• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Enterprise Restoration Blog Update 1/2016

Christopher

Christopher

Writer
Admiral
(I hope Racer_X doesn't mind my using his title format for consistency.)

The Smithsonian has a new blog post about the Enterprise miniature restoration that's currently underway:

http://blog.nasm.si.edu/conservation/uss-enterprise-conservation-begins/

Some really fascinating stuff this time, with interior photos of the disassembled miniature and detailed analysis of its construction, materials, and paint layers. It's particularly surprising to learn that the secondary hull is made from flat wooden staves like a barrel, but without metal support bands, which is a threat to its structural integrity. They'll be inserting a support collar to help hold up the nacelle pylons. They've also found an original, unaltered layer of the first coat of paint, hidden under the saucer's bolt cover (which I think means the narrow raised piece at the rear of the saucer just above the dorsal), so they'll be able to recreate it. They're also going to use programmed LEDs to replicate the color temperature and blink patterns of the original interior lights. And they're bringing a team of ILM veterans on board to help with the paint restoration.
 
^There is a link -- just hover over the address -- but it was broken for some reason. I think I've fixed it.
 
I've been in love with the 11-footer my whole life, and even I am stunned by the degree of technical attention and care it's getting this time around. Maybe it's the model's age: it now has a kind of historical prestige that only serious fans thought it should be accorded in prior years. It certainly didn't get this much respect in the previous restorations.
 
I would give my left censored to sweep the floor after they finished their daily work. I would probably just stand there, leaning on the broom, looking...hearing her sounds...seeing her fly by...

...remembering.
 
ZapBrannigan said:
I've been in love with the 11-footer my whole life, and even I am stunned by the degree of technical attention and care it's getting this time around. Maybe it's the model's age: it now has a kind of historical prestige that only serious fans thought it should be accorded in prior years. It certainly didn't get this much respect in the previous restorations.
Click to expand...

That is true--earlier restorations were more "make it up as you see fit" rather than trying to return the miniature as close to its production condition as possible.
 
TREK_GOD_1 said:
That is true--earlier restorations were more "make it up as you see fit" rather than trying to return the miniature as close to its production condition as possible.
Click to expand...

That's neither accurate nor fair. It's just that the information that earlier restorers had to work with was not as extensive as what we have now. For instance, we now know that the much-reviled Ed Miarecki restoration was essentially accurate in the details of gridlines, weathering, etc., but that those details were simply applied too heavily, because Miarecki made the wrong assumption about how much the paint had faded over time. So past restorers did try their best -- they just didn't know as much as the current team does.
 
Turns out my friend Bill George is also advising on the restoration.

Christopher said:
That's neither accurate nor fair. It's just that the information that earlier restorers had to work with was not as extensive as what we have now. For instance, we now know that the much-reviled Ed Miarecki restoration was essentially accurate in the details of gridlines, weathering, etc., but that those details were simply applied too heavily, because Miarecki made the wrong assumption about how much the paint had faded over time. So past restorers did try their best -- they just didn't know as much as the current team does.
Click to expand...

Maybe. A friend of mine who helped Ed with one part of his refurbishment said, "I don't know what Ed was thinking," re the paintjob and his making up a decal with different text than had been on the model previously.
 
green pigmented synthetic varnish over the 2nd pilot gray and an earlier varnish; no wonder people have had trouble over the years getting it right. :lol:
 
Let me chime in on that - I'm on the restoration team.

Ed did fabulous and world class work restoring the structural integrity of the model. And it was falling apart, after being hung from the ceiling (which it was NOT designed to do). He had a very limited period of time to do the work (2-3 months, versus this restoration having taking over a year) and did not have access to any of the paint analysis or microscope-analysis type tools now in use. Nor did he have access to detailed photos like we have now.

The weathering he applied is 100% accurate but indeed, too heavy. We have behind the scenes photos that prove that. There are issues releasing the photos, because Smithsonian must follow the copyright rules, but we have essentially every photo done and the weathering is accurate. It did not show up well on the TV screen, though. The grid lines are also present, but yes, completely agree, far too heavy.

This time you have museum-restorers, funded with money from Boeing, who are able to spend months of analysis. You get a different result.

And to be clear - it still won't look like you saw it on the TV screen. I saw the ship very clearly in 1966 - it was white. White dammit! But no, it wasn't white then, that was an artifact of lighting, filming, and composition with the blue screen. Its unbelievable the difference between what was photographed and how it showed up on TV of the time.

But it will look as close as possible as it did when they did the last known filming for "Tribbles".
 
Search4 said:
And to be clear - it still won't look like you saw it on the TV screen. I saw the ship very clearly in 1966 - it was white. White dammit! But no, it wasn't white then, that was an artifact of lighting, filming, and composition with the blue screen. Its unbelievable the difference between what was photographed and how it showed up on TV of the time.
Click to expand...

Right. And sometimes, due to color-timing problems, it came out looking green or blue-green in the final shots. I read once that the reason the original Enterprise-D miniature was colored azure was that Andrew Probert wanted to replicate that apparent color of the TOS ship -- although, ironically, they usually color-corrected the FX shots to make the E-D look gray instead.
 
Speaking of the restoration, Doug Drexler cut together a reference video for the project.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Nothing about the technical to add, other than the obvious and incredible clarity and inclusiveness that the resources and apparatus used for the operation make possible, as repeatedly observed. Just a trivial sight association that struck me immediately when seeing one of the photos detailing the restoration work.

Did anyone else flash on an image of Rain Robinson working away on her computer when looking at the picture of Ms. O'Connor checking the analysis on her laptop? For some reason, though not physical resemblance, it hit me like a brick.:)
 
The picture of the inside of the Secondary Hull showed an interesting detail.
It showed how the hull windows were done. With a strip of rectangular Plexiglas or acrylic stuck through a rectangular hole cut in the hull. With the external gaps filled in and sanded smooth.
By the way, the windows were only on the starboard side. So the picture was upside down and looking forward. You could see the inside mountings for the base support and the dorsal.
 
Search4 said:
This time you have museum-restorers, funded with money from Boeing, who are able to spend months of analysis. You get a different result.
Click to expand...

The "Milestones" hall - the main entrance to the Air and Space museum - is being renovated with major funding from Boeing. This includes moving and restoring the LEM, the Spirit of St. Louis, the Bell X-1, and yes, Enterprise. Its a major gift, I believe it was $30,000,000. Many of the exhibits are already up, and the hall will be "officially done" in July 2016.

Thanks Boeing!
 
Search4 said:
The weathering he applied is 100% accurate but indeed, too heavy. We have behind the scenes photos that prove that. There are issues releasing the photos, because Smithsonian must follow the copyright rules, but we have essentially every photo done and the weathering is accurate. It did not show up well on the TV screen, though. The grid lines are also present, but yes, completely agree, far too heavy.

This time you have museum-restorers, funded with money from Boeing, who are able to spend months of analysis. You get a different result.
Click to expand...

That was always the problem of dealing with rare artifacts without all that one needs to treat it properly; because it is rare, you don't always have chances to work on it over and over again, like an assembly line product. In the past, strengthening was one thing, but applying surface details one was not certain about --causes--as seen, charges of changing or disrespecting history.

What is your opinion of Margaret Weitekamp's statement that the miniature was--quoting the article--

"initially regarded more as a piece of decor than as an object deserving of preservation and scholarship in its own right.That distinction influenced the approach taken during its most recent restoration, in 1991, which included a new paint job and detailing intended to help the model live up to the memories many visitors have of the starship they originally saw on tiny, primitive TV screens. This is different from trying to make the model look as authentic as possible, or closest to its condition when used in filming the TV show.
Click to expand...

If true, then does that mean historical accuracy--restoring it to its production state--was not the driving force to the changes?

And to be clear - it still won't look like you saw it on the TV screen. I saw the ship very clearly in 1966 - it was white. White dammit! But no, it wasn't white then, that was an artifact of lighting, filming, and composition with the blue screen. Its unbelievable the difference between what was photographed and how it showed up on TV of the time
Click to expand...

I saw the miniature in person in the 70s--at the Life in the Universe exhibit, and knew the miniature was never white. In fact, back in that decade, I remember thinking the Estes rocket 1701, and AMT's catalog photos of their 1701 model kit were always "wrong," because of the white color, as much as the other physical inaccuracies. I think it was clear--at least to me--that the 1701 was not a 1960s NASA rocket, painted in stark, milky white, so I wonder why AMT--who must have had better visual reference in 1966 (than any company since) decided to give the 1701 the wrong color from the start.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top