# TOS Enterprise & geometric perfection



## Photoman77 (Feb 7, 2014)

As she approaches her 50th birthday, the original Starship Enterprise is shown to have been created with a high degree of mathematical, specifically, geometric perfection. Her beauty and longevity is in no small part due to the secrets of the perfectionist in Matt Jeffries. As illustrated in this remarkable article, her elegant lines and perceived beauty are more than skin deep. Her structural integrity after all these years is matched only by her geometric perfection. She is literally made of Golden Ratios, a physically mathematical perfection enjoyed and shared by other works of art such as the D-7 Battlecruiser, Venus De Milo, and even to a lesser extent, the face of Elvis Presley. I give you the article here, The Geometry of Starship Design:

http://www.robotjackalope.com/?p=205

:thumbsup:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I am terrible at math. Barely managed Algebra. The calculator is my friend.

Saying all that, wow, I can actually comprehend most of that. It's pretty damn amazing!

If I read it correctly, what's truly amazing is how the Klingon D-7 was crafted to be the mathematical foe as much as story antagonist. 

Now what I would like to see is how the Enterprise-D fails the Golden Ratio and could it be 'fixed'. That could be equally instructive.


----------



## 1966TVBATMOBILE (Mar 21, 2013)

I know a littlebit more about the 1701 now. Cool


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Wonderful article!

Let 'em try _that_ with the JJPrise! :devil:

M.


----------



## Photoman77 (Feb 7, 2014)

Goes to show Matt Jeffries was a genius designer. Teamed with Gene Roddenberry, it's no wonder we still debate their work 50 years later.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Lolwhut? :freak:

Anyhoo, I guess this is why the JJPrise looks like poo.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Wonderful article! Establishing a harmony and balance in a design takes time but results are unmistakable.

Note: Page four with the Klingon D-7 only displays the first picture in Chrome and Firefox- anybody else having this trouble?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Great stuff! Gives a good explanation for the pleasing aesthetics.


----------



## Carl_G (Jun 30, 2012)

It would be interesting to analyze the refit like this. I always thought it was the better-looking design; I wonder if there's a mathematical basis for that...?


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

That article looks a lot like this one that someone sent me a link to a while back. It is really cool to see just how much Jefferies' design has yielded over the years.


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

I suspect that an intuitive and thoughtful designer like Jeffries has a natural, innate sense of proportion and shape that falls within the guidelines of the Golden Ratio.


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

I'd love to see the ratio applied to the profile and front views of the Enterprise and the D-7


----------



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

I entirely agree with Jeffries' brilliance and sense of ballance. But I found a couple of points that were either a stretch or downright baffling. Most notably:

"The first thing you need to understand is that the golden ratio is represented by two numbers (I suppose all ratios are like that). 
1.618033988749895… and it’s inverse 0.618033988749895….If you add both numbers together, you’ll almost reach 2."

Huh?!? 

1.618033988749895...
+.618033988749895...
_________________

2.23606797749979... Which very much more then reaches 2. Even overshoots it by over 20%.

I do believe that in Jeffries' designs he may very well have worked to apply
the Golden Ratio, as is very common among designers and architects everywhere, 
with a few exceptions. But all of them are aware of the concept. It's not exactly
a professional or cult secret.

By pointing how Jefferies may very well have consciously applied this principle 
to the two most important and often used designs on the series did cause me 
to think that it may explain Jefferies' alleged odd revulsion with the Romulan ship Wah Chang built.

Jefferies so disliked Wah Chang's Romulan Bird of Prey that he allegedly destroyed it after 
the Balance of Terror episode was filmed - though that - if true - still seems to be a little uncalled for to me.

Still think it was a beautiful design. Not every design has to follow the Golden Ratio to
be beautiful and pleasing. The TOS and later Birds of Prey are awesome designs in my
opinion.

But if Jefferies was trying to make sure his major protagonists ship designs all incorporated 
the Golden Ratio that might help make his dislike of Chang's design
a bit more understandable, even though I still think destroying it was a great loss.


----------



## Carl_G (Jun 30, 2012)

You'd think it would be a _good _idea to disregard the golden ratio when designing enemy ships -- like a subliminal cue that these ships were built by someone from a culture with different standards of aesthetics. *shrug*


----------



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

Carl_G said:


> You'd think it would be a _good _idea to disregard the golden ratio when designing enemy ships -- like a subliminal cue that these ships were built by someone from a culture with different standards of aesthetics. *shrug*


It's based on mathematics, though. So presumably any species would see the logic in the design, even if they didn't share the same aesthetics.

One of many different design aesthetics though is mimicking nature.

Either to give a sense of beauty or terror.

Which was the idea behind the TOS and later Bird of Prey ships.

And there have been some good examples of what you are talking about
that involve alien designs that mimic eerrie alien creatures to good effect,

like some of the ships seen in Babylon 5. But the organic craze of living 
and sybiotic spacecraft in Sci-Fi ship design was still decades away from 
being popular way back then.

Those designs do a great job of doing exactly what you suggest,
displays a design from a culture with very different aesthetics.

Though personally I'm not a big fan of the "living ship/bio-ship/bio-symbiotic-ship"
designs. Not even the circuitry stuff they came up with for Voyager.

I personally can't imagine a crew wanting to spell burning and/or dying bio-matter every time
there is an engineering or damage problem.

But that's just me. Your mileage may vary.


----------



## Carl_G (Jun 30, 2012)

^^ Ah, I see. My math skills plateaued around grade 9, so I knew this would be a dangerous thread to comment in.


----------



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

Nothing at all dangerous, my friend.

You are right to point out that another species might choose to follow another aesthetic. We humans do it all the time ourselves, so why wouldn't they?

Just saying it's not impossible to think that they might also apply mathematical aesthetics too. Not that they have to.

To me, the D-7 always looked like not only a logical design, but also the snake-like forward thrusting front part made it look menacing as well.

Sort of the best of two worlds.


----------



## Photoman77 (Feb 7, 2014)

Good point, Larva


----------



## Photoman77 (Feb 7, 2014)

Can't imagine him destroying something he didn't own, Chuck. I mean, the studio owned it.


----------



## Photoman77 (Feb 7, 2014)

I like the notion that, to hypothetically explain why the Enterprise would be shaped as it is, one must realize that the Enterprise is a spaceship turned inside out- when you look at its outer hull, you are really seeing the backside of everything. Roddenberry wanted no crew-serviceable parts outside the ship- everything is inside, so that it may be serviced from inside. No dangerous spacewalks! And no bumpy, busy hulls.

Roddenberry also wanted his ship to look fast. Like a hot-rod. Kinda jacked-up with big engines. A little imagination helped me picture the Enterprise as a factory car modified with big engines for racing.

Star Trek ships are designed as thoughtfully as cars, and sleek like them. 

Just my two-cent observations.


----------



## Photoman77 (Feb 7, 2014)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Nothing at all dangerous, my friend.
> 
> You are right to point out that another species might choose to follow another aesthetic. We humans do it all the time ourselves, so why wouldn't they?
> 
> ...


I like the D-7 better than the K'thinga, wish they'd made a 1/350 version of it


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

John P said:


> Lolwhut? :freak:
> 
> Anyhoo, I guess this is why the JJPrise looks like poo.


Funny how the movie Enterprise hit the bullseye with the redesign but the JJPrise misses the mark so vastly. Also, Spock yelling "Khan!!!!!" really did it for me. No original ideas left in Hollywood.


----------



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

Photoman77 said:


> Can't imagine him destroying something he didn't own, Chuck. I mean, the studio owned it.


According to an article by James Van Hise on the model and it's builder Chang, that is what happened to it.

And Jefferies decided not to rebuild it for the The Enterprise incident episode in the third season, instead they explained it away by having the writers make up a line about the Romulans and Klingons exchanging technology.

I don't know if the guy literally set it ablaze or took a sledge hammer to it or what the details were- Hise didn't say, but I wouldn't be surprised if he took it apart and the parts subsequentially trashed, lost or abandoned. That happenned to the Galileo filming miniature which was found in a box somewhere years later in pieces.

But according to James Van Hise Jefferies didn't like it and destroyed it.
Blew my mind when I read it, too.


----------



## Carl_G (Jun 30, 2012)

Antimatter said:


> Funny how the movie Enterprise hit the bullseye with the redesign but the JJPrise misses the mark so vastly.


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

Carl_G said:


> Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. - YouTube


Absolutely. :thumbsup:


----------



## Photoman77 (Feb 7, 2014)

Antimatter said:


> Funny how the movie Enterprise hit the bullseye with the redesign but the JJPrise misses the mark so vastly. Also, Spock yelling "Khan!!!!!" really did it for me. No original ideas left in Hollywood.


Hey I'm just glad we have any new Trek movies at all. And JJ did ok for us, in MY opinion. We COULD all be in the Star Wars camp with our six movies and no hope. Trek Into Darkness was the 9th highest profiting film of last year, which means they will make more thus saving the TREK franchise from
death. Rejoice. Don't be so uptight. The ship ain't that bad. It reflects the old school better than the "Enterprise E" did. And I grew up on TOS. I'm old school bigtime. 46 years old.


----------



## Carl_G (Jun 30, 2012)

It's funny though. I read that Ryan Church was asked to redesign the Enterprise "as a hot-rod". Just goes to show you that one man's hot-rod is another man's, um, Edsel?


----------



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

Carl_G said:


> It's funny though. I read that Ryan Church was asked to redesign the Enterprise "as a hot-rod". Just goes to show you that one man's hot-rod is another man's, um, Edsel?



Edsel was a fine car! Built by a brilliant engineer and designer!

You take that back!


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)




----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Jefferies so disliked Wah Chang's Romulan Bird of Prey that he allegedly destroyed it after
> the Balance of Terror episode was filmed - though that - if true - still seems to be a little uncalled for to me.


Can someone provide an actual quote from the material that makes this allegation? I find it completely improbable, given all I know about Matt Jefferies. It doesn't fit either his character, or his professionalism.

M.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

MGagen said:


> Can someone provide an actual quote from the material that makes this allegation? I find it completely improbable, given all I know about Matt Jefferies. It doesn't fit either his character, or his professionalism.
> 
> M.


And, frankly, the money-tight realities of the production. The model could have ALWAYS been re-purposed, cf. Tholian ship. 

As important as Jefferies was to the production, I'm not at all sure it was his call to say "we will NEVER EVER use this model ever again". If that was the case I think the then-common practice would have been to simply return it to Chang. 

*heh* It wouldn't surprise me at all if Roddenberry took the model and handwaved its 'vanishing' on the first name that came to mind at that moment.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I believe this qualifies as an urban legend.

It never happened.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

> He specified the center point distance between his engine nacelles to be 11.1875″. I used to do a lot of graphic production work and I can tell you I have never come across this number. Why on earth would Matt spec a dimension with 4 numbers after the decimal point? What’s more, there isn’t even a tick mark on the imperial ruler that marks this!


I had to stop reading after this. When somebody doesn't know what 3/16" is and where its tick is (and states that he's never come across it before) credibility flies out the window.


----------



## Larry523 (Feb 16, 2010)

Paulbo said:


> I had to stop reading after this. When somebody doesn't know what 3/16" is and where its tick is (and states that he's never come across it before) credibility flies out the window.


Let me guess...he's probably a (relatively) young guy, and is one of those who has difficulty reading analog watches and clocks because he grew up with digital? Two of my nieces had trouble with concepts of "half past" or "quarter 'til" for that reason. 

The blog was interesting, though highly speculative.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

I think this is a classic example of putting something we love on too high a pedestal. It's enough to say the Enterprise design was created by caring artists working under tight deadlines and limited budgets to appreciate it as such. To claim "geometric perfection" is more than a stretch. It's a pointless effort in deification, IMHO.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Aside from the geometric balance found in the TOS Enterprise one thing still stands out- they were wanting the ship to have the grace and feel of a classic ocean going ship under full sail. When you see it from the most common viewpoint used in the original series, it really does have that vibe about it.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Larry523 said:


> Let me guess...he's probably a (relatively) young guy, and is one of those who has difficulty reading analog watches and clocks because he grew up with digital? Two of my nieces had trouble with concepts of "half past" or "quarter 'til" for that reason.


True. For us old guys, .875, .625, .375 and so on ring a little bell in our Imperial heads.


----------



## Carl_G (Jun 30, 2012)

Richard Baker said:


> Aside from the geometric balance found in the TOS Enterprise one thing still stands out- they were wanting the ship to have the grace and feel of a classic ocean going ship under full sail. When you see it from the most common viewpoint used in the original series, it really does have that vibe about it.


Eh, not really. The Enterprise design is more of a synthesis of two very common types of Sci-fi ship -- the "flying saucer" and the "rocketship" -- into something new and interesting. there's not really much it has in common with ocean-going ships except for the sense of scale, as you say.


----------



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

MGagen said:


> Can someone provide an actual quote from the material that makes this allegation? I find it completely improbable, given all I know about Matt Jefferies. It doesn't fit either his character, or his professionalism.
> 
> M.





Trek Ace said:


> I believe this qualifies as an urban legend.
> 
> It never happened.


Maybe it didn't. I'm just saying that James Van Hise says it did.


I'll see about scanning the page in question for you.

The book is the Ships of Star Trek by James Van Hise ISBN #1-55698-172-4 I know that John P, Griffworks, and a couple of other people have a copy, though it is hard to find.


----------



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

Here is a link to it on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Ships-Of-...TF8&qid=1392671728&sr=8-1&keywords=1556981724


----------



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

SteveR said:


> True. For us old guys, .875, .625, .375 and so on ring a little bell in our Imperial heads.


Young or old, he claims to have worked in the graphics arts industry. Who works in the graphics arts industry and doesn't recognize 3/16", muchless say he's never seen a four digit measurement applied to anything?'

I had alarm bells ringing much earlier though. For example when he mentioned he possed the question of Star Trek design philosopy to Gary Bussey.

While the actor seems to be likable enough, he's not exactly the kind of person who you'd pose a complicated question like that to.


----------



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

Here you go:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Waiiiit a minute here... I'm not sure I'd trust that publication.

I mean, look at the Amazon listing: Publisher: Simon and Schuster; First Edition edition (1988)

No way that was part of the S&S/Pocket Books Trek publishing program circa 1988. That's a pure-bred 'prozine' published by Van Hise's company. And that page cites no source. Well, back in the day, even the late '80s, there were many, many bits of 'understood history', lore passed down, that has been factually disproved. 

In Trek fandom, at least those I knew, we all had our BS detectors set on MAX whenever a new Van Hise publication came out. We trusted Mandell and some others, but anything else, taken with a 25 pound block of salt. 

But, we've discussed this, the practical realities of running the show blah blah. 

Wasn't it Jefferies who designed the big Bird of Prey deco?


----------



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

Steve H said:


> Waiiiit a minute here... I'm not sure I'd trust that publication.
> 
> I mean, look at the Amazon listing: Publisher: Simon and Schuster; First Edition edition (1988)
> 
> ...


Personally I trust Trek Ace more then Van Hise, so if he says it didn't happen. . .

It was indeed a S&S publication though, but not a pocket book.

Looks like an amalgamation of fanzine factfiles to me.

The main reason I bought it was a very long section of the Galileo, in which he interviews Gene Winfield in great length and detail, revealing a lot about the exterior stage piece that is to be found nowhere else. That I trust more because he directly quotes Winfield extensively and I know that the info in it has been verified with Winfield in great detail.

The Bird of Prey article - not so much. No sources mentioned. That's why I used the terms "alleged" and "if that's true." He intimates that he may have interviewed Wah Cheng with the casual picture, but it's not an interview. 

But isn't James Van Hise still alive?

Anybody have contact info?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Personally I trust Trek Ace more then Van Hise, so if he says it didn't happen. . .
> 
> It was indeed a S&S publication though, but not a pocket book.
> 
> ...


Now, are we talking about the SAME Simon and Schuster? Because I seem to recall most of Van Hise's stuff came from Hal (sometimes Al) Schutster, then, if memory serves, he went off and worked with 'New Media Publishing', and...you know, this is getting very complicated. Old Trek Fandom was like that. 

Anyway, the S&S I refer to is the company that used to be owned by Gulf&Western, parent of Paramount, major publisher. blah blah. I'm pretty darn sure that publication is a 'prozine', self published. 

Oh good lord, went into my archives, found Trek Magazine #2 and 3. Folded newsprint. 1975 was so long ago... and there's Van Hise writing. I imagine he's still somewhere in Texas.


----------



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

Steve H said:


> Now, are we talking about the SAME Simon and Schuster? Because I seem to recall most of Van Hise's stuff came from Hal (sometimes Al) Schutster, then, if memory serves, he went off and worked with 'New Media Publishing', and...you know, this is getting very complicated. Old Trek Fandom was like that.
> 
> Anyway, the S&S I refer to is the company that used to be owned by Gulf&Western, parent of Paramount, major publisher. blah blah. I'm pretty darn sure that publication is a 'prozine', self published.
> 
> Oh good lord, went into my archives, found Trek Magazine #2 and 3. Folded newsprint. 1975 was so long ago... and there's Van Hise writing. I imagine he's still somewhere in Texas.


One mistake on the Amazon reference one that I _myself compounded _by repeating it without actually opening the cover and looking at the catalogue page for myself. The publisher was Schuster & Schuster, not Simon and Schuster. 

My mistake. Sorry about that. :freak:

But it was a legitimately published book. One of only a couple of legitimately produced Trek books James Van Hise was involved with prior to 1990, outside of Starlog. 

Before then he was writing a lot of stuff for the Technical Files magazines and other fanzines unauthorized by Paramount. Can't see why they suddenly decided to let him legitimately publish a very fanzine like book, other then perhaps they recognized the contacts he had via fanzines and Starlog, and figured it was better to make a buck off of his writing then to just send him a Cease and Desist letter.


In his defense, the article on the RBOPrey article is unattributed as to the author. 

A memory alpha article I found on the book says Van Hise "among others" wrote the book. 

But the book itself list no other author then Van Hise.

So since his name is the only author's name that appears on the book, if it's not his writing then he's at fault for not making that clear. 


That one article aside, it is a fantastic book. There are countless pictures of the Galileo of much better quality then almost all the ones posted on the internet(at least until somebody scans them all a posts them). There are four really good ones of the TOS Bird of Prey, though the text part is only two pages. I think the Bird of Prey article was thrown in there just so they could put on the back cover that they were "covering" three subjects.

But the Galileo article alone makes it worthwhile. Now that I look at it again, it's about 30 pages according to the table of contents. 

Seems like more because of all the pictures. And the fact that the only page numbers that appear in the book are in the Table of Contents!:freak:

There is about 80 pages on the Enterprise, TOS through Refit versions, and at the very end there is a very interesting few pages that extensively quote the Writer's Guide that Roddenberry wrote for Phase II. 

So all in all, it's put together a little amateurishly, but it's still a worthwhile book - TOS BOPrey article aside.

I kind of like the kitchey way it's put together. Very reminiscent of the old Trek fanzines like the early issues of Trek magazine. Including some unattributed fan art too.

It's a good read.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Not trying to bust on you, Chuck, nor disrupt your cornflakes. Just seeking clarification and truth for all. 

See, what that book is, we called them 'prozines'. A pro zine is a fanzine (fan produced magazine) produced for sale to comic book stores and mail order. Sometimes they even ended up in bookstores. While a fanzine could have a professional look (offset printed, typeset, color card covers, etc) they tended to be sold only at conventions and mail order. A pro zine is the next step up. 

Enterprise Incidents and Trek were both prozines. The collections of articles from these publications, published by Al and/or Hal Schuster, were often culled from these prozines and some others.

There IS a LOT of lore, prime observer stuff, buried in these publications. Somewhere I've got a prozine with an article of Drexler and Mandell visiting the ST:TMP office during the early days of production, and there's a poorly reproduced pic of Mandell holding a prototype Phaser (produced by Brick Price) that looks a LOT more like the toy Phaser sold by Milton Bradly. That kind of thing, that's gold. I wonder just what other kind of buried treasure is sitting lost in some fan's storage. 

*heh* It's always fun to read that stuff and know that 'important professionals' were just like the rest of us fans.


----------



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

Steve H said:


> Not trying to bust on you, Chuck, nor disrupt your cornflakes. Just seeking clarification and truth for all.
> 
> See, what that book is, we called them 'prozines'. A pro zine is a fanzine (fan produced magazine) produced for sale to comic book stores and mail order. Sometimes they even ended up in bookstores. While a fanzine could have a professional look (offset printed, typeset, color card covers, etc) they tended to be sold only at conventions and mail order. A pro zine is the next step up.
> 
> ...


I get what you are saying. Though most of those guys didn't really get their genuine copyrights filed and receive an ISBN number.

But yes, this is barely above the quality of most fanzines, and the Technical Files that were not produced with any concern other then trying to share info with fans.

I miss those days, and enjoy a lot of the fan produced stuff more then a good deal of the "official" stuff.

BTWay, 

does the prozine you are talking about look a little like the attachment?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I get what you are saying. Though most of those guys didn't really get their genuine copyrights filed and receive an ISBN number.
> 
> But yes, this is barely above the quality of most fanzines, and the Technical Files that were not produced with any concern other then trying to share info with fans.
> 
> ...



Nope, I've never seen that, altho the art on the cover has a familiar look to it, I'm guessing that's a Drex design. 

That's *probably* a collection of the articles about ST:TMP that were written circa '78-79. A much better resource in one place I would think. 

I was thinking of, and I'm not sure which, an issue of either Trek magazine or Enterprise Incidents. For some reason my stack of those has vanished into The Mass (my name for all the boxes of stuff I'm still sifting and sorting and organizing from 40-some years of fandom. Found all my Star Trek Poster Magazines!  )

Continuing this thought: Where are the pics of the 11 ft. Enterprise when it was at that school in the early '70s? I mean, think about it, THINK about it. There is NO FLIPPING WAY somebody in that school, ether A/V club or photography club, didn't just shoot the living heck out of that thing. Seriously. Somewhere there is a fan who went to that school and has a buttload of either negatives or slides, maybe even some 8mm or 16 mm film, of that model all lit up and running. Someone should find them before they die. Or something.


----------



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

This book is essentially chronicals Mandel's and Drexler's trip to Paramount in the early stage of shooting TMP. It does have a crude picture of a phaser too.

There is a good chance the material ended up in other books too.

Here is another scan to peak your interest . . .


----------



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

Here is another . . .


----------



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

Steve H said:


> . . .
> Continuing this thought: Where are the pics of the 11 ft. Enterprise when it was at that school in the early '70s? I mean, think about it, THINK about it. There is NO FLIPPING WAY somebody in that school, ether A/V club or photography club, didn't just shoot the living heck out of that thing. Seriously. Somewhere there is a fan who went to that school and has a buttload of either negatives or slides, maybe even some 8mm or 16 mm film, of that model all lit up and running. Someone should find them before they die. Or something.


Not sure about the school you are talking about, but I've had this concern about Trek fans in general passing while hoarding god knows what - only to have unknowing surviving relatives throw it in the trash.

In an email Richard Datin mentioned to me that he had photos of the Three-footer TOS E, as well as photos of the TOS E miniature set he built of the Enterprise shuttlebay.

God only know what has happened to them now that he has passed. 

It's one of the reasons I'm currently catalogueing my own collection and 
selling off most of my extras of things.

The future is promised to none of us, unfortunately.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Here is another . . .


And bingo, that's the picture from the article. Isn't that interesting? That sure looks like a finished Phaser to me and it's clearly different from what was on-screen in ST:TMP yet looks a LOT like the toy sold by Milton-Bradly. 

I strongly suspect Drexler and Mandell took more than that one photo.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Not sure about the school you are talking about, but I've had this concern about Trek fans in general passing while hoarding god knows what - only to have unknowing surviving relatives throw it in the trash.
> 
> In an email Richard Datin mentioned to me that he had photos of the Three-footer TOS E, as well as photos of the TOS E miniature set he built of the Enterprise shuttlebay.
> 
> ...


I may be misremembering or mis-attributing, but there's Trek Lore of that post-TV period, when Paramount didn't quite know what they had, just before the national syndication packages were sold- A local to L.A. High School was loaned the complete 11 foot filming model of the Enterprise, including control unit. I would imagine, because I always have suspicions, this was the point where the nacelle domes and some other parts ended up becoming lost. 

Anyway, that school had the model. I cannot believe there wasn't ONE Trek fan in the school, one creative youth, who didn't spend every single penny they had on film for their camera to photograph the living daylights out of the Great Gray Lady. Photos of the model basically fresh from the shooting stage. Photos of the actual mechanism for the nacelle light effect. all that stuff. 

Why haven't they surfaced? Maybe they have, to somebody. One of the sometimes regretful aspects, the nature of fandom is information hoarding. That control, that access that makes one 'important'. Lose control of that info, let pictures be published say, and suddenly that person isn't 'important' anymore because naturally, the information is all that really matters. 

Blah blah blah. Fandom is by its very nature DRAMA. I get so tired of that sometimes. I think the internet has done much to reduce FAN DRAMA and in other ways make it even more...DRAMATIC.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Richard Baker said:


> Aside from the geometric balance found in the TOS Enterprise one thing still stands out- they were wanting the ship to have the grace and feel of a classic ocean going ship under full sail. When you see it from the most common viewpoint used in the original series, it really does have that vibe about it.


I always had the feeling that the ship was meant to look majestic in "flight" the way they often portray a bald eagle in flight with upswept wings

http://0.tqn.com/d/coins/1/0/Z/9/-/-/Bald_Eagle_Silver_Dollar_Obverse_170.jpg

The balancing of proportion between the main saucer, secondary hull, and nacelles is, I believe, an artistic vision rather than a scientific one. Roddenberry felt that by TNG's time, the engines would be smaller but more powerful - perhaps scientifically logical, but esthetically less pleasing imo.

Since the ship was essentially another member of the crew to the audience, it would help if it looked good. For instance, while the real lunar module was practical and functional, it was clunky-looking.

Looks usually counts in Hollywood. 

BTW - some folks use Fibonacci spirals when trading the stock/commodities/FX markets. Some swear by them, while others lump it in with tea leaf reading. To each his own...


----------



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

Steve H said:


> And bingo, that's the picture from the article. Isn't that interesting? That sure looks like a finished Phaser to me and it's clearly different from what was on-screen in ST:TMP yet looks a LOT like the toy sold by Milton-Bradly.
> 
> I strongly suspect Drexler and Mandell took more than that one photo.


There are blueprints of it in the fanzine as well. If I can later today I'll see if I can scan it if you are interested.


----------



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

J_Indy said:


> I always had the feeling that the ship was meant to look majestic in "flight" the way they often portray a bald eagle in flight with upswept wings
> 
> http://0.tqn.com/d/coins/1/0/Z/9/-/-/Bald_Eagle_Silver_Dollar_Obverse_170.jpg
> 
> ...


Wasn't the basic design first sketched by Roddenberry, but upside down and with a really crude looking primary hull?

It looked nothing like the version Jefferies came up with of course. But I think the sketch Roddenberry initially made had all three components.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Jefferies also planned a refit which looked like 90% of what appeared in the Phase 2/TMP design- it had the taller/flatter engines, swept pylons and photorp launcher int he neck. Just a pen and ink drawing, but unmistakable.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Wasn't the basic design first sketched by Roddenberry, but upside down and with a really crude looking primary hull?
> 
> It looked nothing like the version Jefferies came up with of course. But I think the sketch Roddenberry initially made had all three components.


I don't recall ever seeing anything that suggested Roddenberry came up with a design. Rather, he simply told Jefferies that it has to look believable and appear to have "a lot of power."

Jefferies came back to him with designs and Roddenberry would pick pieces that he liked, and then Jefferies would start to combine the pieces.

Ultimately I think it had to be a collaborative effort, because while Jefferies came up the the designs, Roddenberry had to approve them or parts of them, so it evolved into a final product between the two of them.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

J_Indy said:


> I don't recall ever seeing anything that suggested Roddenberry came up with a design. Rather, he simply told Jefferies that it has to look believable and appear to have "a lot of power."
> 
> Jefferies came back to him with designs and Roddenberry would pick pieces that he liked, and then Jefferies would start to combine the pieces.
> 
> Ultimately I think it had to be a collaborative effort, because while Jefferies came up the the designs, Roddenberry had to approve them or parts of them, so it evolved into a final product between the two of them.


Yes. I'm pretty sure Jefferies did those sketches and then took them to Roddenberry for review.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

J_Indy said:


> Jefferies came back to him with designs and Roddenberry would pick pieces that he liked, and then Jefferies would start to combine the pieces.
> 
> Ultimately I think it had to be a collaborative effort, because while Jefferies came up the the designs, Roddenberry had to approve them or parts of them, so it evolved into a final product between the two of them.


Yep. According to Whitfield/Roddenberry's _The Making of Star Trek_ (1968), that how it went down over several months before finalizing the design.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Not sure about the school you are talking about...


http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Craig_Thompson


----------

