Unseen TOS....

[aridas sofia]

The filming model was 22” long.

Your take certainly goes with Greg Jein’s original restoration of it.

https://www.collectormodel.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/31-Equicon-88-Galileo-01.jpg

 

[Warped9]

The filming model was 22” long.

Your take certainly goes with Greg Jein’s original restoration of it.

https://www.collectormodel.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/31-Equicon-88-Galileo-01.jpg

Yep. Thats the photo that gave me the idea.

 

[Warped9]

Another thing we never saw in TOS was the practice used in Lost In Space and Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea--the Lydecker method used to depict the Jupiter II and the Flying Sub in atmospheric flight. That could have looked cool on TOS just as it did in the other shows.

Mind you, as cool as this would have looked the way it was shot in “The Galileo Seven” was dramatically effective. First the Galileo encounters difficulty inside Murasaki 312, then Uhura reports the shuttlecraft signalling being pulled off course, then we cut to the shuttlecraft already hard landed on the planet surface with everyone inside picking themselves up. It was a cost effective yet still tightly dramatic sequence.

 

[aridas sofia]

Looks very Taurus II

 

[Warped9]

Looks very Taurus II

Yep. I found that pic by chance while doing a Google search for images similar to what was used in the Lost In Space pilot episode. I couldn’t let it pass by.

I must say I quite like the added lighting fx to the shuttlecraft. It brings the miniature more to life.

 

[Warped9]

Recently I was surprised to learn that apparently there were supposedly some sort of panel lines or detailing on the roof of the shuttlecraft, a collection of large rectangles, and these are included in the Polar Lights 1/32 scale model kit. This is apparently something you couldn’t even see onscreen much like the infamous gridlines on the 11ft. Enterprise.

I’ll have to look into this further.

 

[Albertese]

Recently I was surprised to learn that apparently there were supposedly some sort of panel lines or detailing on the roof of the shuttlecraft, a collection of large rectangles, and these are included in the Polar Lights 1/32 scale model kit. This is apparently something you couldn’t even see onscreen much like the infamous gridlines on the 11ft. Enterprise.

I’ll have to look into this further.

In fact they are not quite included on the Polar Lights kit. They were discovered only after the tooling was completed so there is a template included on the instruction sheet for the kit builders to scribe in the rectangles themselves if they're feeling adventurous.

--Alex

 

[aridas sofia]

Those lines are on the miniature but not the 3/4 size shuttle.

 

[Henoch]

 

[Warped9]

In fact they are not quite included on the Polar Lights kit. They were discovered only after the tooling was completed so there is a template included on the instruction sheet for the kit builders to scribe in the rectangles themselves if they're feeling adventurous.

--Alex

Yeah, I saw a video on Youtube saying that very thing.

Those lines are on the miniature but not the 3/4 size shuttle.

Interesting.

Nice pic. Never seen it before Any others like that? Yeah, those lines look scribed in.

Hmm….

I can see three ways of adding that detail.
- ever so slightly raised panels.
- simulate the scribed lines with slightly recessed grooves.
- make the panels slightly darker or lighter than the surrounding upper hull colour.

In either case the panels would be visible only when light is reflecting off the topside at just the right angle.

 

[publiusr]

More on the Lydecker wire work
http://nzpetesmatteshot.blogspot.com/2010/09/big-boys-toys-howard-and-theodore.html?m=1
http://www.vttbots.com/page20c.html

Now, if you held a model from a central point over a detailed surface…and released it from one end of the room..it would seem to swoop down then back up… as if on a strafing run.

Was that done?

 

[Warped9]

Now, if you held a model from a central point over a detailed surface…and released it from one end of the room..it would seem to swoop down then back up… as if on a strafing run.

Was that done?

I used to do that in my backyard fifty years ago. I had a string running from our TV antenna tower down to the fence. I then had a homemade shuttlecraft ride the string down to the fence. It looked just like the shuttlecraft flying away on television.

 

[Henoch]

Nice pic. Never seen it before Any others like that? Yeah, those lines look scribed in.

That's the only one I have of the shuttlecraft before it was finish detailed to look like the Galileo. Here's the only other pic I have of the shuttlecraft mini on wires but the roof panels are not visible:

I know there are others, but I didn't save them on my computer.

 

[Warped9]

Yeah, this is like the Enterprise gridlines that are barely visible in some shots and invisible in others.

If I eventually decide to add this detail it’s going to be very subtle.

 

[Warped9]

Okay then I went back and tweaked my hangar deck model along with my Class F shuttlecraft model and put them together.

Now I built my 3D hangar deck in a modular way to some extent. The hangar bay doors can be hidden to look open. The forward wall and accompanying observation deck can also be hidden to look onto the flight deck similar to what we saw in TOS. I can also rotate the turntable to any position desired. Finally I can add or remove a shuttlecraft and put it into any position desired.

Now, as most here know, I built this 3D hangar to fit within a 947ft. ship. Also the flight deck ends with the forward bulkhead sitting just under the warp nacelle support pylons. My shuttlecraft model is a thought out integration of the fullsize exterior and the fullsize interior we saw on television, with the result being a 27ft. vehicle. That establishes what I'm working with.

This first image approximates a familiar view we saw on television. On each side you can see what looks like incomplete parts of the hangar. What you're seeing is the result of me removing the forward bulkhead and accompanying observation deck. Then I pulled the camera back further under the support pylons to get this shot. The pov is well forward of where the observation deck would be--with you outside and forward of the observation deck. The only way to make this shot look more like what we saw on television would be to extend the observation corridors on both sides of the flight deck to make it look complete. I think this serves to explain what we were seeing onscreen was a forced perspective view of the flight deck even though the filming miniarure was not built with forced perspective elements beyond lengthening the miniature to further the illusion.




This second image is the same shot above but cropped to hide the unfinished elements on both sides to create the illusion of a complete hangar. But your pov is still well outside the forward bulkhead and well under the support pylons. If everything was correctly scaled with the TOS shuttlecraft and hangar deck miniatures this is more realistically what it would look like.




The final shot is forthcoming as it's presently being rendered, and then I'll update this post. In that shot I've replaced the forward bulkhead with observation deck and put the pov inside the observation corridor to show what it could look like if you were actually standing on the observation deck looking onto the flight deck.

Stay tuned.

 

[blssdwlf]

Yeah, those would be the compromises that would have to be done to get the flight deck to fit within a 947' Enterprise. You won't be able to get it screen accurate but it is a workable solution.

 

[Warped9]

The point is understanding that screen accurate is not realistically accurate. The hangar deck miniature was exaggerated somewhat in length and a certain lens was used to further the illusion. Additionally the shuttlecraft miniature was scaled to represent the 22 ft, exterior mockup rather than a more realistically sized larger vehicle. Again to further the illusion of this vast area.

Make no mistake, an actual flight deck would indeed be a huge place, but in real life it wouldn't look like what we saw onscreen.


I'm also thinking about the observation deck windows. On television they're just lighted white panels, but there is actually nothing behind them. In my model you can see through the windows into the observation corridor. But, of course, this doesn't look like the onscreen depiction.

I've been thinking about maybe frosting the windows on the outside to more closely mimic what we saw onscreen. It would be a one-way frosting so that the side seen from within the observation deck would look like a normal clear transpaency.

 

[blssdwlf]

"Screen accurate" is getting it to look exactly as it was seen on screen which also is possible but you'd have to put aside some assumptions to get there. If I were attempt to align your flight deck to what has been aired on screen it would not be "screen accurate" because of the compromises that were made to get it to fit a 947' ship. That's not a knock on your solution, it just happens to be that screen accuracy and 947' Enterprise are not compatible in this case.

"Realistically accurate" is very subjective, IMHO. Someone else might significantly redesign the flight deck to fit a 947' Enterprise and look nothing like your version or the aired version but in their mind would be "realistic" and "accurate".

The windows could be one-way frosted like you are thinking or like the Orville where they are opaque at a distance and transparent up close or some other tech variation.

 

[Warped9]

Some have indeed modelled the flight deck to extend further underneath the support pylons, like Franz Joseph did. But if you look at Matt Jefferies’ cutaway of the TOS E he sized the flight deck to not extend far under the support pylons, and he certainly knew what had been done with the filming miniature.

I agree, creative prerogative led to the conflict between “screen accurate” and having the thing fit properly within a 947ft. ship.

 

[aridas sofia]

“compromises that were made to get it to fit a 947' ship”

The compromises were not made to get it to fit a 947’ ship. The compromises were made to make the hangar look bigger. They had every possible chance to make the ship bigger than 947’ and never took them. They wanted the ship to be similar in size to a familiar naval form. The hangar is no different than the bridge, where the railings for the upper level come up to a person’s shins. Or main engineering - wildly distorted to look bigger when using certain lenses made for that purpose. The compromise is the hangar, not the ship. And when dealing with distorted sets, what possible use is “screen accurate”? How do we explain features that are plainly way out of scale with the people who would use them?

And this isn’t just me talking. Doug Drexler told me as much as we stood in the re-creation of the main engineering set in Ticonderoga.