One would need pages and pages and a closer study than I care to do. But just a glance shows many external differences from the 11-foot filming model.
USS ENTERPRISE HAYNES OWNERS MANUAL (Part 3)
- Thread starter Starlock
- Start date
One would need pages and pages and a closer study than I care to do. But just a glance shows many external differences from the 11-foot filming model.
Fair enough. I'll reserve final judgement until I actually go through it.Awww give them a break. The cover is almost a comicbook stylized work of art. I wouldn't judge the book by it.
That said I doubt the shuttlecraft will be up to snuff.
I doubt they corrected that drawing they released, so that question has already been asked and answered.
Well, the main thing that a momentary examination of the cover shows...is that they can't draw.
Don't mince words, Dennis, tell us what you really think.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
That drawing doesn't even have wires running down the port side!
How 'bout the GNDN lines?
You mean the one with the warped saucer and uneven nacelles, etc?
Hey now! Don't bad talk history! I was just in DC the other week and I had to take a pilgrimage to the basement of the gift shop in Air and Space to see the holy E!
It's still awe inspiring to see the actual model.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
^ I'm not. I'm just pointing out that using a physical model with severe construction flaws as a blueprint source for what is supposed to be the "actual" ship is foolish, much akin to trying to blueprint a real car based on the measurements of a Hot Wheels car.
I don't usually chime in to these things, but a Hot Wheels car is based on a REAL car that can be measured. To burst everyone's bubble, the only REAL Enterprise 1701 we have is the MODEL at the Smithsonian. So despite its flaws, there isn't anything else to go off of.
Yep, that model in the gift shop is the TOS Enterprise, period.
As I stated in part two of the thread based on the preview art that was released on the shuttle and the cover it would appear that the TNG Technical Manual is still going to be among the standards when it comes to technical manuals for Star Trek along with Franz Joseph's book. That being said I'm looking forward to it if only for the Enterprise-E.
YARN
Fleet Captain
Well, we have one big model, but this is not the only model that was used for filming. There are smaller models of the Enterprise that were also put on screen, which we could also go off of. These are also "The Enterprise."
Alas, all we really have are representations of representations. There is no actual artifact for us to point at. Sure, a physical model is an artifact, but so is a hand drawn paper image; what matters is that both are only representations/depictions.
No doubt, the big model deserves special consideration, but there are aspects of the big model which we should ignore in favor of what was intended in the original design specs.
For example, if we are to take the "TOS Model is the Enterprise" perspective too seriously, then we must conclude that the saucer section of the ship is supposed to be out of round.
Even though this is contrary to the blue prints,
even though this is contrary to what fans believe,
even though this is contrary to common sense,
we would be forced to conclude that our most perfect representations of the Enterprise would in include a slightly wobbly circle as a preferred design feature.
I tend to agree, a good example might be the forward underbelly of the secondary hull, in Matt's original concepts and construction plans this area seems to be more rounded and curvaceous, but this was evidently changed? Apparently because the way the secondary hull had to be turned on a lath, and it was simply easier, quicker and cheaper to go with a "tapered tube" design? So while this may now be the way the model is accurately depicted, it doesn't necesarily reflect the way the Ideal fictional starship should be depicted?
Just my two quatloos worth, where's Shaw when ya need him?
