah.... that's it! 

Interestingly, the CGI BB in the restored episode shows a severely damaged upper port container. This CGI vessel looks very cool on its own... but just looks little like the original filming model.


----------



## Rainfollower (Oct 6, 2006)

I always liked this re-imaging:

Botany Bay Gallery 02


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Rainfollower said:


> I always liked this re-imaging:
> 
> Botany Bay Gallery 02


That's all very cool, but I much prefer Jefferies' design; it best fits with the Enterprise.


----------



## TheKitBase (Jul 23, 2016)

Thanks for the reference shots!


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

I wish we knew the whereabouts of this miniature. By far my second favorite TOS vessel. I wish it could be restored and exhibited next to the restored Grey Lady as in the classic scene! :|


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

I figured the augments were in such a rush to leave that they didn't have time to load all the pods they would need.



Rainfollower said:


> I always liked this re-imaging:
> 
> Botany Bay Gallery 02


I've bought so many of the 1/1000 kits I've spent some time making different versions of the BB with different pod configurations:


----------



## Mark2000 (Oct 13, 2013)

I did an in-universe history of the DY-100 for my webcomic two years ago along with a classic naval recognition chart: DY-100 Tramp Freighter Naval Chart | Star Trek ? The Webcomic
The idea was to follow the official cannon of the show where the Soviet Union never falls apart. I added the idea that the DY-100 is not an American craft, as many people decorate it as being, but was designed by the Supermen in South Asia. It wouldn't make sense for Khan to go to America to steal a ship.

Here's the comic where the DY interacts with the ISS: 2015-03-24 | Star Trek ? The Webcomic


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Mark2000 said:


> I did an in-universe history of the DY-100 for my webcomic two years ago along with a classic naval recognition chart: DY-100 Tramp Freighter Naval Chart | Star Trek ? The Webcomic
> The idea was to follow the official cannon of the show where the Soviet Union never falls apart. I added the idea that the DY-100 is not an American craft, as many people decorate it as being, but was designed by the Supermen in South Asia. It wouldn't make sense for Khan to go to America to steal a ship.
> 
> Here's the comic where the DY interacts with the ISS: 2015-03-24 | Star Trek ? The Webcomic


Very cool diagram! But not very cannon in terms of shape and size. Knowing that the studio model is 43" and the Enterprise is 135", that means that the "real" BB would be 301.6' not 210'.

Also, who ever said that the BB is 'decorated as an American craft'? I never heard that. Was there ever any mention in TOS as to the origins of the BB?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

What I recall, there was no real mention of how. I believe part of the dialog was 'records from that time are fragmentary' because WWIII and all that. 

What I recall was known: There were genetic 'supermen' who tried to take over the Earth. (this, BTW, kind of implies we had gotten to a world government because otherwise 'taking over the world' takes way too much time and manpower. This is not canon, just my speculation) The peoples of the Earth overthrew them and hunt them down, then they disappeared. USS Enterprise finds a derelict spaceship and now we know what happened to Khan and his core elite. 

It was pretty standard Star Trek. Keep it vague, give it just enough 'truth' to hang the story on. Don't get bogged down in minutia, just put enough in to let people say "Oh, OK" and go with the flow.

Everything else comes later because we're intense fanboys who WANT more, to understand and mark it all out. And that's when the trouble comes in because sometimes, them bones don't actually line up. 

It's still fun.


----------



## Mark2000 (Oct 13, 2013)

Proper2 said:


> Also, who ever said that the BB is 'decorated as an American craft'? I never heard that. Was there ever any mention in TOS as to the origins of the BB?


The ship is not decorated on screen at all. I have seen a number of model makers slap NASA logos on it, though. And a number of fan diagrams list it as a NASA ship, for instance: http://www.coldnorth.com/owen/game/miscellaney/dy100/dy100d.gif


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Mark2000 said:


> The ship is not decorated on screen at all. I have seen a number of model makers slap NASA logos on it, though. And a number of fan diagrams list it as a NASA ship, for instance: http://www.coldnorth.com/owen/game/miscellaney/dy100/dy100d.gif


Model makers do funny things like that. Pay no attention. :grin2:


----------



## The_Engineer (Dec 8, 2012)

It's true that they made no mention of the origin of the DY-100 class ships. All we know was the Botany Bay was launched about 1996 at the end of the Eugenics war by Khan and his people. There is fan speculation that the DY-100 class ship replaced the Space Shuttle. Considering the space agencies that were around in the early 90's, I would also assume that it was probably made by NASA, Russian Space Agency, or the ESA (I don't know who is else was around at that time). There was a video someone made about the launch of the Botany Bay and stated that it was reversed engineered alien space ship tech and it was Gary 7 who got Khan and his people to escape in the ship. That's interesting but not canon.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I don't know. I just have a HUGE headache considering this ship being launched from the ground. Even with some massive chemical rocket (or solid fuel) boosters or first stage, it just doesn't look logical to me. 

I have no idea if Jefferies ever imagined a 'back story' for the ship to justify design choices, his #1 goal was crank out a design that could be built fast and cheap and be visually interesting. But given his background and his interests, if that thing had been supposed to be ground launched, it would have been at least a bit more aerodynamic.

For me, it's a point to point space craft. Takes cargo out to the asteroid belt, brings back refined metals. There would be some form of shuttle that could move those cargo containers to and from Earth's surface. 

Now what I could buy, Khan has one of those cargo shuttles, it's loaded with the max of 5 cargo modules and they're filled with 'pioneer supplies'. Original thought was take the shuttle and go crash somewhere in the Amazon jungle and hide, but the hatred for the 'supermen' was such there would be no way they could 'sneak' someplace. So, to the stars. Dock with a DY-100 that had just offloaded its cargo, kill the crew, attach the cargo modules, and off they go. 

But it doesn't matter. What matters is, Enterprise finds old derelict space freighter. There ya go.


----------



## Owen E Oulton (Jan 6, 2012)

Mark2000 said:


> The ship is not decorated on screen at all. I have seen a number of model makers slap NASA logos on it, though. And a number of fan diagrams list it as a NASA ship, for instance: http://www.coldnorth.com/owen/game/miscellaney/dy100/dy100d.gif


That's my interpretation, from my web site. Note that I do not say in this diagramme that it's a NASA design, but only that NASA put out a fact sheet on it. If it was in use in Earth orbit at the same time as NASA operations, you can be sure NASA would produce literature for familiarisation on it. 

However, I do believe that it would likely have been a NASA ship. I believe that it would have been launched from Earth and operated in orbital and interplanetary space. The only need for a sleeper ship would have been to travel to the outer planets and/or asteroid belt. Khan and his followers would have hijacked a series of flights to orbit (I can't see there being too many ships with over 70 passengers) and taken over the DY-100 at an orbital station. This would explain why the Botany Bay only had a partial load of panniers.

However, if you're going to "quote" fannish sources, you should let the fan in question clarify what is actually meant by said fannish source.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Steve H said:


> I don't know. I just have a HUGE headache considering this ship being launched from the ground. Even with some massive chemical rocket (or solid fuel) boosters or first stage, it just doesn't look logical to me.
> 
> I have no idea if Jefferies ever imagined a 'back story' for the ship to justify design choices, his #1 goal was crank out a design that could be built fast and cheap and be visually interesting. But given his background and his interests, if that thing had been supposed to be ground launched, it would have been at least a bit more aerodynamic.
> 
> But it doesn't matter. What matters is, Enterprise finds old derelict space freighter. There ya go.


Exactly. And anything beyond this is pure guesswork.


----------



## Captain Robert April (Jul 5, 2016)

I think it makes more sense for the ship to have been assembled in orbit.


----------



## The_Engineer (Dec 8, 2012)

^^^ You beat me to it. If it was ground launched, I kind of envisioned it inside (covered) with body panels that when it reached orbit, the panels would jettisoned and expose the DY-100 class ship like we saw the Phoenix do in ST:FC. The question comes in what planet Khan and his group were planning on going to. Next question when they got there, was the DY-100 class ship capable of landing? If it could land, they would be stuck there as they couldn't relaunch the ship. It makes sense to me that the ship would stay in orbit and they would use shuttle(s) to move cargo and personnel to the planet's surface.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

The_Engineer said:


> ^^^ You beat me to it. If it was ground launched, I kind of envisioned it inside (covered) with body panels that when it reached orbit, the panels would jettisoned and expose the DY-100 class ship like we saw the Phoenix do in ST:FC. The question comes in what planet Khan and his group were planning on going to. Next question when they got there, was the DY-100 class ship capable of landing? If it could land, they would be stuck there as they couldn't relaunch the ship. It makes sense to me that the ship would stay in orbit and they would use shuttle(s) to move cargo and personnel to the planet's surface.


All logical points. But the ground launching with panels covering the asymmetrical shape of the ship seems to me unlikely due to the height of the "sail." I believe that Steve is right when he points out that it was Jefferies' job to design and build the thing quickly for the episode with no time for backstory- and logistical-building.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

The_Engineer said:


> ^^^ You beat me to it. If it was ground launched, I kind of envisioned it inside (covered) with body panels that when it reached orbit, the panels would jettisoned and expose the DY-100 class ship like we saw the Phoenix do in ST:FC. The question comes in what planet Khan and his group were planning on going to. Next question when they got there, was the DY-100 class ship capable of landing? If it could land, they would be stuck there as they couldn't relaunch the ship. It makes sense to me that the ship would stay in orbit and they would use shuttle(s) to move cargo and personnel to the planet's surface.


Of course one has to assume that 'First Contact' is the true birth of Warp Drive and all that, and I do not. 

Imagine the size of the booster that would be required if a DY-100 had an aeroshell covering it. Imagine the resources required to build and maintain such a booster. 

Mind, you could probably do it with Orion, but I think we all agree that there are other problems that show up when you use hundreds of small nuclear explosions as your launch boost... 

So let me share my crazy 'Pre-First Contact' (when the timeline became altered) history thoughts. The DY-100 was originally designed for intra-system transport. Earth to Mars and the Belt mainly but Earth to Moon as well. Evolution of the ship led to the DY-500 which were used as the ships that traveled the sublight 'slow boat' route to the nearby stars. Let's say the DY-500 could do 50% speed of light, that gives a travel time to Alpha Centauri of around 8-9 years. You'd need suspended animation for that. (note, the movie Avatar is build around this type of thing so nothing new under the sun  )

So, Khan is clever. He does plan and think ahead. Most smart dictators plans for a bolthole because things do go wrong. So Kahn obtained a DY-100, loaded it up with tools and supplies (and maybe one of the containers carried a shuttle? Or maybe there was one in the space between the modules and 'space weather' tore it free. That could also explain some of the marks and burns) with plans to take his people to space, one of the colony worlds and build his empire anew. Things went wrong and his ship plowed outward at full power until the drive reactor died. See also Lost in Space.

Years later, as the people at Alpha-C wondered why they had lost contact with Earth (Eugenic Wars/WWIII) there was this guy with some ideas about Space/Time and the creation of Space Warps, and he didn't want to take close to 20 years to get to Earth and come back...

OK, so, reasonable fanfic nonsense. The big flaw is still where the Enterprise finds the Botany Bay. Even traveling at a constant 1/2 c they're MUCH further out then they really should be. But it doesn't matter! See, none of that matters to the story. The story is the Enterprise finds an old derelict freighter. I think I said that already.


----------



## Mark2000 (Oct 13, 2013)

Owen E Oulton said:


> However, I do believe that it would likely have been a NASA ship. I believe that it would have been launched from Earth and operated in orbital and interplanetary space. The only need for a sleeper ship would have been to travel to the outer planets and/or asteroid belt. Khan and his followers would have hijacked a series of flights to orbit (I can't see there being too many ships with over 70 passengers) and taken over the DY-100 at an orbital station. This would explain why the Botany Bay only had a partial load of panniers.


Honestly, that's a long way to go to make sure this ship is American. A hijacking would have been a big operation that would have made the papers and left a huge trail to follow both for the authorities at the time and historians. South East Asia, as it was, had produced genetic super people in only a generation after WWII (twenty years perfecting the production technique and 20 more years to allow the final batch to mature to adults). Khan would have been in power since the 1980s. Obviously Asia would have been a hotbed of advancements. All those super strong geniuses would have come up with some amazing stuff. If you recall the charts in TMP, the STS was NASA's space vehicle at this time. I find it unlikely they would have gone from that to the DY-100 in just 16 years. 

The simplest scenario is that Khan and his people got in their own ship and left, sight unseen.





> However, if you're going to "quote" fannish sources, you should let the fan in question clarify what is actually meant by said fannish source.


And I stopped you from explaining yourself, how? Should I have emailed you for permission before linking to your images?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Anybody read Greg Cox's novels about it? I haven't, but I'm curious as to his version.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

I've read them, and enjoyed them. Just can't recall his take...


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Description from Wiki, Volume 2 of Cox's "The Eugenics Wars: The Rise and Fall of Khan Noonien Singh":

_The superhuman men and women begin to battle for power and several of them manage to gain influence. None, however, have more power than Khan. At first, Khan seems to be building an empire, but, after several assassination attempts by fellow supermen and riots of his people, he begins to lose everything.

After Khan feels that he is doomed to be defeated, he begins to power up his Morning Star satellite, which will destroy the ozone layer and kill all life on earth after he dies. Gary Seven convinces Khan that it would be better to forge a new life elsewhere, using the stolen DY-100 sleeper ship that he and Roberta obtained from Area 51. Khan and a large group of the other superhumans leave on the ship in search of a better life. The novel ends in 1996 as Seven leaves Earth for retirement._

This would suggest an Earth launch and a U.S.A.F.-owned DY-100.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

No disrespect to you, Proper, but that sounds like the worst fanfic ever. Lazy, to boot. 

I shudder to think what the 'author insert character' is like. There must be one.


----------



## Mark2000 (Oct 13, 2013)

John P said:


> Anybody read Greg Cox's novels about it? I haven't, but I'm curious as to his version.


They are really... interesting. They try really hard to make the Eugenics Wars seem like some secret operation that happened and no one noticed. It's a way of working it into our current timeline. He also can't seem to grasp the idea that a region entrenched in advanced bioscience could also be advanced in areospace science so he makes the DY-100 some Area 51 project. I chose a different route when I addressed the subject by acknowledging that our timeline and Star Trek's split at least as far back when Clarke Gable was a film star a few years early (City on the Edge of Forever). From then on we have the USSR staying put into the 23rd century as a political entity, probes being launched that obviously weren't, and wars happening that couldn't have. I saw the Eugenics War as a proxy for our involvement in the Middle East and South Asia from the early 90's until now, but not an exact match up. Still, the same reasoning - he's not our dictator, he's got to go. Lines up with McCoy's line that Khan fought no wars after his rise to power until he was attacked. If you're interested my storyline is here. It's about a 15 minute read. It doesn't deal directly with the Eugenics War, but some of it's fallout. The story is mostly about figuring out the ideal way to be an anti-war activist through Star Trek trappings.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Steve H said:


> No disrespect to you, Proper, but that sounds like the worst fanfic ever. Lazy, to boot.


None taken. It's not my 'fanfic.' Just reporting Cox's.



Mark2000 said:


> .........The story is mostly about figuring out the ideal way to be an anti-war activist through Star Trek trappings.


So, what exactly are you saying is all about being an 'anti-war activist'?


----------



## Mark2000 (Oct 13, 2013)

Proper2 said:


> So, what exactly are you saying is all about being an 'anti-war activist'?


I'm sorry. I don't understand the question. But if you've read the strip I'd love to discuss it with you.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Mark2000 said:


> I'm sorry. I don't understand the question. But if you've read the strip I'd love to discuss it with you.


It's not important to the subject, but I was just wondering what you meant by: "The story is mostly about figuring out the ideal way to be an anti-war activist through Star Trek trappings." Do you mean to say that as the author you spun a Star Trek story from a personal anti-war stance, or are the players within the story anti-war?


----------



## Mark2000 (Oct 13, 2013)

Proper2 said:


> It's not important to the subject, but I was just wondering what you meant by: "The story is mostly about figuring out the ideal way to be an anti-war activist through Star Trek trappings." Do you mean to say that as the author you spun a Star Trek story from a personal anti-war stance, or are the players within the story anti-war?


I wrote it from my own perspective as an anti-war activist trying to grapple with different methodologies: out right aggression vs passive resistance. Do you make a make a difference when you're just holding a sign and waving a puppet? Can you do more? Should you do more? What does that more look like? Will it be effective? Again, if you are interested its a 15 minute read. Here's the link in case you missed it: Peace in Our Time ? Page 1 | Star Trek ? The Webcomic


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Mark2000 said:


> I wrote it from my own perspective as an anti-war activist trying to grapple with different methodologies: out right aggression vs passive resistance. Do you make a make a difference when you're just holding a sign and waving a puppet? Can you do more? Should you do more? What does that more look like? Will it be effective?


Forgive me but my kindest response to the career anti-war activist (and if the description does not fit, I apologize) is this: oftentimes war is necessary when it becomes the only alternative remaining to a civilized free people with a just cause. That old constant that "war is not the answer" is a nonsensical notion. The paramount decision for a prince and his counsel is whether to take up arms and send men into harm's way. The responsibility of such action, with its awesome commitment and intent, are grave, and the decision is not to be made lightly. Thus it must also not be dismissed out of hand. 

More on topic, I'm intrigued by the Cox Books on The Eugenics Wars and Khan. I'm going to try to get all 3 volumes, although at first glance they appear to be a little scarce.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Gentlemen, if I may be so rude, I'd respectfully suggest being careful to not slip into talking politics. In this day and age, it's just not a good idea to discuss such things as the conversation quickly turns shockingly unpleasant. And I suspect it's one of the few things that WILL bring the banhammer down, even in this seemingly unmoderated space.

Just an opinion and observation.


----------



## Mark2000 (Oct 13, 2013)

Proper2 said:


> Forgive me but my kindest response to the career anti-war activist (and if the description does not fit, I apologize) is this: oftentimes war is necessary when it becomes the only alternative remaining to a civilized free people with a just cause. That old constant that "war is not the answer" is a nonsensical notion. .


Thanks for setting me up for a lecture that I've been asked to not respond to because "politics bad!". Let it be stated for the record that I think you're insights are equally nonsensical strawmans who's basis in probably a conflict that happened 70 years ago. Good luck with that.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Steve H said:


> Gentlemen, if I may be so rude, I'd respectfully suggest being careful to not slip into talking politics. In this day and age, it's just not a good idea to discuss such things as the conversation quickly turns shockingly unpleasant. And I suspect it's one of the few things that WILL bring the banhammer down, even in this seemingly unmoderated space.


I appreciate that! I think the matter is at rest.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

aaaand back to the subject at hand-

I could see parts of the ship being ground launched, but the drive section and cargo pods would be a nightmare. IMO the ship was designed very carefully to appear as a pure space going ship- spindly and non-aerodynamic. It would have been easy to make it look like it could leave/return to a planets surface but it wasn't. I always figures some sort of lander was stowed in one of the cargo pods, with parts and equipment to start a colony in the others.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Mark2000 said:


> Thanks for setting me up for a lecture that I've been asked to not respond to because "politics bad!". Let it be stated for the record that I think you're insights are equally nonsensical strawmans who's basis in probably a conflict that happened 70 years ago. Good luck with that.


Mark, I regret you took that as a personal attack, not did I intend to lecture. Believe me, if I had wanted to lecture, I would have gone on for another 10,000 words. It's a bad habit of mine. 

It was just a general suggestion to all involved and interested, myself included.


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

Being ground launched seems REALLY impractical. I read someplace (maybe in this same thread) that the Botany Bay was over 300' long. So, in other words the BB alone was about the length of a Saturn 5 moon rocket. The Saturn V lifted only a tiny capsule and moon lander along with the third stage into orbit. I just can't imagine the boosters needed to lift something like the BB off the ground and into orbit; they would be massive (and dangerous). It seems more plausible that the components of the BB were assembled in space. The pretty picture of it lifting off is cool but not really realistic IMO.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Richard Baker said:


> aaaand back to the subject at hand-
> 
> I could see parts of the ship being ground launched, but the drive section and cargo pods would be a nightmare. IMO the ship was designed very carefully to appear as a pure space going ship- spindly and non-aerodynamic. It would have been easy to make it look like it could leave/return to a planets surface but it wasn't. I always figures some sort of lander was stowed in one of the cargo pods, with parts and equipment to start a colony in the others.


Obviously I agree. 

It's possible the cargo containers might be lifted and dropped by some sort of shuttle (it would have to be fairly large in order to carry more than one at a time, for efficiency) or the containers merely hold a number of smaller containers or pods, or only are used for space-to-space bulk ore transport. 

If the containers are just a shell to hold smaller containers, that makes things much simpler. Why do that? Protection from solar flares would be one really good reason. Making it easier to sort cargo by destination would be another. 

And it does mostly fit with STII:TWOK. We see smaller containers used as shelter (were those sets built from repurposed cargo pods from ST:TMP? I think they had the look but were too large. onward).

Yeah, I just cannot believe the DY-100 was ever surface launched 'all up' as seen in Space Seed. Just not logical. But that's me.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Does anybody have any communication with Scott Alexander who released the 21.5", 1/2 scale, resin Botany Bay under the name of Atomic City a few years ago? As I am sort of obsessed with this ship, I would love to get hold of the resin kit!


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

Funny enough I exchanged emails with Scott a few weeks ago about the 21.5" Botany Bay. He said he was still making the large Botany Bay kit and wanted my address so he could figure shipping. I gave it to him but never heard back. I know he had a stroke and is in recovery so I am giving him a little time to get back with me.


----------



## The_Engineer (Dec 8, 2012)

Steve H said:


> Obviously I agree.
> 
> It's possible the cargo containers might be lifted and dropped by some sort of shuttle (it would have to be fairly large in order to carry more than one at a time, for efficiency) or the containers merely hold a number of smaller containers or pods, or only are used for space-to-space bulk ore transport.
> 
> ...


I read an article many years ago about the making of ST2:TWOK and the person being interviewed (I don't remember who) stated that they looked at the cargo containers we saw in the TMP Shuttle landing bay/cargo deck scene and used those for the Ceti Alpha 5 scene when Chekov and Terrell find Khan and his followers. Khan cut lose the Botany Bay when he took over the Enterprise, so when Kirk decided to drop Khan and his people on Ceti Alpha 5, Kirk gave them some of the Enterprise cargo containers which they used to make their shelters from.


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

The_Engineer said:


> I read an article many years ago about the making of ST2:TWOK and the person being interviewed (I don't remember who) stated that they looked at the cargo containers we saw in the TMP Shuttle landing bay/cargo deck scene and used those for the Ceti Alpha 5 scene when Chekov and Terrell find Khan and his followers. Khan cut lose the Botany Bay when he took over the Enterprise, so when Kirk decided to drop Khan and his people on Ceti Alpha 5, Kirk gave them some of the Enterprise cargo containers which they used to make their shelters from.


Ah, but the buckle on the cargo straps was labeled S.S. Botany Bay.


----------



## The_Engineer (Dec 8, 2012)

robn1 said:


> Ah, but the buckle on the cargo straps was labeled S.S. Botany Bay.


That plus the other items they had (the books, etc) can be explained that Khan and his people brought over their personal items and cargo from the Botany Bay before they discarded it.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

The_Engineer said:


> That plus the other items they had (the books, etc) can be explained that Khan and his people brought over their personal items and cargo from the Botany Bay before they discarded it.


Yes, exactly right. Although it's kind of a silly thing for the cargo container belt buckle to have a fancy SS BB logo on it. :grin2:


----------



## Gregatron (Mar 29, 2008)

The Federation insignia is also visible on the exterior of one of the cargo pods, although it's easier to see in still photos of the set than in the film proper. The idea was that, yes, the _Botany Bay_ was cut loose, and so Khan's people were provided with some standard-issue Starfleet cargo pods to start the colony (and they also presumably brought down some personal effects which had been taken from the _Botany Bay_ before it was discarded).


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Or in order to conserve the Enterprise's resources, they may have gone back to the Botany Bay and salvaged the 'pioneer' supplies. 

I dismiss the name on the cargo strap (or seat belt) buckle as simply lazy storytelling. They needed SOMETHING for Chekov to freak out over, and it would be even more illogical for some kind of ship's founding nameplate to be hanging on the wall of a cargo container turned into rude shelter. 

Having Botany Bay painted on the exterior of the pod, obscured by windblown schmutz that Chekov wipes away, would have been too much like Kirk figuring out V'Ger.


----------



## The_Engineer (Dec 8, 2012)

Yeah, a lot of people complained about the 'SS Botany Bay' written on the belt buckle. It didn't make much sense. Another way for Chekov to know this was Khan's home (besides someone writing 'Botany Bay' on the wall would be for Chekov to find some papers (schematics, manuals, etc) on the DY-100 class ship and putting that together with 'Ceti Alpha 5' and realizing this was Khan's home and he and Terrell need to get out fast. One of the things that interested me is what happened to the Botany Bay when Khan turned off the tractor beam and it just floated away. I had hoped that someone would have gotten back to that location when the tractor beam was turned off and used that as a starting point and tried to determined which direction the Botany Bay went and try to find it again. If it could be found again, they should have brought it in to be displayed in a ship museum.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

The_Engineer said:


> Yeah, a lot of people complained about the 'SS Botany Bay' written on the belt buckle. It didn't make much sense. Another way for Chekov to know this was Khan's home (besides someone writing 'Botany Bay' on the wall would be for Chekov to find some papers (schematics, manuals, etc) on the DY-100 class ship and putting that together with 'Ceti Alpha 5' and realizing this was Khan's home and he and Terrell need to get out fast.


Checklist was not even on the Enterprise when Khan showed up. 

Ah, a TV show.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Fan theory has always stated he wasn't on the bridge, but was on the ship. But, we never see him interact with Khan. Why didn't they have Sulu in the Chekov role for Wrath of Khan?


----------



## Rahn (Jun 2, 2009)

I remembered this story and found a quote of someone else relaying the tale...

"Walter Koenig was at our Star Trek Convention several years ago. He told a funny story that explained how Khan had met Pavel Chekov.

Apparently, Chekov was in Engineering and was in the bathroom so long that Khan could barely hold himself together. When Chekov finally came out, Khan screamed at him to never get in his way again and said he would always remember his face."


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

jheilman said:


> Fan theory has always stated he wasn't on the bridge, but was on the ship. But, we never see him interact with Khan. Why didn't they have Sulu in the Chekov role for Wrath of Khan?


Well, Sulu wasn't in that episode either!


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

feek61 said:


> Well, Sulu wasn't in that episode either!


Well, you're right, but the very first bridge scene, seconds into the episode, is a scene with the camera at Spock's station facing forward to the main screen and I am sure it's Sulu in his chair, seen from the back. It's pretty unmistakable. Stock footage, no doubt, since Sulu was filmed as early as "The Man Trap," I believe.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Proper2 said:


> Well, you're right, but the very first bridge scene, seconds into the episode, is a scene with the camera at Spock's station facing forward to the main screen and I am sure it's Sulu in his chair, seen from the back. It's pretty unmistakable. Stock footage, no doubt, since Sulu was filmed as early as "The Man Trap," I believe.


Correct, stock footage. It was actually very clever to shoot footage of Sulu and 'another dude' (angle biased slightly towards Sulu) staring at the screen, where they could super in whatever image they may need on the main screen. The shot of Sulu turning slightly and looking over his right shoulder (with a "well, that's a thing now, I guess" look  ) is part of the same shot. I'm not sure but I thought they eventually did one of Chekov doing the same thing, maybe I just want to believe that because of symmetry.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

feek61 said:


> Well, Sulu wasn't in that episode either!


Then never mind. Anyone else who actually met Khan. :grin2:


----------



## Captain Robert April (Jul 5, 2016)

Steve H said:


> Correct, stock footage. It was actually very clever to shoot footage of Sulu and 'another dude' (angle biased slightly towards Sulu) staring at the screen, where they could super in whatever image they may need on the main screen. The shot of Sulu turning slightly and looking over his right shoulder (with a "well, that's a thing now, I guess" look  ) is part of the same shot. I'm not sure but I thought they eventually did one of Chekov doing the same thing, maybe I just want to believe that because of symmetry.


Here's something I cooked up for my rewrite of "The Doctor and The Enterprise"...










Sulu is from "The Corbomite Maneuver" and Chekov is from "Journey To Babel", and trying to match them up was a pain the keister.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

BWA HAHAHAHA!

But see? Look at the look on both their faces! It's not fear or concern or anything. It's almost "Well, you SAID put the object on the main viewer, NOW what?" .


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Steve H said:


> Correct, stock footage. It was actually very clever to shoot footage of Sulu and 'another dude' (angle biased slightly towards Sulu) staring at the screen, where they could super in whatever image they may need on the main screen. The shot of Sulu turning slightly and looking over his right shoulder (with a "well, that's a thing now, I guess" look  ) is part of the same shot.


The shot where Sulu turns back is a different shot taken from a different camera angle, actually. The opening one in Space Seed is more from the science station rather than Kirk's chair.


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

Proper2 said:


> Does anybody have any communication with Scott Alexander who released the 21.5", 1/2 scale, resin Botany Bay under the name of Atomic City a few years ago? As I am sort of obsessed with this ship, I would love to get hold of the resin kit!


Well, I can confirm that the large Botany Bay kit is still available. I arrived home today and there was one sitting on my doorstep!!

Scott does absolutely beautiful work; I can't wait to build this!


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

feek61 said:


> Well, I can confirm that the large Botany Bay kit is still available. I arrived home today and there was one sitting on my doorstep!!
> 
> Scott does absolutely beautiful work; I can't wait to build this!


Awesome! I have one on the way, as well! 

I am assuming those flat pieces at the front and back of the cargo containers in the pic below are part of a stand used to hold up the model at the Smithsonian?

EDIT: Well, I can't even drag and drop an image from the net, so I have no idea how to post pics now, as I don't have a personal image account online.... but here's a link: 
http://www.startrekpropauthority.com/2009/05/star-trek-at-smithsonian-botany-bay.html


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Proper2 said:


> I am assuming those flat pieces at the front and back of the cargo containers in the pic below are part of a stand used to hold up the model at the Smithsonian?
> Star Trek Prop, Costume & Auction Authority: Star Trek At The Smithsonian - Botany Bay Filming Model from "Space Seed"


Those look like stand brackets to me.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Trekkriffic said:


> Those look like stand brackets to me.


Yeah, I hope so. I'd hate for them to be some additional parts of the vessel that we have all missed up to this point. :laugh:


----------



## Irishman (Apr 30, 2005)

Rainfollower said:


> I always liked this re-imaging:
> 
> Botany Bay Gallery 02



Yeah, I used to know Paul Davies, who did the redesign (using actual 1990's technology. I think if I remember correctly, those are NERVA thrusters powering her.)


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Proper2 said:


> Yeah, I hope so. I'd hate for them to be some additional parts of the vessel that we have all missed up to this point. :laugh:


But you know? 
Wouldn't it just figure? :grin2:


----------

