# 1/350 TOS Enterprise - symmetrical or not



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Something interesting that came to mind, looking at the renderings of the 1/350 TOS Enterprise that R2 is doing, I noticed that the renders are accurate (as expected) to the 11 footer. Including the fact that the windows on the quarters of the saucers are asymmetrical. 

On the starboard front quarter are a series of windows a that we'd all recognize. However, on the port quarter, there are only two windows. To me, even though this is correct to the 11 footer, it looks wrong. Which I believe, when the model was modified for the production version, the number of windows weren't increased as they were on the starboard side.

So, the question is.........

1.) Make the front windows symmetrical and let the modeler decide if the want only two windows on the port side. In which case all they'd have to do is paint over them. Or.......

2.) Have only two windows on the port side which would require the modeler to cut them out if they wanted a symmetrical layout.

My personal vote is to make them symmetrical which would only require the modeler to paint over them if they didn't want them.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

ClubTepes said:


> My personal vote is to make them symmetrical which would only require the modeler to paint over them if they didn't want them.


This is my stance. Remember that they initially planned to have reverse decals for the nacelles so they could film the ship from the other side. Since this would mean flipping the film negative you would have the effect of seeing the starboard side reversed and shown as the port side and all the starboard side's details would be reversed. Hence you would have symmetrical detailing on both sides.

That's how I would go with it. And for me that includes the detailing on the lower side of the saucer as well as the B/C deck superstructure.

And if I'm not mistaken I think that's what TOS-R did as well.

One thing, though, is the window detail on the lower forward part of the saucer is obviously asymmetrical and that seems to be how it was intended. I'd leave that as is.

And although we never saw it I'd consider adding a gangway hatch to the rim of the starboard side to be somewhat consistent with what we saw on the TMP refit. It's not established, but you can debate it one way or the other. I'm thinking of adding it to my build.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

It really doesn't matter to me if those ports are symmetrical or not. They might even have an option for either one in the kit.

There were a lot more asymmetrical differences than a just few lit windows between the details of the "idealized" ship and the 4x stage model:

- The lower engineering hull left side had no ports at all (lit or otherwise), and no "box" beside the main sensor dish and rings

- The warp nacelles only had two planks each below each power dome (right and center), instead of three

- There was no rear rectangular vent on the inboard side of the right nacelle, and none on the outboard side of the left

- No "trench" on the inboard side of the right engine nacelle

They're addressing everything else. So, I'm not going to quibble over which way they go with the window pattern


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ You shouldn't try to cloud the issue with the truth. :lol:


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

what? everybody knows there were no windows at all on the port side of the 11 ft model so I would demand them to be faithful to that

plus I want scaled down duct tape to cover the wiring run along the hull

KIDDING!!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I believe I read Round 2 said that the windows on the primary hull would be inserts, like the refit. If that is the case and it does not add to the cost, perhaps alternate inserts could be made available for the builder to choose from. I am sure this is a deal breaker as they will want to keep cost down as much as possible.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I think the duct tape and wiring will be included in the accessory pack!


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

I would vote for asymmetrical. On another note I am planning on doing a version of the miniature including all of the traits of the 11 footer (no windows on the secondary hull, etc.)


----------



## James Tiberius (Oct 23, 2007)

I am going to make it so accurate that I'm going to cut a huge hole on the left side of the model to be used as a stand!

I voted for asymetrical, just cause.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

Do we really need a poll on something that people have no knowledge of, or have any control over, for at least another year?

I don't know how any of the studio models were actually built, but all of the blueprints I ever had of the bloody thing were symmetrical, so that's the way I would go - personally speaking. I'm not building a model of a model, I'm building a model of a starship that exists in an imaginary world.

Bryan


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

Well, people do have knowledge; it's well known that the studio model is not symmetrical.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

My two cents;

First, the 11 foot miniature was only fitted out to be filmed from the right side when it was converted with lighting. There are a few shots in the show, that were not just flopped images of regular stock footage that show us the left side. ("Dagger of the Mind" and "Mirror, Mirror") This, as most here know, was done by removing all numbers and letters and replacing them with reversed graphics. The film was then flopped and voila, the left side is now a MIRROR image of the right! The two lit windows we see on the left leading edge of the primary hull are there only if the camera was angled just right and might catch them. Time is money in the film business and you don't pay someone for work that does not need to be done!

And second Round 2 has already established with the 1/1000 that the windows were symmetrical.

That is how I view it. I hope they make it symmetrical. It will be easier for those who only want 2 windows to put the clear inserts in and fill and sand the unwanted ones, than it would be to hand cut new windows and make their own clear inserts.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

^^ Hear, hear...well said

By the way...has anybody else noticed how much the "tholian Defiant" looks like this grean beast? 

Perhaps Round 2 can offer a "Marieki-prise" (sp?) so you can duplicate the prop as it looks at the Smithsonian?


----------



## bigdaddydaveh (Jul 20, 2007)

I think they should be asymmetrical since the bridge is sitting at an angle in relation to the center line of the primary hull as well. It was clearly designed that way (preparing to dodge thrown rocks, sprue, and Xacto #11 blades...)


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

She's green!


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Mold it in clear plastic and there wouldn't be an issue 

Seriously though, having the windows either way would be fine. But if the left side kept the 2 windows on the rim, why not make the rest of that side's window pattern match Matt Jefferies drawing too???


----------



## scifiguy67 (Jan 18, 2011)

Gemini1999 said:


> Do we really need a poll on something that people have no knowledge of, or have any control over, for at least another year?
> 
> I don't know how any of the studio models were actually built, but all of the blueprints I ever had of the bloody thing were symmetrical, so that's the way I would go - personally speaking. I'm not building a model of a model, I'm building a model of a starship that exists in an imaginary world.
> 
> Bryan


agreed! this is stupid to pay this much & wait this long for an accurate model of the big E ...so you can build it to show one side? ...come on!! if anybody want it that accurate as the 11 footer let them do it them self!


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Ummmmm... I'd want it to look like it would if it actually were up there in space. Would Starfleet have built a ship with assymetrical windows or no windows on the port side of the secondary hull ? 
I think not.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Candidly I don't mind some asymmetry. Indeed if you look at the bow view of the drawings in _The Making Of Star Trek_ you can see that the windows around the saucer rim are not symmetrical. And in the real world an aircraft carrier is certainly not symmetrical.


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

Voted for symmetry.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

For the TOS Enterprise I'm fine either way, but.... In real life windows would be designed for the room locations on the interor. There is no valid reason for symmetry. They aren't 'always' symmetrical on ships like this Titanic graphic shows for example:

http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs13/f/2007/024/e/0/Titanic_Profile_by_NOD_Flareon.png


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

As I stated before. I could really care less which way they go. There may even be an option to go either way. Since three different viewport arrangements were represented on the model between the two pilots and the series, I'm pretty sure that there will probably be a choice.

Master replicas went with the asymmetrical arrangement of saucer ports, matching the 11-footer, and I don't remember anyone having a meltdown over that. Getting the overall shape and details right - that's what _really_ matters.


----------



## Prologic9 (Dec 4, 2009)

They've already confirmed that there will be window inserts for the saucer rim, so multiple choice would seem more than likely.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Prologic9 said:


> They've already confirmed that there will be window inserts for the saucer rim, so multiple choice would seem more than likely.


Is this going to be anything similar to what was done with AMT's refit? God, that was a horrible setup. :freak:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Warped9 said:


> Is this going to be anything similar to what was done with AMT's refit? God, that was a horrible setup. :freak:


From what I understand, that is how thet will be done. I don't think it will be the same headache as the refit. The hull edge is smooth as opposed to the sensor ring detail on the refit!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

RSN said:


> From what I understand, that is how it will be done. I don't think it will be the same headache as the refit. The hull edge is smooth as opposed to the sensor ring detail on the refit!


On AMT's kit the plastic wasn't even the same thickness and the curvature of the pieces often wasn't the same as the saucer rim.

I have to say I'm quite disappointed to hear this. Granted maybe they can do it better, but I'll need to be convinced of that. As is I'm quite skeptical.

Isn't it possible to mold the lower saucer part or mould the rim (if it's separate from the upper and lower saucer pieces) as one piece with the windows already in place?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Warped9 said:


> On AMT's kit the plastic wasn't even the same thickness and the curvature of the pieces often wasn't the same as the saucer rim.
> 
> I have to say I'm quite disappointed to hear this. Granted maybe they can do it better, but I'll need to be convinced of that. As is I'm quite skeptical.
> 
> Isn't it possible to mold the lower saucer part or mould the rim (if it's separate from the upper and lower saucer pieces) as one piece with the windows already in place?


It is what it is I guess.


----------



## Prologic9 (Dec 4, 2009)

Warped9 said:


> On AMT's kit the plastic wasn't even the same thickness and the curvature of the pieces often wasn't the same as the saucer rim.
> 
> I have to say I'm quite disappointed to hear this. Granted maybe they can do it better, but I'll need to be convinced of that. As is I'm quite skeptical.
> 
> Isn't it possible to mold the lower saucer part or mould the rim (if it's separate from the upper and lower saucer pieces) as one piece with the windows already in place?


I think they said it was an engineering issue of some kind, so I guess it's 'not' possible. I wouldn't worry about it, I'm sure it will be fine. 

I'll try to find the bit I read but since there are inexplicably 5-6 different threads now about the kit that's easier said then done.


----------



## Captain America (Sep 9, 2002)

Warped9 said:


> On AMT's kit the plastic wasn't even the same thickness and the curvature of the pieces often wasn't the same as the saucer rim.
> 
> I have to say I'm quite disappointed to hear this. Granted maybe they can do it better, but I'll need to be convinced of that. As is I'm quite skeptical.
> 
> Isn't it possible to mold the lower saucer part or mould the rim (if it's separate from the upper and lower saucer pieces) as one piece with the windows already in place?


I'd guess that if they could set them up in pieces on the tree with no undercuts it could be done. What AMT/ERTL did was NOT a bad idea, considering the kit had drilled portholes...It was only the fact that they didn't engineer the pieces with the right curvature that caused the problem.

PL would just need to create a PROPER keying system here so the (hopefully clear) rim pieces could be glued together/aligned properly & easily.

I'm not going to go for the big Lady, but I'm happy for y'all! 

(I voted for symmetry, BTW.)
Be well, gang! 

Greg :thumbsup:


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

I voted for asymmetrical, because one, that's how they were on the filming model, and on both the Sinclair and Casimiro blueprints, and two, because I hate when fans try to intentionally "correct" what they perceive to be a fault, when it was part of the original design... it does not look unbalanced the way it was, nor does it need to be "corrected" and made right... it is what it is, and if you want an accurate 1701, you need to go with the asymmetrical windows on the saucer.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

BolianAdmiral said:


> I voted for asymmetrical, because one, that's how they were on the filming model, and on both the Sinclair and Casimiro blueprints, and two, because I hate when fans try to intentionally "correct" what they perceive to be a fault, when it was part of the original design... it does not look unbalanced the way it was, nor does it need to be "corrected" and made right... it is what it is, and if you want an accurate 1701, you need to go with the asymmetrical windows on the saucer.


I'd agree with that if it weren't for several shots from TOS where the port side of the ship was shown, and we saw the "symmetrical" windows. (Done through flipped markings and flipped film, yes, but still, we saw it on-screen.)

What's on-screen counts most, IMHO.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

Except for when it obviously contradicts the actual filming model itself...  That's like saying those film gaffes where we see a mirror-image of Kirk with his uniform patch on the opposite side is the way it ought be, since it was on-screen. It doesn't stand up. Thus, I vote for asymmetry... the way it was and is.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

BolianAdmiral said:


> Except for when it obviously contradicts the actual filming model itself...  That's like saying those film gaffes where we see a mirror-image of Kirk with his uniform patch on the opposite side is the way it ought be, since it was on-screen. It doesn't stand up. Thus, I vote for asymmetry... the way it was and is.


No, the graphics, i.e. numbers and letters, were put on the model in reverse and shot so that the right side of the 11 footer became the left when the image was flipped. Due to the reversed graphics, the flipped image now looks correct. The left side windows are a mirror image of the right in bothe "Dagger of the Mind" and "Mirror, Mirror" and the graphics are accurate and not just reversed and unreadable. So since this was a conscience effort on the part of the production crew, the left and right sides are mirror images! Blueprints are never followed accuratly during construction, to me it is what the model looked like. That is how I see it. :thumbsup:


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

You can see it however you wish... but like I said, I voted for asymmetrical, and those are the reasons why. I plan to build mine to be 100% accurate, so I will go asymmetrical.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

BolianAdmiral said:


> You can see it however you wish... but like I said, I voted for asymmetrical, and those are the reasons why. I plan to build mine to be 100% accurate, so I will go asymmetrical.


Cool, they all won't look the same. Diversity is good. There is no right or wrong, just how you want to do it! :thumbsup:


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

Well, that's true... I mean, I don't think EVERY Constitution-Class ship would be the same, looks-wise. In fact, I was telling a friend of mine the other day that I wish TOS-R had shown us Connies with the 1st and 2nd pilot-era warp nacelles in the new FX for "The Ultimate Computer", to demonstrate that real ships are refitted at different intervals, and not magically all at once.


----------



## HabuHunter32 (Aug 22, 2009)

BolianAdmiral said:


> You can see it however you wish... but like I said, I voted for asymmetrical, and those are the reasons why. I plan to build mine to be 100% accurate, so I will go asymmetrical.


Are you going to build her with all of the details missing from that side of the ship like on the real 11 foot model? If you want to be 100 % accurate to the miniature you will have to. It all depends on your point of view I guess. To each their own. My friend built a Polar Lights 1/1000 kit 100% accurate to the 11 foot minitaure and removed all of the missing details and used it in a diorama of the blue background shots of the 11 footer on the sound stage that he had photo's of. He was building her as the model appeared in real life on a sound stage. I'm quite sure that she was intended to have most of the details on her blank side in the Star Trek universe. That's not to say some of the windows could have been different from side to side even though that's not was seen on the screen. You're choice really. I know I can't wait for the kit on my bench! :thumbsup:


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

No... for the parts on the model we never saw, we can still have a canon reference... the drawings from The Making of Star Trek... and as Warped9 pointed out, those images show asymmetrical windows, as do the Sinclair and Casimiro plans.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Well, as far as I'm concerned, the "real" Enterprise (as seen on-screen) is symmetrical. The model was only used to represent that mythical "real" Enterprise.

But now that we know that we're all incompatibly dedicated to our own perspectives... I suggest Holy War!


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

And after this holy war... the holy war to determine the direction that the aftermarket Bridge interior should face!


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

HabuHunter32;3787557My friend built a Polar Lights 1/1000 kit 100% accurate to the 11 foot minitaure and removed all of the missing details and used it in a diorama of the blue background shots of the 11 footer on the sound stage that he had photo's of. He was building her as the model appeared in real life on a sound stage. [/QUOTE said:


> That Sounds neat. Got a pic to share?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

BolianAdmiral said:


> No... for the parts on the model we never saw, we can still have a canon reference... the drawings from The Making of Star Trek... and as Warped9 pointed out, those images show asymmetrical windows, as do the Sinclair and Casimiro plans.


The overall shape of those drawings is/are wrong. The belly of the ship bulges out and make it look pregnant, the A/B deck is wrong, the primary hull has an extra angle on the underside and the 3 "clamps" to the deflector dish are too thin... for a start. They lack the streamline look of the miniature. Is this also how you wish the model to look? I understand ones personal preference and how you would like your model to look, but the example you have chose to back your argument is not the best example. Those drawings may have been the "intent" of the design, but are not reflected in the actual execution of the construction and filming of the model, and therefore the only representation we have of the "actual" ship, is one with symmetrical windows. This goes back to my original observation, make them symmetrical, those who choose another look for their ship can remove the undesired windows. :thumbsup:


----------



## Captain America (Sep 9, 2002)

BolianAdmiral said:


> You can see it however you wish... but like I said, I voted for asymmetrical, and those are the reasons why. I plan to build mine to be 100% accurate, so I will go asymmetrical.


Hmm.

Options would be best in these areas, methinks.

Cut short the growing firestorm right away...

They could include separate parts for these few areas of contention.

• The undone side of the Nav Def support (Maybe with simulated exposed wiring  )
...and the underdone engine front.

• The saucer rim windows with only two windows for that side.

• Reversed Engine/lower saucer decals to build up the 'flipped' ship.​There we go...problem solved... 

Greg


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Whatever they did for the 1/1000 kit is probably what they'll do on the new kit.


----------



## HabuHunter32 (Aug 22, 2009)

Hunch said:


> That Sounds neat. Got a pic to share?


I'll see him this weekend and ask. :thumbsup:


----------



## swhite228 (Dec 31, 2003)

BolianAdmiral said:


> And after this holy war... the holy war to determine the direction that the aftermarket Bridge interior should face!


Can't wait for that one!

I read the thread and cant help but think that a tube of putty and some sandpaper, a drill and a couple of files render this whole discussion some what silly. 

That said I am working on duct tape decals for those who want to model the Smithsonian first restoration. Question is do I do the ring they hung the model with in pe or go with off the shelf eye screws????:wave:


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

^

Aye, worse comes to worse, I'll just putty up the windows I don't want, and sand 'em down.


----------



## scifiguy67 (Jan 18, 2011)

wow if this little detail a problem....can't wait to see what they have to say about the windows on secondary hull of the 1st & 2nd pilot version of the ship! there completely different than the production version......anyway i go for symmetrical!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I am just hoping for the best shape possible for the ship. The 11 foot miniature is the interpretation Round 2 is going to try to replicate. The interior is of no interest to me. Most sets do not match the exterior they are supposed to fit in, be it a model in a Sci-Fi show, or a house facade in a sitcom. On the Enterprise, the shuttle bay as seen on the show, (The original miniature hangar, not the CG version!), is too big to properly fit. Same for the bridge, angled or straight? Makes no difference to me, if one is included, I will put it in. 

To add "fuel" to the fire, in "The Cage" zoom-in, the bridge is straight front to back and the elevator door is off-set and does not match the location of what looks like the elevator tube on the outside rear of the bridge blister!


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

Whatever R2 does, they are screwed on every point because someone will grouse up a firestorm. 

It's not like the Refit is symmetrical! One side has the rec deck with big windows and the opposite side has a standard window slot. Screw symmetry!

Besides, everything R2 does 'wrong' will give aftermarketers the chance to cash in with their own corrections.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Model Man said:


> Whatever R2 does, they are screwed on every point because someone will grouse up a firestorm.
> 
> It's not like the Refit is symmetrical! One side has the rec deck with big windows and the opposite side has a standard window slot. Screw symmetry!
> 
> Besides, everything R2 does 'wrong' will give aftermarketers the chance to cash in with their own corrections.


I want the model to resemble the version seen in the Gold Key Comics... :wave:


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

CLBrown said:


> I want the model to resemble the version seen in the Gold Key Comics... :wave:


Complete with rocket exhaust out of the hangar bay?









I was always partial to TAS.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

I say make it look like the pizza cutter:


----------



## swhite228 (Dec 31, 2003)

BolianAdmiral said:


> I say make it look like the pizza cutter:


This seems unsafe. 
The instructions should have a warning not to use while wearing a red shirt!


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

The poll results so far show that symmetrical is beating the asymetrical group by two to one...


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

Regardless of what the poll says, modeler's putty will beat that result anyway, lol.


----------



## dreadnaught726 (Feb 5, 2011)

Windows? Really?


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

BolianAdmiral said:


> ^
> 
> Aye, worse comes to worse, I'll just putty up the windows I don't want, and sand 'em down.


I would think thats the idea.

Its certainly a lot easier to putty, sand and paint windows that you don't want rather than to try and drill and file extra windows and run the risk of messing one up.


----------



## dreadnaught726 (Feb 5, 2011)

*Window accuracy*

Just finished counting the windows on the Polar Lights Reliant decal sheet. They are 3 windows short! Darn, so much for accuracy.


----------



## Mr. Wabac (Nov 9, 2002)

Symmetrical.

Easier to putty over window cutouts than create new ones.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

How much difference is there between the pilot and series version windows on the neck and secondary hull? I don't recall any windows being REMOVED, only new ones added. Am I mistaken?

We know that they'll need to do "inserts" on the primary hull edges. They will not do "side-insert" molds for this kit, just to put in those windows, I'm certain. The kit will be a simple, two-part type mold, with no "side-slide" action. So the primary hull edge windows will be in inserts... and they can just provide both sets of inserts.

The B/C-deck superstructure windows, by comparison, are a bit rougher. If it were up to me, I'd provide the complete B/C deck as two separate parts (including the bridge in that main part)... a "series" and a "pilot" version... as part of the kit. I seen no other practical way to do that, since the windows in one version are sort of "overlapping" with those in the other version, aren't they?

Same thing goes for the primary hull underside. But this would not require there to be two primary hull undersides. The ideal approach would be to mold the sections inside the little concentric rings down there. Slip in the right "core" element into the larger overall saucer shape. You've already got a seam in the real design there... so no need to worry about putty, even!

The secondary hull is the only major area of concern... but as far as I can tell, the windows present in the "pilot" version are also all in the series version. SO... there are two options I can see to deal with this...

(A) provide "plugs" to allow the modeler to fill in the extra windows... potentially messy but not TOO bad, if they're well-molded, and we don't mind a little bit of filling and sanding to get it perfect.

(B) provide the secondary hull with the "pilot" windows, and with (inside-surface) cutouts representing the extra windows... so we can cut out the extra ones with a sharp hobby knife and a drill.

I think that (A) is more likely, since the "production" version is going to be the main saleable version.

As far as the primary hull windows go, though, this is really a debate between "pilot windows" and "series windows." So, for the version we'll be buying, we should expect window inserts for both. The only question is for the B/C deck and for the lower saucer "in-ring" areas.

Personally, I'd love to see one other "optional part" set out there... and that would also fit into the whole "major core elements of the primary hull as replaceable" idea. See, if they take that approach, it will be relatively trivial to build a model that will look like the 3-foot version as well (the main differences, after all, are with the primary hull top and bottom center areas, right?)


----------



## Prologic9 (Dec 4, 2009)

I'm fairly sure that every cut window added for the 2nd pilot will be found in the production version, I don't imagine they'd have gotten rid of any of them.

Since the 1st pilot windows weren't real windows at all, you can just fill the real ones and use decals. If you want lit ones I'm doubtful they're going to find a way to do it. Round 2 will probably provide alternate windows where they can, and the rest you'll have to live with or put in the work to redo them on your own.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I imagine that the "pilot" accessories pack will contain all of the extra and alternate parts for conversion to either the first or second pilot version. That would include the alternate viewport arrangement parts for the saucer, dorsal and engineering hull; the engine domes with spikes, the larger sensor dish, taller bridge, and different impulse decks, hangar doors and tail cones and grilles on the engines.


----------

