After rewatch, you are right; everything is moving (probably the camera, too). What confused me was, in the original, the speed of the Enterprise through the office window was near stopped, and in the remaster, it was flying across the window.
MGagen’s New TOS-E Project
- Thread starter MGagen
- Start date
I wasn't going to address this, but I fall squarely in the "not rotating/not orbiting" camp.
In the original episode, we see apparent rotation of the station and apparent movement of the ship; but, when seen from the station office, neither the stars nor the Enterprise are moving.
There is a conflict of visual evidence here that must be reconciled. There are two ways of doing this, both of which require ignoring some part of the visual evidence.
One way stacks improbability upon improbability and says that both the station is rotating and the ship "orbiting." The static view from the office is an error. This ignores the unwanted centrifugal effects on the station, the extra difficulty introduced in docking with it, and the massively unnecessary and constant need for the Enterprise (and every other visiting ship) to fly a powered circular path around the station. (Orbiting is simply not possible with the relatively tiny mass of the station. If it were even attempted, the orbital period would be so long that neither the ship nor the station would appear to be in motion to the naked eye; and given the relatively similar masses of the two objects, they would both orbit around a common barycenter, not one around the other.)
The other way supposes the apparent motion is actually motion of the camera, gliding by the ship and around the station. The ship and station are static and the apparent motion on screen is induced by a moving viewpoint for visual interest. The only error on screen here is that there should be a slight drift of stars in the exterior shots. The view from the station office is entirely correct. Note that the apparent rotation of the station is in the same direction as the apparent "orbit" of the ship. This is the same effect one gets from a camera moving through the scene on a circular path.
This second explanation is by far the simplest and also agrees with the script directions, which specify a stationary station and ship. David Gerrold even points out the spurious motion in his description of the episode in his book "The Trouble with Tribbles" (1973). From page 177:
Finally, for those who favor the "flying powered circles" around the station, there are a host of issues that are introduced by this, both of physics and logistics. I'll cite just one: If this is standard procedure, how big a mess would you have at a busy time when there are 10 or 15 ships visiting the station, all swooping around it like a cloud of angry bees, each under it's own power? Yikes!
All of this is avoided if we assume a moving camera viewpoint.
M.
In the original episode, we see apparent rotation of the station and apparent movement of the ship; but, when seen from the station office, neither the stars nor the Enterprise are moving.
There is a conflict of visual evidence here that must be reconciled. There are two ways of doing this, both of which require ignoring some part of the visual evidence.
One way stacks improbability upon improbability and says that both the station is rotating and the ship "orbiting." The static view from the office is an error. This ignores the unwanted centrifugal effects on the station, the extra difficulty introduced in docking with it, and the massively unnecessary and constant need for the Enterprise (and every other visiting ship) to fly a powered circular path around the station. (Orbiting is simply not possible with the relatively tiny mass of the station. If it were even attempted, the orbital period would be so long that neither the ship nor the station would appear to be in motion to the naked eye; and given the relatively similar masses of the two objects, they would both orbit around a common barycenter, not one around the other.)
The other way supposes the apparent motion is actually motion of the camera, gliding by the ship and around the station. The ship and station are static and the apparent motion on screen is induced by a moving viewpoint for visual interest. The only error on screen here is that there should be a slight drift of stars in the exterior shots. The view from the station office is entirely correct. Note that the apparent rotation of the station is in the same direction as the apparent "orbit" of the ship. This is the same effect one gets from a camera moving through the scene on a circular path.
This second explanation is by far the simplest and also agrees with the script directions, which specify a stationary station and ship. David Gerrold even points out the spurious motion in his description of the episode in his book "The Trouble with Tribbles" (1973). From page 177:
Finally, for those who favor the "flying powered circles" around the station, there are a host of issues that are introduced by this, both of physics and logistics. I'll cite just one: If this is standard procedure, how big a mess would you have at a busy time when there are 10 or 15 ships visiting the station, all swooping around it like a cloud of angry bees, each under it's own power? Yikes!
All of this is avoided if we assume a moving camera viewpoint.
M.
Just want to throw in that at around 41m 15s there is a shot from outside where K7 and Enterprise are not moving or rotating (K7's lights are blinking normally though). This is original FX, on the DVD version.
The Enterprise must be circling around K7 for part of the story though. With the exception of K7's exterior shot at 41m 15s, the rest consist of K7 rotating but always with the lower open bay visible to the camera. What is interesting is that we get an almost equal amount of shots of the Enterprise near to the camera (going L->R) and on the far side (going R->L). If the Enterprise was holding the same position next to K7 then we should see the other side of K7 when Enterprise is shown near the camera going L->R but we don't.
Since we can see that K7 can stop its rotation and also that Enterprise is moving to both sides of K7 could we not imagine that K7 periodically rotates (for various reasons... better subspace radio reception, etc) and Enterprise is circling around to be able to give her main sensor dish coverage to detect approaching ships?
YMMV.
The Enterprise must be circling around K7 for part of the story though. With the exception of K7's exterior shot at 41m 15s, the rest consist of K7 rotating but always with the lower open bay visible to the camera. What is interesting is that we get an almost equal amount of shots of the Enterprise near to the camera (going L->R) and on the far side (going R->L). If the Enterprise was holding the same position next to K7 then we should see the other side of K7 when Enterprise is shown near the camera going L->R but we don't.
Since we can see that K7 can stop its rotation and also that Enterprise is moving to both sides of K7 could we not imagine that K7 periodically rotates (for various reasons... better subspace radio reception, etc) and Enterprise is circling around to be able to give her main sensor dish coverage to detect approaching ships?
YMMV.
The stars would be moving a very noticeable amount. I'm not going to try and reconcile it.
But yes, if TOS-R was going to "fix" one of them, I would have gone with not moving. And the Enterprise doesn't have to be "orbiting" but she could be flying a traffic pattern.
Towards the end of the shuttle program, we would see the orbiter do slow “flips” for exterior inspection.
I could see this being standard practice…social grooming for space structures
A slow turning and “orbiting” to give everyone a good view for aesthetics if nothing else.
I could see this being standard practice…social grooming for space structures
A slow turning and “orbiting” to give everyone a good view for aesthetics if nothing else.
Great work. One of the best images of the Enterprise firing phasers!Fire Phasers!
I believe that you got the firing location on the "weapon turret ring" 100% correct. 
Based on dirt build-up on the hull, it must be near the end of its 5 year mission.
I, too, view the area around the lower sensor as the phaser turret. It's the only feature that makes sense to me, other than some kind of pop open hatches. Since we've never seen any evidence of this in TOS, I haven't added that detail. While I am not opposed to adding extra detail, my philosophy is only to do so when it isn't very noticeable from usual distances we saw the ship from in the show. It must fade into the overall look of the ship when seen from a distance.
I may have to add some post processing to get a more diffused look. The current beams have a diffused edge, but this effect is limited by the thickness of the ring they have to come from. I can't make the beams thicker without them erupting from the ring prematurely. More diffusion would just make the brighter core of the beam look even thinner and thread-like. What I need is to add some glow/glare as a halo.
Blender has a compositor function that could provide this effect, but I have not dug into that yet. I have been a 3D guy for over 20 years, professionally; but mainly used a different program for most of that time. It was pretty much abandoned by the developers, and a couple of years ago I switched to Blender. I don't do animations or need compositing effects, so I haven't worked with those features much yet. My Trek hobby gives me the excuse to learn these things.
Regarding the weathering: I based this on both original imagery, and the final Smithsonian restoration. I actually dialed it back just a bit because I thought it was too much. My "Block 3" model is actually less weathered than the "Block 2" model I posted at the beginning of the thread (the one with the Jefferies space station). Part of the difference may be how Blender handles texturing a bit differently from Strata 3D.
Perhaps it is time for Kirk to pull into the Star Fleet Ship Wash and use that coupon Spock gave him for his last birthday. I picture it as looking a lot like the Drydock from TMP, but with huge articulated roller brushes and spray heads...
M.
I may have to add some post processing to get a more diffused look. The current beams have a diffused edge, but this effect is limited by the thickness of the ring they have to come from. I can't make the beams thicker without them erupting from the ring prematurely. More diffusion would just make the brighter core of the beam look even thinner and thread-like. What I need is to add some glow/glare as a halo.
Blender has a compositor function that could provide this effect, but I have not dug into that yet. I have been a 3D guy for over 20 years, professionally; but mainly used a different program for most of that time. It was pretty much abandoned by the developers, and a couple of years ago I switched to Blender. I don't do animations or need compositing effects, so I haven't worked with those features much yet. My Trek hobby gives me the excuse to learn these things.
Regarding the weathering: I based this on both original imagery, and the final Smithsonian restoration. I actually dialed it back just a bit because I thought it was too much. My "Block 3" model is actually less weathered than the "Block 2" model I posted at the beginning of the thread (the one with the Jefferies space station). Part of the difference may be how Blender handles texturing a bit differently from Strata 3D.
Perhaps it is time for Kirk to pull into the Star Fleet Ship Wash and use that coupon Spock gave him for his last birthday. I picture it as looking a lot like the Drydock from TMP, but with huge articulated roller brushes and spray heads...
M.
I noticed that the ship's "antenna" at the bottom of the sensor dome is
I don’t know why, but that little greeble always kind of annoyed me once I learned of its existence. 
Considering the first reaction to all of us figuring out it was there in the first publicity shots from TOS-R was generally strident denial, I doubt you’re the only one.I don’t know why, but that little greeble always kind of annoyed me once I learned of its existence.
I kind of like it as an ground-scanning telescope, I imagine some close-up of it pivoting around scanning different points on a planet for one of those times when they get a nice aerial perspective of a town square or something.
About the rotating/not rotating, in real life you often want your spacecraft and space stations to rotate in order to keep from having one side being "cooked" too long in the direct sunlight due to thermal expansion and various issues with particles in the solar wind. It also helps keep things stable if you need to keep something pointed in a particular direction. So I could totally see K-7 needing to rotate as a low tech solution to some of these issues.
Assuming that K7 uses the standard Earth-based time system, a one rotation per 24-hours is possible to simulate day/night on the station. Of course, if you walk to the opposite side, you can go from day to night at will.
Time for a new update.
I pulled an old model of the S.S. Botany Bay that I created in my program of many years, Strata 3D. It is a fairly easy thing to export from Strata as an FBX and import into Blender. From there it is a bit of work to revise the texturing.
My version is based on the excellent blueprints by Phil Broad, updated based on photo references of the studio model.
Here is Khan's sleeper ship alongside the Enterprise as it was seen in "Space Seed."
M.
I pulled an old model of the S.S. Botany Bay that I created in my program of many years, Strata 3D. It is a fairly easy thing to export from Strata as an FBX and import into Blender. From there it is a bit of work to revise the texturing.
My version is based on the excellent blueprints by Phil Broad, updated based on photo references of the studio model.
Here is Khan's sleeper ship alongside the Enterprise as it was seen in "Space Seed."
M.
As to the Enterprise orbiting K-7...tractor beams, from K-7. Why? To uncover gunnery/sensor blind zones for Starships.
Might not be done for commercial ships, however.
As to fuel consumption for the tractor beam, it might only be done for Starfleet ships in peace time. In wartime, all bets are off.
Might not be done for commercial ships, however.
As to fuel consumption for the tractor beam, it might only be done for Starfleet ships in peace time. In wartime, all bets are off.
