The 11-foot TOS Enterprise model-

[jayrath]

-and its various restorations.

(I'm taking one for the team and starting this to relieve off-topic discussion in the Galileo-restoration thread.)

So, how it looks at the Smithsonian today, how you think it should look, the original paint scheme, the broken mirrors behind the nacelle caps: all is fair. Discuss.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It needs to be repaired again, simply because it's succumbing to the weight of its parts and the ravages of time.

The next paint job should, obviously, reduce the "weathering" some and make the hull plating lines much more subtle than the current version. The top of the saucer is the only part of the model that hasn't been substantially repainted more than once; it's the appropriate reference for the colors to be used on the rest. Ideally the shape of the "antenna" (it has another name, but I forget) in the center of the main sensor dish should be corrected, and I think there's some very small joke signage on the ship that should be restored to whatever the original labeling was, if they can research it.

That's pretty much it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Here's a lengthy blog post that contains, among other things, detailed information about the condition of the model upon its arrival at NASM and the several restorations it's undergone:

http://enterproject.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/other-versions/

 

[Robert Comsol]

The next paint job should, obviously, reduce the "weathering" some and make the hull plating lines much more subtle than the current version.

Absolutely! Make the grid lines on the saucer hull less noticable and eliminate those grid lines on the engineering hull and the nacelles entirely (the Enterprise is driven by warp engines - not Space Shuttle booster rockets!).

The top of the saucer is the only part of the model that hasn't been substantially repainted more than once; it's the appropriate reference for the colors to be used on the rest.

Please! Not again the "paint job" myth! The author of the article, you kindly provided the link, clearly says "possibly" - not "definitely". He assumes and therefore doesn't know for certain.

In the Galileo thread you provided an original promotional black & white promotional shot showing grid lines near the starboard underside of the saucer. In the close-up shot taken by Phil Broad at the National Air and Space Museum (and in the shots prior to the "restoration" job) you can still see those tiny grid lines. No paint job touched this area prior to the "restoration" and there's no evidence the engineering hull (starboard side) was ever painted (to hide non-existent "grid lines" there ).

I think there's some very small joke signage on the ship that should be restored to whatever the original labeling was, if they can research it.

Are you saying the "restoration" (!) erased the texts at the underside of he saucer (INSPECTION DOOR VENT SYSTEMS CONNECTIONS) ??? Not that it really matters, now, but that would rather be a shame (we got details that didn't exist previously and we lost details that did exist previously. Hardly what I'd call a "restoration").

Bob

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Are you saying the restoration erased the texts at the underside of the saucer (INSPECTION DOOR VENT SYSTEMS CONNECTIONS)?

You'll find the answer to that in the same blog post I linked to.

 

[Robert Comsol]

I think that there's pretty wide agreement that he (Ed Miarecki) misjudged this. To acknowledge that is quite a different thing than the vituperative, absolutist ranting that discussing the 1991 restoration often evokes online.

(I apologize, but jayrath is quite right that the restoration discussion of the Enterprise 11-foot-VFX model should not derail the Galileo restoration thread, so I took the liberty of transplanting your comment here.)

I presume your bottom line is your statement and so is mine.

You are entitled to your opinion that the Enterprise is just familiar and not iconic, but I disagree (for reasons I've already mentioned in another thread that may or may not have provoked your "statement").

The original Star Trek is the most popular science fiction and utopian television series on our planet. It has become a part of our global and international culture and the starship Enterprise is a global icon for a better future not only in the US, the UK or Australia but equally for Japan, Germany and countless other nations on our planet.
She therefore does belong in a renowned museum and not in an amusement or theme park.

As such an "icon" she would have deserved the same respect and passion the Smithsonian considers for an upcoming restoration of Lindbergh's Spirit of St. Louis (i.e. to remove the coating that gives the plane a golden hue to restore the one and only original condition and appearance).

I don't know why the previous restorators for the Enterprise had this tattoo artist mentality, i.e. to leave their mark on the starship. It's quite simply wrong - and denies and deprives any visitor now, seeing the original model for their first time in real life and much bigger than on a small TV screen, to experience the Enterprise in her original beauty and simplicity.

That opportunity has been lost, a piece of history has been rewritten and personally I do feel that this beloved starship - still the best, boldest and imaginative spaceship ever designed - now looks like ....

The Enterprise is a "she", she's a lady and if there's something any man should be capable of understanding is that most women don't like to get wrinkles and maculas. But that's exactly what she ended up with - and that's most definitely not the way to treat a lady!

Bob

 

[Warped9]

The 11 footer deserves a full stripped down restoration. It wasn't designed to serve as a museum piece for decades on end and is now falling apart under its own weight. It not only needs to be repainted but rebuilt as well with structures that can better hold it together for an extended period of time.

And it should be undertaken by a dedicated team that can ensure its restoration to its series production state, at least on the outside. This would include lighting that can work as expected even though that could likely mean using more contemporary means of accomplishing that. I suppose that would be an issue to be discussed in terms of how much of the miniature needs to be kept "original."

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It wasn't designed to serve as a museum piece for decades on end and is now falling apart under its own weight. It not only needs to be repainted but rebuilt as well with structures that can better hold it together for an extended period of time.

This is certainly true, but leads back to the already-invoked "Ship of Theseus" issue.

It depends on how seriously you regard the model as an historic artifact. If it really, really is important that it be preserved at all costs, then the preferable answer is that it be taken off display and stored in some fashion that preserves it and protects it from further damage, with all of its (remaining) original interior construction and wiring intact. A more durable replica, built by direct reference to and perhaps molds taken from the exterior parts, could be constructed for public display.

This is done with all kinds of museum artifacts that are considered irreplaceable and that can't be safely displayed.

Any solution, of course, involves a lot of money. Paramount offered to get involved in the NASM 25th Star Trek exhibit with the kind of cash a studio could bring to it, but there had been a couple of public kerfluffles regarding corporate sponsorship and its influence on the content of exhibits at that time (reportedly, among other things Paramount would have wanted a presentation that emphasizied their then-current Trek products to a greater degree).

 

[plynch]

No, just make it look right then display it as safely as possible. Many more-esteemed works of art are cleaned, restored, and displayed to the public.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

No, just make it look right then display it as safely as possible.

What does that even mean? Over time this model can't support its own weight.

They could put it back in its plexiglass truss, I suppose that would help (in principle it was like those slings that are used to suspend broken legs horizontally; one bar passed under the saucer and I believe slings supported the nacelles).

Many more-esteemed works of art are cleaned, restored, and displayed to the public.

Every exhibit is different. If curators believed that the display of an irreplacable painting would destroy it, they wouldn't put it on display. Period, full stop.

You'd be surprised though, by how many museum exhibits are replicas.

 

[Robert Comsol]

It depends on how seriously you regard the model as an historic artifact. If it really, really is important that it be preserved at all costs, then the preferable answer is that it be taken off display and stored in some fashion that preserves it and protects it from further damage, with all of its (remaining) original interior construction and wiring intact.

We all do know that ever since the original nacelle caps, the sensor domes and the main sensor-deflector dish got lost, it is impossible to have a 100% authentic and original restoration. Some compromise has to be involved but that should not have been abused as an excuse to perform visual alterations.

A more durable replica, built by direct reference to and perhaps molds taken from the exterior parts, could be constructed for public display.

That's a good idea! As long as the port side of the model remains blank. So we wouldn't have reason for yet another restoration debate.

Bob

 

[Therin of Andor]

I traveled around the world three times to view this model, twice successfully.

Would I also travel to see a replica? Heh, why bother?

 

[Forbin]

I'm thinking the plexiglass truss idea may be the best answer. Sure it would get in the way of nice clean photography, but rather that than watch her collapse.

Though I wouldn't object to a rebuild with an internal support frame.

 

[Lance]

IMO it deserves better than to be stuffed away in a dusty glass cabinet in the basement level of the gift shop at the National Air and Space Museum. It should be displayed over at the National Museum of American History, alongside other pop culture icons like Judy Garland's red slippers and the original Kermit the Frog. I can't help feeling that its current place of display implies a certain amount of embarrassment about it (you almost have to go out of your way just to find it!).

I say: clean it up, and display it in the proud fashion that it deserves.

 

[Robert Comsol]

IMO it deserves better than to be stuffed away in a dusty glass cabinet in the basement level of the gift shop at the National Air and Space Museum. ... I can't help feeling that its current place of display implies a certain amount of embarrassment about it (you almost have to go out of your way just to find it!).

Where I live we don't have skeletons in closets but bodies in basements and it almost seems she (now) has some properties the NASM felt rather belonged into a closet - or basement. Admittedly, she now rather looks like Norman Bates' mother but that just can't be the final word or place.

Bob

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I say: clean it up, and display it in the proud fashion that it deserves.

Well, first of all it's competing for space with the whole modern real world history of flight. This is one reason it's been moved around so much over the years.

At least in the glass case in the gift shop it seems to have found a long-term home where it can be displayed at eye level (it was briefly displayed this way on the museum floor after its return from a national tour in the 90s; other than that it's always been hung from the ceiling somewhere or another).

Notably, your other examples - Kermit and the ruby slippers - are part of the collection of the National Museum of American History, which is where other TV and movie exhibits are displayed and where many at the Smithsonian have always believed the Enterprise actually belongs.

And finally - fine, display it. How? I suppose I'd rather see it supported in the plexiglass truss arrangement than gutted and rebuilt. Everybody talks about how it's so important an "artifact" but it seems as if a lot of folks just view it as a sideshow exhibit - its preservation being less important than the opportunity to gawk at it. Skinning it on a more durable metal armature is not preservation by any stretch.

 

[plynch]

I'm not a curator, so I do not know how to display it. If it needs a truss, fine.

I, also, journeyed a long way to see it, and it looked weird. Still cool to be in her presence, but it was "off," for sure, compared to what my eyes saw for 35 years on TV. I understand the restorer restored it so it would photograph to look like it did on tv. But I was going there to see it with my eyes, not make a new TV series with it under Klieg lights.

 

[Ronald Held]

Maybe Alec and Adam can raise money for this restoration after the Galileo is restored?

 

[M'Sharak]

Here's a lengthy blog post that contains, among other things, detailed information about the condition of the model upon its arrival at NASM and the several restorations it's undergone:

http://enterproject.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/other-versions/

Awesome. And bookmarked.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

You know, to the National Museum of American History the Enterprise would be a prized exhibit; you can bet they'd lavish attention on it. At various times over the decades NASM as treated the thing either reasonably well or as something of a white elephant. The competition to be put in charge of the 25th anniversary exhibit was not, shall we say, particularly intense. It was only after the exhibit opened and brought tremendous visitor traffic that it was really appreciated (and probably paved the way for the Star Wars exhibit a few years later).