# News about TOS-E 11-footer



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Just visited the National Air and Space Museum last Friday. 

I had seen the Enterprise filming miniature there twice before (in the '70s and later in the '80s) but had never been to the museum since it was relocated to the floor level display in the Museum Shop basement.

While admiring the old girl, a museum employee approached me and told me that it was the actual model used to film the classic series. I thanked her and told her I knew about the model, but that that I had been looking forward to seeing it up close for the first time. 

She then told me that my timing was good, because it would be _going away next Thursday_.

Seeing my stunned expression, she went on to say that they were taking it out to be "repaired," and that afterwards it would be on display upstairs in the actual museum. She couldn't tell me when it would return or precisely where it would be reinstalled.

Thanking her for the information, I mentioned that, while we all know the _Enterprise_ is not an actual aerospace artifact, Star Trek _had_ inspired many people to pursue careers in space exploration. I went on to tell her of the recent restoration of the Shuttlecraft set piece and how it was now on display at the Houston Space Center.

A woman listening to our conversation then spoke up excitedly and asked me for details about it. She said "Well, I guess I'm going to Houston!"

I can't say for certain that this is the long-hoped for restoration to her original condition, but it seems likely. We should all cross our fingers and hope our favorite dame can wipe the garish grease paint off her face, freshen up a bit, and return to her place of honor in America's aerospace shrine.

But if you have plans to see her any time soon, you'll need to get to Washington in the next two days.

M.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Yep, posted about this here:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=415483&highlight=enterprise+moving

Glad to see she is moving to a place of more prominence. I just hope "repair" means "restore".

I have also seen the Galileo in Houston. Definitely worth the trip if you are a Star Trek fan and in the Houston area.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Good to hear, I'll be there on Thursday morning. I hope I can confirm the move.

I get to DC monthly for work and have watched her really age over the last 3 years.

I would be careful about what the gift shop employees say, They have told me some 
whoppers over the years.

But this does match with Boeing's upgrade to the building so lets hope.
Originally the plan was to just move her, no money was available for a restoration.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

The word she used was "repair." I'm hoping this means a restoration, but we'll just have to wait and see.

Thanks for checking on it next Thursday. I'll be interested to hear if it's really gone. Of course, she may have meant after-hours Thursday. 

Either way, I'd have been bummed if, after it being on display at eye-level so long, I had missed seeing it by a day or two...

M.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Considering what the past 'Restoration' looked like, Repair is an excellent choice of words.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

MGagen said:


> Of course, she may have meant after-hours Thursday.
> M.


Then in that case maybe it would be better to go and see Friday morning instead of some time on Thursday.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

MGagen said:


> The word she used was "repair." I'm hoping this means a restoration, but we'll just have to wait and see.
> 
> Thanks for checking on it next Thursday. I'll be interested to hear if it's really gone. Of course, she may have meant after-hours Thursday.
> 
> ...


I think we bumped into the same woman.
Mine started out our conversation in the same way.
Kind of a strange lady.
Then when the topic came up that I worked on the 1/350 kit, she wanted my autograph.

ooooooohhh-k.


----------



## RossW (Jan 12, 2000)

That's not that weird, Mike - I still want your autograph! I got Gary's on the 1st part of his articles for SciFi & Fantasy Modeller. My favourite model of all time, which is saying a lot since I waited nearly 40 yrs for it!


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

This article is saying "restoration":

http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-pl...ise-boldly-go-back-workshop-180952633/?no-ist


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

ClubTepes said:


> I think we bumped into the same woman.
> Mine started out our conversation in the same way.
> Kind of a strange lady.
> Then when the topic came up that I worked on the 1/350 kit, she wanted my autograph.
> ...



If she is a heavy set women with shortish hair, she has been there for years.

She is very friendly and talkative, but not always accurate. She once told me that they light up the Enterprise often. I've been going to DC for work very regularly for close to 5 years and have never seen her lit, they don't even have any electricity connected to her.

I have mixed feelings about the "repair" I'll miss her for the next 18 months, but she really is starting to look bad. I hope she is restored to the way she was during filming.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

And so it begins ....


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

I would love to see an ongoing thread covering the restoration.


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

irishtrek said:


> I would love to see an ongoing thread covering the restoration.


They should do a continuous live webcam.


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

Opus Penguin said:


> This article is saying "restoration":
> 
> http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-pl...ise-boldly-go-back-workshop-180952633/?no-ist



Thanks for the article. It brought joy to my heart!


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

I heard that they were going to finish the other side and engrave the grid lines.


----------



## nautilusnut (Jul 9, 2008)

[QUI heard that they were going to finish the other side and engrave the grid lines.
Reply With Quote

If they are going to treat it as an historical object they will not do this. The top was left showing the original paint as they always leave one surface untouched.

The problem has always been that the Smithsonian never valued the Enterprise model as anything more than a pop culture icon. The Smithsonian has a less than stellar record of caring for items they feel have no true "historical" value. These are the same people that deliberately displayed to the public a ragged old animation model as the "Original KING KONG puppet" knowing that Bob Burns had the original in his collection, and had turned down lending it to them for a traveling display. 

Hopefully SOMEONE has seen the light that this particular model has been a true lighting rod of inspiration for a generation of scientist and astronauts and as such IS a true historical object worthy of careful preservation.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

It's a model, period. There are plenty of actual HEROES during the 1960's to inspire people to get into the sciences. The Mercury 7, the Gemini program and men landing on the moon did more in this area than a group of actors in velour shirts, pointing ray guns at rubber aliens. It should be treated with the respect due any artifact of its kind, restoring it to the original filming condition, but I is not in the same league as actual artifacts that made history, not just a TV show. Just telling it like it is.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Gotta disagree with that one, RSN. Tho' not a ST fan (only ever seen 1 1/2 seasons of TOS once, and maybe 4 STTNG episodes), did accidentally watch most of How Star Trek Changed the Universe, or some such thing. Seems like Trek probably influenced as at least many people to either become true heroes or to actually change the world as actual human beings of the late 20th Century ever did. Weird, and scary, but inspiring and fun at the same time. It's as much an artifact worthy of real respect as, say, the ancient Egyptian ship models at the Met.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Opus Penguin said:


> And so it begins ....


Diorama potential?


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

ClubTepes said:


> I heard that they were going to finish the other side and engrave the grid lines.


Engraved gridlines? Cool!


----------



## JeffBond (Dec 9, 2013)

I'll be happy when this is done and I don't have to read any more threads crucifying poor Ed Miarecki...he's probably spent the past decade in a shed somewhere with no internet connection to avoid all the venom...


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Double post. Ignore


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

RSN said:


> It's a model, period. There are plenty of actual HEROES during the 1960's to inspire people to get into the sciences. The Mercury 7, the Gemini program and men landing on the moon did more in this area than a group of actors in velour shirts, pointing ray guns at rubber aliens. It should be treated with the respect due any artifact of its kind, restoring it to the original filming condition, but I is not in the same league as actual artifacts that made history, not just a TV show. Just telling it like it is.


Von Braun and Goddard were inspired by the fictional works of Verne and H.G. Wells as youths. 

If those fictional tales had never been written? 

So to did the Enterprise inspire. Many astronauts will speak about how Trek inspired them, as too engineers, doctors, scientists. on and on. All wanting to make that dream a little closer. 

The Enterprise model belongs in the NASM with full respect, certainly as much as the Vin Fiz aircraft that nobody but aviation nuts has ever heard of, and it should have a plaque with this below it.......

“The visions we offer our children shape the future. It matters what those visions are. Often they become self-fulfilling prophecies. Dreams are maps.” -Carl Sagan


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

As much as I would like to see it with grid lines and such on both sides at the same time I think it would be wrong to do.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

:tongue: troublemaker..:tongue:


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

SteveR said:


> Engraved gridlines? Cool!


More freaking grid lines to fill in.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

It will be interesting to see what decisions they finally arrive at.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

jheilman said:


> :tongue: troublemaker..:tongue:


Look who's talking!!:tongue:


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

robn1 said:


> More freaking grid lines to fill in.


Hee. :wave:


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

More info from "Trekmovie.com":

"On Friday in a blog post the Smithsonian revealed the Enterprise display was taken down on September 11. Renovations to the new Milestones of Flight Hall will be completed in time for the Museum’s 40th anniversary in 2016. According to the Smithsonian, the 11-foot long Enterprise model is in need of "some conservation" before it can return for public viewing. 

The Smithsonian announcement explains their approach to conservation: 'The Museum’s general approach emphasizes conservation over preservation and preservation over restoration. Restoration is bringing an object back to its appearance and condition at a determined point in time in the past. With a restoration approach, there is less concern for preserving original materials and more focus on returning to the original specification, often through the addition of non-original materials. Preservation is an overall philosophy that favors keeping original material over creating an ideal physical appearance, while keeping the artifact from deteriorating any more. Conservation follows the preservation philosophy and is minimally invasive, utilizing scientific investigation and techniques to maintain original materials, preserving the object’s physical history of ownership and use.' "

What this tells me is a restoration is being considered, but they want to keep the model as intact as possible so it is being evaluated to see what extensive work it may need and they are leaning more only to conservation. So, again if I read this right, a restoration may or may not happen. We'll have to see what they decide on doing.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

I could see the museum's argument for doing nothing if the model had come to them looking this way from Paramount, but it didn't. The museum screwed it up *after* it was in their possession and it's now their responsibility, to the public and to history, to put it back the way it was or make a good faith effort to make a close approximation of how it was. This shouldn't be a hard decision.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Hunk A Junk said:


> I could see the museum's argument for doing nothing if the model had come to them looking this way from Paramount, but it didn't. The museum screwed it up *after* it was in their possession and it's now their responsibility, to the public and to history, to put it back the way it was or make a good faith effort to make a close approximation of how it was. This shouldn't be a hard decision.


Technically it is at least a difficult decision if they want to be as less invasive as possible while still being cost effective. Each time they try to restore a piece, there is a risk of damaging it beyond repair, so I can see them wanting to carefully view their options. Also, there is a cost involved. We have no idea what has been budgeted toward the model. Remember, the entire budget is to update the Milestones of Flight Hall and not just the Enterprise.

Not saying I fully support any decision NOT to restore the model, just playing Devil's Advocate.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

The 'restoration' is supposed to take 18 months which means it'll be finished in time for the 50th anniversary!!! Start planning a trip to DC to go see her when she returns to public viewing!!


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Opus Penguin said:


> Not saying I fully support any decision NOT to restore the model, just playing Devil's Advocate.


I can't help but think, however, that if their excuse in not restoring the damage they created is "we don't have the budget," they really shouldn't be in the preservation or museum business.

I dunno. 'You broke it, you fix it' seems to trump all other excuses.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Why not let Trekkriffic restore it, it would look awesome. 

Really, I am surprised they are doing anything, since the last I read, was that what was done last time would be good for many more years to come. Since the 50th of TOS is coming, I guess they wanted more visitors, as in baby boomers, willing to spend money there.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Lloyd Collins said:


> Why not let Trekkriffic restore it, it would look awesome.


If only. I'm sure I'm not alone in saying I'd pay THEM to let me work on it!

:dude:


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

I only hope it is done professionally.

Then the long nightm(i)are(cki) will be over.....


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

At least the Kennedy Space Center knows how to treat a piece of TV memorabilia correctly. I have heard just as many people, over the years, tell cast members from "Lost in Space" that their show led them into the sciences and an interest in space. Good to see the Robot looking exactly like he did in 1967 greeting visitors as they go by.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

Its a repro.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

clubtepes said:


> i heard that they were going to finish the other side and engrave the grid lines.


*slap !!!*


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

RSN,

Where is the Robot at KSC?

I was just there in June and did not see it there.

It would really suck if I missed it.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

RSN said:


> At least the Kennedy Space Center knows how to treat a piece of TV memorabilia correctly. I have heard just as many people, over the years, tell cast members from "Lost in Space" that their show led them into the sciences and an interest in space. Good to see the Robot looking exactly like he did in 1967 greeting visitors as they go by.


That don't look like the robot from LOS. I've seen pix of it on the net and the torso looks to be made of plywood with the wood grain showing through the silver paint.


----------



## nautilusnut (Jul 9, 2008)

> That don't look like the robot from LOS. I've seen pix of it on the net and the torso looks to be made of plywood with the wood grain showing through the silver paint.


LIS Producer Irwin Allen's widow donated one of the two mechanical robots to the space center after her husband's death. The 3rd robot, a costume is in the hands of a private collector.


----------



## edge10 (Oct 19, 2013)

nautilusnut said:


> LIS Producer Irwin Allen's widow donated one of the two mechanical robots to the space center after her husband's death. The 3rd robot, a costume is in the hands of a private collector.


I don't have a 'dog in this fight' but a quick search says it's a replica (serial number 9):

http://www.lostinspacerobot.com/testimonials.html


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

RSN said:


> At least the Kennedy Space Center knows how to treat a piece of TV memorabilia correctly. I have heard just as many people, over the years, tell cast members from "Lost in Space" that their show led them into the sciences and an interest in space. Good to see the Robot looking exactly like he did in 1967 greeting visitors as they go by.


something is up with that one because the red ear should be on the left (as you look at it)


----------



## nautilusnut (Jul 9, 2008)

> I don't have a 'dog in this fight' but a quick search says it's a replica (serial number 9):


Here's where I got my (mis?) information.- http://mentalfloss.com/article/51772/final-resting-places-howdy-doody-and-10-other-childhood-icons

OK- your link says that Irwin Allen's widow donated the replica to the Space Center. It's a good replica too.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

nautilusnut said:


> Here's where I got my (mis?) information.- http://mentalfloss.com/article/51772/final-resting-places-howdy-doody-and-10-other-childhood-icons
> 
> OK- your link says that Irwin Allen's widow donated the replica to the Space Center. It's a good replica too.


From what you guys have posted I'm thinking who ever put the info out has goofed.


----------



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

MGagen said:


> Just visited the National Air and Space Museum last Friday.
> 
> I had seen the Enterprise filming miniature there twice before (in the '70s and later in the '80s) but had never been to the museum since it was relocated to the floor level display in the Museum Shop basement.
> 
> ...


Mark, or anyone else here that might know something, have you heard anything from, or about, Phil Broad lately?

He has seemed to have vanished into the ether. Haven't heard from him or seen him post in a long time. 

I'm hoping he's okay.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

irishtrek said:


> Look who's talking!!:tongue:


Sorry, when I posted, I missed that the thread was into page 2. I was responding to this.



ClubTepes said:


> I heard that they were going to finish the other side and engrave the grid lines.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Gary may know something further as well.


----------



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

Opus Penguin said:


> Gary may know something further as well.


About Phil, the 1701, or the robots?


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> About Phil, the 1701, or the robots?


The 1701.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Mark, or anyone else here that might know something, have you heard anything from, or about, Phil Broad lately?


I remain in close touch with Phil (we go back 35 years). He's doing great, but I don't think he spends much time on the model boards anymore.


----------



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

Carson Dyle said:


> I remain in close touch with Phil (we go back 35 years). He's doing great, but I don't think he spends much time on the model boards anymore.


 I take it then you speak to him and/or email him on a regular basis.

Let him know he's missed! :thumbsup:


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Will do.

:thumbsup:


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Yup, Please do.It would be nice to have him back


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

If money is a issue in restoring the Enterprise, I have a simple solution: have Sy-Fy or Science Channel or Discovery do a TV documentary on the restoration and pick up some of the bill. In fact, I'm surprised one hasn't already been planned. You'd think it would be a no-brainer. Mix archival footage from the show, talk about the series' history and show audiences the amount of work and thought that goes into such a restoration. I'd watch!


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Not a bad idea, but I'm guessing the Smithsonian would not be open to it.

I went by the NASM today to see what they did with the space the Enterprise was in. It's just the empty case with a sign.

http://i.imgur.com/jdpY6a1.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/P6Q9uSa.jpg


----------



## Dave in RI (Jun 28, 2009)

18 months for _Enterprise_ to undergo restoration?....that seems appropriate since it also took 18 months for her to go through the refitting.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Maybe after eighteen months, they'll slip the Refit into the gift shop?


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

mach7 said:


> Not a bad idea, but I'm guessing the Smithsonian would not be open to it.
> 
> I went by the NASM today to see what they did with the space the Enterprise was in. It's just the empty case with a sign.
> 
> ...



That word "conservation" is disturbing....

http://www.michelleconliffe.com/conservation-vs-restoration.html

It makes it sound like they will just put some glue on the joints and dust it off.

Does anybody know who is going to be working hands-on on "conserving" it - or does that info fall under "threat to National Security" if revealed...


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

SteveR said:


> Maybe after eighteen months, they'll slip the Refit into the gift shop?


Good one. :thumbsup:


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

J_Indy said:


> That word "conservation" is disturbing....
> 
> http://www.michelleconliffe.com/conservation-vs-restoration.html
> 
> ...


My understanding is that it will be done "in house", but things can change.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

SteveR said:


> Maybe after eighteen months, they'll slip the Refit into the gift shop?


Just one problem with that, they don't got the refit. They would have to convince the current owner to give it up and fork it over.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

irishtrek said:


> Just one problem with that, they don't got the refit. They would have to convince the current owner to give it up and fork it over.


I was bein' ironical-like.  (Because emoticons can diminish the effect of irony, I leave them out on occasion. It's like an experiment. Sorta. Because my post wasn't really an example of irony. I think.)

Carry on, all.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

mach7 said:


> My understanding is that it will be done "in house", but things can change.


Hmmmm....that last time it was done "in-house", it ended up with 2 red engine domes and a funny-looking sensor dish.

But at least they painted around the hatch text decals rather than obliterating them, so there's that....

http://blog.nasm.si.edu/behind-the-scenes/moving-the-star-trek-starship-enterprise-studio-model/

I think the majority of the comments below the article say it all. Hope they don't "cheap-out" on this turn and listen to what the fans say.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

They have an excellent chance of doing it right this time, I hope they do...


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

mach7 said:


> My understanding is that it will be done "in house", but things can change.


My understanding is that, although the NASM will supervise and administrate the restoration, the actual work is being done by professionals with some knowledge of the subject (Mike Okuda and Doug Drexler, among others). Given his extensive knowledge of the TOS E one would hope Gary Kerr would be asked to assume an advisory role.

Then again, after what Miarecki went through, (death threats, etc.) it wouldn't surprise me if the restoration team would prefer to remain anonymous. I know I would.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Possibly some good news:

http://trekcore.com/blog/2014/09/ex...r-smithsonians-national-air-and-space-museum/


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

Best part I take from that article is that they are going to do a scientific study of the paint and structure. But the big question is will they "undo" previous restorations that don't match what they find in the oldest surviving layers (and looking at historical images)? That's where she seemed to get vague. I hope if it's a matter of not enough money to do a historically accurate restoration they do a fund raiser of some kind...

I hope the new display case has support for the nacelles, the wood is not going to survive another 50 years without help. Thin wire from above would be the least obtrusive.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

I just hope it is still displayed close to ground level. When it was in the case you could get pretty close to it.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Opus Penguin said:


> I just hope it is still displayed close to ground level. When it was in the case you could get pretty close to it.


Ideally, we'd like to be able to mimic our favourite camera angles while standing next to it. 

... or walking slowly alongside while making rumbling noises.
... or running really fast while going _whoosh_!


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

I guess they couldn't replace all the incandescent bulbs with natural light spectrum LED bulbs (to reduce heat buildup) and seal it in a block of solid clear acrylic. Then mount it on gimbals so it could be tilted to any angle for some spectacular photos...

Or...

Just mount it close to floor like OP suggested.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Carson Dyle,

Another forum has said that the neither of the 2 teams that wanted
to do the restoration, has been given the go ahead. It's still very early though. And of course this is just hearsay at this point.

Opus,

In the original drawing of the Boeing milestones of flight press release it showed that the Enterprise was close to floor level.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

MartyS said:


> I hope the new display case has support for the nacelles, the wood is not going to survive another 50 years without help. Thin wire from above would be the least obtrusive.


Clear rod would be best for the nacelle supports I would think, just so long as they don't block any details where they come into contact with the nacelles.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

irishtrek said:


> Clear rod would be best for the nacelle supports I would think, just so long as they don't block any details where they come into contact with the nacelles.


I'd think some kind of clear cradle support would be best to distribute the load evenly. They definitely won't (and shouldn't) add any new internal armature since this is now a historical artifact.

One thing I'm hoping to eventually see is high rez photos of the model during the research phase. I also hope the staff is transparent about what work they're doing and why instead of being secretive about it. The model does now belong to the people, after all.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Being a 2001 fan, I'm grateful the darn thing exists at all. 

But yes, it would be nice if they could clean it up and put it in a place where we could get a good look at it.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

I know this may be a longshot, but it would be great if they could have it lit up as well. It looked beautiful back in 1991 when they had it lit and on display.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Opus Penguin said:


> I know this may be a longshot, but it would be great if they could have it lit up as well. It looked beautiful back in 1991 when they had it lit and on display.


Christmas tree lights in the bussards for the holidays? Oh yes! Please!


----------



## RonH (Apr 10, 2001)

When I first saw the pic of the ship being lifted I immediately noticed the alarming angles of the saucer and nacelles. Mrs. Weitekamp mentions the first task is to determine what the model needs to ensure it's stable and safe. It looks to me like something's happened in the saucer/dorsal, as the secondary and nacelles look in proper alignment. I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Wow! To me it appears that BOTH the saucer and the nacelles are severely sagging. The horizontal center axis of the secondary hull nowhere near alligns with those of the nacelles or the saucer. The nacelles look very close to level within the frame of the photo, whereas the cigar is tilting forward considerably. It's clear to me that there will need to be supports to reinforce the extremities once the correction has been achieved.


----------



## RonH (Apr 10, 2001)

Yeah you're right, Proper. The nacelles are sagging to the rear. I see the problem. The secondary is misaligned at the point where the model sits in the cradle. They've split the secondary lifting it from the middle.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

How can you really tell if the saucer is sagging more than the nacelles unless the secondary hull is level which it is not???


----------



## RonH (Apr 10, 2001)

You can get a straight centerline through the antenna and dish. Hopefully it's just strained by lifting it from that point on the hull.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Well, sorry to say your wrong. Having visited the Enterprise many times over the last 10 years, I can say that the saucer/dorsal/secondary hull alignment are not to bad. Not perfect, but not bad. 

The nacelles are in bad shape. They both are sagging, and not at the angle. The droop is very noticeable. 

The whole ship is in rough shape. The paint is peeling/chipping. Some of the lights/windows are falling out. 

The Smithsonian is in the process of finding out just what her condition is. Hopefully we will have some information soon.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

I'm sure that time and gravity are allies in crime here. Whatever the degree of sag, I'm sure that both ends need to be realigned and reinforced with this in mind.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

She just dropped out of warp 9 and her engines are tired....

I wonder if the engine pylons are still the original wood they used when it was built.

Since the model was lit with engines running after the last "restoration", they must have dug some channels into the pylons to tuck the wires out of sight, since for the show those cables hung outside the model, out of view of the camera.

Hope they have enough money left over after fixing up her insides to fix up her outsides.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

I am reminded of the 1978 Academy Awards, when Raquel Welch helped present the award for Best Documentary to _Gravity is My Enemy_.


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

J_Indy said:


> She just dropped out of warp 9 and her engines are tired....
> 
> I wonder if the engine pylons are still the original wood they used when it was built.
> 
> ...


Yes, they did cut trenches in the pylons back during the early 90's renovation. The below photos shows the size of the trench cut into the original pylon.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

feek61 said:


> Yes, they did cut trenches in the pylons back during the early 90's renovation. The below photos shows the size of the trench cut into the original pylon.



:freak:
Good thing it didn't compromise the structural strength....


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Over time the pylons (and nacelles) being wood--even if not "trenched"--are gonna sag without direct support.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

More news on the 11-footer from the Smithsonian -- Good news! Our own Gary Kerr is involved!:

http://trekcore.com/blog/2014/12/smithsonian-enterprise-update/


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I feel better about the results of this project with the people they have on the 'Advisory Committee', assuming those people are listened to...


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

Since the word "restoration" was not used once, and all they are talking about is "conservation", that leads me to believe the damage done in 1992 is not going to be corrected. But I hope I'm wrong...

It does sound like using all the technology on hand today there will be enough information on the model to reproduce it very accurately. It would be great to have an authentic replica of the 11 footer back in the gift shop, with working lights, looking like she did when being filmed.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I doubt that would fly- part of the whole Smithsonian shtick is having real history on public view, not reproductions.

Ont thing in that article seems weird- she was telling us how UV scanning determined that the top of the saucer was original- that fact is part of the official restoration record.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

Richard Baker said:


> I doubt that would fly- part of the whole Smithsonian shtick is having real history on public view, not reproductions.


That's why I said put the copy in the gift shop, make it part of a sales rack for sci-fi related items...


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Thank the Great Bird they are finally getting some collective know-how together for this.

After a professional restoration the graffiti version will become just a bad memory.

If funds are an issue, I think there would be enough funding from a kick-starter to get this right (unlike making a TMP E), so there is no excuse not to fix the Gray Lady up as she should be in all her glory.

The only concern is where they put her - because hanging from a ceiling might look cool, but to have it too far away from view would take some of the joy out of it. It might also make it harder to light her up and spin her bussards...


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

J_Indy said:


> The only concern is where they put her - because hanging from a ceiling might look cool, but to have it too far away from view would take some of the joy out of it. It might also make it harder to light her up and spin her bussards...


I don't think they will ever light her up and run the motors again, at this point I'd be very afraid of that very dry wood catching on fire... And reworking all the lighting with LEDs would not fit in with a conservation approach.

As for hanging it, it would need a lot of wires attached to various points. If the newly renovated hall it is going into has multiple levels it wouldn't be bad, as long as you could walk up to a higher level and look down on her. Even a ground floor exhibit has the same issue with not being able to see the top unless they put a catwalk up next to it.

I do hope all the paint applied in the 90s is now in such bad shape the only way to "conserve" it would be to paint over it...


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

MartyS said:


> I don't think they will ever light her up and run the motors again, at this point I'd be very afraid of that very dry wood catching on fire... And reworking all the lighting with LEDs would not fit in with a conservation approach.


One of the people on the Advisory Committee contacted me three weeks ago asking for information about the original lighting configuration of the nacelles, so it doesn't seem like having the model lit is off the table.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Shaw said:


> One of the people on the Advisory Committee contacted me three weeks ago asking for information about the original lighting configuration of the nacelles, so it doesn't seem like having the model lit is off the table.


Would be awesome if they do!


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Replacing the lightbulbs with LED based bulbs wouldn't disturb the authenticity. It wouldn't be like replacing the entire wiring harnesses as the simple change of bulbs would be obvious. (Similarly, in many historic districts additions must be made in such a way that they are obviously later retrofits soas to maintain the integrity oc the original building.)


----------



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

MartyS said:


> I don't think they will ever light her up and run the motors again, at this point I'd be very afraid of that very dry wood catching on fire... And reworking all the lighting with LEDs would not fit in with a conservation approach. . . .


You are definitely correct that the lighting effects would not be generated in the same fashion as it was back in the 60's if they used leds, etc.

But personally I would not mind seeing her refurbished so that she looked close - in real life - to the way she was meant to look onscreen.

Reverse the question and let's ask ourselves: "Do we want to see her exactly as she looked in the filming studio?"

If the answer to that is yes, then they'll need to route some wires out of the port side of the secondary hull - hold them in place with duct tape - and hold the whole thing up with a honking huge galvenized steel pipe stand.


----------



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

Paulbo said:


> Replacing the lightbulbs with LED based bulbs wouldn't disturb the authenticity. It wouldn't be like replacing the entire wiring harnesses as the simple change of bulbs would be obvious. (Similarly, in many historic districts additions must be made in such a way that they are obviously later retrofits so as to maintain the integrity of the original building.)


Yep. Some of those historic district people take things to an extreme. There are electric streetlights in the French Quarter here in New Orleans, 

and some people actually want to go with less bright lights in areas that are already too dimly lit to make the lighting seem "more authentic."

My question is "why stop there?" 

There were not any electric streetlights in 1718 when the city was first built. There wasn't even gas streetlights until the 1800's. 

Why not just rip out all the electric streetlights and replace them with candle holding streetlamps?

We could also shut down cable and broadcast TV and radio stations and go back to relying on town criers too!


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

Paulbo said:


> Replacing the lightbulbs with LED based bulbs wouldn't disturb the authenticity. It wouldn't be like replacing the entire wiring harnesses as the simple change of bulbs would be obvious.


I guess that would be true, if the bulbs looked the same it doesn't matter if they are LED. Although I still think it would be risky to put 110V through the thing at this age. I've seen too many wires that old with the insulation crumbling...

I would love to see it restored to it's original look, but that is restoration, not conservation. Of course the previous attempt was not a conservation, you don't sand paint down to the wood when you are conserving an artifact. So they do have an "out" if they want to go farther than would be normal while conserving an historical artifact.


----------



## nautilusnut (Jul 9, 2008)

Do you know for a fact they cut the trenches during restoration? The original configuration had the wires routed out of the model at the top of the pylon, then down the backside and across the hull, out of sight. The original restoration simply taped over the wires with duct tape along the hull.

The wires were also taped over when I saw the model after it's 1990's "restoration."


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Shaw said:


> One of the people on the Advisory Committee contacted me three weeks ago asking for information about the original lighting configuration of the nacelles, so it doesn't seem like having the model lit is off the table.


Same here - Andy Probert asked me for any pics I had of the interior of the domes.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

I would think that running new wiring along side the old (as a "replacement" while not disturbing the old cabling) would be do-able, and the wiring would not have to carry as large a load for LEDs.

But more concerning (probably) would be the motors. In the old images of the model when it first arrived at the Smithsonian, the motor shafts are visible. Were the same ones still in use after the previous "restorations" when they lit the model? If I was them, I would be concerned that the vibrations caused by them might put them off from recreating the original effects (which would be a shame).


----------



## ffejG (Aug 27, 2008)

Based on that interview I don't think they know how far they want to take this project yet. I think that's good. I think they are taking it seriously as an historical artifact. Conservation or restoration are a sticky problem for curators. If you want to see what goes into it you should check out one of the museums monographs on the subject. Here is a link to the monograph on the restoration of the Fw-190 done in 1987. (John P, you would love these books). 

http://www.amazon.com/FOCKE-Famous-Aircraft-National-Museum/dp/0874748852/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1420128415&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=focke+wulf+fw-190+famous+aircraft+series

In fact, I would love to see them do a monograph on this project. They are written by the curator of the project and include mountains of information, photos and drawings on the subject. I hope someone encourages Ms. Weitekamp to do this.


----------



## Arkons (Jan 8, 2013)

The red ear was on the Robot's left in the second season of the show. In the third, the ears were switched. This Robot pictured was one of the officially licensed replicas that Sheila Allen donated to the Kennedy Space Center. They were a limited collectable and very nicely made.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Arkons said:


> The red ear was on the Robot's left in the second season of the show. In the third, the ears were switched. This Robot pictured was one of the officially licensed replicas that Sheila Allen donated to the Kennedy Space Center. They were a limited collectable and very nicely made.


And this has to do with TOS Enterprise renovation at the Smithsonian .. how?


----------



## enterprise_fanatic (Aug 4, 2014)

I think Arkons is LOST IN the SPACE museum. 


I know it is a bad joke but someone had to say it.:jest:


----------



## Arkons (Jan 8, 2013)

Haha! Actually I was responding to Lou Dalmaso's comment on page 3.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Arkons said:


> Haha! Actually I was responding to Lou Dalmaso's comment on page 3.


Using the 'Quote' button helps - it puts what you are commenting about inside your post so others will know what you are referring to...


----------



## Arkons (Jan 8, 2013)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> something is up with that one because the red ear should be on the left (as you look at it)


There. Is this better? Sorry I'm new to this whole thing.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Arkons said:


> There. Is this better? Sorry I'm new to this whole thing.


Very nice.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

http://www.space.com/28343-star-tre...pr=17610706465&cmpid=514630_20150123_39304017

Not really new news, but it seems to confirm the possibility of redoing the paint job back to the original look. Also, the article seems to hint on discussions of finishing the port side of the ship.


----------



## Arkons (Jan 8, 2013)

That was very interesting. Thank you for posting the link. I can't wait to see how she looks after the restoration. No matter what, some people are going to gripe about what they did but I just hope they do the best they can.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Opus Penguin said:


> http://www.space.com/28343-star-tre...pr=17610706465&cmpid=514630_20150123_39304017
> 
> Not really new news, but it seems to confirm the possibility of redoing the paint job back to the original look. Also, the article seems to hint on discussions of finishing the port side of the ship.


IMO they shouldn't finish the port side in the sense that they drill holes to make windows or anything destructive.

They could probably give that side the appearance of being finished with some high-tech decals that would be non-invasive and removable later.

Any small parts they want to add to finish off the symmetry they can probably do with strong earth-magnets so they can also be removed.

I just hope they figure out a way to light it up again and spin the nacelle motors.


----------



## barrydancer (Aug 28, 2009)

Is this image flipped? It's from pre-production from the old Cloudster site. It doesn't look like it's flipped to me, since the registry on the nacelle is not reversed and the NCC is like it would be read from left to right. I looks like in the early days, then, the model had a detailed and lit port side. Could someone with more knowledge of the model tell me if I'm incorrect?


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

The port side was never intended to be filmed directly.

When the model was first finished for _The Cage_, it was intended that it be filmed from the starboard side. The port side had details painted in place to make it appear that it was the same if viewed from just beyond the center line from either the front or the back... but these weren't real physical features. The inboard channel on the starboard nacelle was painted on, the inboard grills on the starboard nacelle support pylon were painted on, and the channel and box feature seen on the starboard side of the secondary hull never existed on the port side (but a pennant was originally painted on the port side). And yes, there was a pennant and registry number on the port nacelle.

Some of these features were removed for the second pilot when the model was modified to be lit (as holes had to be cut into the model to allow wires to reach the interior). After that it was decided to avoid moving too far past the center line with any shots and the name and registry markings (which were painted on for _The Cage_ were replaced with decals so that reversed versions could be placed on the model if needed.

As of the second pilot, you had a _rat's nest_ of wires coming out the port side of the dorsal because it is solid wood, so each lit window had it's own hole, light and wire. Hiding that mess was difficult.

So yeah, these features were just painted in place...








... and as you can see, they had a hard time hiding the dorsal wiring in that shot.

The reversed decals proved to be a problem for the effects artist to get correct, so they didn't use them much...








But yeah, this is how that picture originally looked.


----------



## barrydancer (Aug 28, 2009)

Shaw said:


> But yeah, this is how that picture originally looked.


Cool. Thanks for the history lesson, Shaw. I do seem to recall now reading about them having reversed decals for the starboard nacelle, so they could flip the film image if the effects shot ever called for the port side.


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

Found these on a public Facebook feed post. I cannot remember the name of the person who took them. But, because they were on a public feed, I feel it's okay to capture and post these. Supposedly, they were taken just a few days ago. 

Big thanks to the (unknown) author of the post. Along with my apologies if it's improper or uncouth to repost these. 





Click on the image to see my public Photobucket folder with all 41 captured images!


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

The hull top is supposedly untouched (since the show or 1990's restoration) Can somebody say: "Pencil thin, smooth-surface grid lines"?


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

kdaracal said:


> Big thanks to the (unknown) author of the post. Along with my apologies if it's improper or uncouth to repost these.


Just for credit: http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=427321&page=4


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

SteveR said:


> Just for credit: http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=427321&page=4


Thank you! And those photos are amazing. Lighting on them are perfect.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

http://trekcore.com/blog/2015/02/enterprise-smithsonian-photos-video/

More news if anyone is following ...


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Opus Penguin said:


> http://trekcore.com/blog/2015/02/enterprise-smithsonian-photos-video/
> 
> More news if anyone is following ...


The current paint job doesn't look too crappy under the lighting conditions in that work shop.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

Opus Penguin said:


> http://trekcore.com/blog/2015/02/enterprise-smithsonian-photos-video/
> 
> More news if anyone is following ...


Love the comment about how today they would never do the trenching that was done in the pylons for the wiring.

Everyone knows how little original paint is left, but still sad to hear it said...

They do seem to be considering LED lighting. I guess the hard decisions will be about what to do with all the wiring, ballasts, and lamps added in the 70s and 90s that are not original, keep them in there or remove it all and go with 12V LEDs?


----------



## modelmaker 2001 (Sep 6, 2007)

Those 2 photos above are from my Facebook page. I took them during last month's open House at the National Air and Space Museum Udvar-Hazy open house.

Here's the link to the rest of my photos

https://www.facebook.com/richard.sp...10152673559302336.1073741840.665202335&type=3


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Nice photos all around. Great to see the extreme closeups. For me, the saddest realization is how little original detail remains. The basic hulls and nacelles, B/C deck, nacelle end caps, intercoolers are real. Top saucer paint. But surface details, sensor dish, domes, paint, decals are gone forever. I'm hopeful that this thoughtful team of experts will return her to the _look_ of the original.

Honestly, the only way way we could truly compare how bad the current paint job is would be to see those super-secret color photos taken during production in side-by-sides. Hopefully this team is doing just that.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Seeing as how the Smithsonian insured it for $1 million when it was moved to Miarecki's shop for the last "restoration", I wonder why they allowed anyone to cut chunks out of it.

I mean - even in Antiques Road Show they tell you that messes with the value of something...


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

I wonder if something like this existed back during the last "restoration".

http://www.cableorganizer.com/power-extensions/

It wouldn't have looked as nice, but stuck to the port side (with the plugs cut off and the cable fed into the nacelles), painted huil color, and with a picture of how it looked during filming on the unfinished side sitting in the case, it would have been acceptable to the viewing public I think.

Better than cutting a trench into the pylons, anyway...


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

Those types of flat power cords or flat cord covers have been around for a very long time.

Even if someone asked for a smooth surface there was no reason to cut the trenches so deep, basically reducing the load bearing capacity of the wood by 1/3, just how many wires are needed for some lights and a motor? Now that they are there I supposed they could be used to imbed a steel conduit and epoxy it into the trench, returning the load bearing capacity of the wood. Of course if the pylons have warped and it's not the connection points causing the sag, what will they do, make new ones?


----------



## Joel (Jul 27, 1999)

I think they are going to have to make new pylons.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

It would be nice if we could down load those videos Trekcore is putting out.
Be a nice keepsake for viewing in the coming years.
-Jim


----------



## Arkons (Jan 8, 2013)

Opus Penguin said:


> http://trekcore.com/blog/2015/02/enterprise-smithsonian-photos-video/
> 
> More news if anyone is following ...


Thank you for posting this link. That was fascinating to look at the closeup shots and the video. I'm guessing they're going to have to paint the entire thing. The original paint on the saucer is just too cracked and crazed to let it go on looking like that. I'm sure they can do a good job of matching the paint and weathering on it.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

JGG1701 said:


> It would be nice if we could down load those videos Trekcore is putting out.
> Be a nice keepsake for viewing in the coming years.
> -Jim


I downloaded it.  There are plenty of youtube downloader apps around. Many for free.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Download Helper for Firefox. You can pretty much download anything.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

More news:

http://blog.nasm.si.edu/restoration/inside-star-trek-enterprise/


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Interesting. The left nacelle x-ray is so clear. You can see the bulbs and the motor. And something interesting on the shaft of the motor. Looks like some sort of pinwheel or propeller? Anybody else see that? I've seen images of the interior but never any showing that object, whatever it is. Looks like it would have been right over the mirror shards.


----------



## Cappy1 (Jan 17, 2011)

My guess would be that it is some kind of cooling fan either for the motor, or
to reduce the heat in the dome caused by the X-mas lights.
Interesting none the less.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Trekkriffic said:


> Interesting. The left nacelle x-ray is so clear. You can see the bulbs and the motor. And something interesting on the shaft of the motor. Looks like some sort of pinwheel or propeller? Anybody else see that? I've seen images of the interior but never any showing that object, whatever it is. Looks like it would have been right over the mirror shards.


All the mirror pieces were long ago removed... the lights (smaller, less hot bulbs) are mounted on a large blue plastic disk that covered the opening of the front of the nacelle. The fan is a reflective metal (or mylar... like the fans kids hold up to turn in the wind) connected to the inner dome shaft intended to help reflect the light within the dome (to make the effect seem more random and scattered... like what the mirror pieces used to do).


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

It also helps to circulate the air inside the dome. Several nails and screws in the aft section behind the pylon root.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Shaw said:


> All the mirror pieces were long ago removed... the lights (smaller, less hot bulbs) are mounted on a large blue plastic disk that covered the opening of the front of the nacelle. The fan is a reflective metal (or mylar... like the fans kids hold up to turn in the wind) connected to the inner dome shaft intended to help reflect the light within the dome (to make the effect seem more random and scattered... like what the mirror pieces used to do).


Cool. Not to get OT, but when I was working on my 1/350 Enterprise I considered putting one of these on the spinner shaft to scatter the light and produce the same effect you describe:
https://flic.kr/p/eBRbY8


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

wowwwwww, that nacelle x-ray. Completely fascinating. I can't wait to compare and contrast with the starboard nacelle. And the primary hull! Holy cats I want to see that!

I do hope that all the x-rays are available at some point. That's just amazing.


----------



## Arkons (Jan 8, 2013)

Thank you for posting the link!!! That is veeeeeeery interesting to see inside!


----------



## scooke123 (Apr 11, 2008)

Very interesting article!


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

From Gary on Facebook:

THE SMITHSONIAN NEEDS YOUR HELP!

As most of you know, I'm a member of the Smithsonian's Special Advisory Committee for the restoration of the 11-ft model of the Starship Enterprise. Our goal is to replicate the appearance of the 11-footer on the studio soundstage in the 1960s, and in order to do this, we need photo references of the model. We want to collect every photo reference that's out there, but we're especially in need of COLOR photos of the model. We also need either b&w or color photos of the faux nacelle recess on the inboard surface of the stbd nacelle, and the interiors of the nacelle domes.

If anybody out there has original photos or film clips of the 11-footer, we'd love to see them. We DON'T need screen caps, photos, or restored film clips that you've found online; however, if great-uncle Fred took photos of the Enterprise when he worked at the Howard Anderson Co. or at Paramount, then by all means, let us know. If in doubt as to whether or not we'd want to see a photo, err on the side of caution and let us see it. The pre-restoration Enterprise was on display at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, CA, in 1972, and over 50,000 people saw it. Surely, somebody took some pictures with their Kodak Instamatic!

Here's your chance to help restore an American icon, so start rummaging through your closets & garages. Feel free to share this posting with your Facebook friends. THANKS!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Opus Penguin said:


> From Gary on Facebook:
> 
> THE SMITHSONIAN NEEDS YOUR HELP!
> 
> ...


As an aside, I cannot believe that NOBODY at Golden West, and I assume that like any college they had both classes in photography and most likely some form of photography club, NOBODY has appeared saying "yeah, I must have blown thru 4 or 5 rolls shooting that model, it's a good thing we did our own developing!" or something similar. 

I suppose if there was a college yearbook for 1972 some clever person could do some detective work. 


I hope something appears!


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

It is too bad they didn't get someone who studied the 11 foot Enterprise model _as-a-model_ to help with this stuff. I imagine that all that time working on an idealized version of the design rather than studying it as an artifact (warts and all) isn't as helpful when restoring the actual model.

It'll be interesting to see how it turns out, and who will take Ed Miarecki's place.

For the model's sake, I hope they finally figure it all out.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

Shaw said:


> It is too bad they didn't get someone who studied the 11 foot Enterprise model _as-a-model_ to help with this stuff. I imagine that all that time working on an idealized version of the design rather than studying it as an artifact (warts and all) isn't as helpful when restoring the actual model.


It's got to be hard to treat it as an artifact when it hasn't been treated that way in the past, most of the stuff done to it in the past would never have been done by people that work on historic artifacts.




> It'll be interesting to see how it turns out, and who will take Ed Miarecki's place.


Hopefully no one.  Wouldn't want it treated that way ever again...

If things go badly this time there's going to be an entire team to blame. Looking at all the prep work being done I think the model is in good hands, so maybe there won't be much to complain about. I'm not even sure how far I'd like to see it restored, completely back to the way it looked as an effects prop, or more like it is now with the non-shooting sides touched up. So what ever they do some people will have complaints, but there's no avoiding that.


----------



## Joeysaddress (Jun 16, 2006)

Any updates on this project?


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6N6hjWyGfw


----------

