The 11 Footer E flaws, shoddy construction or by design?

[darkwing_duck1]

Spin off from the Hayes thread...

Are the numerous flaws in the 11 foot E model from TOS the result of poor construction that has led to deterioration of the model over time, or did they deliberately build it with things like the warped saucer to counteract lens distorition "in camera"?

Does anyone know?

 

[scotpens]

Are the numerous flaws in the 11 foot E model from TOS the result of poor construction that has led to deterioration of the model over time, or did they deliberately build it with things like the warped saucer to counteract lens distorition “in camera”?

The saucer portion of the TOS 11-foot Enterprise model was never perfectly shaped, and got more warped and crooked over time. “Counteracting lens distortion” doesn't make sense (although filming miniatures are sometimes built in forced perspective to make them look larger on camera).

Now, will somebody please flog Ed Miarecki 50 lashes with a wet noodle for that horrible over-weathering job he did on the latest “restoration” of the old girl.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Are the numerous flaws in the 11 foot E model from TOS the result of poor construction that has led to deterioration of the model over time, or did they deliberately build it with things like the warped saucer to counteract lens distorition “in camera”?

The saucer portion of the TOS 11-foot Enterprise model was never perfectly shaped, and got more warped and crooked over time. “Counteracting lens distortion” doesn't make sense (although filming miniatures are sometimes built in forced perspective to make them look larger on camera).

Certain lenses distort the image as induced onto the negative, "warping" the visual slightly (the "fisheye effect). One way to counteract this is to build counter-distortion into the model so that the optical image that is deposited on the film is automatically corrected.

 

[Shaw]

Construction of the 11 foot model was started on December 8, 1964, it was delivered on December 29, 1964. It was built by Richard Datin, Mel Keys and Vern Sion at Volmer Jensen's Production Model Shop. So that is three (maybe four) guys working for three weeks in December (through Christmas) to build the 11 foot model.

Some aspects of the model (like the port nacelle weighing more) effected the alignment of the model over her 45 years, but she also wasn't intended to stay assembled 24/7 for years on end. During TOS she was only assembled when she was to be filmed.

As for the saucer being out of round, we are talking a variation of about half an inch on something that is nearly 60 inches across. This was hand built, not machine cut. Odds are, the builders might not have even known it was off when they delivered it. Other than the flaws brought on by time, most people have never noticed the other issues. There are still people who believe the model was originally built with both sides completed today.

But I know of very few effects models which were perfect, and even fewer which look good in person.

So what was the impetus of this thread?

 

[darkwing_duck1]

^ The subject came up in the Haynes (sp?) thread of how the drawings in the manual "didn't match the 11 footer". I'd heard about the distortions in the 11 foot model years ago. I was wondering if they were deliberate or related to wear and tear or what.

Now I know.

Thanks for the info!

 

[Warped9]

It's hard to imagine something that big being built without flaws, and I'm not referring to the unfinished side---not really a flaw because it was intended that way for filming.

Go anywhere and look at new products built on assembly line and chances are you'll still find something off to varying degree.

Some flaws are difficult to notice. I know the E's saucer isn't perfectly round, but I imagine it hard to actually spot.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Now, will somebody please flog Ed Miarecki 50 lashes with a wet noodle for that horrible over-weathering job he did on the latest “restoration” of the old girl.

No. NASM got enormous value for the little money they were willing to spend - the ship had never been restored properly at all during their ownership of it, and they weren't willing to pony up for a museum-quality restoration. If not for Ed, the thing would be lying in parts somewhere in a storeroom.

I'm sure that some purists will assert that this would be preferable. They lose.

Any model that size and weight would be built now (if things were still done that way) with a strong internal armature to avoid all of the sagging, drooping and warping. The 11-foot model is largely plastic and wood, with no armature of any kind as such.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

^ I don't understand why the Smithsonian would be so chintzy with restorations of such an iconic piece of Americana and space exploration.

 

[Robert D. Robot]

Budget cutbacks have greatly affected the Smithsonian and the National Zoo over the last decade or two. Given that there are so many people out there who think actual space exploration is a waste of tax dollars, we can imagine how these people might view preservation of an artifact of fictional space exploration.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yep - it's hardly an "icon" with respect to space exploration. It's also one of a very limited number of fictional artifacts ever displayed prominently by NASM (the mothership from Close Encounters Of The Third Kind being another).

Based on the missions of the various museums and if not for a bit of eccentricity in the donation of the thing the Enterprise ought to be at the Museum of American History along with all of the other television and movie exhibits like Archie Bunker's easy chair and Kermit the Frog and Judy Garland's "Dorothy" ruby slippers. Not that they'd necessarily get the details right - they displayed a replica phaser based on the Franz Joseph Tech Manual as a screen-used prop for some time - but at least they'd be better able to put it into the context of what they do. If it weren't for the efforts of one or two curators who were Trek fans it's not clear that NASM would even have known how to research the history of the model. an

 

[Robert D. Robot]

I do not know all the details by any means, but it sounds like we were truly lucky that someone like Ed Miarecki (and some individual or two at the NASM) was enough of a fan (or at least aware of and appreciative of popular culture) to have made the effort to save the Enterprise. As in many cases, this project probably was a bit of a labor of love, considering the small budget provided for the restoration.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

^If it's such a non-icon in space exploration, then why have numerous astronauts and scientists who have worked for and with NASA cited Trek as part of what got them into science in general and space science particularly?

Trek is singular in that it is Americana, and science, and philosophy and myth and a whole bunch of other things all embodied in one package.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Getting back to the model's construction, it's my understanding that a big part of the reason for the saucer's irregularities has to do with how, in 1964, there wasn't a vacuform machine big enough to handle a 60" diameter item (very close, but not quite five feet), so they had to cheat a bit (like Shaw said, an average of about a half an inch, depending on where you take the measurement).

Kinda like how the pylons are at a slightly steeper angle than originally drawn up (47 degrees instead of 45). Those two degrees quite probably made the difference between a little bit of sagging after forty years and one of the nacelles snapping off during filming back in '67.

As for that port side...considering that there is a pennant and registry number on that nacelle (and photos from the time it arrived at NASM show that it's always been there and not the product of one of their hamfisted restoration efforts), I suspect that the decision to not finish that side was made during construction, and was purely a cost savings measure; remember, the model wasn't lit until the second pilot, so electrical access wouldn't have been a consideration; it just worked out to their advantage that when Roddenberry wanted lights, they had the whole side of the secondary hull to punch holes in to run wires.

 

[Forbin]

^ The subject came up in the Haynes (sp?) thread of how the drawings in the manual "didn't match the 11 footer".

Whatever is stuck in your ass, get a pair of plyers and call a friend to help.

I meant the drawing on the cover has many glaringly obvious inaccuracies, based on what the "real" starship is supposed to look like, BASED ON the 11 foot model's details. I had no idea I had to clarify my comment down to the level where a fetal marmot would be able to understand it. I assumed anyone who was on a Star Trek message board, in the technical subforum, would know what the damn 40-year-old ship looked like down to the tiniest detail. It never occured to me (why, I don't know), that someone would pick out the tiniest flaw in the model itself, totally unrelated to my poiint, and blather on about it for two pages, and, wow, even create a whole second thread on the subject!

I've prepared a marked-up version of the cover drawing and posted it over in the original thread, pointing out the most obvious inaccuracies that anyone who's ever studied the Enterprise should be able to pick out in the dark even without a guide dog. I also attached photos of the 11 foot model showing the parts in question, so in case you feel like arguing about THOSE comments too, you can see what the actual parts look like.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Regardless of the origins, it's still a good discussion topic.

Like this little tidbit:

Some aspects of the model (like the port nacelle weighing more) effected the alignment of the model over her 45 years, but she also wasn't intended to stay assembled 24/7 for years on end. During TOS she was only assembled when she was to be filmed.

Since the vast bulk of the effects footage was shot during the first season, this means the ol' girl spent a lot of time in those crates.

 

[number6]

^If it's such a non-icon in space exploration, then why have numerous astronauts and scientists who have worked for and with NASA cited Trek as part of what got them into science in general and space science particularly?

Trek is singular in that it is Americana, and science, and philosophy and myth and a whole bunch of other things all embodied in one package.

Do you really expect NASM's budgetary priorities explained to you?? What makes you think anyone here can explain that to your satisfaction?

Their priorities have absolutely nothing to do with what Star Trek fans think of how they spend their money.

 

[BolianAuthor]

This thread is full of WIN!!!

Oh, wait... never mind... my bad.

 

[scotpens]

Getting back to the model's construction, it's my understanding that a big part of the reason for the saucer's irregularities has to do with how, in 1964, there wasn't a vacuform machine big enough to handle a 60" diameter item (very close, but not quite five feet), so they had to cheat a bit (like Shaw said, an average of about a half an inch, depending on where you take the measurement).

The capacity of vacuform machines at the time is totally irrelevant, since the 11-foot Enterprise model was constructed almost entirely of WOOD.

Enterprise Model Restoration Photos

 

[Shaw]

Actually, from my attempts to reverse engineer how the primary hull was most likely made, I don't believe vacuforming was used. One of the things that is missing from the model are relatively sharp details. What we actually get is soft curves.

If I was going to re-create the model today... not a model that looks like the original, but a true forgery of the original, this is what I would do...

First, get a couple sheets of 60 inch by 60 inch plastic (at about 1/4th of an inch thick). Then I'd create a number of round blocks and rings from wood, some of which I could lock together. Arrange them on the plastic sheets (maybe adding weights as needed), and then use a heat gun to help deform the plastic.

The arrangement would look something like this (the top half would be upside-down to how it is seen in the image below)...

Click to enlarge​

I would then attach those deformed sheets to a wooden structure to get the rigidity something of that size would need.


Is that how it was done in December of 1964?

I don't know. But that is how I would go about creating a forgery of the original.

 

[scotpens]

According to this site:

Construction materials: Saucer section is Royalite vacuuformed plastic supported by a series of wooden ribs; Bridge dome is wood; Engine nacelles are wood (forward of the support pylons) and rolled thin sheet metal over wood supports (behind the support pylons); Secondary Hull is wood.

So I stand corrected about the use of vacuformed plastic.