White House Petition to Restore/Preserve and Move the Enterprise Model

[Christopher]

Dream wrote:

---

The National Air & Space Museum paid for the model right? They should to do as they wish. At least they are displaying it instead of storing it in box. What gives the government the right to take the model away from them?

Umm, it is the National Air and Space Museum. It, and the rest of the Smithsonian, is a body of the federal government. The government wouldn't be taking the model away from anyone; it's already theirs. Or rather, as plynch said above, it belongs to the American people, and the government, through the Smithsonian, takes care of it on our behalf.

And no, they didn't pay for the miniature. It was donated to them by Paramount in 1974.

[plynch]

Dream wrote:

---

The National Air & Space Museum paid for the model right? They should to do as they wish. At least they are displaying it instead of storing it in box. What gives the government the right to take the model away from them?

Um... you are kidding, right? Along the lines of "Keep your government hands off my Medicare"?

And this all follows from the 11-footer thread I tried to steer people to: comments that the E has always been an unwanted-stepchild to a museum established for artifacts that, you know, actually flew, in real life. And that the Museum of History is where we store our cultural icons, like Archie Bunker's chair and Dizzy Gillespie's trumpet.

NOT trying to convince you about the proper museum -- think what you think. Just 'splainin. And hoping you really were pulling our legs on the "government" line, above.

EDIT: Maurice, on the other thread, wrote "Write your Congresspeeps." Turns out he might have been righter than I, since looking up the Smithsonian online has taught me it is overseen by Congress; I assumed the executive branch. Go figure. And I sent a separate email to Pres. Obama letting him know about the petition since he's a Trek fan. Oh well, maybe he'll work this into the Grand Bargain with Boehner.

[Dream]

Christopher wrote:

---

Umm, it is the National Air and Space Museum. It, and the rest of the Smithsonian, is a body of the federal government. The government wouldn't be taking the model away from anyone; it's already theirs.

Ah, I see. My eyes skipped over the national part.

I guess it is up to who calls the shots in times like this. Is it really that important that fans want the model stuck behind a glass box for display?

What's the status on the Enterprise-D models? I know one was considered lost, but later given back to Paramount by an employee of Planet Hollywood. It had been hanging from the ceiling at a restaurant and damaged a bit.

[Robert Comsol]

Christopher wrote:

---

And I'm not sure about the "artistic license" claim in the petition. I've heard it suggested that the miniature originally had more detail that didn't show up clearly onscreen due to the FX process causing a loss of image resolution, and which had faded by the time the ship was initially put on display, and that the intent of the Miarecki restoration was to recreate that original detail, to match the way the miniature actually looked rather than the way it appeared in the finished, somewhat degraded FX shots.

There's plenty of artistic license that has been taken during the 1991 restoration, here are the facts (the author did good research but there's no evidence for a previous "paint job" that affected larger areas, mind the entire engineering hull):

* A tiny bit of signage located in the forward window cluster on the lower saucer–”Inspection Door Vent Systems Connection” was changed to “Do Not Read This Sign!”.
* A similar bit of signage, just below the starboard nacelle pylon on the secondary hull–”Tail Pipe Socket Adjustment Access” was removed and not replaced.
* By far, the most controversial aspect of the restoration is the paint scheme. The entire model (with the exception of the upper saucer) was again (very debatable! small areas, yes!) repainted, with emphasis on gridlines and heavy weathering. Many feel this look is too extreme. The gridlines on the lower saucer are accurate (albeit extreme), but additional vertical gridlines lines were added to the secondary hull (which never had any gridlines, originally) and nacelles (which highlight the individual wooden sections which the nacelles were constructed from).

(http://enterproject.wordpress.com/20...ther-versions/)

As a strictly personal note the only thing I was desperate but unable to read or photograph back in 1976 and 1980 were the two small text fields on the bottom saucer's bow and starboard ("Inspection Door Vent Systems Connections"). It's one thing if these couldn't be saved, but artistic license / abuse if you go through the hazzle of replacing these with a different text and try to be funny, IMHO.

Bob

P.S. Found a modeler's forum that also illustrated and discussed the changes: http://www.therpf.com/f10/original-e...hsonian-93767/

On page 3 there is a shot that appears to show the saucer after it had arrived at the Smithsonian in 1974. Looks like it's the saucer of the Constellation (...) and required reconstruction and a paint job.

[Maurice]

It doesn't belong in the Air & Space Museum. It belongs in a museum that specializes in artifacts of its type. Honestly at Air & Space it feels diminished by what's around it. Hard to take a fictional spaceship seriously as an artifact when it's neighbored by craft that actually went into space.

[Christopher]

^Like I said, it's not just any fictional spaceship, but one that's played an important inspirational role to a generation of astronauts and aerospace innovators. That's why it was put in the NASM in the first place. Even in 1974, the importance of Star Trek to the space program was understood and appreciated. These days, the Enterprise may seem like just one of the countless fictional spaceships out there, but that's because people don't appreciate its role in history -- and that's exactly why we need museums to remind people of that history.

[Robert Comsol]

Maurice wrote:

---

Hard to take a fictional spaceship seriously as an artifact when it's neighbored by craft that actually went into space.

You mean like this one? (Sorry, couldn't resist. Please forgive my intentional pun...on second thought...make it double pun if you catch my drift)

Considering the Space Shuttle prototype (that also didn't go to space) was named after our favorite starship (that happened after our Enterprise had become a part of the NASM?) NASM still seems to be a good home for our starship lady, IMHO.

Bob

[plynch]

Christopher, you have a good point, no argument here. I never thought of the other museum until seeing it in the other thread, but it feels right upon reading it. We think it would be treated better there.

[Christopher]

^Odd that you wouldn't have thought of the NASM, considering that's where the miniature already is (albeit on the lower level of the gift shop) and has been for the past 39 years. It's already in the right museum; it just needs to be restored and put in a more prominent place within that museum.

[plynch]

Christopher wrote:

---

^Odd that you wouldn't have thought of the NASM, considering that's where the miniature already is (albeit on the lower level of the gift shop) and has been for the past 39 years. It's already in the right museum; it just needs to be restored and put in a more prominent place within that museum.

No, I definitely know that. Had to ask directions there on how to find the hidden dear. Up the down escalator, so to speak.

[Warped9]

I'd sign the petition if I could, but I live outside the U.S. and I'm not an American citizen. Still, I heartily support a movement to have this icon properly restored as it should be.

[timelord1010]

I am signature #23. I think the Enterprise should be restored and moved upstairs. I agree with other posts that the Enterprise 1701 is a unique case and deserves to be among the real life aircraft and spacecraft. What other sci-fi or fantasy TV show or movie can you name that influence so many people and the naming of a real life space vehicle? Yes Elon Musk named his Falcon rocket after the Millenium Falcon but you never heard anyone say that they became a astronaut or scientist because of Star Wars.

[Therin of Andor]

plynch wrote:

---

Now it looks like a kid took a magic marker to it.

http://web.archive.org/web/200612191...prise1991.html

Has someone intensified those gridlines with Photoshop? Because I was visiting the model just a few weeks ago... and the gridlines are not that prominent.


USS Enterprise at the Smithsonian, 2013 by Therin of Andor, on Flickr


USS Enterprise at the Smithsonian, 2013 by Therin of Andor, on Flickr

[plynch]

Likely this will get no traction, but if it does, tptb might still elect to keep it in NASM after a repaint. They would at least be thinking about her, at any rate.

[Therin of Andor]

plynch wrote:

---

Likely this will get no traction, but if it does, tptb might still elect to keep it in NASM after a repaint. They would at least be thinking about her, at any rate.

I do like this quote from the webpage with William S McCullars' 1997 pics:

Here's what Ed told The IDIC Page:

"I have taken pictures of the 'E' after restoration under full studio lighting, (which does wash out most of the shading), and it looks exactly right, (IMHO). I hope you understand that the model will never look the way it did 30+ years ago because it was repainted in 1974 without first documenting its original condition. This 'interpretation' was our best educated 'guess'. If someone has better resources and expertise, they may have a chance to restore the model for the 50th anniversary."