Public Resource Enterprise.

[Shaw]

Actually... images would be better.

The main issue with any type of physical measurement of irregular objects is that you can't be sure you are actually getting the correct measurement. Any bowing of the tape will throw off your measurements increasing error.

I know that in Track and Field world class events use optical measurements for most field events for this very reason. And it is even more important in the jumps were an attempt to measure from the landing site could disturb the actual impact shape with the possible effect of shortening the athlete's distance.

Light, in the form of laser projections and line of sight, is the only way to set up a truly orthogonal measuring system.

Further, we would be able to test and refine the equipment (if we were required to construct it ourselves) long before getting anywhere near the actual model (which would actually be required to support our findings). We would get perfect lengths and perfect curves using this method. Everything could be mathematically calculated from image data of this type.

Please don't mistake what I'm suggesting as some one running around snapping pictures... we have more than enough of that type of stuff available now. I am talking about precise placement of a camera (fully logged) and precise placement of laser markers (also fully logged) so that exact data (without question) can be retrieved.

Walking up to the Enterprise with a tape measure in hand isn't going to fly with the curators at the Smithsonian. The risk of poor data and damage to the model would make them shut everything down before we even began.

What I am talking about is data that can withstand intense academic scrutiny. Anything less and we're just a bunch of zealous fans trying to cop-a-feel of the ol' girl.

 

[Captain Robert April]

You make that sound like a bad thing.

 

[KirkTrekModeler]

Agreed 100% Shaw the more professional looking the operation, the better it will look. I still have to wonder though......

CRA you're just bad.

 

[Shaw]

Captain Robert April said:
You make that sound like a bad thing.

Oh not at all, actually it is quite... um, well, human.

 

[Woulfe]

^ Oh my god. ^

ROTFLMAO !

- W -
* Funny scene *

 

[Bernard Guignard]

I think that Laser scanning the Model in question would be a good way to go about it as well as Measuring and Photo documentation. the question for Scanning would be do you scan an assembled model with its inherent Gravity faults and sags or do you scan the main components dissambled then
assemble the parts in 3d space with out those gravity faults. Heres a good link for information about large object 3d scanning
http://iit-iti.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/vit-tiv/random-access-scanner_e.html

By the way thanks for all the work that all of you have put into your projects. It a pleasure coming here and reading and viewing everyones work.

Thanks alot and all of you keep up the great work

 

[KirkTrekModeler]

You make a salient point, how ever, I believe that even with the model assembled, the separate components can be scanned, for the most part and later reassembled in prints, CG, what have you.

I'm a bit of a realist and just don't think it's going to be that easy to get access to the Grey Lady.

Having said that, I have a few other points I'd like to address.

1) I still believe there is enough information out there to reconstruct a set of preliminary prints. Alan Sinclair, Charles Casimiro, Charles Adams and many others have done a fine job without having direct access. So, I think it's feesible to start collecting data and compling it into an overall view.

2)I think it's pretty safe to say that the CG guys have done a magnificent job on several iterations of the Enterprise, also it's safe to assume that we are all concerned first with the Production version, with the Pilot versions being ancilliary.

3) For now, I'd like to collect data and, or dicuss the actual measurements. Alan Sinclair has a set of measurements on his version of the Enterprise at the public resource site.... Can these be confirmed? Charles Casimiro listed some fine details on his version of the prints.... Are all of these detail verified? Can we get Charles permission to post his prints here for perusal? I have a copy, if need be.

4) what of size, of the working prints? I'm thinking that 1/350th scale drawings are best considering both dialup and cable/sattelite connections. The prints can be sized to 1/350th, but with the actual sizes labeled on all of the parts. For instance on a 1280 X ????, or whatever size would be applicable to accomodate that sheet at 72 dpi, with larger scale versions available to those on highspeed connections.

5) I have a great many questions as to specifics and wonder if that wouldn't be a good place to start as well as supplying what shots and prints that are available, as a starting point.

KTM

Bernard Guignard said:
I think that Laser scanning the Model in question would be a good way to go about it as well as Measuring and Photo documentation. the question for Scanning would be do you scan an assembled model with its inherent Gravity faults and sags or do you scan the main components dissambled then
assemble the parts in 3d space with out those gravity faults. Heres a good link for information about large object 3d scanning
http://iit-iti.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/vit-tiv/random-access-scanner_e.html

 

[MGagen]

If you're wanting a suggestion as to the best working scale for your drawings, you couldn't do any better than 1/4 studio scale. That is the scale of the actual construction drawings, and it has this advantage over a 1:350 scale drawing of the "real" ship: Many dimensions measured off of the model would settle out to standard inches and fractions of an inch.

For example:

The 7" diameter nacelle domes would be represented on a quarter studio scale drawing as precisely 1-3/4" (or 1.75"). The same domes in a 1:350 "real" scale drawing would have to be 1.6935917" -- an awkward measurement in anyone's book.

M.

 

[KirkTrekModeler]

MGagen said:
If you're wanting a suggestion as to the best working scale for your drawings, you couldn't do any better than 1/4 studio scale. That is the scale of the actual construction drawings, and it has this advantage over a 1:350 scale drawing of the "real" ship: Many dimensions measured off of the model would settle out to standard inches and fractions of an inch.

For example:

The 7" diameter nacelle domes would be represented on a quarter studio scale drawing as precisely 1-3/4" (or 1.75"). The same domes in a 1:350 "real" scale drawing would have to be 1.6935917" -- an awkward measurement in anyone's book.

M.

OK, that sounds good, but would we be able to make those drawings available to people on 56k, or would the size be prohibitive?

 

[Captain Robert April]

I'm imagining the lot of us in some garage somewhere with the 11 footer set up in something resembling the TMP spacedock, built specifically to handle the scanning lasers tracking over the surface of the model.

 

[KirkTrekModeler]

Sounds like fun, Romulan Ale, or Guiness Stout?

BTW, just to have this handy in the thread.

Saucer diameter: 152.4 cm (60 inches)
Nacelle length: 183.5 cm (72.25 inches)
Engineering hull length: 124.5 cm (49 inches) without antenna, with antenna: 135.9 cm (53.5 inches)
Distance between centerlines of nacelles: 96.5 cm (38 inches)
Overall length: 342.9 cm (134 inches)
Overall height: 81.3 cm (32 inches)
Weight: 91 kg (200 lb)

Captain Robert April said:
I'm imagining the lot of us in some garage somewhere with the 11 footer set up in something resembling the TMP spacedock, built specifically to handle the scanning lasers tracking over the surface of the model.

 

[Captain Robert April]

The rig would need a few inches clearance on all sides.

 

[Shaw]

KirkTrekModeler said:
OK, that sounds good, but would we be able to make those drawings available to people on 56k, or would the size be prohibitive?

The largest sheet of my plans would take about 2 minutes and 30 seconds to download at 56k, while the largest of my preview images would take less than 30 seconds. Those are still quite accessible times for 56k users (I still take quite a bit of time to optimize all my websites for those on dial-up connections).

On the subject of scale, I whole heartedly concur with MGagen of staying with either actual measurements or simple scalings (like 1/4th). Throwing in more complicated scalings in at the same time as data collection would increase the possibility of errors.

 

[ChuckPR]

I have no proof of their claim, guys.

But according to Master Replicas, the dimensions for their TOS E were all taken directly from precise measurements of the Eleven foot miniature.

If this is true and can be verified, would it not be possible to use a MR TOS E as the basis for a very accurate set of plans?

http://masterreplicas.com//store/star_trek/star_trek/8641/

If, and I realize it is a big if, the accuracy is as close to 100% as possible and/or reasonable; this seems emminently more doable for fans who don't have the kind of bucks that someone like the owner of most of the exhibits in the Seattle Sci-Fi museum.

 

[KirkTrekModeler]

Shaw said:
On the subject of scale, I whole heartedly concur with MGagen of staying with either actual measurements or simple scalings (like 1/4th). Throwing in more complicated scalings in at the same time as data collection would increase the possibility of errors.

Sounds good to me. Would you or CRA be willing to scale a set of your existing orthos and begin the scaling process?

Regards the MR. I really don't think that's the way to go Chuck, because you get into the copy of a copy thing.

What we're trying to do is build accurate references and blueprints of the original 11' model, not make blueprints of a scaled downversion of a copy of the 11' model. It seems to me that too much will be lost in translation. You also get into another dimension of the copyright issue. Those are my thoughts at least.

 

[ChuckPR]

Of course there would be a copyright issue, you are 100% right about that, KTM.

But I don't think it's likely that Paramount is going to let anyone they haven't worked with before legally publish blueprints of the old lady anyhow.

Though they would probably leave fan efforts to document her alone to a certain point.

However, I don't see the Smithsonian letting just anyone to get the kind of access that a direct study would require.

Even if the TOS E herself has been permanently given to the museum, I think it's unlikely they would give that level of access to someone without the original donor requesting or at least approving it.

But that's just a guess.

If we could verify, however, that the MR 1/350th is indeed extremely accurate, then we would in fact have something we could work with.

Getting inside the Smithsonian case with a 3D handheld scanner as some people have suggested?

Not likely.

Let's also realize that the tethered scanner is about the only thing handheld about such a system. Assuming one of us were willing to sell our house to buy, or our car to rent, the system.


I'm not trying to through cold water on the the idea of the thread.


I believe that a project to make available as accurate as possible plans of the old lady is emminently doable.




I'm just trying to come up with a more realistic way of accomplishing it's aims.

Perhaps ten years from now handheld 3D scanners that can scan through glass will be as small and common as pocket digital cameras are today.

Until that day it seems to me that getting the kind of milimeter precise readings you are talking about are unlikely.

But heck?

Until then there are still tons of info out there that can be used to accuratize plans already available to us lowly fans,

like those of Casimiro and Sinclair.

Even if someone was able to get exacting 3D dimensional scans of the old lady...

We would still end up correcting it's distortions and reconverting those scans into a ship that never existed anyway!!!

We already have such idealized versions in the Sinclair and Casimiro publically available plans.

It occurs to me that until pocket 3D scans that can exactly capture objects through glass accurately are as common as toasters...

I believe a more realistic idea would be to take plans such as Sinclair's or Casimiro's and work to accuratize them, sort of along the lines that Shaw has suggested with his comparison images of the most accurate parts of each plans.

This could be done until we end up with a set of plans that would be as exact as possible given our current resources.

While I'm sure I could find dozens of links to the technology, I don't know of anyone who has or can afford access to large scale 3D scanners, even assuming access would be granted.




Again, even if someone were to get exacting 3D scans of the old lady sometime in the future,

we would still end up turning those scans of the imperfect physical model back into an idealized version

which never existed anyway.


So I guess my suggestion would be to proceed with correcting and synthesizing some of the existing plans to more accurately reflect the production version model.

Much in the way that Shaw has already in an image file he has already posted choosing and comparing the best parts of the Casimiro and Sinclair plans...

and then continue from there.

Perhaps Shaw could repost the composite image I'm referring to?

 

[KirkTrekModeler]

Without being so verbose..... My sentiments exactly! Let's make this thread a set of accurate details and incorporate those details into a schematic, or blueprint.

Let's gather every bit of info into one thread and use that info to correct, or construct a set of prints, without having to bow and scrape and beg those that are supposedly in the know. Let's do what I did with the 1/350th..... Forge ahead and damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead! :thumbsup:

 

[Shaw]

ChuckPR said:
Perhaps Shaw could repost the composite image I'm referring to?

Sure, I made a preview image for it this time...


Click to enlarge

If you guys want, I could put together a PDF of my notes on the 11 foot model. It may take a few days. I had been collecting them as references for any future attempt to build that model and, well, I'm not very organized (they aren't all together in one place).

As for putting out interim plans, we really should approach either Sinclair or Casimiro with the info. If either is still actively interested in this subject, then they would most likely welcome our collective efforts.

 

[Shaw]

ChuckPR said:
I have no proof of their claim, guys.

But according to Master Replicas, the dimensions for their TOS E were all taken directly from precise measurements of the Eleven foot miniature.

If this is true and can be verified, would it not be possible to use a MR TOS E as the basis for a very accurate set of plans?

Taking a quick look at the MR page this is some of the information listed...

• Approximately 32.46" long
• Enterprise NCC-1701 measures approximately 32.7" x 16"

Beyond the fact that the two lengths don't match, the ratio (length/width) is off from every reference I've ever seen for the Enterprise. If we use Sinclair's numbers we find that 134/59.25 is not equal to 32.7/16 (or even 32.46/16).

The MR replica is too short (length wise) and too wide if they were aiming for a 1/4th representation. The margin of error in their numbers is almost an inch in either direction... so unless they were attempting disinformation with what they have listed, I wouldn't use that model for any type of reference.

Infact, if those numbers listed are even close, they aren't selling what they claim to be for such a high price.

 

[ChuckPR]

On the issue of MR's page, I doubt the model makers had a hand in designing their webpage.

It's claimed that it is a 1/350th scale model on the webpage(other conflicting claims aside BTWay, I placed mine back into the packaging in order to help accurately measure it and it measures about 1/32 less of an inch under 32.5 - takes up half of 1/16th space on my metal ruler, so 32.46" appears to be extremely close to being accurate - it's about 32.46875" or so give or take the hairswidth my eye may not be able to detect that it may be short or over the halfway point on the 1/16th slashes of my ruler).

To me, it's not a big deal that their marketing people may have messed up in putting together info on their sales page.

Did their modeler's in fact measure the filming miniature directly?

How did they accomplish this measuring?

Did they get the proportions right?


Edit--
BTWay: Should have occurred to me earlier, but 1:350th of 947 feet would be 32.46857 inches long.

I eyeballed it as best I could inside it's packing crate as being at 32.46875 inches, a difference of only 0.00018, and as I said I doubt my 42 year old eyeball is all that accurate enough for me to swear the MR model is actually 0.00018" longer.

So while the other numbers on their page might be suspect, their claim that it is a 1:350th scale replica seem to be accurate.

Since they cater to collectors, it's quite possible that their oversize statement of 32.7" x 16 probably has to do with the size display case needed.