Considering what Shaw and others are doing for the 3 footer, the Phase II Ent, the Shuttlebay and other TOs related reference material, is there any reason why there shouldn't be a "Public Resource" for the 11' model and or the theoretical ship? I know that this can cause any number of endless conversations and I'm not meaning to get into another "How Big is the TOS Enterprise", or 35.5 degree offset bridge debate. I'm just wondering.....With all of this wealth of knowledge, why not work together on a set of accurate blueprints? Come up with the definative set of specs, paint guide, dimensions.....etc..... I know some of this has been done before, but has there ever been an agreement, even on the basic issues? I'm not talking about he said, she said stuff..... I've researched this ship for months, to the point where I'm sick of looking at it some times. I'm just wondering if we can all agree on something like this? I remember Richard Compton started a thread like this over at HT, before things changed for the worse. I'm just wondering if we can work together on something like this. I have a lot to contribute, but would like some of my data verified. Thoughts? Please, no endless debates on one issue or another. Should I start off whith what I know?
Well, I have made studies of the 11 foot model, but generally have kept most of that type of stuff as notes along side the Casimiro and Sinclair plans... some of which I outline here. On the topic of color, I have been using this article as a reference for the original color. Sadly, because most of the original weathering was cleaned from the model when the Smithsonian got it, that type of thing is most likely always going to be a best guess for model builders. But as always, I love seeing what other people have collected on the subject just as much as I love the subject of the 11 foot model itself. And yes, it would be nice to have a super reference, a single source of the best known info. But I would guess that something like that would be best done as a site rather than a single set of plans/drawings, as that type of information would be constantly evolving as more is uncovered. Links to best references on the web along with reviews of the content, discussions on how and why different references are either the same or different... and what the people may have been seeing that led them to the choices they made. All of that type of stuff really requires a living document that is open to changes... something like a Wiki site for TOS Enterprise enthusiasts. The biggest issue in doing any of this is getting people to give up claims of privileged information. Any time one person withholds info from the community, the community suffers. I'm a strong believer in open info, which is why I put absolutely no restrictions on anything I find out. Of course, I also never see me making a dime on anything like this or see it as a way to claim fame for myself, so it is much easier to give up what I have in this case. The 11 foot model is part of our national archive, that should make it part of the (US) public domain as far as I'm concerned. Any information on the subject should also be part of the public domain now as well.
Didn't one of the better known sets of plans begin life as just this kind of thing? What are the rules regarding examination of artifacts in the Smithsonian? How does one get access? Shaw, figure this out and then you can make your own examination and make your info available to all. Who owns the original? Is it on loan from Paramount? CBS? Or is it under the domain of the U.S. Govt.? I don't know the legal intricacies of this. I do know that some folk who have info are unable to distribute it because of the conditions under which they got it. That's life. In a semi-related topic, who is the keeper of the TMP Enterprise now? Or the D? When do we start getting super-fine drawings of these jewels?
Well, lets do a thought experiment first... let us set ourselves in the position of the Smithsonian. What would we require to make such a study of the model available? What we need to recall is that Kerr sorta stumbled upon his ability to study the model, and it was a subsequent book deal that has kept him from publishing that info. As the Enterprise isn't likely to under go a renovation (that we could coax our way into) any time in the near future, Kerr's method is pretty much out of the question. The best approach would be to offer the documentation gathered as reason for letting us gather the documentation. No matter how much the Enterprise is insured for, there is always the possibility that it could be lost in an accident. The San Diego Aerospace Museum's collection was destroyed back in 1978 by a fire, so the loss of artifacts is a real danger to content with. Having exact references with which to repair or rebuild the Enterprise would be a worth while endeavor for the Smithsonian to grant. My guess is that the first step would be to show that the person requesting the study is qualified to make such a study. Right there I would most likely be eliminated as my background is in mathematics, not engineering, drafting, and/or model building (or even archeology for that matter). So the person who makes the proposal has to be qualified to produce the final results and then back them up. Additionally, the proper equipment would be needed for the task. The best measurements of the model would be best done with equipment that doesn't require any physical contact. Similarly, the best way to document the surface would be with equipment that doesn't require physical contact. This also helps to keep the Smithsonian's curators from getting nervous about the study. Equipment of that type would be found at some major universities, so a university affiliation would be helpful as well. And yes, a very detail study could be done using equipment that is pretty standard to cut down on cost while still not requiring physical contact with the model. The main obstacle for any study of this type is the glass case around the Enterprise. A non-sanctioned study could be made without Smithsonian approval, but the display case would increase the amount of work in getting the information. So a study of the model isn't impossible, just improbable for most of us here... specially alone. If we could put together a team of three to five people that included members who would meet the correct qualifications for making such a study, there is no reason why any of us couldn't be on that team. Off hand, if I were to make my recommendations for this away mission, it would include the following personnel (that we are familiar with): Cary L. Brown (engineering background, familiarity with the subject) Mark Gagen (familiarity with subject) Phil Broad (familiarity with subject) Alan Sinclair (drafting ability, familiarity with subject) Charles Casimiro (drafting ability, familiarity with subject) Finding someone with a background using the type of equipment we would need and someone with the technical credentials in history/archeology, pick one from my first three recommendations and one from the last two, and you would have a four person team that would both meet the Smithsonian's standards and ours for collecting this data. Which of course leaves out the biggest stumbling block... money. While I doubt that the Smithsonian would charge for such access, the cost of getting people and equipment there for the study would need to be taken into consideration. While private donations would go a long way, applying for a research grant would be helpful for the non-Trekkies of the team and showing the Smithsonian that this venture is on the up and up. It was given to the Smithsonian back when Paramount was willing to do just about anything to get rid of the model. It is Smithsonian property now.
Interesting and (I think) well thought out. I would be curious to hear from any of the wizened old heads that were on Shaw's list. I'd guess that there are folk that already have the anwers to the questions we're asking. But if it ever came to it, I'd chip in for the project.
Thomas Sasser had extensive access to material on the 1701 for the PL model IIRC. He's also a known personality here.
Probably have to include Ed Miarecki to that list, if only because he knows how to take the danged thing apart safely. And does anyone know of a visual scanning device that can handle a five-foot diameter saucer?
Excellent! I'm really glad to see this topic get some attention. I think thus far Shaw and Tallguy are both on the right track. I'm familiar with the Paul Newitt article, but it only gives a breakdown of the original hull color, unless I missed something... Shaw, I really like the way you pull a thing apart. You're way of doing things is very close to my way of taking things apart. Tallguy, love your work and many of your observations are right on track, however, we really need not bother those with the answers that cannot share. There have been hundreds of people, go over every nuance of this ship over the years, so there has to be a wealth of data that won't upset any prearranged agreemant on the secrets and mysteries of the Enterpise. I honstly believe an accurate set of prints and documentation can be came to with upsetting the psuedo-powers-that-wanna-be. Ed may know how to take it apart, but that paint job has got to go. All good information thus far.
Considering the subject, we would be remiss if we didn't take this one into consideration: PUBLIC RESOURCE ENTERPRISE Some folks need to update their findings.
Hey Joe, what do ya know? More correctly, what do you want to know? Here's something I have yet to see anyone correctly depict in their blueprints or cartoons: http://www.thomasmodels.com/bumpity.jpg Which or course would effect the entire shape of their secondary hulls. Thomas, a niceguy.
Thanks for that CRA, definately a good place to start, as is the Idic website. http://members.aol.com/IDICPage/enterprise.html
Here are some details from a 1998 article by Charles Adams. I don't have the rest of the article, but Charles shared this with me and it was posted on his website, for all to see. The original copyright is included. I can't embed pics yet, so it will have to be links for now. http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f63/6242amu/nacelle_grid_series.jpg http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f63/6242amu/nacelle_grid_perest2.jpg http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f63/6242amu/imp_fabr.jpg Edit to add pic links. These are a couple of patterns that I came up with, extrapolating from Charles' information and from other info gathered. If these are not correct, please let me know and I will remove them, or make corrections. http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f63/6242amu/anacellegrill.jpg http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f63/6242amu/apylongrillcorrect.jpg
I knew the name and concept sounded familiar. Oh GREAT. Because that wasn't the hardest part of the ship to model in CG BEFORE! (I'm going to have to go back and see how close I got by accident.) Thanks, Thomas. Exactly the sort of info we're talking about. Do you have any suggestions as to what kind of channels might be gone through to set up our Ultimate Enterprise Archeology Team? And especially how to get them access? Or are we just a bunch of dumb (aged) kids with no hope? KTM, I've always loved these drawings from Charles. I wish he would have done more of them.
Same here, there's a ton of info out there, but it would be nice to see it all in one place. I'd be willing to host the finished project on my webspace, for everyone to see and use. Any thought given to those patterns?
Well, my list of people was not intended to be all inclusive, just examples of people I could think of off the top of my head while writing that post. I hope no one will take not being included as a slight against their expertise. That having been said, the reason for including people that may already have some of the information but can't share it is two fold... First is that their knowledge would streamline the process (the faster data can be collected, the more data that can be collected in the same amount of time), and secondly it would relieve them of any external constraints they may be under. Do I understand their position... yes. And in a recent thread in the Fan Productions section I lamented the fact that I have information which I have agreed not to share, even though I really would like to. On the topic of studying the model, I would be willing to bet that we could build what we need from commonly available materials. The main thing would be a rigging and lasers (the types used for alining things on walls, available at most hardware stores I would think). With those set up at exact measurements on the rigging, they would provide both reference marks and curves on the actual model which would then be photographed and documented later. With this type of set up, large scale scanning wouldn't be needed because exact reference points visible on the model would help with assembly of smaller images. As for having Ed Miarecki there, I wouldn't think the model would need to be taken apart for the study as much as having someone who could insure that the model was actually assembled correctly. And as Thomas pointed out (and is usually brought up in this type of topic), what we'll end up with is not only a ton of great info, but also all of the models flaws as well. And with most beautiful women, when you start examining them that closely things like blemishes, scars and the like start to become visible. And in the case of the Enterprise I would think we should take a couple of approaches. First would be putting her best face forward. As with the Sinclair and Casimiro plans of the 11 foot model, and my plans of the 3 foot model, some flaws are best overlooked. Detailing the models in there ideal form (specially when it comes to plans) is the best approach for references for modelers. Second would be to catalog as much of the flaws as possible and, more importantly, determining how (and when) those flaws were introduced. So once a database of currently existing flaws has been compiled, going back over images of the Enterprise since her original construction will be needed to see if a flaw is original or was introduced at some point. Again, this is the type of study that when proposed to the Smithsonian would get their attention as being worth while to grant. Another thing to do is to take the information gathered and go back to surviving people involved in the Enterprise's history and get background details. It'll be as important to know the whys behind the details as it will be to know the details themselves (at least from a historical perspective). For example, the original bridge on the 11 foot model was quite tall, but was cut down for the series. The relative heights compared to the 3 foot model's bridge (which was never modified) make them taller and shorter (respectively). If the height of the 3 foot model was what they wanted, was there a reason they had to go shorter? My guess would be that the height of the series bridge was determined by the square holes cut into the bridge for the pilots... the highest edge of which seem to correspond to what would become the base of the series bridge (as illustrated below). Was that the actual reason? The only way to find out would be to ask. And again, if the Smithsonian knew we intended to follow up on that type of stuff, then it would be more incentive to grant us access. But most importantly, this would have to be approached as a serious endeavor, rather than some scheme hatched up on a message board some where. And the people who would be it's public face would have to be people who would follow through on this type of thing (rather than popping in and out when they happen to be interested). Why did that other PUBLIC RESOURCE ENTERPRISE fail? Because the people involve didn't follow through and each was more interested in their own take. That type of group flies apart pretty quickly. For this to really succeed, everything would have to be group first, individuals second. No one in the group can claim ownership of materials (a common down fall of this type of thing). And copyrights have to be fully open... I would suggest using the Creative Commons license for everything (and I mean everything). Credit for workmanship and research can be given to individuals, but in the end everything should be presented to the public as a product of the group as a whole (which is the best way to keep egos in check). Do enough of us here have the will (or stomach) to be part of such a project to make it truly successful? Honestly, I have my doubts... but it can be done.
Agreed on virtually all points. Primarily, keeping egos in check and making it a group project. As far as having enough *Heart* to stick it out. I think I've proven that I can stick with a project. I've stuck with another project, even in the fce of a great deal of unneccesary adversity, so I think I can stick this out. However, I don't think that I would be the appropriate candidate to be the *face* of the project. Having said all of that, I still don't think it's going to be a very easy thing to get access to the Big-E. There are those that will try to stop this, just as they've tried to stop other projects. we're probably going to need someone who lives in the area. Also, what about the guys over at TrekMovie? Might they not have some contacts that would help?
There sure are some great reference images. A great deal that I did not know about the original Enterprise and some of the differences. Thank you for creating this thread.