I’m sure everyone visiting this blog has seen this image before, but it’s new to me and in my considered opinion you can never have too many images of the Enterprise lying around.
Starship Enterprise 1960s studio model at Smithsonian Air and Space Museum
What’s really unusual about this particular image of the 11′ studio model of the Enterprise is that it’s taken from an angle that normally can’t be seen. Anyone who’s made the pilgrimage to NASM in Washington, DC knows what I’m talking about; ever since the studio miniature was refurbished by Ed Miarecki in 1991 and moved into the basement gift shop, it’s been displayed in an eye-level glass case. Great for seeing the model up close, not so great for taking pictures of the model from below.
So… I wonder how this picture was taken? I am fairly certain that the image has been edited somewhat to hide the background; here is what appears to be the original. Obviously the Enterprise model is suspended from the ceiling above, but the refurbished model (AFAIK) has never been displayed in public like this. Is this a photo taken right after the restoration at the facility where the work was done? If anyone has any clues about the story behind this photo, please post a comment below. Meanwhile, click the link below to view the original full-size version of this image at the NASM website:
1960′s Starship Enterprise Studio Model at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum
By the way (and in case anyone’s wondering), I’ve been taking a couple of weeks off from my “Doomsday Machine” project to recharge my batteries, but I’ve resumed work and hopefully will have more progress to show in February. It’s hard being a one-man show… sometimes ya gotta take a break to get the creative juices flowing again! Thanks for your patience. 
#1 by Ted Thompson at January 31st, 2010
| Quote
There’s a lot of detail in that picture (Sorry I know nil about it’s origin) and it brings to mind a question I’ve thought before. What are the markings supposed to be, I mean officially, was there some idea of what they were or was it just random?
The markings I mean are the orange rectangle, gray rectangle, and gray square on the primary hull – the “radiating” triangular shapes on the primary hull – the red rectangle on the underside of the nacelle – the patterns on the bottom of the secondary hull.
Especially since these some of these surfaces were rarely seen. Speaking of which, aren’t we seeing the side that was supposed to be of less detail because it was never filmed and had the boom mount on it?
#2 by Scott Gammans at January 31st, 2010
| Quote
Nope, the mounting point for the model was actually on the underside of the secondary hull; in fact, you can see the circular mounting hole in the NASM photo—it’s the small round hole that’s offset slightly to port in the recessed “trench” area just aft of the main deflector dish.
The port side of the model was the undetailed side–it’s where the wiring harnesses were snaked. When Richard Datin built the 11′ Enterprise model in 1964, it didn’t have any internal lighting. You can actually glimpse the wiring harnesses and the lack of port-side detailing in three of the original F/X shots from the second season of Star Trek:
#3 by Ted Thompson at February 2nd, 2010
| Quote
Yes I see… Thank you for the links, I’d never noticed those before. It’s amazing what can go right before your eyes and you never notice!
I still wonder about those markings though – but I suppose they may well have been random artistic choices rather then a case of “and this is where they [whatever]“
#4 by Scott Gammans at February 2nd, 2010
| Quote
As far as I know, Matt Jefferies referred to these as “technical markings” without giving them specific functions. Fans over the years have speculated that the large triangular markings are hatches for landing legs, which is why I made those features slightly recessed on my Enterprise. As for the other markings, I retconned the squarish ones surrounding the lower sensor dome into hatches, too. No idea what those large red concentric rings are (besides lookin’ kewl).
#5 by Spockboy at February 2nd, 2010
| Quote
Hey guys,
Yes I saw the old girl at the Smithsonian a couple of years ago, and was pissed at what a lousy effort Ed Miarecki did on the paint job.
THIS is what she actually looked like back then…
http://tinyurl.com/yenv8bp
There is clearly SOME dirtying but not like this…
Some comparisons
http://tinyurl.com/ye9tjjm
http://tinyurl.com/yzotx9w
http://tinyurl.com/yfac8kf
http://tinyurl.com/yfsnncb
And finally, a little NONA to lighten the mood a bit…
http://tinyurl.com/yl8ktr7
I realize that after the Star Trek was over the Smithsonian painted the Enterprise grey all over (except for the top of the saucer which has NEVER been painted) but it was still much more faithful to the original than this latest incarnation.
I thought Mr. Miarecki did a good job on the actual restoration, but should have let someone else paint the old girl. I mean it’s the most famous ship in science fiction history. It should have been painted by an artist, not a carpenter.
I think She’s due for an overhaul.
NOW, let the comments fly!!! (LOL)
#6 by Scott Gammans at February 2nd, 2010
| Quote
Hm, well… I actually kind of like the weathering that was obviously added during the restoration, but you’re absolutely right Paul–this was supposed to be a restoration, not a modification. A priceless artifact from the TV show that inspired a generation of real-world NASA astronauts, scientists and engineers should have been treated to a more accurate restoration job back in 1991.
Oh now you’re just being nitpicky. Everyone knows that the AMT Enterprise warp nacelles are prone to sagging.
Khan was wrong… apparently it’s very damp in spaaaaaace.
#7 by Spockboy at February 3rd, 2010
| Quote
A couple more pics for your interest…
Secondary hull xray
http://tinyurl.com/yc7464f
Soon after the show ended.
http://tinyurl.com/ygntdla
Miarecki restoration
http://tinyurl.com/yd29arj
http://tinyurl.com/ygdq4ot
http://tinyurl.com/yllcbrk
http://tinyurl.com/ygueyul
And the nacelles DIDN’T sag on the series so there! ; )
I’m done geeking out now, back to school work.
BTW let’s see some more hanger deck!!
#8 by Spockboy at February 3rd, 2010
| Quote
One more with some scale figures on it…
http://tinyurl.com/yzww96f
#9 by Scott Gammans at February 3rd, 2010
| Quote
(BTW, in case you were wondering Paul, the reason your comments are being held for moderation is because of all the hyperlinks… WordPress thinks you’re a scummy spammer! LOLZ)
WOW, I have never seen those three images before! You can really tell that the old girl was not aging well by ’91… look at all the wood superstructure and paint deterioration
Your wish is my command.
#10 by Fargin Bastiges at February 23rd, 2010
| Quote
Gentlemen:
I have to admit that I am not comfortable with Miarecki’s paint job. In his defense, he has some valid points. Consider that he’s been a lot closer to the model than we will ever be and he had the advantage of forensic paint layer archeology, and I agree with his argument that details would have had to have been overemphasized to be picked up by the camera, especially considering multi-generational analog 60′s filming on a budget, BUT, the Enterprise is no longer being viewed through the lens of a camera, but by the human eye.
Let’s say, for instance, the Smithsonian wanted to make a painstakingly accurate diorama of a Hollywood film production from the 30′s or 40′s, including sets, wax figures of famous actors, the cameraman, the director, and all the equipment. One problem: in the days of black and white film, the actors wore a type of makeup that worked well with B&W film but in real life made their skin look green. Does the Smithsonian display the wax figures in regular flesh tone, or with the green makeup?
If they choose the green makeup, the government could go deeper into debt hiring a tour guide to explain the whole green makeup story and the Smith’s desire for absolute accuracy to every single visitor, but nearly every visitor will still have a WTF moment. If they go with flesh tone, it won’t be absolutely, perfectly, painstakingly accurate, but now almost none of the patrons are going to ask, “Why does Clark Gable look like Frankenstein’s monster?” You’ll only very rarely get the occasional Hollywood buff that will say, “They should be in green makeup!” In other words, sometimes absolute, perfect, painstaking accuracy needs to be put aside to get the majority shut up.
I made my own pilgrimage to see the Gray Lady in 1982. and while I was disappointed with the golden wok deflector and flashing red bussards, I had no problem with the simple paint job. Up to that point in my life I had only seen the Enterprise on static-stricken UHF channels. But now after having seen it on DVD I’m a lot pickier. The over-detailing–especially the lower grid lines on the primary–is just awful.
I don’t have a nice pic of Nona to lighten the mood (thank you Spockboy…gawd…THANK YOU!), but I guess we should be thankful we still have the model at all. According to Craig Thompson the Enterprise gathered a lot of dust in Paramount’s prop warehouse during the years before it was shipped to the S.I.; the workers had little respect for the model and might have even sold it to get it out of the way. We are fortunate that it did not get trashed, lost or, even worse, cut up and recycled for other sci-fi shows like some of Irwin Allen’s stuff did.
Hopefully, the next restoration will gets things right.
#11 by Captain Robert April at September 5th, 2010
| Quote
Miarecki starts from a slightly false premise, i.e., he’s thinking from the perspective of CURRENT motion control methods, where the model is photographed multiple times (once for key light, once for the internal lights, once for the nacelles, etc.). The problem here is that this method was only really possible once computer controlled motion control came around, after Star Wars.
For Star Trek, everything had to be done in one pass of the camera, and as plenty of comparisons of candid photos and completed effects shows have shown, the way the ship looked to the naked eye is pretty much how she came out on camera.
So, yeah, what Ed Miarecki did was VERY heavy handed.