Question about the original Matt Jeffies design.

[apepa]

I was wondering if anyone here might have some insight into this.

I'm currently working on a CG model of the TOS Enterprise, using images of the Smithsonian restoration for reference.

So, I have a question about those triangular marks painted onto the bottom of the saucer: Were they originally intended to create the illusion of being in inset into the hull?

I ask because I can't work out what else they would be for, and I know for a fact that they used this technique to fake detail on one of the engine nacelles to save time/money on construction. It wouldn't surprise me if it were the same case here.

Here's a picture of what I'm talking about:

https://ibb.co/dL8CFS

I think I'd rather build my model to look the way the original was supposed to look, rather than have weird decals on it that make no sense!

 

[alensatemybuick1]

I don't believe Jefferies' construction plans for the Enterprise models indicated what are now considered by many as landing gear. I recall seeing an interview Doug Drexler and the Okudas did with him 20 or so years ago, and he claimed that many painted surface details on the Enterprise (especially on the underside) were done without his knowledge. He was getting on in years at that point, and may have simply forgotten, but "original" intent (what, when and by whom) may be a tough thing to pin down. Obviously there are small raised ribs at the the base of the triangles on the saucer underside, but I'm not sure I recall if they are otherwise simply painted on (I'm inclined to say yes).

Of course, I've been wrong before. But I'm always happy to be corrected if it means I learn something.

 

[apepa]

Obviously there are small raised ribs at the the base of the triangles on the saucer underside, but I'm not sure I recall if they are otherwise simply painted on (I'm inclined to say yes).

Of course, I've been wrong before. But I'm always happy to be corrected if it means I learn something.

The ribs at the base are definitely real rather than painted on, I know that much.

To clarify, I'm not really interested in what the function of the triangles are supposed to be, I'm basically trying to extrapolate what it was supposed to look like. For example, the Port side of the original model lacks windows and many other details, and has the production rigging hanging out, but we can rest assured it was supposed to be more or less a mirror image of the starboard side.

 

[GNDN18]

This might not be helpful, but I think the best shot of the underside of the saucer is found in “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield”.

 

[alensatemybuick1]

Sorry if I misunderstood, but I was acknowledging that the ribs at least were "real". If we assume the current restoration is correct in how they were painted ("trompe-l'œil" illusion of depth), then I guess the assumption is that the triangles were meant to appear recessed.

As for whether the port side of the ship is supposed to be a mirror image, I sure think so, since they used reverse painted markings and a flipped negative to depict the port side of the 11 footer in WNMHGB (shot also re-used in "Mirror-Mirror"), and since the markings on the port side of the 3 footer seem to mirror the starboard side. However there are those who consider the ship asymmetrical based on the fewer number of windows on the B/C deck and saucer rim and underside on the port side of the 11 footer (which I attribute more to these not being expected to ever be seen very clearly except (/if at all) in certain close to "head on" shots).

I really don't get the other way of thinking, since we know that there were other clearly absent details besides windows on the port side of the 11 footer which I am sure were intended to be there but were omitted for time / money considerations (the port nub on the seco hull behind the deflector dish is clearly depicted in the original plans for example, as is the raised rectangular section on the lower port nacelle behind the front "ball power nodule").

 

[ZapBrannigan]

The way the triangles are painted and shaded is clearly intended to portray ridges or seams, and not just paint. These are hatches for something.

 

[TrickyDickie]

That image is from here:

https://sockrotation.com/2015/02/10/uss-enterprise-at-the-smithsonian/

My take is that if there were saucer separation, the saucer could land on a planet because of one landing gear being recessed above the neck where that connects and the other two at those ports.

Edit: Just found this:

https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/11606/did-the-original-enterprise-have-landing-gear

 

[Shawnster]

Jefferies original intent was for the surface to be smooth.

http://forgottentrek.com/designing-the-first-enterprise/

Although they now had a shape, it was not the end of Jefferies’ efforts. He theorized that since space was an extremely dangerous place, starship engineers would not put any important machinery on the outside of their vessel. This meant that, logically, the hull would be smooth.

Not everyone agreed with Jefferies and he had to fight his corner. “I constantly had to fight anyone who wanted to put surface details on the thing,” he says. Another advantage of the smooth design was that it would reflect light, and at this point it was not a foregone conclusion that the ship would be white. “I thought the atmosphere or lack of it out there in space might produce different colors, and this gave us a chance to be able to play light and to throw color on it.”

https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/matt-jefferies-and-the-tos-enterprise.269635/

 

[Commishsleer]

That image is from here:

https://sockrotation.com/2015/02/10/uss-enterprise-at-the-smithsonian/

My take is that if there were saucer separation, the saucer could land on a planet because of one landing gear being recessed above the neck where that connects and the other two at those ports.

Edit: Just found this:

https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/11606/did-the-original-enterprise-have-landing-gear

Yes I thought it was for saucer separation too.
I thought I'd read it somewhere though I cant find the source.

 

[feek61]

I read many (many) years ago it was suppose to be a landing gear.

 

[TrickyDickie]

Yes I thought it was for saucer separation too.
I thought I'd read it somewhere though I cant find the source.

The link at my edit gets into that.

I found another thread from here on the BBS that gets into this as well:

https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/markings-on-saucer-section-of-ncc-1701.97340/

Here is an excerpt from one of Shaw's posts:

Looking at the ship from Forbidden Planet....the influence makes sense. Jefferies was most likely not responsible, but it's a fair bet that Datin was. And if you consider the spacing of the neck with those two triangles, on the underside of the Enterprise saucer, you would have quite a symmetrical tripod landing set-up. It was too expensive to film a landing, but that doesn't mean that was determined when those items were added. That financial determination may very well have come after the fact.

What I am highly curious about right now is where the following image comes from. It's advertised as a poster from Forbidden Planet, but that doesn't make sense. And that ship bears a lot of resemblance to Jefferies' early work on the Enterprise design:

 

[Maurice]

What I am highly curious about right now is where the following image comes from. It's advertised as a poster from Forbidden Planet, but that doesn't make sense. And that ship bears a lot of resemblance to Jefferies' early work on the Enterprise design:

It's some knock off.

 

[Phaser Two]

I read many (many) years ago it was suppose to be a landing gear.

I love this idea. Too bad we didn't get to see it in TAS.

 

[alensatemybuick1]

Apepa, I'm a bit sorry I brought up the landing gear issue, as I get it (now) that you were asking about the intended appearance of the triangles, not their intended function. But let's face it, if I didn't bring it up, the result would have been the same!

 

[Phaser Two]

Apepa, I'm a bit sorry I brought up the landing gear issue, as I get it (now) that you were asking about the intended appearance of the triangles, not their intended function. But let's face it, if I didn't bring it up, the result would have been the same!

Look, he JUST WANTS TO KNOW THEIR INTENDED APPEARANCE

 

[TrickyDickie]

Form and function are both interesting....

 

[Shawnster]

The link at my edit gets into that.

I found another thread from here on the BBS that gets into this as well:

https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/markings-on-saucer-section-of-ncc-1701.97340/

Here is an excerpt from one of Shaw's posts:

Looking at the ship from Forbidden Planet....the influence makes sense. Jefferies was most likely not responsible, but it's a fair bet that Datin was. And if you consider the spacing of the neck with those two triangles, on the underside of the Enterprise saucer, you would have quite a symmetrical tripod landing set-up. It was too expensive to film a landing, but that doesn't mean that was determined when those items were added. That financial determination may very well have come after the fact.

What I am highly curious about right now is where the following image comes from. It's advertised as a poster from Forbidden Planet, but that doesn't make sense. And that ship bears a lot of resemblance to Jefferies' early work on the Enterprise design:

It's some knock off.

Forbidden Planet came out in 1956

Above link claims artwork is from 1965. Transposed the 5 and 6. There was no 1965 version.

Artwork is clearly from much, much later than either the 50s or 60s. Possibly even from this century as opposed last.

Ironically, the first image of artwork they claim is from "Mysterious Planet" looks like "Forbidden Planet." http://www.chrischand.com/WordPress/?wpsc_product_category=mysteriousplanet

Fascinating.

 

[GNDN18]

The Sci-Fi Zone is (apparently) a place where you can own a piece of false advertising.

Who can forget the Great Train from the 1965 Sci-Fi movie, Forbidden Planet.

I’ve seen Forbidden Planet dozens of times and I can’t remember any trains, or anything else the web site mentions. Robbie the Robot acted as a scooter, but that’s as close as it comes.

The disclaimer is a hoot. I’m sure Curtin University appreciates being connected to this larceny by trick.

ETA: I found this picture of the model as it appeared in 1986 before the first restoration (credit: Dayton Ward). The triangles appear to be painted below the hinge-like fixtures. The port triangle, like everything gauche and sinister on this model, is visibly underdone.

 

[apepa]

That image is from here:

https://sockrotation.com/2015/02/10/uss-enterprise-at-the-smithsonian/

My take is that if there were saucer separation, the saucer could land on a planet because of one landing gear being recessed above the neck where that connects and the other two at those ports.

Edit: Just found this:

https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/11606/did-the-original-enterprise-have-landing-gear

Thanks, it's actually really helpful getting that angle on it, as I've never been able to tell if those ribs were straight or followed the curve of the saucer.

 

[TrickyDickie]

Thanks, it's actually really helpful getting that angle on it, as I've never been able to tell if those ribs were straight or followed the curve of the saucer.

It's a really good page they have there. I was very impressed with the views.