I'd really love to see those concepts by Jason "Vector" Lee! I tried a Google search, but evidently, my search parameters were not the best choices as I found nothing matching the descriptive text.
I figured someone would eventually show those designs I saw in the earlier issues of StarLog, when the production still wavered between television and theatrical. They're interesting, there's no denying that. But those are structures devloped in the 1970s, post "Star Wars", when productions started leaning towards the motif of "hyper" detail. Somehow, I just don't think Matt Jefferies or Wah Chang would have thought in those terms in 1967 to 68. At that point, even "2001: A Space Odyssey" was yet to be released (April 68'), serving as the great paradigm changer. The philosophy of the time was still "smooth, sleek surfaces" with minimal touches of detail. Also, let's remember whatever was built would have likely been shot using a blue screen matte separation process. Spindly details like thin "cables" supporting light arrays or the "zig zagging" tubes of truss beams would likely have vanished during processing (given the ship's rather substantial engine pylons sometimes disappeared). "Lost in Space" actually had the advantage here. Because most elements were shot "in camera" against a background painted to look like a starry expanse, fine details could be depicted. In fact, it was a challenge to hide the supporting wires. This "danger" of possibly losing foreground elements would have, sadly, ruled out the idea of using "sprues" from model kits as scaffolding, as expediate and clever that idea really is. Of course, that's assuming the production would have adhered to using blue screen optical printing techniques. If they chose to make an exception specifically because of the intricate detail, the the whole ball game changes.
I'm just thinking like this, "Matt? Gene here. Look, we have a story coming up that depicts the ship getting repaired over the course of the episode, not just a fleeting scene that can be written off with a line or two of dialog. If possible, I want to showcase a kind of drydock...in space. Yeah, it'll be expensive, but I think we can allocate the funds. Once we build and shoot it, we'll have that footage at our disposal for later episodes, kinda' like we did with the space station drowning in furballs. Say, there you go! Is that model still around? Maybe you can salvage parts from it for this 'spacedock'. It'll provide a bit of visual continuity, but even better, it'll save us some money. Oh, can you make it all spindly with open girders and criss-cross beams? What's that? They'll likely vanish during optical printing? Oh, I forgot about that. Well, if you have to make the frame with thicker parts to avoid that, that kinda' makes sense. Say, can't we just shoot it hanging from wires in front of a star speckled backdrop? That way all the fiddly details will photograph. Hmm? Yeah, I guess that would limit us, no chance to depict the same structure in orbit around a planet, suggesting a different complex. Right, Matt. I'll trust your judgement. Can you bring some prelimary drawings by Friday? I'd like to review them before we commit. Okay, see you Friday. Bye."
Okay, maybe it wouldn't be Gene Roddenberry himself calling Matt Jefferies direct, but it should give you an idea of the circumstances I'm imagining.
Sincerely,
Bill
