I might be able to answer that... Galileo actually gets a bit wider as you move towards the back. About a 6 inch difference.
The 11-foot TOS Enterprise model-
- Thread starter jayrath
- Start date
I might be able to answer that... Galileo actually gets a bit wider as you move towards the back. About a 6 inch difference.
That's already widely known as the mock-up was built with a measure of forced perspective to the design to make the 22ft. exterior look bigger than it really is from certain angles. But it's also integral to the design as it's mimicked on the filming miniature. But on neither is there any indication that the nacelles (or the access hatch) had any taper to them.
I don't believe the shuttle was built with any forced perspective. True forced perspective only works from a limited set of angles and you don't use it for a mockup you'll be shooting from all kinds of directions. Furthermore, while the height of the fuselage tapers towards the back, the width of the craft increases slightly in inverse relation, and most of this is completely unnoticeable when you're up close to the mockup. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Maybe I misunderstood how you said this.
The design of the craft widens in height and width from front to back.
More specifically, the roof of the craft slopes downward from front to back, but the raised, curved side extensions have a slight rise from front to back.
I think.
That's what I meant to say -- not that the Galileo's nacelles had a taper (they obviously don't), but that the shuttle itself (the main hull) narrows from back to front.
So while this project has been dormant, it's not dead or forgotten by Steve, Mike, or any of us. I've been undercover for awhile with some real world issues, notably a move to Las Vegas, and taking on a new job as a social media manager for ANOVOS. But I've been making some new friends along the way and they are as interested in seeing the Enterprise restored as we are. I'll also be meeting a few people at SDCC, and this year's Vegas con (both now working gigs for me), and hope to perhaps set up formal meetings for this project at both cons.
Speaking of the 3-footer, an amateur (but master) modeler from somewhere recently posted pics of his 22-inch long replica. He built it from scratch.
He carefully shot these pics to compare with the original model as seen in "Methuselah."
Apart from being a little smaller, it's a terrific match:
He carefully shot these pics to compare with the original model as seen in "Methuselah."
Apart from being a little smaller, it's a terrific match:
I came across a previously unpublished (i.e. ST Posterbook "Smithsonian Report"), new close-up photo from Doug Drexler on Drex Files that he had taken in early 1977, there were no grid lines whatsoever on the engineering hull.
Unfortunately, Doug Drexler has been forced to shut down his Drex Files. I wanted to link to the picture, but that is very, very unfortunately no longer possible.
Bob
Unfortunately, Doug Drexler has been forced to shut down his Drex Files. I wanted to link to the picture, but that is very, very unfortunately no longer possible.
Bob
I came across a previously unpublished (i.e. ST Posterbook "Smithsonian Report"), new close-up photo from Doug Drexler on Drex Files that he had taken in early 1977, there were no grid lines whatsoever on the engineering hull.
Unfortunately, Doug Drexler has been forced to shut down his Drex Files. I wanted to link to the picture, but that is very, very unfortunately no longer possible.
Bob
That's right. There are faint pencil lines on top of the saucer that don't show up even in most decent photos, but they are there:
But I've never seen grid on the secondary hull in any photo:
Last edited:
Keep in mind that most of the 11 foot miniature was repainted by the the Smithsonian before it was ever displayed and before those photos were taken. As far as we know; no documentation of the original condition (and paint job) has made it out into the public domain other than the uncrating photos. The top of the saucer is the ONLY part that has never been repainted since the filming of the show.
In the above photos it shows no pencil lines on the bottom of the saucer but we know that they were there on the original before the initial restoration by the Smithsonian prior to it ever going on display. I don't believe the secondary hull ever had any lines on it but it could in fact have had some very faint pencil lines; there is just no way of knowing.
In the above photos it shows no pencil lines on the bottom of the saucer but we know that they were there on the original before the initial restoration by the Smithsonian prior to it ever going on display. I don't believe the secondary hull ever had any lines on it but it could in fact have had some very faint pencil lines; there is just no way of knowing.
All the links and information in this thread have shown this is entirely conjectural and most likely a misinterpretation: In the early 1980's the Enterprise at the Smithsonian underwent clean-up and/or repaint to some unknown extent (i.e. after it had been hanging there in its original condition since 1976)
I took pictures in 1980 and the underside of the forward nacelle caps still had the darker shape (repainted or washed off in the above bluish shot) and the lower starboard porthole was still there (it disappeared after the early 1980's "work").
There are these original black & white promotional stills with the harsh contrast / lighting that reveal details like the pencil lines on the underside of the saucer - which were still there in these (bluish) shots (www.cloudster.com) taken at the Smithsonian after the "work". But - again - you have to look very close to be able to see these.
Bob
You may call the original painting a "myth" but I was there when it was originally unveiled at the Smithsonian in (I think) 1976 and studied it extensively. To me it appeared freshly painted and I believe one or more of the windows were painted over. Believe what you want but the color that was used to repaint it did not even match the original color; it was slightly more blue as compared to the more greenish original color.
If you compare photos from that time that have both the top of the saucer and the rest of the ship it seems pretty obvious that it was repainted (a different color no less). Compare the rim of the saucer with the top of it in the below photos; the top is a different color. Make your own judgement but I know what the evidence tells me. Also, when the miniature was uncrated; there were numerous sheets of replacement decals that could have been easily applied to replace the originals after the painting. Again, believe what you want but I see people so dogmatic in what they believe that they are not open to any other options.
The Smithsonian website says:
"Over time, heat, cold, humidity and other elements had taken a toll on the structure, the wiring and other internal components as well as the exterior paint scheme. Before it could be put on exhibit, extensive restoration was required. The first Smithsonian restoration took place shortly after the starship was received and was completed by July 29, 1974."
Extensive restoration, damage to the structure, wiring, internal components and exterior paint scheme sounds like it was more than touch-up on the exterior paint. Apparently it is (or was at the time) the policy of the Smithsonian to leave at least a portion of the original vehicle untouched and in this case it is the top of the saucer. Draw your own conclusions but I know what I saw then and the color difference in the photos seem to bear that out.
If you compare photos from that time that have both the top of the saucer and the rest of the ship it seems pretty obvious that it was repainted (a different color no less). Compare the rim of the saucer with the top of it in the below photos; the top is a different color. Make your own judgement but I know what the evidence tells me. Also, when the miniature was uncrated; there were numerous sheets of replacement decals that could have been easily applied to replace the originals after the painting. Again, believe what you want but I see people so dogmatic in what they believe that they are not open to any other options.
The Smithsonian website says:
"Over time, heat, cold, humidity and other elements had taken a toll on the structure, the wiring and other internal components as well as the exterior paint scheme. Before it could be put on exhibit, extensive restoration was required. The first Smithsonian restoration took place shortly after the starship was received and was completed by July 29, 1974."
Extensive restoration, damage to the structure, wiring, internal components and exterior paint scheme sounds like it was more than touch-up on the exterior paint. Apparently it is (or was at the time) the policy of the Smithsonian to leave at least a portion of the original vehicle untouched and in this case it is the top of the saucer. Draw your own conclusions but I know what I saw then and the color difference in the photos seem to bear that out.
Last edited:
Since the original was never intended to be displayed for this long, would it not make more sense to build a new display model that's true to the original Matt Jeffries/Richard Datin effort (updated to the series production version, of course) and could last longer than the original????
Would it not make sense to put the Mona Lisa into safe storage, and put a copy on display in the Louvre?
Would it not make sense to build a faithful copy of the Spirit of St. Louis and hang that up in place of the original?
Who the heck wants to go to a museum to see a COPY of something?
Would it not make sense to build a faithful copy of the Spirit of St. Louis and hang that up in place of the original?
Who the heck wants to go to a museum to see a COPY of something?
And this works both ways, doesn't it?
Again, in the Galileo restoration thread we had already discussed the issue. My Name Is Legion provided one of the original (1960's) promotional stills (post # 68) and I provided a link to the Cloudster close-up shot of the saucer's underside (post # 75) - an extreme close-up shot taken after the 1980's "restoration" (starboard porthole gone missing, forward nacelle cup underside "diffused") - that still revealed the original pencil lines on the saucer's starboard underside which match the original pencil lines of the promotional shot and the Enterprise's regular series appearance.
Now, unless somehow wants to seriously claim that during the 1980's restoration they painstakingly restored those tiny pencil lines (not visible to the Smithsonian visitors in the first place) on a fresh paint, I'd say this particular area was still the original color scheme (and apparently the color appears to match the rest of the ship, i.e. below the saucer's top side.)
The one option nobody seems to consider possible is that the top side of the saucer received a (new) paint job when the pilot version model was prepped for the regular series...
If I'm not mistaken the "7" of 1701 was suddenly different and additionally we had this "rust zone" paint scheme in the bow section of the saucer, that hadn't been there previously (and, of course, the tiny pencil lines).
I take this as a strong hint, that it had been the saucer's top side of the model that got a paint job while the rest of the model retained its original color.
I'm most definitely not trying to be dogmatic regarding the issue but I feel looking at all the hints, information and visual materials warrants to doubt general claims like "the top side was the only area not affected by a subsequent paint job".
Bob
