Public Resource Enterprise.

[OylPslyk]

Here's the PDF. I went back to the file and created a new copy at scale, the one I sent you was I believe an 11x17 printed to fit, this one is at 1/1000 scale to starship.

This was actually created some time late last year. I hadnt actually looked at it in quite some time. but let me explain that this file shouldnt actually be used as a reference! this was edited in trying to get the inside and out to mesh together well. and so being the 2ndry hull is obviously bowed... and I dont remember where- but the saucer is skewed as well.
I had forgotten to mention any of this to Joe.

also I believe the main reference I had used to create this was Alan Sinclair's drawings.

anyway here's the big pdf - http://www.mediafire.com/?4r9zlqdmg2u

 

[Brannigan]

Bernard Guignard said:

KirkTrekModeler said:
OK, here's a very nice shuttlebay, from Ron Caudillo. I'll have more refs and info soon.

Lets see if this will work

What size Enterprise is this based on?

 

[Bernard Guignard]

USS Jack Riley said:

Bernard Guignard said:
I would think that the Enterprise Project would be part of a larger Project where they Digitize via 3d Laser scanner many of the Smithsonians Exhibits both on the floor and in storage.

Bernard - Believe it or not, there are no digitized or 3D laser scanned images of the Enterprise model at the Smithsonian. Burst the hell out of my bubble, since then all we would have needed to do was a public records request and received copies of them.

They did, however, do an x-ray scan at one time (I forget when, but it was during one of the refurbs, not when they first received the model) to check stress levels on various parts, etc.

I don't know how useful they would be, but it is nice to know there is something that shows the inside of the model.

Hello Uss Jack Riley
I was actually Suggesting that in order to get the Enterprise 3D Laser scanned, a proposal should be made to not only do the Enterprise but many of the other Exhibits. It would stand to reason that this type of proposal would have a better chance of success, rather than focus on one item in the whole of the Muesuem. You might end up getting the interest of other groups such as Aviation Buffs that may have some sort of connection with the Museum directors.
Every one would benifit from a Virtual Smithsonian.

 

[OylPslyk]

Hrmmm a Virt Smithsonian. Seems like in the digital age that should be a very tempting offer.
(and like you said, one to get plenty of peoply whining for it!)

 

[KirkTrekModeler]

I believe it's the 947' Enterprise and it's based on available data.

Brannigan said:

Bernard Guignard said:

KirkTrekModeler said:
OK, here's a very nice shuttlebay, from Ron Caudillo. I'll have more refs and info soon.

Lets see if this will work

What size Enterprise is this based on?

 

[KirkTrekModeler]

Anyone else care to contribute to this thread? Any questions concerning the facts established thus far?

Anything......????

Where'd everyone go? Yooooohoooooo????

 

[dru]

I hear crickets.

 

[KirkTrekModeler]

dru said:
I hear crickets.

Yeah, well........ Never give up, never quit. I'm gonna keep on Trekkin! :thumbsup:

 

[Captain Robert April]

In other news, now that I have tha capability of saving .pdf stuff as .jpg's, I should be able to put together some cabin arrangements for my deck plans in fairly short order.

And I have to nail down that bowling alley....

 

[KirkTrekModeler]

Great, glad those viewers worked out for you. Can't wait to see what you come up with. :thumbsup:

Captain Robert April said:
In other news, now that I have tha capability of saving .pdf stuff as .jpg's, I should be able to put together some cabin arrangements for my deck plans in fairly short order.

And I have to nail down that bowling alley....

 

[KirkTrekModeler]

I found a couple of large photos here and thought I'd update this thread.

http://www.atpm.com/7.01/washington-dc/index.shtml

 

[Tallguy]

Those are beautiful. Maybe the clearest pics of the Smithsonian exhibit I've seen. Thanks.

 

[Waugh]

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

While that may be so, the 947' length figure that is often quoted, and was even incorrectly published is incorrect.

The studio created the first test model at 1/4 scale of the studio for approval. The studio model was then created, but some changes were made, but it was intended initially as a 1/48th scale model. Later, due to this being far to small, they doubled that to 1/96th scale.

As you likely know the 3 footer was measured at 33.75", which would translate to 135" for the studio model. However, as mentioned previously, the studio model was modeified in a couple of ways, and this resulted in the lenght ending up being 134" overall.

If you do the math, this means that the actual size of the ship is then 1072 feet. The error of the 947' length as published is clearly documented in a variety of sources.

And there is a new acurate CGI Enterprise on the block guys, mine:

[image]http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k282/Benchmark_Avionics/phasers.jpg[/image]

BTW, the above 134" figure is based on measurements of the studio model which I confirmed with data from the Smithsonian.

Patrick

 

[FalTorPan]

Waugh said:
The studio created the first test model at 1/4 scale of the studio for approval. The studio model was then created, but some changes were made, but it was intended initially as a 1/48th scale model. Later, due to this being far to small, they doubled that to 1/96th scale.

I've heard these claims before, but I've never read anything to convince me that they're anything more than claims. Is there any supporting evidence?

 

[Waugh]

Patrickivan said:
The thing is- before each restoration, or conservation treatment (which SHOULD have been done in this case as opposed to its "restoration"), requires a comprehensive condition assesment and proposed treatment report. EVERY reputable institution will do that. The Smithsonian must have an extensive file on this artifact. And there is really no reason why this information can not be published (after potential copyright issues are addressed of course) in some form or another- But there should be extensive files.

The Smithsonian is in their own little world. I only go warp factor 2.5 compared to their 8... That leaves me in the space dust behind them. I'd be luck if anyone of significance even responded to my e-mail.

Though it won't hurt to try to ask around. And I do love the Enterprise!

I have been emailing the curator at the NASM, and so I emailed her to see if any of this is accessible.

Patrick

 

[USS Mariner]

FalTorPan said:

Waugh said:
The studio created the first test model at 1/4 scale of the studio for approval. The studio model was then created, but some changes were made, but it was intended initially as a 1/48th scale model. Later, due to this being far to small, they doubled that to 1/96th scale.

I've heard these claims before, but I've never read anything to convince me that they're anything more than claims. Is there any supporting evidence?

"This educational segment brought to you by MGagen."

 

[KirkTrekModeler]

Waugh said:

Patrickivan said:
The thing is- before each restoration, or conservation treatment (which SHOULD have been done in this case as opposed to its "restoration"), requires a comprehensive condition assesment and proposed treatment report. EVERY reputable institution will do that. The Smithsonian must have an extensive file on this artifact. And there is really no reason why this information can not be published (after potential copyright issues are addressed of course) in some form or another- But there should be extensive files.

The Smithsonian is in their own little world. I only go warp factor 2.5 compared to their 8... That leaves me in the space dust behind them. I'd be luck if anyone of significance even responded to my e-mail.

Though it won't hurt to try to ask around. And I do love the Enterprise!

I have been emailing the curator at the NASM, and so I emailed her to see if any of this is accessible.

Patrick

Thank you Waugh, I for one, really look forward to hearing what the response is/ :thumbsup:

 

[Captain Robert April]

Waugh said:

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

While that may be so, the 947' length figure that is often quoted, and was even incorrectly published is incorrect.

The studio created the first test model at 1/4 scale of the studio for approval. The studio model was then created, but some changes were made, but it was intended initially as a 1/48th scale model. Later, due to this being far to small, they doubled that to 1/96th scale.

As you likely know the 3 footer was measured at 33.75", which would translate to 135" for the studio model. However, as mentioned previously, the studio model was modeified in a couple of ways, and this resulted in the lenght ending up being 134" overall.

If you do the math, this means that the actual size of the ship is then 1072 feet. The error of the 947' length as published is clearly documented in a variety of sources.

And there is a new acurate CGI Enterprise on the block guys, mine:

BTW, the above 134" figure is based on measurements of the studio model which I confirmed with data from the Smithsonian.

Patrick

Just wanted to see the pic.

As for the claims, we covered this territory at least three times in the past few years, mainly under the premise of what would make more sense, not usually that the producers were "wrong".

And just to throw another monkey wrench into the mix, the smaller model wasn't 33 3/4" long, even though that's what the blueprints called for. More like 33 2/3"

 

[KirkTrekModeler]

No problem. I thought they might come in handy, for several things. Glad to help. Wish I had more to show.

Tallguy said:
Those are beautiful. Maybe the clearest pics of the Smithsonian exhibit I've seen. Thanks.

 

[Waugh]

The few in the know are in the know because they have done their homework, and were able to approach things with an open mind and review the available evidence from a variety of confirmable sources.

To research a topic like this requires more than a couch potato who wants to reify their previous beliefs in the face of evidence, such as the above and other evidence in this very well researched topic. This requires you to go do some reading and research, real research, the kind that takes a few months, not a few minutes encompassing such subjects as how the models were constructed and with what materials and under what circumstances.

Sadly, many prefer to hold onto their erroneous beliefs regardless of evidence presented, which is why many of us with such evidence don't even bother.

A professor once visited a Zen master in Japan where he was invited to tea. As the roshi pour tea for the professor it began to overflow the cup, and the professor shouted, "Stop! What are you doing?"

The roshi replied, "Like this cup, your mind is full. How can I teach you something new?"

Good luck in your endevour.

Patrick Waugh MA