# Gary Kerr on the Production Version Bridges/Space Sensor Arrays



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

These posts were originally made on Facebook Star Trek 1:350 and large scale sci-fi modeling community






Jasper Collins: 
I have some questions about the bridge dome "space sensor array" (according to Franz Josef's nomenclature):
1. It appears from my observations that there were two different translucent space sensor arrays, one taller than the other, on top of the (production version) Enterprise's bridge at various times during the filming of the special effects of the original series. Is this correct? (I seem to remember some conversation about it at one time on HobbyTalk but can't remember whether or not it was about the model after it got to the Smithsonian.)
2. If so, does anyone have an idea of when the translucent pieces were switched?
3. The piece on the 1/350th 1701 model is the lower one, right?
Thanks in advance for any help you can give me on this. 


*Gary Kerr:

The original bridge dome had a diameter of 3.25" and was made from a plastic hemisphere with a radius of curvature of 2.875".

The replacement bridge dome was installed in the summer or fall of 1967, at the same time they revised the faux nacelle recess for "The Trouble with Tribbles". The taller new dome had a diameter of 3.00" and was made from a plastic hemisphere with a radius of curvature of 2.00". The new dome seems to have been glued to a 3" Plexiglas disk with a thickness of 1/16".

The reddish wooden nacelle dome were replaced with the lighted ones during the conversion of the 11-footer into the Production version circa April-May of 1966. The studio experimented with various methods, and the first test footage with the familiar orange domes is dated 6-7-66. Footage of the lighted domes appears in all three seasons of the show. The only reason you see the Pilot version wooden domes is because blue screen photography was a slow & expensive process, and they had to use the Pilot version footage to take up the slack. *


Jasper Collins:

Thanks for the info!

Any idea why they did this? Which translucent dome is represented by the 1/350th kit?


*Gary Kerr:
They didn't want to spend $$ unless they had to, so I'm guessing that the original dome either melted or cracked. The 1:350 model has the original dome because I didn't have sufficiently good ref photos of the replacement bridge when I designed the kit in 2011-12.*


Jasper Collins:
Okay, so the smaller translucent dome is what's represented in the 1/350th R2 kit--that works for me. Just wasn't sure what was going on. Not sure which I would prefer if given the choice but the choice you made was the logical one and definitely works for me. Many thanks, again!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Thank you for sharing that for those of us that choose to avoid Facebook as much as possible. 

That is just fascinating. I'm sure at some point I must have seen that there were two different shapes to the top 'sensor dome' but I never ever gave it a second thought, just chalked it up to maybe being different angles or something to do with lenses. 

I suspect Gary's thought about the previous dome having melted (or just distorted from heat) is the correct one but it wouldn't shock me if it had been 'borrowed' for something else and just went missing. 

I really wish there was documentation on all the filming of the 11 foot miniature. How often it went before the camera and so on. I am more and more convinced that during the three years of the series production that model spent most of the year shoved in a corner somewhere. I guess that's only sensible, if stock shots can carry the load there's no real reason to keep shooting footage, that's what stock shots are FOR. And of course there's the constant time and money crunch. Particularly the money. I'm astonished they were able to get anything made for as little as they had to work with by the Third season.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I first noticed this back in the early 1990's and mentioned it to someone I was corresponding with who had studied the ship very intensely and surprised _him _with the observation. It had always bugged me since then but I wasn't even sure I was correct in my observations about the difference. It occurred to me that it might have been the same translucent piece that just wasn't pressed down all the way sometimes when filming.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Have I made a mistake? I was under the impression that only the clear sensor dome was replaced. Was the entire, the _whole_ of the bridge dome resting on top of the 'deck 2/3' shape replaced? That's a LOT more work because paint has to be matched etc. 

I may be just misreading your words there, Perfesser. Sorry.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Yeah, it turned out the entire bridge dome was replaced including the frosted space sensor array--BOTH were put on at the same time the model was updated before the effects for the episode "The Trouble with Tribbles" were filmed.
> 
> I was thinking it would be just a changed-out translucent piece but apparently more was involved. The newer bridge is a tad bigger in diameter.


During the conversion from the 2nd Pilot to the Production version, Richard Datin removed the bottom half of the tall Pilot bridge. He reinstalled the upper half of the bridge & dome, and the wooden bridge is still on the model. The original dome disappeared between the filming of the spfx for 'Space Seed' and 'The Trouble with Tribbles'. The replacement dome remained on the model into the 1970s, but disappeared sometime before the Smithsonian's 1984 restoration.

Gary


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Steve H said:


> Have I made a mistake? I was under the impression that only the clear sensor dome was replaced. Was the entire, the _whole_ of the bridge dome resting on top of the 'deck 2/3' shape replaced? That's a LOT more work because paint has to be matched etc.
> 
> I may be just misreading your words there, Perfesser. Sorry.





Gary K said:


> During the conversion from the 2nd Pilot to the Production version, Richard Datin removed the bottom half of the tall Pilot bridge. He reinstalled the upper half of the bridge & dome, and the wooden bridge is still on the model. The original dome disappeared between the filming of the spfx for 'Space Seed' and 'The Trouble with Tribbles'. The replacement dome remained on the model into the 1970s, but disappeared sometime before the Smithsonian's 1984 restoration.
> 
> Gary


Okay, mea culpa! Sorry, been running a fever all day--brain not working. So by "dome" you're talking about the translucent piece, right? I misunderstood.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Gary K said:


> During the conversion from the 2nd Pilot to the Production version, Richard Datin removed the bottom half of the tall Pilot bridge. He reinstalled the upper half of the bridge & dome, and the wooden bridge is still on the model. The original dome disappeared between the filming of the spfx for 'Space Seed' and 'The Trouble with Tribbles'. The replacement dome remained on the model into the 1970s, but disappeared sometime before the Smithsonian's 1984 restoration.
> 
> Gary


OK, so that's what I thought, we were running into the usual confusion from all the different terms used over time. We're using the same words to describe not quite the same things.  That's why the original person asking the question on Facebook specified the 'sensor dome'

We all knew the bridge covering (nee dome) changed over the three evolution of the Enterprise, from the tall to the 'front window' to the eventual low one. 

So, huh. I have to say, that change in the sensor dome is a pretty subtle thing yet gosh stands out all of a sudden when you think of it!

Would I be correct in thinking the 3 inch plexi disc glued to the replacement sensor dome was mainly for light diffusion?

Isn't there some kind of detail under the lower sensor dome, like ribs or something, or am I mis-remembering? Might that have been originally carried to the sensor dome on top? It's all merging....BOOK! NEEDS TO BE BOOK!


----------



## Captain Robert April (Jul 5, 2016)

If nothing else, it's a handy way to tell which footage came first...


----------



## Gregatron (Mar 29, 2008)

This brings something else to mind--was there just the one window cut into the dome for the second pilot, or two? There's been some question as to whether or not that rectangle on the starboard side of the second pilot Bridge is another illuminated window/panel, like in the front, or a yellow-ish marking (or, as in the 1/1000 kit, a yellow marking with a red outline).


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Captain Robert April said:


> If nothing else, it's a handy way to tell which footage came first...


Excellent point!


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

Funny, I always assumed that the difference was caused by the dome slipping a little further down in the cavity. Are we sure these are two different domes?


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

feek61 said:


> Funny, I always assumed that the difference was caused by the dome slipping a little further down in the cavity. Are we sure these are two different domes?


Yes. Without a doubt.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Dome and dome! What is dome? 

So I ask what is likely a dumb question. I'll use the term 'bridge dome' for the nonce. 

Pilot bridge dome, a tall bump. Second Pilot, a 'window' was cut into the front (from the un-used footage my belief is there was an intent to re-create the 'zoom into the bridge' shot from the first pilot only this time it would have been matched with a 'truck in' from the front of the bridge set instead of the 'overhead from the rafters' shot from the pilot) and for the production they took the second pilot bridge dome, apparently cutting it at the top edge of the 'window' for the final, well known look.

This dome was made of wood. Was/is it hollow, like a bowl, or was/is it a solid (or laminated and shaped, doesn't matter I guess) piece with holes drilled for the lighting and such?


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

Steve H said:


> Dome and dome! What is dome?
> 
> So I ask what is likely a dumb question. I'll use the term 'bridge dome' for the nonce.
> 
> ...


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

Gary K said:


> Yes. Without a doubt.


Thanks for the confirmation Gary!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

First up, thank you for sharing those pictures, Robn1!

But see, it doesn't quite answer my question! To my eyes it appears that the 'bridge dome' was solid wood with a hole bored thru to light the sensor dome. But I know if I say that and feel comfortable with my newly acquired knowledge the next picture will show that part flipped over and WHAM it IS a bowl with some insert or something to funnel the light... 

The bonus pic of the B/C deck...wow, so rough looking... but that's the reality. Just get it done, it don't gotta be pretty if you ain't gonna see it


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Steve H said:


> First up, thank you for sharing those pictures, Robn1!
> 
> But see, it doesn't quite answer my question! To my eyes it appears that the 'bridge dome' was solid wood with a hole bored thru to light the sensor dome. But I know if I say that and feel comfortable with my newly acquired knowledge the next picture will show that part flipped over and WHAM it IS a bowl with some insert or something to funnel the light...
> 
> The bonus pic of the B/C deck...wow, so rough looking... but that's the reality. Just get it done, it don't gotta be pretty if you ain't gonna see it


The bridge is solid wood, with a "well" down the center. It was made from several pieces of solid wood that were glued together and then turned on a lathe. An "O"-shaped piece of Plexiglas sheet is glued to the bottom of the bridge. I'll include top & bottom pics of the bridge with the paint removed in a later installment of my Sci-Fi & Fantasy Modeller.

Gary


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Gary K said:


> The bridge is solid wood, with a "well" down the center. It was made from several pieces of solid wood that were glued together and then turned on a lathe. An "O"-shaped piece of Plexiglas sheet is glued to the bottom of the bridge. I'll include top & bottom pics of the bridge with the paint removed in a later installment of my Sci-Fi & Fantasy Modeller.
> 
> Gary


So, laminated and turned. Got it. I know that episode of 'this old house' I caught where a guy was making salad bowls out of 100 year old wood salvaged from a barn would pay off some day 

Then there was some crazy bright light that handled the top sensor dome, the windows on the B/C deck, was that also the source for the lower sensor dome?

Actually, I'll simplify greatly. Will there be a drawing at some point in the articles showing the wiring, the position of the lights and the 'live' windows?


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

The seams between the wood layers can be seen where the paint had cracked.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

feek61 said:


> Funny, I always assumed that the difference was caused by the dome slipping a little further down in the cavity. Are we sure these are two different domes?


That's exactly what I had thought might be the case but Gary points out that the curvature is different between the two so they can't be the same ones.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I'm a visual guy, so what would really help me understand the evolution of the model is a series of diagrams, or even just photos/screengrabs of the ship, in chronological order, with each of these changes called out with an arrow.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Shaw would have been ideal to produce such an illustration but he got fed up and left HT months ago...


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

John P said:


> I'm a visual guy, so what would really help me understand the evolution of the model is a series of diagrams, or even just photos/screengrabs of the ship, in chronological order, with each of these changes called out with an arrow.


I did a series of plans that detailed all the changes to the 11-footer for the Smithsonian in early 2015 - they displayed blow-ups of just the Production version in the restoration lab. After getting all the new info on the model, I need to revise all the drawings.

Gary


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Richard Baker said:


> Shaw would have been ideal to produce such an illustration but he got fed up and left HT months ago...


I still stop by every so often to see if things have changed.


Is something like this what you were thinking of?


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Nice graphic, Shaw!

So is it correct that the dome included in the R2 kit is the production version diameter and not the 2nd season replacement (the one the Smithsonian replicated in the renovation)?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Excellent illo. 

I'm always wondering about these things, how was that dome secured? Screws? Glue? Press fit?


----------



## Captain Robert April (Jul 5, 2016)

This should come in handy when I finally get some family drama/warfare out of the way and I can get back to working on my deck plans.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Shaw said:


> I still stop by every so often to see if things have changed.
> 
> 
> Is something like this what you were thinking of?


Nailed it!


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Shaw said:


> I still stop by every so often to see if things have changed.
> 
> 
> Is something like this what you were thinking of?/QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## swhite228 (Dec 31, 2003)

Gary K said:


> Shaw said:
> 
> 
> > I still stop by every so often to see if things have changed.
> ...


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

swhite228 said:


> Gary K said:
> 
> 
> > What's the story on the metal band that was on the bridge dome?
> ...


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

So, is anybody planning on re-shaping (scratch-built) an accurized replacement dome for their 1/350 bridge...?


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

Here is the ring discussed above:


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

The recent release of previously unseen spfx footage in The Roddenberry Vault helped to clarify what we were seeing in our mostly b&w ref photos of the TOS Enterprise. The biggest discoveries: a 1/8" metal bezel around the bridge dome from the Pilot versions, up to "The Trouble With Tribbles", and a green tint inside the Production version lower saucer dome, probably up till "Tribbles". It's hard to be completely certain about the color of the pre-Tribbles bridge dome, but I suspect that it, too, was tinted. I need more reference photos! For a 1:350 scale kit, paint the outer 0.030" of the clear upper dome with aluminum paint.

The taller replacement bridge dome had a roughly 0.06" vertical edge around its perimeter. We don't know how the edge was created. It could have been a Plex disc under the dome, or something as simple as using a belt sander for the final sanding of the edge of the dome.

Here's a revised comparison of the bridge before and after "Tribbles".

Gary


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

So, then, safe to assume the green clear plastic for the upper and lower sensor domes on the original AMT Enterprise kit were an attempt to make them accurate to the 11 foot model?

I wonder if on further reflection we'll find ourselves finding aspects of the AMT kit informing us on some of the always appearing mysteries of the filming miniature. 

(for example, consider the way the upper sensor dome of the model kit is made and how it's attached, compare to the discovery of the metal ring and the dome attachment)

I think the greenish-gray lady has many more surprises in her waiting to be found.


----------



## Gregatron (Mar 29, 2008)

To coin a phrase..."fascinating".


----------



## Captain Robert April (Jul 5, 2016)

I'm still waiting for an explanation for those three indentations on the underside of the AMT's saucer.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Captain Robert April said:


> I'm still waiting for an explanation for those three indentations on the underside of the AMT's saucer.


You and me both, brother. I can't think of any manufacturing reason.


----------



## dcarty (Nov 26, 2012)

Hi Gary,

Thank you so much for all the work you are doing here. I know you are reaping the rewards of your efforts as well as us but still, the fact that this information is being shared is amazing.

Quick clarifying question. In your drawing you have the bezel measuring .25" and in your text you say that it is 1/8". Just wondering which is correct -- in /350 scale it won't make much difference but wondering for curiosity's sake. Didn't know if you meant to type .125" on the drawing or 1/4" in your text. No biggie, just curious.

Thank you!

Dave C


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

dcarty said:


> Hi Gary,
> 
> Quick clarifying question. In your drawing you have the bezel measuring .25" and in your text you say that it is 1/8". Just wondering which is correct -- in /350 scale it won't make much difference but wondering for curiosity's sake. Didn't know if you meant to type .125" on the drawing or 1/4" in your text. No biggie, just curious.
> 
> ...


The overall *diameter* of the bezel is 1/4" greater than the 3" dome, or 1/8" greater than the *radius* of the dome. The actual size of the parts of the model are smaller than you'd think.

Gary


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

It is 1/8". The quarter inch is because it includes both sides of the ring (1/8" on each side).


EDIT: Sorry Gary, we were posting at the same time.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Steve H said:


> You and me both, brother. I can't think of any manufacturing reason.


Ejector pin marks from the casting die. Could have done a better job at ''blending" them in with the production area.
-Jim G.G.


----------



## dcarty (Nov 26, 2012)

Gary K said:


> The overall *diameter* of the bezel is 1/4" greater than the 3" dome, or 1/8" greater than the *radius* of the dome. The actual size of the parts of the model are smaller than you'd think.
> 
> Gary


Derp (smacks forehead), of course, sorry guys!

Dave


----------



## Gregatron (Mar 29, 2008)

Gary K said:


> The overall *diameter* of the bezel is 1/4" greater than the 3" dome, or 1/8" greater than the *radius* of the dome. The actual size of the parts of the model are smaller than you'd think.
> 
> Gary





This raises an interesting point--those of us who have studied the model obsessively (and haven't seen it in person) can surely forget how relatively small the parts are! We're always seeing giant, close-up photos of parts of the model, and it all tends to make the model seem larger than life!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Gregatron said:


> This raises an interesting point--those of us who have studied the model obsessively (and haven't seen it in person) can surely forget how relatively small the parts are! We're always seeing giant, close-up photos of parts of the model, and it all tends to make the model seem larger than life!


Quoted for truth.

I've got the mental picture that the nacelles are so big it would take two people to carry one. Intellectually, and seeing various pics (including that War of the Worlds failed TV project promo reel) I know this is not true, but it SEEMS like it should be.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Gregatron said:


> This raises an interesting point--those of us who have studied the model obsessively (and haven't seen it in person) can surely forget how relatively small the parts are! We're always seeing giant, close-up photos of parts of the model, and it all tends to make the model seem larger than life!


Look at the photon torpedo launchers on the Refit Enterprise. A full-screen view of launcher area reveals all kinds of minute details - but the whole thing is only 4" wide!

Gary


----------



## Gregatron (Mar 29, 2008)

Gary K said:


> Look at the photon torpedo launchers on the Refit Enterprise. A full-screen view of launcher area reveals all kinds of minute details - but the whole thing is only 4" wide!
> 
> Gary


Exactly. It's a testament to the talent of the people who built and photographed these models that they create such a convincing scale effect, onscreen. I've often said that I wished that, for the Remastering project, the original bluescreen elements were all available, because most of those original model shots are still absolutely gorgeous, and provide the sense of mass and grace that the _Enterprise_ needs. The CG model just...isn't the _Enterprise_, y'know? The only reason those old effects shots really needed to be replaced for HD is because of the compositing limitations of the time (which resulted in grainy, desaturated, off-color shots), not the quality of the model or its photography.


----------



## whereisanykey (Sep 25, 2011)

After seeing some of the images from the Vault and how good they appear if they would use those clips and remaster the shots into a new set I, for one, would buy them. I've taken snapshots off the DVD's and they aren't too bad but an HD version would be excellent. 
That CGI Enterprise just doesn't look in any way real. I've speculated that the lighting is the issue. A polygon in CGI is perfectly flat and any light bounce will reflect that. In a "real" model no matter how flat and smooth there will be a rough surface under very close inspection. As a result light will not bounce the same as in a polygon. I suspect this scattering has enough of a subtle effect to the eye to make one believe it to be a realistic scene. 
I would also like a DVD version of that Vault without the episodes. I see no need for a blu-ray since I haven't bought a DVD in quite a while and have no plans to do so. 

Greg


----------



## Captain Robert April (Jul 5, 2016)

Many blu-ray players are very useful for streaming online video, like Youtube, Netflix, etc. Just need a good wifi connection.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

whereisanykey said:


> That CGI Enterprise just doesn't look in any way real. I've speculated that the lighting is the issue. A polygon in CGI is perfectly flat and any light bounce will reflect that. In a "real" model no matter how flat and smooth there will be a rough surface under very close inspection. As a result light will not bounce the same as in a polygon. I suspect this scattering has enough of a subtle effect to the eye to make one believe it to be a realistic scene.
> I would also like a DVD version of that Vault without the episodes. I see no need for a blu-ray since I haven't bought a DVD in quite a while and have no plans to do so.
> 
> Greg


Not sure what your point is here. CGI modeling is not going away. It is the present and the future. I'm sure there will be improvements in the technology that will make CGI ships look realistic to the point where even the worst CGI detractors cannot complain. Personally I like the look of the restored Enterprise; it's as good as it can get when the restored episodes were released. The only thing that I don't like about it are the panels.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

The flight dynamics are better in the CGI effects. The space backgrounds look better. I re-watch "The Doomsday Machine" every so often just because the episode flows better with the CGI effects. In the end, we are still looking at processed images, be it CGI or Blue Screen Matte SPFX.


----------



## publiusr (Jul 27, 2006)

The remastered effects make the Enterprise look small. I never got what not trek-fans called the "ship-on-sticks" look--but in the remastered effects--Enterprise looks weaker--less stately.

That's not really the CGI's fault.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

publiusr said:


> The remastered effects make the Enterprise look small. I never got what not trek-fans called the "ship-on-sticks" look--but in the remastered effects--Enterprise looks weaker--less stately.


:surprise: How so? Because you can see detail whereas in the original you see hardly any detail at all? I don't buy that. There's a nostalgic charm to watching the original effects. But that's all.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

That's not it for me. The CG Enterprise isn't lit and animated as successfully as it could have been to give it the perceived mass it should have. Look at the CG of the nuGalactica from Zoic. That ship looked and moved like a massive vehicle.


----------

