# Where did the grid lines come from anyway?



## hal9001 (May 28, 2008)

From what I can see, and correct me if I'm wrong here, in screen caps from Star Trek TOS and still pics of the original model used, didn't show grid lines.

But the one at the NASM most definitley has grid lines. Does it* EVER *have grid lines!

So where did these originate? And when? Did AMT just decide it needed them? Help me get a handle on this. I'm sure this is an old question, if so I didn't see it.

Thanks,
hal9001-


----------



## Landru (May 25, 2009)

They were drawn on the 11 foot model lightly with a pencil at Gene's insistence just before FX filming went under way for the first season in 1966, over the objections of Matt Jeffries however.


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

when the original series was picked up by NBC and started filming episodes, it was thought that the 11 foot hero model needed more detail. 
at that time the grid lines were drawn onto the model with pencil. if you look carefully at stills, screen caps, behind the scenes photos., etc., they ARE there, just very thin and hard to see with the effects technology of that time.
confusing the issue is that fact that TOS used FX footage shot for the 2 pilots frequently, and in those shots there are no grid lines (or illuminated engine domes, as well as other changes).
hope that helps.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Landru said:


> They were drawn on the 11 foot model lightly with a pencil at Gene's insistence just before FX filming went under way for the first season in 1966, over the objections of Matt Jeffries however.


True.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

As a small boy, JohnP won a Desilu studio tour out of a cereal box. During a break in filming, the mischievous little tyke created a diversion by shouting "free beer at craft services!" Alone in the studio, he climbed up on a C-stand and drew the lines onto the miniature himself, using an old chewed-on #2 HB from his pencil case. This was the beginning of his career in illustration.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

And I still have that pencil!


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

SteveR said:


> As a small boy, JohnP won a Desilu studio tour out of a cereal box. During a break in filming, the mischievous little tyke created a diversion by shouting "free beer at craft services!" Alone in the studio, he climbed up on a C-stand and drew the lines onto the miniature himself, using an old chewed-on #2 HB from his pencil case. This was the beginning of his career in illustration.


Every Legend has a begining...


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

Then the round two kit should come with a pencil and not engraved grid lines. :wave:


----------



## Just Plain Al (Sep 7, 1999)

Solium said:


> Then the round two kit should come with a pencil and not engraved grid lines. :wave:


And a miniature, styrene John P!!! :jest:


----------



## geminibuildups (Apr 22, 2005)

Contact Profiles In History! Some rabid Trek fan will pay a fortune for that pencil in one of those auctions. :devil:


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Wasn't JohnP's pencil case the Sterling pencil box that was used to make the original communicator molds? :tongue:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

THAT's where that went!!


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

Solium said:


> Then the round two kit should come with a pencil and not engraved grid lines. :wave:


This.


----------



## hal9001 (May 28, 2008)

SteveR said:


> As a small boy, JohnP won a Desilu studio tour out of a cereal box. During a break in filming, the mischievous little tyke created a diversion by shouting "free beer at craft services!" Alone in the studio, he climbed up on a C-stand and drew the lines onto the miniature himself, using an old chewed-on #2 HB from his pencil case. This was the beginning of his career in illustration.


You guys _neeeed_ to check your meds consumption here, that was* ME*! And it was "HEY! Raquel Welch naked by the Desilu pool". But she may have had a beer in her hand. Yeah, that's it, that's the confusion I think.

JohnP was hinding in the bushes (checking out Raquel) and *HE's* the one that got caught and balmed for it all.

I can prove this, because I'm the oldest one here and.....oh, wait...sorry, it's *MY* meds consumption that's off.

Sorry, never mind.


hal9001-


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

Ductapeforever said:


> Every Legend has a begining...


... and every beginning a legend.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Now I feel like watching the beginning of "Legend."


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Solium said:


> Then the round two kit should come with a pencil and not engraved grid lines. :wave:


That might be true if you were a 'studio scale' modeler, trying to match the 'studio model' as closely as possible and not the 'real' Enterprise.

Studio models fudge a lot as, what's on the model is not the main point. 
Its what comes out on screen is the intended goal of the detail.

If studio models were to be taken literally, then the 'real' Battlestar Galactica, would have 400 shovels and and jeep grills on it.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Not to mention tank treads, drop tanks, etc. It's been said that if it weren't for World War II, the Galactica wouldn't have been possible.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Captain April said:


> Not to mention tank treads, drop tanks, etc. It's been said that if it weren't for World War II, the Galactica wouldn't have been possible.



LOL!

And thank the weak Yen at the time which made those kits cheap


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

ClubTepes said:


> Its what comes out on screen is the intended goal of the detail.


Well I don't remember seeing engraved lines on television. 
Edit: I'm buying the kit either way. Its just a fun "debate".



ClubTepes said:


> If studio models were to be taken literally, then the 'real' Battlestar Galactica, would have 400 shovels and and jeep grills on it.


I remember reading they cleaned out every hobby store in the area in order to get "detail" parts!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

The pencil lines drawn on the 11 footer do look like some sort of light shadow from a distance. If TOS could have afforded a topflight miniature made to exacting standards and with all the bells and whistles then maybe those lines might have been lightly engraved rather than drawn on. And as such in certain lighting conditions they wouldn't even be as visible as the drawn on lines.

This issue just keeps going in circles.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Do you all remember back about 10-15 years ago when the Smithsonian had the 11 foot Enterprise refurbished??? The folks who did that added painted grid lines when they repainted the filming model.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

A perfectly good waste of oxygen discussing this.


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

Warped9 said:


> This issue just keeps going in circles.


Yup. Circles with radial lines.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

irishtrek said:


> Do you all remember back about 10-15 years ago when the Smithsonian had the 11 foot Enterprise refurbished??? The folks who did that added painted grid lines when they repainted the filming model.


_*Why aren't I notified of these things!?! *_


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

As I said in the other thread.....in regards to the Revell kit, Revell appears to be making their kits like the cg versions from the remastered show. The grid pattern's definitely in that. Very fine but still there.


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

When looking at pics of the original, it's really funny that the lines are as consistent as the MR E(only not as dark). 
http://the-grey-ghost.com/master-replicas-1350-scale-tos-enterprise/

I do think Jefferies was right on, it shouldn't have any grids. But I would go one step further and state it wouldn't have any weathering either. If you want to talk about wasting air I thought through why it wouldn't have any grids. If the ship were made with plates(or had close gaps in the hull), it would explode the moment you fired up the warp drive. Any Lineman can tell you why(pinholes and high voltage are not a good combination).


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Atemylunch said:


> ...But I would go one step further and state it wouldn't have any weathering either...


Why is that?


Atemylunch said:


> ...If the ship were made with plates(or had close gaps in the hull), it would explode the moment you fired up the warp drive. Any Lineman can tell you why(pinholes and high voltage are not a good combination).


Why would the entire hull be subjected to high voltage? I don't think I've ever read of any explanation of warp drive where the entire hull is electrified to create the warp field.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

SteveR said:


> As a small boy, JohnP won a Desilu studio tour out of a cereal box. During a break in filming, the mischievous little tyke created a diversion by shouting "free beer at craft services!" Alone in the studio, he climbed up on a C-stand and drew the lines onto the miniature himself, using an old chewed-on #2 HB from his pencil case.


Pretty neat trick, considering the 11-foot miniature was never on the Desilu lot. It was kept at the Howard A. Anderson Company, which did all the bluescreen FX shots of the model.


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

Paulbo said:


> Why is that?


The ship has a deflector screen which keeps things from hitting the ship. Anything really large the ship has to avoid, but anything who's mass is less than the ship will be pushed out of the way. Now the reason there wouldn't be any weathering on the vessel is, nothing should be reaching the hull. If your moving at warp speeds the larger objects are a threat, but the tiny objects are lethal. Think of sandblasting, it's the same idea. Anything that will scar the hull will eventually work it's way through the hull(at warp speeds, that will happen very quickly). 



Paulbo said:


> Why would the entire hull be subjected to high voltage? I don't think I've ever read of any explanation of warp drive where the entire hull is electrified to create the warp field.


The ships hull has a direct effect on the shape of the warp field. 

They didn't cover this, I wouldn't expect them to. The entire ship is subjected to the warp field, since it's within it. The fields wouldn't just magically appear where they are supposed to. Warp engines would still have a start up sequence thus the fields have to pass through the entire vessel(the crew would be shielded, like a faraday cage). 
The only analog we have that is similar to the idea of warp drive is an electric motor. Which is a field generator. 
The fields do change to move the ship along.
Matter/antimatter reaction is what supplies power to the engines. It would be of a nature very similar to electricity(if it isn't electricity). Only with one major difference, which is why I said what I did. The power needed to drive one nacelle would be greater than our civilization could ever produce. That power would exploit any imperfections in the hull.

I find it fun to think how these things would really work. Based on my own experience, asking the question of how would these things really work.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

The warp field is formed as the two stage hands push it along the camera dolly...why make it any harder than it needs to be.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

scotpens said:


> Pretty neat trick, considering the 11-foot miniature was never on the Desilu lot. It was kept at the Howard A. Anderson Company, which did all the bluescreen FX shots of the model.


Research was never my strong suit.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Ductapeforever said:


> The warp field is formed as the two stage hands push it along the camera dolly...why make it any harder than it needs to be.


So the warp field encompasses the stage hands? ... Or maybe one stage hand is made of matter and the other of antimatter? Hmmm ....


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

SteveR said:


> So the warp field encompasses the stage hands? ... Or maybe one stage hand is made of matter and the other of antimatter? Hmmm ....


Hey, works for me, how about you????


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Atemylunch said:


> When looking at pics of the original, it's really funny that the lines are as consistent as the MR E(only not as dark).
> http://the-grey-ghost.com/master-replicas-1350-scale-tos-enterprise/
> 
> I do think Jefferies was right on, it shouldn't have any grids. But I would go one step further and state it wouldn't have any weathering either. If you want to talk about wasting air I thought through why it wouldn't have any grids. If the ship were made with plates(or had close gaps in the hull), it would explode the moment you fired up the warp drive. Any Lineman can tell you why(pinholes and high voltage are not a good combination).



I haven't got a clue whether what you're saying is right but are you saying that a real life Enterprise couldn't have any engraved panelling on it?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Let's say that the model would have to be freakin' huge before you should be able to actually _see_ that level of detail.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

scotpens said:


> Pretty neat trick, considering the 11-foot miniature was never on the Desilu lot. It was kept at the Howard A. Anderson Company, which did all the bluescreen FX shots of the model.


Yeah, that's what they _wanted_ you to think... :dude:


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

OMG...

Another thread (I think it's the third) about bloody gridlines on the Enterprise? I don't know how far or how deep the discussion can really go on this. People have dissected nearly every pic of the original filming model that they can find a long time ago and then discussed it in minute detail. I never would have guessed that this particular feature would ever garner so much attention and controversy.

Did we really need to start another? The last thread is still hanging out there...

Bryan


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Its like the 'Law and Order' shows.

You can never have to many variations.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Tonight on _Law and Order - Gridlines_, are the lines too big or should they even exist at all.


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

SUNGOD said:


> I haven't got a clue whether what you're saying is right but are you saying that a real life Enterprise couldn't have any engraved panelling on it?


No it wouldn't, for a variety of reasons. The most important is how the ship would be constructed. Since you need to have a bonded hull with no imperfections. The hull would not be constructed by common methods of today. It wouldn't have any hull plates, or welding. For all the talk of Star Trek keeping up on the latest tech, they are way behind the times in manufacturing. I'll get back to this. 

Ok, here is some more fun stuff. You have a society that has the ability to transport and manipulate matter. MTAMS(Matter Transport And Manipulation System) This goes really far, and it's a shame ST never really used the implications of such a system. Using the logic that if you transport a human you can transport anything(I know they put limitations on this). One would assume they wouldn't just use the system to move people around(or turn the old young). It would be researched for all it's worth(Which is what we do whenever new things are developed). 
If you can manipulate matter it means you can make stuff, and all you need is matter and energy to do it(everything has a cost). Even better you can transport things over a great distance(from the ground to orbit?). 
Using such a system, you could create a starship in orbit from a distance. Most likely it wouldn't be done that way, the transporter system would grow/print the ship in a space dock under controlled conditions. 

I could go on for quite a while about this stuff(yes, I could write A book on the subject). But in reality a true MTAM system would be impossible in the world of physics. Even getting a ship to the speed of light is just as impossible. But the subjects are fun to think about, and you never know where those thoughts will lead. After all some engineers were watching ST and were inspired to create a portable communications device.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Atemylunch said:


> No it wouldn't, for a variety of reasons. The most important is how the ship would be constructed. Since you need to have a bonded hull with no imperfections. The hull would not be constructed by common methods of today. It wouldn't have any hull plates, or welding. For all the talk of Star Trek keeping up on the latest tech, they are way behind the times in manufacturing. I'll get back to this.
> 
> Ok, here is some more fun stuff. You have a society that has the ability to transport and manipulate matter. MTAMS(Matter Transport And Manipulation System) This goes really far, and it's a shame ST never really used the implications of such a system. Using the logic that if you transport a human you can transport anything(I know they put limitations on this). One would assume they wouldn't just use the system to move people around(or turn the old young). It would be researched for all it's worth(Which is what we do whenever new things are developed).
> If you can manipulate matter it means you can make stuff, and all you need is matter and energy to do it(everything has a cost). Even better you can transport things over a great distance(from the ground to orbit?).
> ...


Fascinating! I like your thinking and it makes so much more sense than what they've actually tried to suggest particularly in contemporary Trek and especially ST09.

:thumbsup:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I agree, and I always thought that nice smooth hull indicated some futuristic form of seamless shipbuilding. BUT, the gridlines are not necessarily panel lines. Maybe they ARE an embedded deflector array.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

I like the idea of printing a starship in orbit, like a 3D printer, but with the replicator/transporter providing the raw material. Hm.


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

SteveR said:


> I like the idea of printing a starship in orbit, like a 3D printer, but with the replicator/transporter providing the raw material. Hm.


Not only that but I envision a "self healing" ship. I always thought the skin of a starship should be advanced enough that it could "grow" and "fill in" any internal or external damage. 

But you get to a point where "science" can become boring for the sake of science fiction. Grid lines and hull plating, along with "battle damage" makes for interesting visuals.

By Next Generation they shouldn't have transporter rooms. I would imagine people should be able to self transport themselves from place to place in an instant with some limitations of distance.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

A lot of these ideas being discussed have become old hat in literary SF, but SF in film and television usually lags about ten to twenty years behind the literature. There's no reason that Trek's tech shouldn't depict the best ideas except that the writers and creators usually aren't cutting edge science fiction writers. They often don't even have such writers as consultants.

During TOS no one had any idea of nanotech. By the time of TNG nanotech should have been well established. Still from what we see of TOS nanotech can be easily retconned into it because TOS never did go in for elaborate techno-b.s. exposition. There were the occasional words and some vague reference or suggestion and they just got on with the story. This approach can still work today if you have decent writers.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Yeah, but the TNG crew had no freakin clue what nanites were when it came up.


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

Warped9 said:


> A lot of these ideas being discussed have become old hat in literary SF, but SF in film and television usually lags about ten to twenty years behind the literature.


I don't think its because the writers lack the imagination or knowledge. Its because of the "Star Wars" effect. Star Wars turned all "science fiction" into "science fantasy". 

I remember an episode in TOS where Kirk told a female guest they had "day" and "night" on a starship because humans are so accustomed to living that way on Earth. That idea was never followed up on in the entire run of the Star Trek franchise.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

Solium,

I disagree. There are several references to a diurnal cycle in STTNG. I vividly remember one scene that showed a shift change on the bridge where Data was taking command for the night and he ordered ships' lighting to be reduced for night cycle.

Larry


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

LGFugate said:


> Solium,
> 
> I disagree. There are several references to a diurnal cycle in STTNG. I vividly remember one scene that showed a shift change on the bridge where Data was taking command for the night and he ordered ships' lighting to be reduced for night cycle.
> 
> Larry


I admittedly didn't see a whole lot of NG. Glad to know the concept was carried over for the spin off. :thumbsup: I don't think it was ever mentioned again in TOS, and certainly not the films.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Atemylunch said:


> No it wouldn't, for a variety of reasons. The most important is how the ship would be constructed. Since you need to have a bonded hull with no imperfections. The hull would not be constructed by common methods of today. It wouldn't have any hull plates, or welding. For all the talk of Star Trek keeping up on the latest tech, they are way behind the times in manufacturing. I'll get back to this.
> 
> Ok, here is some more fun stuff. You have a society that has the ability to transport and manipulate matter. MTAMS(Matter Transport And Manipulation System) This goes really far, and it's a shame ST never really used the implications of such a system. Using the logic that if you transport a human you can transport anything(I know they put limitations on this). One would assume they wouldn't just use the system to move people around(or turn the old young). It would be researched for all it's worth(Which is what we do whenever new things are developed).
> If you can manipulate matter it means you can make stuff, and all you need is matter and energy to do it(everything has a cost). Even better you can transport things over a great distance(from the ground to orbit?).
> ...




That's assuming though (like John P says) that they are panel lines and also that they wouldn't have the technology in the future to be able to include a grid pattern and still travel at warp speeds.


----------



## Tim H. (Jun 23, 2009)

The ship was growed with one of these, but a much, much bigger unit. 

http://blog.ponoko.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/3360152941_cfe34a6beejpg.jpeg


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

According to the Franz Joseph plans, the gridlines are deflector shield emitters. But they’ve got them all over the ship, not just on the upper surface of the primary hull.

Of course, when the _Enterprise_ Refit model was build for _ST:TMP_, a featureless smooth hull would have looked ridiculously fake on the big screen. Hence the “aztec” pattern. Looks like hull plating with subtle variations in color and shading, but keeps the outside of the ship sleek and free of greeblies.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Actually, they ordered the grid lines from Montgomery Ward.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Captain April said:


> Actually, they ordered the grid lines from Montgomery Ward.


I always thought grid lines came from the grid stork.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

"Hey baby, your grid or mine?"
"Nice grid, baby. If you lower your shields, I'll show you my replicator."


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I always thought grid lines came from the grid stork.


Montgomery Ward had better shipping rates.


----------



## drmcoy (Nov 18, 2004)

well, i don't know about the bottom section of saucer, but here's a supposed shot of the good ship enterprise in storage before it went on display at smithsonian.

grid lines can clearly be seen as thin pencil lines on top section.

likely old news to many, but i haven't seen many pics posted.

cheers.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

drmcoy said:


> well, i don't know about the bottom section of saucer, but here's a supposed shot of the good ship enterprise in storage before it went on display at smithsonian.
> 
> grid lines can clearly be seen as thin pencil lines on top section.
> 
> ...


See how faint those are? Now that's the kind of effect I want to see.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Warped9 said:


> See how faint those are? Now that's the kind of effect I want to see.


The only way you're gonna get that is to have a pencil & compass included with the kit. Period.
-Jim


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Or _very_ finely etched or engraved lines. Candidly anything less than a 1/350 scale model and I'd forego the lines.

Actually, looking at the 1/350 refit, R2 those grid and panel lines are really too pronounced for the scale. R2 will have to do a lot better for the TOS _E_ if they elect to include such lines.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

JGG1701 said:


> The only way you're gonna get that is to have a pencil & compass included with the kit. Period.
> -Jim


The only major difference is what kind of line you can get with a pencil on a 6 foot model versus a model that's less than 2 feet in length. I don't think that there's a model company out there that could make the lines that subtle with a decal or engraving on a commercial level.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I have an odd idea. Is it possible that the lines are NOT meant to be seen, but were placed and spaced to aid in painting the various shaded areas and laying out the lettering?

"why would they lay out an entire grid and not just in the places where they put the stuff down?" I can hear some say.

Maybe there was thought there might be a need for other panel shading, or additional markings might be called for and it was thought that leaving the faint grid to aid that alignment for the future would save time and work. 

I know, thin, thin soup. But OTOH there was that completely new to me phaser cannon detail (with tiny bulb to key on for effects work), and all the other stuff coming to light, which has completely changed my thinking on how much planning and thinking and sheer work went into the studio model.

Now what I'm interested in, that pre-Smithsonian pic posted earlier, those silver-looking bands around the base of B-C deck and the Bridge deck. I don't think I'd ever seen them before either. Are those 'detail' paint bands or do folks think they might have been 'pre-shading' to make more visible definition between the saucer, the B-C deck bulge and the Bridge? Because under studio lights and after a couple of gens of film via passes thru the optical printer I could see problems with blurring and blending and loss of detail...

Thoughts?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

The lettering was already there for the 1st and 2nd pilot episodes, so no. The lines were added after the 11ft. miniature was already complete.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Warped9 said:


> The lettering was already there for the 1st and 2nd pilot episodes, so no. The lines were added after the 11ft. miniature was already complete.


Agreed, but there wasn't the idea of removing graphics to create other ships at that point in time, right? So maybe the lines were in aid of that?

Or not. It's just something that seems logical to me.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Steve H said:


> Agreed, but there wasn't the idea of removing graphics to create other ships at that point in time, right? So maybe the lines were in aid of that?
> 
> Or not. It's just something that seems logical to me.


I don't think they thought it through that far in advance.


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

Solium said:


> Not only that but I envision a "self healing" ship. I always thought the skin of a starship should be advanced enough that it could "grow" and "fill in" any internal or external damage.
> 
> But you get to a point where "science" can become boring for the sake of science fiction. Grid lines and hull plating, along with "battle damage" makes for interesting visuals.
> 
> By Next Generation they shouldn't have transporter rooms. I would imagine people should be able to self transport themselves from place to place in an instant with some limitations of distance.


This is sort of thing that happens in science fiction. How many people used to look at the wonder of flight, or television, even the idea of what we are doing right now. All of it started as science fiction. 
The idea of a self healing starship is where my thought process went. To the point where the ship will not only heal itself, but replace parts. No need for any access panels but if for some reason the ship could make a panel where needed. 

One of the things people would assume is things would get boring. But that depends on the creativity of the writers, after rewatching STNG I found myself board to tears with the plots they were putting out. Voyager was even worse(my wife said please don't watch it with her around). Each time I heard Laforge state some ST tecnobable, my thought was "Space Him!".

One of things lost in ST was the wonder of it all. Which is something this tech represents, and it's been done in sci-fi before. I can think of a number of plots where this tech plays a huge roll.
How is this? The ship requires raw material none can be found(or spared), and the ship is in a critical situation(a battle?) So due to some convenient oversight(for the story) crew members start disappearing. This can go all sorts of ways. That's just one idea, when it comes to this sort of stuff. It's only up to the guys writing the stories as to where it can go. Look how much they get out of crime shows, or even soap operas(like STNG). 

But to go back to the grid issue, it makes no sense to call it a deflector grid. 
It makes more sense to have it an antennae, since it didn't cover the ship. And the saucer is the largest part of the the ship, thus the best place for a deep space antennae.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Recently, I was yet again pondering the TOS E saucer design. Why the inverted dip making a concave area in the bottom of the saucer? We lose a good portion of deck 7 due to this. Aside from the cool factor or "boy that looks nice", it seems to have no justification.

Then It occurred to me: What if the shape makes the lower saucer a large antenna for the transporter? I know that I am retro-thinking with no good cause, but since there is a big question mark in my mind about this, perhaps there is a purpose to this design.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I think a better explanation is some sort of aerodynamic function, should an emergency landing on a planet be required.


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

charonjr said:


> Recently, I was yet again pondering the TOS E saucer design. Why the inverted dip making a concave area in the bottom of the saucer? We lose a good portion of deck 7 due to this. Aside from the cool factor or "boy that looks nice", it seems to have no justification.
> 
> Then It occurred to me: What if the shape makes the lower saucer a large antenna for the transporter? I know that I am retro-thinking with no good cause, but since there is a big question mark in my mind about this, perhaps there is a purpose to this design.



Beauty and function. I never thought the Enterprise was designed solely for functionality. Unlike today where every space counts, I would like to think, science has progressed enough in the twenty-third century where functionality and beauty could work hand in hand.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

That was supposedly the thinking behind the Enterprise-D...


----------



## Whiteraven_2001 (Apr 12, 2008)

Captain April said:


> That was supposedly the thinking behind the Enterprise-D...


Someone was nearsighted...


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

It was designed by Geordi La Forge...without his visor.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

I saw this..............................
-Jim


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Whiteraven_2001 said:


> Someone was nearsighted...


That would be Andrew Probert. I admire and respect the man’s talent, but I think he took a wrong turn with the _Enterprise_-D.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

charonjr said:


> Recently, I was yet again pondering the TOS E saucer design. Why the inverted dip making a concave area in the bottom of the saucer? We lose a good portion of deck 7 due to this. Aside from the cool factor or "boy that looks nice", it seems to have no justification.
> 
> Then It occurred to me: What if the shape makes the lower saucer a large antenna for the transporter? I know that I am retro-thinking with no good cause, but since there is a big question mark in my mind about this, perhaps there is a purpose to this design.


Why lose a good portion of deck 7.......

In any structure you have machinery needed to support that structure. Whether it be a building or a ship (both sea going and space going).
I never considered that space 'lost'. In a lot of plans, deck 7 has a lot of machinery in that concave area.
Everything doesn't need to have a ceiling height for a human to stand upright.

Initially, I liked the antenna idea. But then you'd have to always 'aim' the ship at what your transporting to. Making 'sneak attack' beaming hard to pull off.

The aerodynamics idea is another good one, but have you ever tried to throw a frisbee without spinning it?
If the inertial dampeners go out on an emergency landing, everyone would get flung to the outer bulkheads like a bad carnival ride.:freak:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

As far as I know, the aerodynamic consideration for emergency saucer landing was indeed the original intent.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

ClubTepes said:


> The aerodynamics idea is another good one, but have you ever tried to throw a frisbee without spinning it?
> If the inertial dampeners go out on an emergency landing, everyone would get flung to the outer bulkheads like a bad carnival ride.:freak:


Everything I've seen has the dorsal staying connected to the primary hulll. That would act like a plane's vertical stabilizer.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Paulbo said:


> Everything I've seen has the dorsal staying connected to the primary hulll. That would act like a plane's vertical stabilizer.


REALLY?

I mean, OK, it's what you've seen but in my decades of Trek Tech what I've seen is the separation is at or near the Saucer, leaving the pylon with the engineering hull.

I realize that there's some difficulty because the underside triangles are accepted to be support legs for a landed Saucer hull (and the pylon would make the logical third leg), but as Jefferies seemingly never did any spec drawings of how the saucer would actually land and how the legs would work, it's all conjecture no matter what. We just have markings on the hull. 

Those could be actual legs, they could be explosive covers for a more complex folded support system, they could be wave guides for force fields, they could be toasters, ya know? 

Of course that's what makes discussions like this fun. Sharing what we know, and the discovery of heretofore unknown knowledge, of long-buried pictures and such like. 

I don't dismiss the idea of the pylon staying connected to the saucer, really. I don't think I agree with it for both visual look and mechanical considerations, but I don't dismiss it out of hand. I look back at what 'we' all 'knew' about hand Phasers back in the day and how WRONG 'we' all were when that hero prop surfaced and the complex mechanics uncovered clearly for the first time. So, I leave my mind open now.


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

To my knowledge the saucer always disconnected at the top of the neck. Just like in the Next Generation. I also think the idea of the saucer becoming a reentry vehicle came much later and not necessarily canon. 

I do remember the original concept. The saucer could disconnect and separate in case the warp engines were at risk of over loading and exploding. 

I don't remember the specifics, but unlike Search For Spock, a starship's warp engines would create a much bigger "bang" than shown in that film. So it was of high priority to put as much distance between the saucer and the secondary hull as possible. 

Then again we have to take SFS with a grain of salt. I don't think a self destruct would originate from the bridge as if there were a ton of TNT underneath the captains chair.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

The dorsal's the third leg of a tripod landing gear - the other two legs are the triangles on the underside of the primary hull.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

I've never been sold on the idea that there was a landing gear...I mean, look how the NCC-1701-D landed. That's pretty much how I always figured the saucers would land...a controlled crash.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Well, the tech manual has a few more details, like deflector fields to soften the landing, but they were knocked out in that instance, so...


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Captain April said:


> Let's say that the model would have to be freakin' huge before you should be able to actually _see_ that level of detail.


Absolutely correct.

Let's say that there are real welded panels making up the hull exterior, and let's further say that the welding process used in this case is equivalent to contemporary welding processes, as used in naval vessels.

The panel gaps would be less than or equal to 1/4" of an inch, and the raised seams would likely be ground flush. However, let's assume that they're NOT ground flush. In that case, the height of a typical weld bead would be less than 1/8".

Okay, now, let's take that down to 1:350 scale. That weld seam bead would be 0.0007" wide and 0.0003" tall.

Now, the best practical molded detail for styrene injection molding has a tolerance of about +/- 0.0035". And that's SUPER-HIGH PRECISION. Realistically, details tend to be more in the range of +/- 0.008".

So, the best we can hope for for engraved gridlines is something about 0.007" wide. Which, in-scale, is 2.45" wide.

That's not a weld line, or a "gap between adjacent panels," is it?

We could say that this is some form of conduit (think the sort of stuff you can use to run wiring inside your home, nailed to the walls, if you don't want to rip out your drywall to put in in-wall wiring). Of course, in that case, it would need to be RAISED detail, not engraved detail, wouldn't it, like the old AMT kit.

Alternatively, you could assume that the ship has a hull that actually exists at the bottom of the "gridlines) and that the apparent external hull we see is some sort of applied additional layer... along the lines of "reactive armor" and the like. This actually is the most plausible explanation I can think of... the ship seen in the first two pilots had the original hull, and for the series, they'd laminated additional sheeting on top of that with ~2 1/2" gaps between the add-on sheets. If that was the case... it would not be the grooves that would be functional, but the add-on plating that would be functional. (This might also explain why this was only on the topside of the saucer, or ARGUABLY only on the saucer (top and bottom), but not on the nacelles or secondary hull. There would be a weight penalty and it would only have been added where it was most necessary to address some real or perceived design flaw in the ship.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Solium said:


> To my knowledge the saucer always disconnected at the top of the neck. Just like in the Next Generation. I also think the idea of the saucer becoming a reentry vehicle came much later and not necessarily canon.


Yeah, I fail to see any advantage to landing a saucer section, for a ship that has transporters. It would make a lot more sense to leave the saucer in orbit, where it would be able to serve as an early-warning system, a long range transmitter station, etc...

That said, we also know that Star Trek was, in many ways, influenced by Forbidden Planet. And the first (and ONLY) time I ever saw the supposed "these are legs and the dorsal is the third leg" thing was in what was a clear homage to Forbidden Planet.

SOMEONE, during the retrofit of the filming model, may have had this in mind. I doubt, very much, that Matt Jefferies had this in mind, however. 

So, for me, the triangles are tied to the transporter system, not to any landing system. They're the precursors to the tan rectangles we see on the 1701-D and later ships... transporter emitter antennae.

The idea of landing the saucer just seems silly and pointless to me. At best, you might SCUTTLE the saucer (to prevent it from being captured) but in that case, you'd do something very much along the lines of ST-TSFS. (Except, of course, that blowing up fusion reactors would be a lot more energetic than the "conventional explosives" approach used in TSFS, as mentioned in an earlier post!)


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

In "The Apple" and "The Savage Curtain", there are oblique references to jettisoning the nacelles.



> *The Apple*
> 
> KIRK: Discard the warp drive nacelles if you have to, and crack out of there with the main section, but get that ship out of there!




That also points to the saucer being "the main section."


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

AFAIK, Richard Datin stated that the triangles are landing gear - he never said anything about them being antennae for the transporters. As for where the neck would separate (top or bottom), to *me* it makes more sense on this design of the ship for it to be at the bottom so that the neck can serve as both a vertical stabilizer and a third landing gear for stability.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Paulbo said:


> AFAIK, Richard Datin stated that the triangles are landing gear - he never said anything about them being antennae for the transporters. As for where the neck would separate (top or bottom), to *me* it makes more sense on this design of the ship for it to be at the bottom so that the neck can serve as both a vertical stabilizer and a third landing gear for stability.


I've heard claims that Datin said this, but I've never seen a properly-attributed, reliable quote.

And while Datin was involved in making the model, he didn't design it. Maybe he had this in mind (perhaps he was a big Forbidden Planet fan) when adding those.

And I KNOW that I've seen properly-attributed quotes from Datin which directly contradict some "hearsay" claims attributed to him. So, I'm disinclined to just accept hearsay.

The only place I've ever seen the "landing legs" bit was in Mandell's first (ring-bound) version of his "USS Enterprise Officer's Manual." And Mandell is a strongly self-identified fan of Forbidden Planet.

You're right, there is nothing on-screen which would lead us to conclude that the triangles are transporter emitters. I've never claimed anything of the sort, have I?

But there is nothing on-screen which would lead us to conclude that these are landing legs, either. The ship's saucer is NOT aerodynamically-sound, and is not designed in such a way to be practically landable using any real physics. 

Plus, we have outright statements from Roddenberry and from Jefferies that the ship "never lands." And we have TRANSPORTERS, which pretty much renders the need to land moot (and that, by production intent).

So... is it POSSIBLE that Richard Datin said this? I suppose, but I'd want to see evidence, not just unsupported claims. I could say, right here, that Datin told me personally that they were actually some form of hydrogen scoop, or that Jefferies told me that they're "formation markings," or that Roddenbery told me that they're the main sensors, couldn't I?

If someone added them with this in mind... perhaps Datin?... well, it's also possible that the little "turret" on the lower dome was created by someone with the intention that it be a "cannon" but we know it was never treated that way, don't we?

All we REALLY know is that there are triangles on the hull in those spots. NOBODY knows what they "really" are. If you like them as legs, great. But let's not go claiming that this ARE that, as if it's an unquestionable fact, OK? All they "really are" are painted triangles on a model, after all. :thumbsup:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Oh, _now_ you start getting logical on us...


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

CLBrown said:


> All they "really are" are painted triangles on a model, after all. :thumbsup:


Finally!


----------



## Chris Pike (Jul 23, 2005)

Long established in the 70's I remember as landing leg covers, Jim Dow when heading up the refit model commented they had added a two more hatches for the landing legs, with the third leg hidden under the dorsal separation point being replaced by two rear hatches/legs in the refit - very clearly intended from the outset no doubt at all..


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

The discussion seems to be about the Saucer section landing instead of using transporters or 'the ship never lands' quote.
The Saucer was not to separate and/or land as a matter of routine. The ability was for it to act as an emergency lifeboat or last resort for survival. This was exactly as it was shown in 'Generations'.


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

CLBrown said:


> All we REALLY know is that there are triangles on the hull in those spots. NOBODY knows what they "really" are. If you like them as legs, great. But let's not go claiming that this ARE that, as if it's an unquestionable fact, OK? All they "really are" are painted triangles on a model, after all. :thumbsup:


It's heartening to me that after encyclopedia-length post after post on personal theories and obscure engineering principles, there's this piece of reality.

I seem to remember reading from a source I considered credble -- but of course, what do I know? -- that the Enterprise basic design was established before its size was, so maybe landing legs date back to the tug of war between Jefferies and Roddenberry on how much detail to add to the exterior. Also, it makes sense to me that a ship with transporters would also have landing capacity. I'm sitting in a building right now that has elevators and stairs, for example.

Does somebody have a copy of the old McCullars interviews with Datin to settle this? It's kind of aggresively useless to say anybody could make up quotes from him. Hopefully, an actual published interview is credible enough for anyone for whom the idea that the triangles are landing legs either is gospel or contradicts their own preferences.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

I have the magazines where Datin's best published references came from... but they're off in storage and I don't feel like digging them out right now.

That said, if anyone has access to these, they're the best published references:

Cinefantastique Magazine Vol. 27, No. 11/12 (from 1996)

Star Trek Communicator #132 and 133 (from 2000)

Paul Newitt (of the "Starfleet Assembly Manuals") also is known to have had a close relationship with Datin, so I tend to take things that Newitt says as reasonably authoritative, though not so much so as were they direct Datin quotes.

And, again, for anyone who's missing what we're discussing, Datin built the 3-footer, was involved in the 11-footer, was responsible for the two major model reworkings during the series, built K-7, and built the shuttle mini and the shuttlebay (forced-perspective) mini.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Bump, because I'm not wanting to derail another thread. 

OK, we were talking about the triangles on the underside of the saucer. I still contend we REALLY don't know what they are other than a detail on the model to make it more interesting, altho I can go along with the common belief they're part of some kind of emergency landing gear system.

Then, prompted by the Revell Germany Klingon ship thread, I stumble across this.

http://www.modelermagic.com/wordpre...03/kg_star-trek_tos_1701_studio_model-006.jpg

It's from a group of pics of the pre-restoration Enterprise, and look at that.

I thought at first (in other pics of the area) that there was a groove in the hull at the wide part, but this pic, that's a...what, flange? fin? It sure looks like a piece sticking OUT, doesn't it?

Man, the more one looks, the more fascinating that model gets.

And THIS pic makes it unquestionable. wow, just wow.

http://www.modelermagic.com/wordpre...03/kg_star-trek_tos_1701_studio_model-019.jpg


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Steve H said:


> Bump, because I'm not wanting to derail another thread.
> 
> OK, we were talking about the triangles on the underside of the saucer. I still contend we REALLY don't know what they are other than a detail on the model to make it more interesting, altho I can go along with the common belief they're part of some kind of emergency landing gear system.
> 
> ...


Yep, the raised ribs have always been there, as long as the "triangles" were there (meaning, from the beginning).

I think that this is part of why some people think that they're "legs"... because they see these and think "these things must be hinges."

There's a huge problem with that train of thought, however, and the problem is actually made very clear from the images you provided. These ribs are CURVED, and trace an arc which is concentric to the primary hull OD at that location. And, of course, hinges cannot be curved... all hinges are, by definition, devices rotating around an axis, and they must be straight.

It would be possible to have this be a leg, if you had a pair of ball-joints at either end, but then you have to explain why there's an entire raised rib rather than just the two ball-joints.

The assumption that this is a "hinge" has, in my opinion, always been at the core of why so many people (again, in my opinion, falsely) conclude that this is a leg. But once you realize that it cannot be a hinge, this goes by the wayside.

To me, this is simply the "driver element" of the transporter emitter antenna.

A lot of people miss this, but those of us who've studied this ship in detail have been aware of this all along. My own computer model of the ship has this detail, as you can see pretty clearly here:



But the curvature of the rib is key to why I cannot accept it as a hinge, nor of that area as a leg.


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

If the triangles are landing gear, then the ship must have Inspector Gadget legs! If one argues the neck stays with the saucer during separation and acts as the third leg. 

Since there are similarly placed "cargo" holds underneath the saucer in TMP. I would say these triangles are cargo hold doors.


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

As a 9 year-old watching the show in first-run, I imagined the triangles to be some kind of hard shielding for protecting the hull from photon torpedo firing exhaust/radiation/glowy stuff. I adopted the landing leg theory later on, but didn't buy into it too heavily. As for part of the transporter system.... maybe, although as I kid I imagined that was the reason the lower sensor dome was clear.... it was the sole emitter for the transporter (but I think that idea comes from the illustration of a James Blish cover, depicting the crew materializing on a planet with energy swirls coming down from the lower saucer dome.


----------



## Scorpitat (Oct 7, 2004)

They are neither legs nor cargo bay hatches. They are simply quick use jettison hatches for Kirk to "space" his bimbos before the ship gets back to space dock, so he isn't caught pants down by Starfleet superiors.

Actually, I always considered those triangles as some sort of emitter panel or array, similar to those found on Voyagers' hull. The landing leg is an interesting concept, but you would think a landing leg to have a much "beefier" design if it is meant to support the entire saucer section on a landing scenario.

Could they be some type of "pushing force" array, used to get the ship into a higher orbit from a planet surface, like when they tried to gain altitude to outrun the plane chasing them in the TOS episode? Who knows for sure? This is science fantasy after all, and viewer conjecture is what makes this fun.

That said, I'm sticking with my Kirk bimbo jettison hatch theory. LOL

Sincerely,
Scorp.

"Boldly GO!". :wave:


----------



## Scorpitat (Oct 7, 2004)

If you follow these links and zoom into the space dock pic of Voyagers underside, there are gray panels on the side near the rear of the saucer area. Kind of similar to enterprises' panels we refer to. Just a thought.

http://www.startrek-wallpapers.com/Star-Trek-Voyager/Voyager-Docked-Utopia-Planitia-Yard/

http://www.startrekdesktopwallpaper...DryDock_freecomputerdesktopwallpaper_1440.jpg

Now THIS is a beefy landing gear!
http://www.starfleetmodeler.com/Starships/Intrepid Class/images/Pdvd_076.jpg


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Larva said:


> As a 9 year-old watching the show in first-run, I imagined the triangles to be some kind of hard shielding for protecting the hull from photon torpedo firing exhaust/radiation/glowy stuff. I adopted the landing leg theory later on, but didn't buy into it too heavily. As for part of the transporter system.... maybe, although as I kid I imagined that was the reason the lower sensor dome was clear.... it was the sole emitter for the transporter (but I think that idea comes from the illustration of a James Blish cover, depicting the crew materializing on a planet with energy swirls coming down from the lower saucer dome.


Part of why I like these as transporter emitters is that they happen to be adjacent to the deck where the transporters are, and when I was laying out my interior for my Pro/ENGINEER version of the Enterprise, making everything fit together as best I could, it turned out that, with the transporter room where it is shown in the series (off one of the "standard inner ring corridors" which I have on most of my saucer deck plans, representing the exact diameter of the on-screen corridor set), the outer wall of the transporter room set is almost tangent to this raised rib, and is located (in at least one case) in that exact location. (Obviously, we only saw the one transporter room set, though I do believe we were told that the ship had at least two transporters... dialogue is escaping me right now, but I'm pretty sure that at some point we were referred to "transporter room one" or "transporter room two" or so forth, weren't we?)

In any case, MY buildup has two transporter rooms, on the deck they're supposed to be on, are right next to these two triangles, and as it turns out, this works ideally with the "on-stage set" layout.

Too many things fit this way for me, personally, to accept them as anything else.

But, again, all they REALLY are is painted details (okay, and also a pair of pieces of wooden ribwork!) on a model.

I'm just looking forward to someone trying to turn these shapes into hinges, and see how that works out for them! . :freak:


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

TOS dialog never stated more than one transporter room. The "transporter room two" dialog originated with TNG. It was the Franz Josephs deck layout blueprints that established multiple transporter rooms, and cargo transporters, etc. But you are correct, the triangle detail does correspond nicely to the theoretical location based on the FJ blue prints.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

CLBrown said:


> Yep, the raised ribs have always been there, as long as the "triangles" were there (meaning, from the beginning).
> 
> I think that this is part of why some people think that they're "legs"... because they see these and think "these things must be hinges."
> 
> ...


Very logical, very rationally thought out. (I also ref. your later post about why they should be emitters based on internal hull logic)

I had never, EVER seen that detail, that rib. But to be fair, I never had to even consider it before I came here. I've learned so much over the time since I joined.

OK, because I love such discussions, devil's advocate time again. If those triangles WERE for landing legs in a 'saucer down' scenario, who is to say the triangles themselves are the legs? They could be explosive panels to be blown off after atmosphere entry, they could be hinged on the long side or even the narrow end (offset hinges pushing the panel down before swinging it), even a seam down the middle that's painted over...

We have no idea. If Jefferies had been tasked with planning out and designing the landing gear I'm sure he would have dipped into his aviation knowledge to design a system that was robust yet as simple as possible both as an aid to building for the model and as the practical reality of 'simple and as foolproof as possible' because it WAS emergency gear and needed to WORK no matter what. Just calling it 'like Forbidden Planet, ramps that double as legs' just doesn't seem...elegant enough for what he'd do.

So, Transporter emitters, subspace radio antenna, racing stripes, who knows. I suspect from some of the previous and expected replies they're actually whatever someone WANTS them to be.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

By the way, this also does bear on the "gridlines" issue. The images below are terrific, by the way, and are great resources


Steve H said:


> http://www.modelermagic.com/wordpre...03/kg_star-trek_tos_1701_studio_model-006.jpg
> 
> It's from a group of pics of the pre-restoration Enterprise, and look at that.
> 
> http://www.modelermagic.com/wordpre...03/kg_star-trek_tos_1701_studio_model-019.jpg


Now, I know that some of the folks in this conversation believed that the little decal markings were added "during the earlier restoration" when, supposedly, the underside grid lines were "painted over." But we know that these decals were part of the original decal sheet made for the original miniature during the production of the series. (You can see the marking decals underneath the starboard and one of the two forward access ports on the primary hull underside, though you can't read them here.) Further, the Smithsonian's records show that they were billed for, and paid for, only "touchup" painting during the earlier restoration.

For these reasons, I believe that what we're looking at here is the original finish condition of the miniature as seen on-screen during the filming of the series. Others disagree with me, but to me, the presence of the original decals (in the exact shapes as were cut out from the original production decal sheets, which have been studied) tells me that this is undoubtedly the original state.

It is possible, I suppose, that the "touchup paint" which the Smithsonian paid for might have been airbrushing over the underside gridlines, and that they avoided any other features, including these original decals.

But I think it's quite clear from these images that, at the time that these photos were taken, there was no gridwork on the underside, and it seems unlikely that they'd have repainted the bottom while somehow leaving the decals in their original state, doesn't it?

In any case, this is one of those images I've had for ages, which is why I have every intention of filling in the gridlines on the upcoming kit. Fortunately, with them being as slight as they are, this process will be much easier than it might otherwise have been. The ideal gridline size is 0.1mm x 0.1mm... sufficient for people to "trace etch" over to make more robust if they want to, or to fill in easily if (like me) they want them absent, and which will not look too bad if they're merely left alone entirely.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

And just to stir the pot, supposedly the paint on the upper surface was left untouched in the restoration. I assume that there HAD to be some touchup work done to cover the putty work on the Bridge A/B deck but you can see in one pic what seems to be wax paper put down to cover and protect the paint as they putty the seam. 

What I'm impressed with is how MUCH weathering was done on the original, and looking very subtle. Gives me a whole new perspective on what is expected in a build of the ship, ya know? That weathering looks, to me, to be much more than just shading to help the shapes survive blurring when they have to do all the multi-gen process shots and optical printer stuff.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Steve H said:


> And just to stir the pot, supposedly the paint on the upper surface was left untouched in the restoration. I assume that there HAD to be some touchup work done to cover the putty work on the Bridge A/B deck but you can see in one pic what seems to be wax paper put down to cover and protect the paint as they putty the seam.
> 
> What I'm impressed with is how MUCH weathering was done on the original, and looking very subtle. Gives me a whole new perspective on what is expected in a build of the ship, ya know? That weathering looks, to me, to be much more than just shading to help the shapes survive blurring when they have to do all the multi-gen process shots and optical printer stuff.


Agreed. I think that AMT really got it right the first time... at least in regards to presence or absence of grids (though I definitely think that they WAAAAY overdid what they put on their kit!) There's plenty to complain about re: the AMT kit, but it's not THAT bad, all things considered. 

It's a good thing that the top side primary hull has been left untouched to date. What I'd love to see is a high-definition scan of that top surface (using a calibrated lighting system) which could serve as a guide to color and weathering for both a "total restoration" and for creation of the most accurate "CGI-photographic" duplicate of the original ship as possible.

The weathering on the original ship was almost subliminal.. you never actually noticed it unless you were really looking, hard, to find it. But it adds a lot.

This is sort of like what was done with the TMP ship for panel detailing (not gridlines) with the "aztec" pattern. On the TMP ship, the paneling was nearly subliminal. Later versions of Trek ships, which used "aztec pattern" paint on the hull overdid this so dramatically, it lost the effect almost entirely.

As a general rule, understatement is a good thing when doing models. Overdo it and you have a toy, not a believable miniature.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Well, I have a whole other beef with the Aztec thing. I do think it's just too overdone on many kits built, esp. for the scale. And very few builders use pearlescent paints for the proper reflectivity. The whole point of the Aztec paint was to make the Enterprise shine and shimmer like a jewel with many subtle facets. 

But that's a whole other subject beaten to death in other threads 

What impressed me most of all, looking at those pics of the pre-restoration Enterprise, was how stunningly careful everything was, the placement of window decals and such. I can see how it was all done in a way to take into account deck spacing and interior volume. I don't think I'd ever seen such obvious 'external hatch' decals as seen in those pics, I'm used to them being just 'colored squares', the small ones on the starboard side being mirrored from the port side of the under saucer. Yet that's NOT true, the starboard side are CLEARLY man high doors. There was real and careful thought going on.

Also, uh-oh, grid lines on the undersaucer! 

http://www.modelermagic.com/wordpre...03/kg_star-trek_tos_1701_studio_model-011.jpg

Altho I should point out that it was stated that these pics were taken during the restoration process, as one can tell by the various 'in process' shots of new paint and such.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Larva said:


> TOS dialog never stated more than one transporter room. The "transporter room two" dialog originated with TNG. It was the Franz Josephs deck layout blueprints that established multiple transporter rooms, and cargo transporters, etc. But you are correct, the triangle detail does correspond nicely to the theoretical location based on the FJ blue prints.


_The Making Of Star Trek,_ printed in summer of 1968, has excepts from the Writer's Guide and in there it states the ship had more than one transporter. FJ just ran with that.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Several threads on the Polar Lights Enterprise are running simultaneously, so rather than post dozens of replies and wear out my welcome, I thought I'd consolidate my comments into one statement and cross-post it in each thread. Just a thought, but would it be possible to consolidate all the commentary into one thread? Anyhow, here are my two-cents:

1. Probably the most important info to disseminate: the grid lines on the styrene kit will be thinner than those on the current mock-up. 

2. If there's any confusion, the 11-footer had grids on the top, sides, and bottom of the saucer - not just on the top.

3. The bridge and the teardrop-shaped structure below it were completely repainted during the 1991-92 restoration. The rest of the upper saucer is still untouched.

4. We know the 3 tabs that hold the mock-up's domes in place are too thick. I've got excellent photos of the original acrylic tabs, and the model's tabs will be fixed so they match the originals.

5. Fine textures, like the diamond pattern inside the intercooler loops, are not on the mock-up and will be added during tooling. I'm not sure what texture PL has planned for the domes, but you could do a pretty good job with some 600-grit sandpaper. FYI, Richard Datin said that he purchased two clear 7" domes for $15 and had them finely sandblasted by Abrasive Art to be translucent for $2.50.

6. The Chinese made some parts opaque instead of clear on the mock-up, but they'll be corrected.

7. To clarify about the triangles under the saucer: on the 11-footer the long sides of the triangles are engraved, with gray trim on the inside edges, and a curved half-round is screwed to the base of the triangle. The original series never delved as deeply into the technical details as the later shows did, but eleven years ago William McCullars said to me that Richard Datin had told him that the triangles were supposed to be part of the emergency landing gear. I recently asked William if he could find that in writing, but unfortunately, William couldn't find that in an email from Datin and thinks that Datin told him this over the phone. 

I suspect that in reality, curved half-rounds were screwed to the bases of the triangles because they fit the curved hull much better than a straight "hinge" would have. Try gluing a straight rod to the lower hull of an 18" Enterprise kit and you'll see what I mean. If this were a real spaceship, the actual hinge mechanism would probably be located safely inside the outer hull, like the landing gear on the space shuttle and modern aircraft. As for the function of the half-rounds - I wouldn't be surprised if they were there because they looked cool. I know professional model makers and designers in Hollywood & at ILM, and believe me, "because it looks cool" plays an important part of the spaceship design process.  

Landing gear doesn't necessarily have to support the saucer. I was corresponding with a well-known Star Trek designer a few years ago, and he hypothesized that the expendable lower sensor dome would bear the brunt of the saucer's weight, similar to the case with the C-57D, and the landing gear would merely have to brace the saucer and keep it from tipping over. 

Lending credence to the TOS E's theoretical landing gear is the fact that the Refit had 4 landing pads on the underside of the saucer - and the Refit didn't have any transporter emitters, which weren't "invented" until The Next Gen debuted eighteen years after TOS went off the air. Of course, a modeler is free to assign a name or a theoretical function to any part of his own model.

8. The Franz Joseph blueprints are interesting in their own right, but they weren't published until 1975 and can't be used to retroactively "prove" the existence and/or locations of rooms and other features on the 1960s ship.

Gary


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I think I just had an epiphany regarding how those landing gear would work...


----------



## Chris Pike (Jul 23, 2005)

Gary K said:


> 7. To clarify about the triangles under the saucer: on the 11-footer the long sides of the triangles are engraved, with gray trim on the inside edges, and a curved half-round is screwed to the base of the triangle. The original series never delved as deeply into the technical details as the later shows did, but eleven years ago William McCullars said to me that Richard Datin had told him that the triangles were supposed to be part of the emergency landing gear. I recently asked William if he could find that in writing, but unfortunately, William couldn't find that in an email from Datin and thinks that Datin told him this over the phone.
> 
> I suspect that in reality, curved half-rounds were screwed to the bases of the triangles because they fit the curved hull much better than a straight "hinge" would have. Try gluing a straight rod to the lower hull of an 18" Enterprise kit and you'll see what I mean. If this were a real spaceship, the actual hinge mechanism would probably be located safely inside the outer hull, like the landing gear on the space shuttle and modern aircraft. As for the function of the half-rounds - I wouldn't be surprised if they were there because they looked cool. I know professional model makers and designers in Hollywood & at ILM, and believe me, "because it looks cool" plays an important part of the spaceship design process.  Lending credence to the TOS E's theoretical landing gear is the fact that the Refit had 4 landing pads on the underside of the saucer - and the Refit didn't have any transporter emitters, which weren't "invented" until The Next Gen debuted eighteen years after TOS went off the air. Of course, a modeler is free to assign a name or a theoretical function to any part of his own model.
> 
> Gary


exactly my understanding for the past 35+ years, thanks GK! thought maybe I was going mad with false memories!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

On point 7, Gary, looking at those pre-restoration pics, I really couldn't tell for sure if the triangles were engraved. I *thought* they might be but the light just didn't bounce right to be 100% sure. Looking another way what MIGHT be is the entire triangle being routered into the saucer with the inner triangle a 'plant on' piece.

As to the 'it looks cool' thing, yeah, that's very common. Note the use of another piece of curved rib on the bottom of the nacelle cap!

http://www.modelermagic.com/wordpre...03/kg_star-trek_tos_1701_studio_model-081.jpg

Man, the more I learn!


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Steve H said:


> Note the use of another piece of curved rib on the bottom of the nacelle cap!
> 
> http://www.modelermagic.com/wordpre...03/kg_star-trek_tos_1701_studio_model-081.jpg
> 
> Man, the more I learn!


The endcaps were formed by wrapping some ribbed plastic sheeting around the tapered wooden ends of the nacelles. The mismatch in the ends of the ribbed sheeting was hidden on the side of the endcap that faced away from the camera. If we're talking about the same thing the "rib" you referred to is actually a gap where the plastic sheeting has separated from the wooden endcap.

Gary


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

What I'd like to see is more pics of the ol' girl when they uncrated her at the Smithsonian, before _their_ hamfisted attempts at "restoring" her.

Because any surface details that survived after that point was purely because of divine intervention. The upper surface of the saucer was left untouched, but the rest of the ship was most definitely touched, generally with a bland overall battleship gray paint job and fresh markings.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Gary K said:


> The endcaps were formed by wrapping some ribbed plastic sheeting around the tapered wooden ends of the nacelles. The mismatch in the ends of the ribbed sheeting was hidden on the side of the endcap that faced away from the camera. If we're talking about the same thing the "rib" you referred to is actually a gap where the plastic sheeting has separated from the wooden endcap.
> 
> Gary


Ahhhh, yes, OK, I can see the raggedy separation. I stand corrected!

Sure looked like a rib. That's the issue with photo interpretation I guess.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

On the grid line issue: The Smithsonian had one directive, and that was the original vacuum-formed saucer top was not to be touched. Everything else on the model was fair game. The 1991-92 restoration was performed by an idi...erm, a man I've known for 31 years, Ed Miarecki. The guy has an ego the size of the Louisiana Purchase. When I first saw the paint job, I was stunned stupid! I just said, "Ed, what the **** were you thinking?" I never recieved a satisfactory answer. His restoration is enough to make you cry.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

His explanation for the hyperdetailing makes perfect sense _if they were doing multiple passes with a computer controlled motion control system!_ But since that system was a good ten years away when TOS was made, the approach was, at best, fatally flawed.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

SteveR said:


> scotpens said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty neat trick, considering the 11-foot miniature was never on the Desilu lot. It was kept at the Howard A. Anderson Company, which did all the bluescreen FX shots of the model.
> ...


I just happened to be reading Howard A. Anderson's obituary, and it seems his special-effects company was actually located on the Desilu (later Paramount) studio property. So I belatedly correct myself.


----------

