Love, hate and the AMT Enterprise model

[scotpens]

Christopher wrote:

---

It feels a bit anachronistic to see the article writer referring to the nacelle caps as "Bussard collectors," a terminology that wasn't applied to Starfleet nacelles until TNG (courtesy of Rick Sternbach, who'd worked with Dr. Bussard before becoming a technical consultant on TNG).

It's also anachronistic to speak of the TOS Enterprise having a "warp core," or to refer to TOS landing parties as "away teams." A lot of Trekkers do it, though.

Melakon wrote:

---

I'm pretty sure you're right about the C or D cell batteries. I don't remember which though. It was nearly 50 years ago.

No, it was definitely two AA batteries. If you happen to have an unassembled kit and some C or D batteries lying around, try and see if they fit. (They don't.)

[Melakon]

scotpens wrote:

---

No, it was definitely two AA batteries. If you happen to have an unassembled kit and some C or D batteries lying around, try and see if they fit. (They don't.)

Unfortunately, no Enterprise models with me these days. Guess my brain has atrophied worse than I thought.

[E-DUB]

I had one of the originals with the top and bottom hull lights, too. I replaced it at one point with one with the 3 piece stand (crappy), but followed the error made by others and painted it a powder blue, based of a pic I'd seen of Shatner holding a big E and thought, "That has to be right." My modeling skills had improved by then, but it since has been superceded by the polar lights kit.

[Forbin]

That original triangular stand is my second favorite model kit stand ever for good looks, first being the old Aurora stand (which Polar Lights AND Moebius Models has revived).

[TREK_GOD_1]

Galileo7 wrote:

---

It was fun being a kid in the '70s.

You are not kidding!!

[Rick Sternbach]

Christopher wrote:

---

Okay, the one I had was the Small Box Version One.

It feels a bit anachronistic to see the article writer referring to the nacelle caps as "Bussard collectors," a terminology that wasn't applied to Starfleet nacelles until TNG (courtesy of Rick Sternbach, who'd worked with Dr. Bussard before becoming a technical consultant on TNG). I think back then we just called them nacelle caps or domes. I recall a Cinefantastique article saying that they were referred to behind the scenes as "ball power modules."

I can't speak to the "proper" historical use of terms for each iteration of Trek, and we can't ask Matt Jefferies about the nacelle caps, but since Bob Bussard's original ramjet concept goes back to 1960, the use of the caps as collectors seems to fit. I don't have a copy of Franz Joseph's plans handy, but didn't he label them something like "space matter intakes"? This might have been his own take on what they could have been, and not something intended by Jefferies. More science fiction archeology.

[Christopher]

scotpens wrote:

---

It's also anachronistic to speak of the TOS Enterprise having a "warp core," or to refer to TOS landing parties as "away teams." A lot of Trekkers do it, though.

Well, in-universe, we don't know that the fictional characters didn't call them "Bussard collectors," since we never heard them call them anything else. So that's not really the problem. But if you're writing a historical article about artifacts created in the 1960s and 1970s, it's misleading to talk about them using terminology that wasn't applied to them until the late 1980s, unless you specifically point out that the term wasn't in use at the time. Nothing wrong with the modern interpretation, of course, but if you're chronicling the history of a thing, it's best to make the chronology clear.

[Albertese]

Rick Sternbach wrote:

---

...

I don't have a copy of Franz Joseph's plans handy, but didn't he label them something like "space matter intakes"? This might have been his own take on what they could have been, and not something intended by Jefferies. More science fiction archeology.

FJ labeled the front end domes as "Space Energy/Matter Sink (Acquisition)" and the rear end domes as "Space Energy/Matter Source (Restoration)." IIRC, the idea was that all of the universe's "Energy/Matter" would be sucked into the engines on the front end and restored on the back end and that this process would have the effect of pulling the engines (and the starship attached to them) along at FTL speeds. It's not quite the same as Bussard's idea of collecting hydrogen as fuel (at least as I understand it...).

However, personally, I feel that the Sternbach/Okuda model of dome=Bussard collector and rear end=subspace field generator makes more sense and I happily retcon it over the TOS episodes. It doesn't really present any conflict to what was seen on-screen.

(Though I wonder why Cochrane's Phoenix would have needed Bussard collectors when his ship was only meant to jump less than an AU in a test flight. Maybe that was just the maiden voyage... after all, what seems like it must have been a disposable launch stage was never dropped and presumably the whole thing wound up in the Air and Space Museum, so what do I know?)

--Alex

[Christopher]

Again, I have no objection to the Bussard-collector idea itself. I'm just saying that I think a historical article should be clearer about what ideas and terminology come from what period of real-world history.

[Sector 7]

Forbin wrote:

---

Jay Chladek's article on the history of the model kit:
http://culttvman.com/main/?p=3665

Thank you for the link to Chladek's article. According to his descriptions, I had the "small box" kits. Thank Heaven there were kits with lights included... I thought everybody who had that must be smarter than me! I am NOT Montgomery Scott and was never able to make a homemade light kit.

[Warped9]

I built a number of the AMT kits back in the '70s, but my first one I got for Christmas in 1970 is the one I recall the most fondly. That said it was a sloppily designed kit for what it needed to be. Still, it transported me to the farthest reaches of imagination. What I remember most was how I felt about it all back then---pure joy.

Today I recognize it as a disappointing kit as seen through an adult's eyes. Although I can recall how I felt so long ago I just can't put myself back into that youthful perspective. When Polar Lights released their (albeit small) 1/1000 kit of the original Enterprise it was a huge leap forward in terms of accuracy, kit design and build quality (ease of build). Although small it is such a superior model to the AMT kit.

And now I've just received a Premiere Edition of the new 1/350 scale Enterprise kit from Round2, forty-two years after my first AMT kit and less than a month before Christmas. There is practically no commonality between this and the old AMT kit...

...except that opening the box reawakened a feeling I haven't felt in forty years.

[TREK_GOD_1]

Warped9 wrote:

---

Today I recognize it as a disappointing kit as seen through an adult's eyes. Although I can recall how I felt so long ago I just can't put myself back into that youthful perspective. When Polar Lights released their (albeit small) 1/1000 kit of the original Enterprise it was a huge leap forward in terms of accuracy, kit design and build quality (ease of build). Although small it is such a superior model to the AMT kit.

And now I've just received a Premiere Edition of the new 1/350 scale Enterprise kit from Round2, forty-two years after my first AMT kit and less than a month before Christmas. There is practically no commonality between this and the old AMT kit...

...except that opening the box reawakened a feeling I haven't felt in forty years.

I think the basic mold of the AMT kit was close enough that a careful custom job can make a near-exact replica of either TOS miniature. I've seen some wonderful customs over the years, but if someone does not want to mount that kind of project, he could build it to be a perfect "catalog" model--like the box photo.

At least in that way, it does not have to be screen accurate, but its the best version of AMT's work.

[jayrath]

We're all talking at cross purposes. When I recently bought a vintage light-up AMT model and built it, my intent was to recreate the imperfect "toy" Enterprise of my childhood. I was completely successful, and it remains "my" Enterprise.

Is it screen-accurate? Nope. (But it was at least personally vetted by Jeffries, and in many ways compares well to the TOS three-footer.) But the point is that it was my first tangible TOS artifact when I was nine, and it is again. And it looks absolutely glorious with the dome lights on.

[Sector 7]

jayrath wrote:

---

And it looks absolutely glorious with the dome lights on.

Blah, blah, blah... I WANT PICTURES!!

I haven't seen one of the light up kits in almost 40 years. Please, please post pics...

[jayrath]

Sector 7 wrote:

---

Blah, blah, blah... I WANT PICTURES!!

I haven't seen one of the light up kits in almost 40 years. Please, please post pics...

I want to and will. First I have to figure out how to post photos here!