# Review: K-7 Space Station



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

First, I had no idea the videos would go this long. I was shocked as I started cutting them together. I expected four or five mins, tops. Sorry about that.

Second, I do a side by side with the MMM K-7 which quite nicely shows off what's going on with each model. The MMM is the accurate of the two.

Third, there is no third.

Fourth, as always, I hope you enjoy.

*EDIT:*
Just got a note from Jamie H. In the vid 2, I wonder if there might be an art print of the cover included in the tin version. There will not. Also, R2's initial idea about 3 colors of tribble is now off the table. There will be one color of tribble. And of course, if you hadn't caught it, there is a lighting tutorial on Round 2's site for this kit, along with a painting guide.

Lighting Guide:
http://www.round2models.com/workbench/lighting-k7

Painting Guide:
http://www.round2models.com/files/instructions/amt644.pdf


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

Welcome back, Tom!

Just watched your videos. Couple of things I wanted to comment on:

The lenses that go on the end of saucers mounted on the arms were part of the original model. I have an original. It had them.  You were right about the "no decals" in the original, tho. At least I don't remember any such markings.

Observation: I think you oriented the "nub" part of the big saucer incorrectly; I think it goes not over the one arm as you've shown it but inbetween two of the arms. If that's the case, then you've done the same error on the MMM kit and the dome on the top of the tank on that model should go on the bottom. I will admit that I will have to do a bit of research on that to confirm one way or the other.

I look forward to when the K-7 model reaches my area of the planet. I think several such models would be a necessity for any ships to occasionally call upon! Nice they've included decals to number a wide range of stations with!

Thanks for your review!


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

Good review, as always. I am itching to buy one of these; but I'll probably wait for the tin box edition. I am however, quite certain that I'll be kitbashing this into a proto Regula 1, it is a moral imperative!


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

WarpCore Breach said:


> ...Observation: I think you oriented the "nub" part of the big saucer incorrectly;


I've got no doubts on that notion. I never checked any reference to confirm or not. I don't know which way the landing bay doors face either.



Seashark said:


> I am however, quite certain that I'll be kitbashing this into a proto Regula 1, it is a moral imperative!


Nice idea! This would tie together with the Pilgrim Observer quite nicely in that regard...


----------



## Chinxy (May 23, 2003)

Yep! I've started mine. Just finished putting in 7 LEDs. The top domes are white LEDs along with the domes on the three shells. But I put a red, green and blue LED on the sides of the shells. It's got a ways to go but she's coming along. Now the center ring to hold the three arms will have to use super glue cause cement isn't working. 
OK - it's glued (used super gel). And I have the top shell on too. Now I'm going to put it away for tomorrow. 4:30am comes early. Tomorrow I'll finish the wires and cut them so I only have 2 main wires. Now the question is which I didn't see on Round 2 website was where to run the wires down from the bottom because the rode is solid steel. Not hollow!:drunk: Now what????

So I will think about it tomorrow until tomorrow night!:thumbsup:

Chinxy!:dude:


----------



## mrdean (Aug 11, 1998)

When the switch and battery box are in place, just feed the wires from the model down the stand tube that you have replaced the kit-included rod with, and into the base underneath. You’ll have to drill a hole in the bottom of the stand support receptacle for the wires to come through.

From Round2 workbench...

Mark Dean


----------



## Magesblood (May 12, 2008)

after seeing how the rods attach to the hub the way that they do, I've opted out of this one (for now). Just that I don't have three hands and coordination isn't exactly my middle name.


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

Model Man said:


> Nice idea! This would tie together with the Pilgrim Observer quite nicely in that regard...


That's what I was thinking - can't hardly wait for November...


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

Magesblood said:


> after seeing how the rods attach to the hub the way that they do, I've opted out of this one (for now). Just that I don't have three hands and coordination isn't exactly my middle name.


I would slice the arms and use aluminum tubes ala' the MMM kit. No seams to fill and a solid connection through and through.


----------



## Chinxy (May 23, 2003)

Thanks Mark! WOW - I haven't talked to you in years! How ya been? I thought of that last night and was wondering where to go to find a tube? Maybe Michaels or Ben Franklins. 
Now anybody got an idea of how to paint the clear domes as it shown in the picture so the light will shine through? I was thinking of masking some of the windows and then painting the dome silver or gold! Then removing the masks so that it will shine like a window.


Chinxy!:dude:


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

Edited the first entry w/ some new details from Jamie Hood at Round 2.


----------



## Chinxy (May 23, 2003)

Hey Model Man, I'm working hard on my K-7. Like to make a small correction to your first You Tube. The original does have the 3 small dots to go on the side of the shell. I just looked in mine. :thumbsup:
By the way - thanks for putting this together. I watched it before I started on mine.

Chinxy!:dude:


----------



## ham1963 (May 4, 2001)

Thanks for the review just got my K-7 station today.


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

ham1963 said:


> Thanks for the review just got my K-7 station today.


I got my 3rd one today!!


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

Still waiting for my wholesaller to get them in. 

What scale is this thing? Does it size up with the old 3-in-1 set? (Enterprise, Klingon, Romulan Bird of Prey)


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

That's about right. There is no exact scale, but anywhere between 1/1000 to 1/1600 seems to work.


----------



## Fraley1701 (Sep 3, 2003)

*K-7 Scale*

It is difficult to determine the scale based on the original series footage. You can reasonably conjecture the scale based on Greg Jeins model for the DS9 "Trials and Tribble-ations" episode, because he has a TOS shuttlecraft parked in the hangar bay. I believe if you know the scale of the shuttlecraft, then you can figure out how large the Enterprise should be in relation to K-7. I personally think the kit supplied Enterprise is way too small. The 1/1000 scale seems to large...at least visually. Anyone want to do the math on this one?


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Even if someone does the math, scale-wise, to the shuttlecraft in the hangar, that would represent the scale as depicted in the DS9 episode, not necessarily the scale of the station as shown in the original series. The actual miniature used in the original show was only about 50% larger than the model kit. The DS9 K-7 miniature is gargantuan in comparison, and slightly off in design, but pretty close.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Hellllooooo!

As as I recall from when I built my 3D K-7 that (using the shuttle as a general guide) a K-7 model at 1/1000 scale should be about 25 inches in overall diameter. I could be mis-remembering a little but I think that was it.

From a "realworld" perspective, the overall scale bar (excluding the black border) in the following image is 1000 feet (Orthographic 1)


----------



## jgoldsack (Apr 26, 2004)

http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/welcome-to-k-7-now-go-home/

Doug Drexler has a good article of the Greg Jein recreation of K7 for DS9. Amazing detail pictures there. The shuttles also give a good idea of the actual scale.


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

Nice pics of the recreated K-7!!! Thanks for the link!

Okay, I see I was WRONG about the location of the hopper. The recreation has it above the one arm of the station, so Model Man was correct on the hopper location in his MMM model. I really thought the hopper location would be better located away from the physical structure of the station.

However... are there ANY decent pics of the original K-7 station model, or is all we have are the clips from the episode? Not that I'm doubting the work of the crew who built the new station model for DS9; I'm just wondering about that hopper, since I don't recall anyone in the last 30 odd years between "_The Trouble With Tribbles_" and "_Trials and Tribblations_" ever having mentioned what appears to be a massive omission on the AMT K-7 model!


----------



## jgoldsack (Apr 26, 2004)

http://trekmovie.com/2006/11/05/the...s-screenshots-debut-new-cgi-enterprise-model/

If I am to understand correctly, the images i posted are of the old, non-remastered version, so about as close as you are gonna get I imagine.


----------



## jgoldsack (Apr 26, 2004)

From hat i can see of those pictures, the mod really is missing on the AMT kit. Should be fairly simple to replace, just as the clam-shell effect should be easy to replicate on the AMT K7.

I think I'll need to go pick one of these up and build it... a nice simple build is just what the doctor ordered.


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

That's actually a really good set of pics! But I think I can see how AMT missed that detail; from at least one of those pics, the angle of the station blocks enough of the hopper that what AMT DID do in regards to that missed detail does sort of match up.

My thanks, Jgoldsack! Appreciate the pics you found! I'll have to add those for my references for my rebuild of my (original) old kit and whenever the repops manage to make it up to my area!

Addition: After looking at the pics a bit, it really does look like that the hopper is in fact situated over the one arm of the station. Here I've spent the last 30-odd years believing otherwise... it's hard to let go of a belief on a detail like this but it sure looks that it's oriented that way!


----------



## Fraley1701 (Sep 3, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Hellllooooo!
> 
> As as I recall from when I built my 3D K-7 that (using the shuttle as a general guide) a K-7 model at 1/1000 scale should be about 25 inches in overall diameter. I could be mis-remembering a little but I think that was it.
> 
> From a "realworld" perspective, the overall scale bar (excluding the black border) in the following image is 1000 feet (Orthographic 1)


Hey there!
I actually went back in the "old archives" and read your original thread and it seems the K-7 size was much debated back then as well. I am satisfied with your logic for determining the size, but at 1/1000 scale that means the K-7 was a very small space station (for the 23rd century). I know from reading about the making of the DS9 Trial's and Tribble-ations episode that Greg Jein was hard pressed to find any good reference material whatsoever. There were no drawings and the original filming model (converted from the Douglas prototype) as never been found! Personally, I think the old 3 piece TOS model ships at 1/1600 scale look better with the K-7 (IMHO).


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

The capsule wasn't actually located over an arm of the station in the original series episode, but certain angles may make it look as if that is so.

Four Mad Men's orthographic plans actually come closer to the original series K-7 miniature than the DS9 K-7 does, especially in matching the contours of each module, which are rounder and more accurate to the original K-7 miniature than the sharper-edged DS9 miniature. The clamshell panels, both on the DS9 K-7 miniature and in the plans, are of incorrect spacing, however, to the original K-7 miniature. The wedges should be spaced at 30-degree angles, instead of the 45-degree angles shown in the plans and on the DS9 model. The beacon mast/antenna on the top of the main section cone should be a single, solid pole with the beacon light and rabbit ears atop. 

In any case, despite these few differences, they are very nice plans, considering the original series K-7 miniature was built without benefit of any such plans. Well done.


----------



## Zathros (Dec 21, 2000)

*As the man said in the videos, this kit was re-released for nostalgia reasons..to me its a foregone conclusion it wouldn't be a perfect studio accurate version of the K-7 miniature..

Z
*


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Exactly.

I bought it just for the sake of nostalgia. There really is no way to build a studio-accurate K-7 from this kit, whether you're talking either the original series version, or the DS9 version. So, I wouldn't even worry about trying. Just have fun with the kit and enjoy it for what it is.

I also wouldn't be too hard on AMT for the way the original kit turned out, considering that the limited available reference material at the time _did_ lean most people toward the station having the raised ribs, instead of the clamshell design. Actually, the accuracy of the model kit was never really brought into question until _after_ the DS9 episode aired. I even remember people commenting many years ago that the K-7 kit was one of the most accurate Star Trek kits ever produced! There were very few of us back then that knew otherwise.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

Some really great ref pix there. At first I thought maybe the 'hopper' was off angle to the arm, it is definitely not directly above it. I say off-angle as the shuttle bay is not dead center between two arms. 

However, the more I look the more I am convinced that the hopper must be dead center between the two arms it straddles. Why the shuttle bay isn't, I can't guess though. Having the shuttle bay between arms, rather than under one makes sense insofar as there is more clearance and manuever room. But whether the builders at the time were thinking that way, there is no way to know.

As to my nostalgia comments and ripping on AMT, well hindsight is hindsight. At the time, to my less than 10yr old eyes, it was a perfect kit and enough to soar me into the distant realms of imagination and wonder.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I believe that the original K-7 was built from a set of discs given to G.R. by MacDonald-Douglas. The discs were models of a modular space proposed by MD. If anyone here has any contacts at Boeing in Longbeach, maybe there is some kind of reference on the size of the discs. That would give an idea as to the model size. I also believe that the Enterprise "in orbit" with the station is the AMT kit. Can anyone confirm this? It might help to determine the size.


----------



## jcd132 (Jan 13, 2000)

jgoldsack said:


> ...just as the clam-shell effect should be easy to replicate on the AMT K7....


Please elaborate on any ideas you've got on how to do this. I've been thinking about it on and off for years and I haven't thought of a real good way to do this.

Thanks!:wave:


----------



## jgoldsack (Apr 26, 2004)

jcd132 said:


> Please elaborate on any ideas you've got on how to do this. I've been thinking about it on and off for years and I haven't thought of a real good way to do this.
> 
> Thanks!:wave:


Since I don't have the kit I can only speculate, but I would think that some properly shaped sheet styrene glued at the top of a rib, and then glued at the bottom of the next one would give the best approximation of the clam-shell look of the original and remake models.

Or the ribs can be removed entirely, and the clam-shell built up from total scratch.

Neither way is perfect by any means, but I would think it should be fairly satisfactory.


----------



## jcd132 (Jan 13, 2000)

jgoldsack said:


> Since I don't have the kit I can only speculate, but I would think that some properly shaped sheet styrene glued at the top of a rib, and then glued at the bottom of the next one would give the best approximation of the clam-shell look of the original and remake models.
> 
> Or the ribs can be removed entirely, and the clam-shell built up from total scratch.
> 
> Neither way is perfect by any means, but I would think it should be fairly satisfactory.


Yep. I've thought of those ideas too. Just don't know how the styrene sheeting would quite work around the complex curves. May require a lot of putty in those areas. Maybe I ought to just give this a try on my 1975 buildup and just see how it works. Now that the kit has been released again, I've decided to just use this old puppy for kitbashes anyway.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

NASA's standard booster scale for most of its model boosters on that type of base was 1/48 and that seems a reasonable scale for that Saturn model next to that display case. So the K7 miniature was likely pretty small. I think that's a Delta B in the display case. It was 96" in diameter, making that model 4" in diameter, if it's 1/24, which it seems to be, as it's about the same height as the probably 1/48 Saturn 1 model. Rumor has it that wasn't presented to Roddenberry but was fished out of dumpster, bin diving at high tech companies in the 50s and 60s being standard practice.
If the 1701 was in a circular orbit around the K7, there's good shots of the Enterprise at both its closest and furthest point from the camera, which should make it pretty easy to determine the supposed size of the object in the middle. 
The AMT model is heavily ribbed. Use a good 2 part auto body filler like Feather Rite and feather in the new contour from no putty at the base of one of the ribs to all putty to the top of the rib on the other side. Feather Rite sands beautifully, works great on styrene (my 128 Seaview is almost entirely Feather Rite), no pinholes if you mix it thoroughly, and if you're careful with the application, you should be able to shape it closely enough that not that much sanding will be needed.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

Wow. So AMT basically made this space station, not K7.


----------



## machgo (Feb 10, 2010)

jcd132 said:


> Please elaborate on any ideas you've got on how to do this. I've been thinking about it on and off for years and I haven't thought of a real good way to do this.
> 
> Thanks!:wave:


I did something similar with Apoxie sculpt. I made an airfoil shape over a flat piece of plywood using bamboo skewers as ribs. Laid Sculpt in between ribs then used a putty spreader to even Sculpt with rib tops. Some sanding and filling with Bondo spot putty gave very nice results. 

For this model, one could do as jgoldsack suggested, only using Apoxie instead of sheet styrene. Careful spreading might let you get the contours right. This will of course be more easily said than done, and the model will suffer some weight gain.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Extremely quick and dirty, from just eyeballing it: using jgoldsack's 2nd and 3d captures above, making the main body of the space station the same size in both pictures, say the 1701 was 5 1/2" long in the foreground and viewed from a distance of about 10". For the 1701 in the background to be the relative size it is, it would have to be approx 72" behind the foreground Enterprise. For a space station centered between them at 3" (assuming the E is in a circular orbit with the station at its centre, a big assumption but logical), the space station would have to be about 10" across overall (as oriented in jgoldsacks second photo) (compared to a 5 1/2" E in the fg) to appear the size it does.
Of course this could be done much more elegantly mathematically but what's the fun of that?


----------



## Fraley1701 (Sep 3, 2003)

starseeker said:


> Extremely quick and dirty, from just eyeballing it: using jgoldsack's 2nd and 3d captures above, making the main body of the space station the same size in both pictures, say the 1701 was 5 1/2" long in the foreground and viewed from a distance of about 10". For the 1701 in the background to be the relative size it is, it would have to be approx 72" behind the foreground Enterprise. For a space station centered between them at 3" (assuming the E is in a circular orbit with the station at its centre, a big assumption but logical), the space station would have to be about 10" across overall (as oriented in jgoldsacks second photo) (compared to a 5 1/2" E in the fg) to appear the size it does.
> Of course this could be done much more elegantly mathematically but what's the fun of that?


Good stuff here! :thumbsup:


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

As I said I remember reading/hearing some where that the Enterprise in the shot with the K-7 was the AMT kit (it's also the Enterprise seen thru the K-7 office window). Maybe this was in "the Trouble with Tribbles" book?

It appears to me that the Enterprise in the foreground might be different than the one in the background. The Background E is unlit, while the foreground is lit.

Neither E appears to be the 3 ft. The one in the foreground could be the 11 ft, but I kind of doubt it as it would require more optical work. 

If you look at the large top disc, it looks to be close to the diameter of the E's primary hull. That seems to make sense to me looking at the photos of the MD station discs in with the Delta(?). Any thoughts?

If this is true than it looks to me that K-7 is approximately 2000 ft across. That is just a wag, and has alot of wiggle room. 

How big is the kit? I don't have one yet, last time I saw one was 30 years ago.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Although I'm not adding much to this discussion of value, remember in 'The Trouble with Tribbles', a Klingon warship (and the Enterprise for that matter) were orbiting 100 kilometers away. This would result in SS the size of, well, a dot reflection. 

I think it is up to the modeler (and their imagination) to decide and have no problems with either interpretation.

Unless.... are those windows?


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

mach7 said:


> As I said I remember reading/hearing some where that the Enterprise in the shot with the K-7 was the AMT kit (it's also the Enterprise seen thru the K-7 office window). Maybe this was in "the Trouble with Tribbles" book?
> 
> It appears to me that the Enterprise in the foreground might be different than the one in the background. The Background E is unlit, while the foreground is lit.
> 
> ...


Indeed, the Enterprise model seen in the background of K-7 _was_ an AMT model; you can see it in the Sci-fi museum in Seattle. I have pictures somewhere, just don't remember where I stashed them. Also, if you watch the episode (trouble with tribbles) you will notice the bridge and planetary sensor domes _are_ lit sporatically throughout the episode. 

Here is a pic from an auction catalog:


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

Interesting how the decals are gone from the saucer....reminds me of the WW2 aircraft models where the plane was once a German one and the markings were painted over for the allies, yet the German markings still "Ghost" through the paint.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

mach7 said:


> Neither E appears to be the 3 ft. The one in the foreground could be the 11 ft, but I kind of doubt it as it would require more optical work.


The foreground one is the 11 foot model (shot pretty much the same way that the model was shot from the side for _Tomorrow is Yesterday_)... the one in the background appears to be the 18 inch model, though it is strange that it doesn't appear lit (considering the model was made to be lit from within).

I know that I had mistakenly thought that this 18 inch model existed earlier in the second season, but after looking at images collected by *Tallguy*, I'm pretty sure now that the smaller Enterprise seen in _The Doomsday Machine_ is one of the 3 inch models (two were made, one encased in lucite). 

Here is a quick comparison...










Getting back to the topic... after watching *Model Man*'s videos I'm considering getting this kit and the 1/1000 Klingon. I have a 1/1000 Enterprise sitting around and would love to put all three together on a display.

As for the scale, yeah, when I checked it based on the screen shots it seemed like the three ship set was actually about the correct scale...








... but the 1/1000 models would be easier to work with for me (and I already have one sitting around unbuilt).


Honestly, Round 2 should be giving *Model Man* free models! :thumbsup:


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

Welp, folks. Based on the research I've seen Shaw do for the "3-footer", I think the work above can be considered as 'definitive' as definitive can get given the lack of primary source material on the subject.









Rob, how much of a coincidence do you think it is that the 1701 saucer looks to be spot-on to the arm's clamshell diameter? Jefferies put a lot of thought into these things, but that would seem to be something of a totally weird coincidence.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Here is what Memory Alpha has to say:


"At a point, Matt Jefferies called me about building a second three-foot model but they wanted it sooner than I could build it, so that second model never got built," Datin remembers. (Cinefantastique, Vol.27, No. 11/12, p. 67) What Jefferies had in mind was the upcoming episode "The Doomsday Machine", the very first time the Enterprise had to share screen time with a sister ship, the USS Constellation. The script required shots where both ships would be seen drawn in by the planet killer. To do this Jefferies and Anderson needed a second model in a appropriate scale in order to keep proportions believable on screen. Although Datin could not deliver, Jefferies had an alternative by this time. Instead of having had an expensive custom made model built, two of the then recently released AMT/Ertl Star Trek model kits (Kit nr. S921) were used. Fortunately as chance would have it they were supplied with a crude internal lighting option. One was distressed, its decals rearranged to read "NCC 1017", to appear as the battle damaged Constellation. The Constellation model was most likely discarded after use (although footage of this model was to be reused to represent the USS Excalibur in "The Ultimate Computer"), The second model was used as the Enterprise in "The Trouble with Tribbles" as a background model seen in Lurry's office window and orbiting the far side of Deep Space Station K-7. In the auction description, mentioned hereafter, a former member of the production crew remarked that the modified interior lighting system proved to be problematic in that the operation of the animated nacelle domes was very noisy and had to be painstakingly edited out in post-production. The model was a short time later on loan to GAF Corporation, alongside the 3-foot model for a fotoshoot for their view-master version of "The Omega Glory", representing the USS Exeter. It was in the possession of Matt Jefferies' brother John until 2001, when it was sold to Microsoft's co-founder Paul Allen in the Star Trek Profiles in History Auction, on 12 December 2001 at a price of $42,500 [15][16] and is currently residing at his Science Fiction Museum and Hall of Fame in Seattle.


The article also states that one of the 2 metal 3 inch models was used in "The Doomsday Machine" Thanks Shaw for pointing that out!

Model Man, Thanks for starting this thread. Very good discussion. It does look to me that the Primary hull diameter is the very close to the small K-7 saucers. I would think this is a coincidence though as the the K-7 sections were "found" items. 

Here is the link to the Memory Alpha page:

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Constitution_class_model


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Got my K7 yesterday, a chance find while I was picking up Tenax. For less than $20, you couldn't ask for a more wonderful blast from the past: a perfect piece of 60s/70s modelling nostalgia. Once all the dislocating pins were removed, the fit was okay and it took about 20 minutes to assemble out of the box . I see nothing wrong with it as is. The miniature was constructed out of bits and pieces of existing things and was never seen clearly on screen. I think this interpretation of the K7 makes perfect sense. 
If you're going to go as faithful as you can to today's references, then you would need to sand off all the saucer ribs, make the saucer edges a little more pointed (the K7 in Tribulations was way too pointed), add new ribs with sharp edged Evergreen strip, and contour the opposing sliding sections with more filler or putty. There was no rib at the evenly recessed double section opposite the connecting rod and no rib at the evenly raised double section the rod connects to. The rod and the connection point seem a tiny bit oversized and the connection point might need to the taller and not as square sided. Below all the cones should be a raised disk. The hangar door seems too large. No doubt many people are preparing aftermarket hangars. The bump on the main saucer should be removed, the opening filled from the inside with styrene, and the hole filled when re-contouring that edge. A new septic tank and a large connecting plumbing line should be added. Each saucer should have a raised disk bottom centre.
If you're not going to replace the tubes (and I don't think I will) then add a disk of scrap styrene to the top of the joint to sandwich the connection together. That will provide solid support from both sides and make that joint much stronger. Then before it all dries find something to support the arms on both ends and apply a little weight to the centre. Than way the arms will cure perfectly flat. Then let the cutting and sanding begin...
Or just crack out the filler and build her as is. Either way, what fun!


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

mach7 said:


> Here is what Memory Alpha has to say:
> 
> The model was a short time later on loan to GAF Corporation, alongside the 3-foot model for a fotoshoot for their view-master version of "The Omega Glory", representing the USS Exeter. It was in the possession of Matt Jefferies' brother John until 2001, when it was sold to Microsoft's co-founder Paul Allen in the Star Trek Profiles in History Auction, on 12 December 2001 at a price of $42,500 [15][16] and is currently residing at his Science Fiction Museum and Hall of Fame in Seattle.
> 
> http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Constitution_class_model


The "viewmaster" model would seem to be a different model than the one built for "Trouble with tribbles". Both are AMT, but the viewmaster version differs slightly from the model that appeared in Trouble with tribbles; in so far as the rear nacelle caps are flush with no details (Like an out of box kit) where as the TwT version _has_ the hemispheres on the rear nacelle caps. Notice also, that the viewmaster version does not appear to have the windows hollowed and filled like the TwT version. 

http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm301/falcon_rk/viewmaster_pack_front.jpg

I wish I could find my pictures to show an appropriate comparison, I guess you all will just have to trust me for now.


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

The model in the foreground of the Viewmaster shot doesn't look like it can be the AMT model. One example: The "finger boxes" on the secondary hull are recessed on the Viewmaster. They are pronounced on all the AMT releases.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Model Man said:


> Rob, how much of a coincidence do you think it is that the 1701 saucer looks to be spot-on to the arm's clamshell diameter? Jefferies put a lot of thought into these things, but that would seem to be something of a totally weird coincidence.


I'm guessing coincidence, because even though I believe they had more time for effects in the second season, they would have still been under a lot of time pressure... and had to add at least one of the models into the shots by compositing it.

Also note that I used the K-7 plans that were based on the AMT kit design for my quick study (because I was considering getting the kit anyways), so I'm not sure if the proportions are the same as the filming K-7.

Here is a quick and dirty method of determining the center point (and length at point) that I used.










mach7 said:


> The article also states that one of the 2 metal 3 inch models was used in "The Doomsday Machine" Thanks Shaw for pointing that out!


100% of the credit for spotting the 3 inch model in _The Doomsday Machine_ goes to *Tallguy* and his Herculean effort to catalog all the footage of the Enterprise in TOS (here and here).

I'm still amazed at the number of things he spotted in the research (like completely new footage of the 33 inch model not used in either _The Cage_ or _WNMHGB_).

It is a resource that I can't believe we went without all this time.



Seashark said:


> The "viewmaster" model would seem to be a different model than the one built for "Trouble with tribbles". Both are AMT, but the viewmaster version differs slightly from the model that appeared in Trouble with tribbles; in so far as the rear nacelle caps are flush with no details (Like an out of box kit) where as the TwT version _has_ the hemispheres on the rear nacelle caps. Notice also, that the viewmaster version does not appear to have the windows hollowed and filled like the TwT version.
> 
> http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm301/falcon_rk/viewmaster_pack_front.jpg
> 
> I wish I could find my pictures to show an appropriate comparison, I guess you all will just have to trust me for now.


Here are some of the shots I've collected...








I had noticed the difference too, but considering that the 33 inch model was pulled from effects use in the second season, I guessed that the differences in the state of the AMT 18 inch model were because of changes made to the model later in the series. The ball features on the rear nacelles might have been added later to the model (in case it was used again) to make it look more like the 11 foot model.

But you are absolutely right in that the features are different.

I've been wanting to figure out exactly when the viewmaster shots were taken because it is important to my study of the 33 inch model. The model as it appears in those shots is in perfect condition... but the model in photos associated with the third season show the model with significant signs of trauma (I think someone dropped the model). So knowing when those shots were taken would narrow down the window in which that accident might have happened.

But it would also give a an idea of when that photo was taken in reference to when the _Trouble with Tribbles_ effects shots were done and when the live action shots were done (as the 18 inch model is present for both of those).

All this stuff is an interesting mystery! :thumbsup:




Kit said:


> The model in the foreground of the Viewmaster shot doesn't look like it can be the AMT model. One example: The "finger boxes" on the secondary hull are recessed on the Viewmaster. They are pronounced on all the AMT releases.


The foreground model is the 33 inch filming model of the Enterprise (my own personal obsession  ).

Here are two comparisons of the viewmaster shots with my first attempt at replicating that model...


_Click to enlarge_


_Click to enlarge_​
I'm hoping my second attempt turns out better.


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

Shaw said:


> Here are some of the shots I've collected...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for those pictures, Shaw. I was intending, (at some point) to build a replica of the _prop_ model out of an original issue kit. I used to have those shots but a hard drive crash deleted them, so thanks for that! :wave: 

I don't know...It's possible that they are the same model; if only the viewmaster shot was clearer. 

Can anyone who owns or has seen the viewmaster, confirm if the AMT is shown in any more (perhaps clearer) shots?


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Sorry to break into the discussion, but to get back to the K-7's scale for a moment - there's an argument to be made for it to be the same scale as the AMT 18" _Enterprise_. The idea came to me when I picked up some fan plans from (I think it was) the Star Tech mail order company many years ago. These plans suggested that the two models were the same scale.

This could be possible, considering that at no time during either the TOS or DS9 episodes was the _Enterprise_ close enough to the station to get an accurate comparison. Nor was the distance between the two vessels ever stated precisely. So as you all know, there's really no way to tell for sure how large the two were in relation to each other.

If you looked at Doug Drexler's closeup of the shuttlebay of Greg Jein's reconstruction of the station, you'll see that the Federation shuttlecraft relates to the bay much like it does to the that of the _Enterprise_. Sure the bay is wider and a bit taller than the starship's shuttlebay. But it does not dwarf the shuttlecraft as it would if it were part of a station that dwarfed the _Enterprise_ the way the AMT kit K-7 dwarfs the starship. 

Mr. Jein's choices seem to me to lend support to the idea that the _Enterprise_ and the K-7 space station could be the same scale. Furthermore, with a 15" span the AMT kit, if it is in the _Enterprise_'s scale, represents a space station that would have a whopping 812' radius. I haven't worked out its interior dimensions, but I'm sure it could hold a lot of quadro-triticale; at least enough to gain Sherman's Planet for the Federation.

As far as the model's accuracy to either realization of the K-7, it's not a problem for me - as I see it, the model is a perfect replica of Starbase 12. I just need to cut and paste a few old _Enterprise_ decals to get the job done. We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.


----------



## lunadude (Oct 21, 2006)

I gotta say, I bias toward Greg Jein's extrapolation. I know he gussied her up, from TOS to DS9, but I think it is clean.

Other then that, use the windows in the K-7, to make scale guesses.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

I'm not sure you can go by the windows, l-dude. Even now, some buildings have windows that run floor to ceiling. So if you guesstimated the occupant's height from them, you'd have to assume they were ten feet tall or more.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Well we did see the interior of one of the office on K-7. And it's windows. Model makers always use set sizes as starting points... don't they?


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Not if they're building Irwin Allen subjects, 4M!


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Well, I certainly don't have any problem believing that the model is at 1/650 scale. I grew-up with my fleet of 18" kits (many in FJ configurations) hanging from my ceiling around a K-7 model assuming that they all went together.

I think there is enough lack of evidence of it being well thought out that it is open to each modeler's interpretation.

After all, one of the points of models is to stimulate the imagination! :thumbsup:


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Good point, Shaw, and especially true of Sci-Fi modeling. So if you want to go by the box scale of the tiny _Enterprise_ that comes with the kit or the by size of the windows compared to an average human's height or guesstimating from screen caps or whatever - there may be disagreement, but nobody can say with authority that you're wrong.

Now, on to the exact hull color... :devil:


----------



## slingshot392 (Nov 27, 2008)

Another great review! I snatched one of these up at my local hobby shop last weekend although it will be a while before I can get to it, I have another of other models on the table right now. Pretty nice model, I missed it the first time around and could never afford one off of eBay, I am really glad Round2 is putting these out!


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Seashark said:


> Can anyone who owns or has seen the viewmaster, confirm if the AMT is shown in any more (perhaps clearer) shots?


Alas, no. There is only one ship shot in the three reels. I remember when I got this "back in the day" and I was disappointed that the 3d Enterprise was not the big model in all of its glory. Instead we get an oddly lit image of the 3-footer. I'm sure this was because it was easier to capture the 3D image this way. 

Another disappointment was that the bridge scenes have most (all?) of the controls dark. I speculate that they had to wait until filming was over before staging the photos and no-one wanted to pop for a full union crew to light and "operate" the set.

By the way, the odd lighting of the three footer gives us an excellent opportunity to see the model with two separate light sources from the same view angle. Here's my scan of the original frame in color, followed by the red and blue elements separately.

I uploaded these some time back, so I'm sure Shaw has them in his reference file...

M.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

MGagen said:


> I uploaded these some time back, so I'm sure Shaw has them in his reference file...


Yep... and it still stands as one of the most insightful ideas I've ever seen done to get the most out of a reference image. It essentially turned one great reference image into three. 

Simply brilliant! :thumbsup:

I only know of two versions of the cover for the View-Master set, but both seem to be using the same image.








*robn1* over at Resin Illuminati was kind enough to provide me with a nice scan of the latter of those. So it looks like these are the only two shots we have of the models from the photo shoot...








I guess that neither shows the 18 inch model clearly enough to say with absolute certainty that it is the same model used in _The Trouble with Tribbles_... but considering that that episode was a number of weeks earlier than _The Omega Glory_ in the production order, the _Tribbles_' model most likely already existed at the time the View-Master shots were taken.

So the assumption I made was _why build another 18 inch model when you already have one?_

But as *Seashark* noted, there are feature changes between the model as it exist today and the 18 inch model in those images. And the screen shots I've seen from _Tribbles_ aren't clear enough to say with reasonable certainty that those features are present in them.

It is fun to consider the possibilities though.


----------

