Last I heard, after the auction nobody knew the whereabouts of this model, except and anonymous buyer. Does this mean that it current location has been confirmed?
Enterprise Evolution from TOS to TMP
- Thread starter yotsuya
- Start date
Last I heard, after the auction nobody knew the whereabouts of this model, except and anonymous buyer. Does this mean that it current location has been confirmed?
As of a couple years ago, the buyer was found to be Jeff Bezos, and the model was on display (without so much as a velvet rope protecting it) in the lobby of his aerospace company, Blue Origin.
Paul Olsen evidently knocked his head into the model quite a number of times during painting (causing it to vibrate) so as long as the base is solid and it doesn't get knocked over, I think it is fairly safe. Plus the site is secured so it doesn't encounter random traffic, only people who work at Blue Origin get to see it.
Last edited:
There are some photos of the Enterprise at Blue Origin online. This article has a shot good of the lobby and how the model is situated. A Reddit post three years ago has this photo that focuses on the ship itself. You can almost make out the plaque. The model is exposed where it is, but it doesn't look like it sees anything like the traffic of the Smithsonian. It's basically a trophy for Bezos and is probably fine where it is. Although I'd like to see some shots of the aft to see the state of the damaged impulse engines.
Wow. Have not looked at the pictures yet. Somehow this is not the description of a place for this model that I expected. But at least now we fans know where it is.
One of the burning questions for the Phase II version is how to detail the saucer? How many radial lines in the grid? What window arrangement? Do I copy the TOS windows? Do I copy the TOS skylights (the 4 top lit rectangles)? Jefferies drew the TOS Enterprise with each 90 degrees divided by 6, but on the model it was divided 7. Do I do 6 as the drawings say or 7 to match the TOS, or 4 to match the later refit? Questions, questions, questions. The only place I have appropriately timed answers is in the paintings. They lean toward a more TOS approach (divided by 7, TOS style windows, etc.). So I think that is where I'm leaning. But I'm not set on that yet. The design was moving closer to what they did in TMP so that is always a possibility. I think the top skylights are gone and the TMP style access hatches would be appropriate. But I want to keep it true to how the model was built... only the model was never finished.
And even the Taylor Refit has shown me a mystery. The front of where the pylon joins the nacelle was smoothed and tapered by the time the model was finished. The only photo I have of the construction shows no taper which agrees with Taylor's drawings. So was that little change part of Taylor's design as it progressed or among the final Andrew Probert changes to the model before filming? That at least is a minor question.
And even the Taylor Refit has shown me a mystery. The front of where the pylon joins the nacelle was smoothed and tapered by the time the model was finished. The only photo I have of the construction shows no taper which agrees with Taylor's drawings. So was that little change part of Taylor's design as it progressed or among the final Andrew Probert changes to the model before filming? That at least is a minor question.
Last edited:
It is funny... in 2007 I started work on drawing up a complete set of plans for the Phase II Enterprise, and I ran up against all of those same questions. What I realized was that if the only person I was asking was myself, there would never be any real answers. And because I wanted to avoid doing a Shaw-version of the design (which would basically be fan-art rather than historical research)... I decided to walk away from the project until I had actual answers (not just guesses).
All your questions have answers. Some of them I discovered while hunting down the fate of the 33 inch Enterprise studio model... so I wasn't even looking for those answers when I found them.
The answers to these burning questions are out there... or at least they were 6-10 years ago.
I would love to publish all this stuff... my plans of Jefferies Enterprise, my plans of the Price-Loos Enterprise, the full history of who did what, who knew what, and who screwed who over. There is a ton of stuff here, but until I can publish it, it'll all sit in a couple boxes in storage.
So ask yourself... is what your doing historical research or fan-art? If you want this to be historical research, are you willing to do the work in finding the answers? Every question you've asked, I've answered at some point. If my answers aren't good enough (and why should they be?), then you should hunt down where those answers came from.
I can honestly state that answering these questions for myself was quite worth the effort. On the other hand, answering these same questions for others can be a whole new level of thankless and tedious work that isn't worth the effort if I can't even publish the end results.
Your mileage may vary.. best of luck!
One reason I am doing this and have a lot of questions is because you have never released anything about your Price/Loos version and because there are so many variations of the Phase II out there. I want to remain faithful to their incomplete vision so as far as they went I must be accurate. What they left unfinished is a guess. The revised plans provide a good idea of where they were headed, but even the revised plans are missing a lot. I noticed that you detailed the top of the saucer with some TOS pilot details. You also used the same 6 per 90 degree grid spacing as Jefferies when the TOS and I believe the Price/Loos went with 7 per 90 degree.
And part of my work is to figure out that if this was a first concept for the refit of the ship, what would they have had to do. It is basically the same saucer shape as the final TMP refit so it involves the same ripping off the hull plating, reconfiguring the spaceframe, and installing new hull plating. So there is no reason to keep all the same ports and surface details as the TOS version.
I'm in a place where I can't find answers because I'm trying to fill in parts of an incomplete model. They never finished it so we can never truly know how it might have been finished. So the thing that I question is when did the refit details start to creep in. Some things carried over from the Phase II design and some things were redone just for the refit. I intent to use Mike Minor's concept paintings to help fill in what Jefferies drawings and the model don't show, but that leaves the top of the saucer a mystery. And Minor's paintings are flawed because they were painted from the small study model that was built from an AMT kit saucer (with the three offset dimples on the bottom).
When I combine things to my best guess, some TOS things drop away (the 4 skylights, the 2 lower triangles). The windows are a mix of TOS style windows in similar to TOS positions, but with the lower windows more in the TMP arrangement. But the only TMP detail that comes across i the deflector dish. None of Jefferies drawings have anything in the dish. For me that means it was a smooth inset dish like the final TMP design. This differs from Mike Minor's paintings, but as he had his own version I will reserve the inset dish with antenna spike for that version. And if I was doing this in color, I would make the new recessed deflector blue and the bussard collectors orange. I really see this design as straddling the TOS and TMP border with some things carried over from the past and some things changed to the new.
Basically since the model stopped and was never finished, how to finish what Jefferies never drew is an open book. My goal is the "best guess" that fits between the TOS and TMP versions. More answers may be out there as to what they intended, but everything past where the model stopped would be a guess anyway. The model, as far as it got, had differences from the drawings and paintings already so slavishly adhering to the intent would not arrive at any more accurate result. That said, I do want to keep as close as I feel is likely given how close the model stayed close to Jefferies design.
One interesting thing is that on both models, the nacelles ended up lower than in the drawings. I've confirmed the 8 foot model more times than I can count (it helps to have so many photos). I was only able to confirm the Phase II model in a round about way. Thankfully one of the photos shows the model in proper alignment and has enough details to pull out the information. That does make the nacelles a little more in than the drawings (keeping the pylon angle matching the drawings), but that fits because the TOS configuration has much closer and fatter nacelles. It creates a progression of the nacelles moving out and up and getting smaller (at least the cylindrical portion of the Phase II and Refit nacelles). The only thing that would be truly awesome is a top and bottom view of the actual models (for some reason I have nearly every other view of the refit, but no direct top or bottom photos and there are so few photos of the Phase II that I consider it fortunate to have what we do).
I don't have drawings to share, but I have been tweaking and cleaning up and making further adjustments. I think I can get the pylons drawn in the top and bottom views and then have 4 views of each version to share. It is about time to split them up and let them finish up as separate project files.
One thing I have decided to do that is not in keeping with making the Phase II drawings accurate to the model is that I will be putting phaser banks on it (as in the twin half dome details on the surface) and considering the neck weapon to be the torpedos. It is one Franz Joseph and Refit influenced detail that I don't really think would have been used on the finished model, but as the saucer is so blank in all the drawings and on the model itself, it is a possibility. It is also something I can turn off to also have a more accurate set of drawings.
I don't have drawings to share, but I have been tweaking and cleaning up and making further adjustments. I think I can get the pylons drawn in the top and bottom views and then have 4 views of each version to share. It is about time to split them up and let them finish up as separate project files.
One thing I have decided to do that is not in keeping with making the Phase II drawings accurate to the model is that I will be putting phaser banks on it (as in the twin half dome details on the surface) and considering the neck weapon to be the torpedos. It is one Franz Joseph and Refit influenced detail that I don't really think would have been used on the finished model, but as the saucer is so blank in all the drawings and on the model itself, it is a possibility. It is also something I can turn off to also have a more accurate set of drawings.
Augh!
Maybe you could work with the person here:
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/the...-roddenberry-1968.299158/page-3#post-12936823
By the time the rights to that clear up you should be in the clear...
Dwayne Day faces the same problem trying to document real space advancements in the NRO. By the time things get declassified, everyone is dead and can't be interviewed. I suggested doing books--and then just not publishing them until ones own death--while info is still to be had. If it gets out--better to ask forgiveness than permission
Now, do the nacelle support pylons get thicker at the top--or is that just an illusion?
I think that is wise. The refit is a somewhat more busy design than TOS Ent--but only a little more so. I like how many fan designs wind up rather more layered:
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/trek-ships-made-with-blender-wip-usually-non-canon.301079/page-2
When you are reasonably "finished" (I know--it never really ends) I'd like to see what your next step beyond the refit would be--if, say, Exselsior never existed.
My own version of Ent-A, since I love the Balson hull better than the refit hull
Last edited:
They do get thicker. It is no illusion. There are no good photos that show it clearly, but when you examine the base and where it joins the nacelles and lay that out accurately, the top part is thicker. It does not look like much overall and if there is any angle to the view the geometry of the pylon tends to hide it or make it look like it is just because it is angled, but it is definitely thicker at the top.
The weekend has brought great changes to the Phase II drawings. They no longer look like colorful cartoons. But before I share there is more to do. Most importantly, I need to compare them to the TOS and TMP version and see what details will make it pop. It stands in the middle so a few things from each. I'm debating about layers in case there is more interest in a purist version.
I feel that perhaps some input might be useful for a couple of things. The extant drawings (Matt Jefferies original verison, his revised version based on how the model was being built, Jefferies cross section, and the display drawings used in the movies) all have enough details to supplement the photos of the model to pull out nearly everything I need. The docking hatch is missing from the revised drawings, but as they built the miniature for closeups that has it and that scene made it into the final film, I've carried that over (as built on the miniature). The deflector dish I am leaving as it would become in TMP (Jefferies was good about not leaving out details and he never drew any protruding dish or spike - and David Shaw's research agrees on that point). I'm saving the design I think Mike Minor kept painting for whenever I get to modifying the FJ version into his version.
But, what is the consensus on the following:
The 4 skylights vs. personnel hatches. The Price/Loos grid matches the TOS model, but the dish matches the TMP model. So should the skylights carry over or should the personnel hatches show up (only 3 of them)? I'm leaning toward the personnel hatches.
The 3 dimples under the saucer. These were from the study model which had an AMT saucer. I think not, but just wondering.
The markings (text). Should I follow the TOS plan or what Mike Minor painted? TOS has both registries under the saucer facing different directions and Minor has them facing the same.
The markings 2 (the shapes and lines). Should all the TOS markings carry over? I don't think so. I think some should. But a lot of the markings see like they were specific to equipment on that version of the ship and the refit to the Phase II version would have changed things around. The impulse Engines have a very similar design so I was going to carry over the two gray boxes and the two small yellow rectangles. But the string of shapes on the bottom of the secondary hull I would not. It has one on the top and one on the bottom that seem sufficient to accommodate the vertical shaft of the new engine room design. I was thinking that the two lines on the bottom of the saucer would not be there (Minor didn't paint them), but the two lines down the back of the saucer and secondary hull would be there.
The two strange ridges on the bottom of the nacelles. These are the burning question that has led to this post. See the painting below. These two small ridges are in all of Jefferies drawings. They are in Mike Minor's paintings. But they are nowhere on the model as it was being built. They were not part of the nacelle cast and were not on the hybrid TMP models made from it. These match the 3 boxes in the same position on the TOS design, but there is nothing on the TMP design there. So, do you think they were omitted to be added later or were they omitted because they had been axed from the design? My issue with them just being omitted on the master nacelle to be added later is that there are a couple of other features on the nacelle that I would have omitted that are there (they made the port nacelle and cast a duplicate for the mockup configuration). So I've been leaning toward omitting it entirely, but the more I study the paintings and drawings for details, the more I question it. David Shaw included them because he was drawing and building Jefferies original, but I am after the design as it most likely would have been finished. Unless anyone knows how to track down the people who might know, a best guess will suffice.
That has some annotations, but otherwise is the probably the best version of how I think it would have been finished (at least from this angle).
But there are also these:
Ant to complete the available drawings, here is the front display (that I think was done as part of the same set as the revised drawings as a lot of the details match).
And my slightly cleaned up version...
That front view shows the odd little detail on the inboard side, but as the stern fin and that detail were modeled on one side of the physical Nacelle and the stern fin is supposed to be on the outboard, I have both of them on the outboard. But this is where I nailed down the detail of the weapon pod (Jefferies Phaser location and TMP Photon Torpedo location.... I'm going with torpedo). This drawing also matches where I placed the nacelles after a lot of photo examination and drawing lots of perspective lines on them.
But, what is the consensus on the following:
The 4 skylights vs. personnel hatches. The Price/Loos grid matches the TOS model, but the dish matches the TMP model. So should the skylights carry over or should the personnel hatches show up (only 3 of them)? I'm leaning toward the personnel hatches.
The 3 dimples under the saucer. These were from the study model which had an AMT saucer. I think not, but just wondering.
The markings (text). Should I follow the TOS plan or what Mike Minor painted? TOS has both registries under the saucer facing different directions and Minor has them facing the same.
The markings 2 (the shapes and lines). Should all the TOS markings carry over? I don't think so. I think some should. But a lot of the markings see like they were specific to equipment on that version of the ship and the refit to the Phase II version would have changed things around. The impulse Engines have a very similar design so I was going to carry over the two gray boxes and the two small yellow rectangles. But the string of shapes on the bottom of the secondary hull I would not. It has one on the top and one on the bottom that seem sufficient to accommodate the vertical shaft of the new engine room design. I was thinking that the two lines on the bottom of the saucer would not be there (Minor didn't paint them), but the two lines down the back of the saucer and secondary hull would be there.
The two strange ridges on the bottom of the nacelles. These are the burning question that has led to this post. See the painting below. These two small ridges are in all of Jefferies drawings. They are in Mike Minor's paintings. But they are nowhere on the model as it was being built. They were not part of the nacelle cast and were not on the hybrid TMP models made from it. These match the 3 boxes in the same position on the TOS design, but there is nothing on the TMP design there. So, do you think they were omitted to be added later or were they omitted because they had been axed from the design? My issue with them just being omitted on the master nacelle to be added later is that there are a couple of other features on the nacelle that I would have omitted that are there (they made the port nacelle and cast a duplicate for the mockup configuration). So I've been leaning toward omitting it entirely, but the more I study the paintings and drawings for details, the more I question it. David Shaw included them because he was drawing and building Jefferies original, but I am after the design as it most likely would have been finished. Unless anyone knows how to track down the people who might know, a best guess will suffice.
That has some annotations, but otherwise is the probably the best version of how I think it would have been finished (at least from this angle).
But there are also these:
Ant to complete the available drawings, here is the front display (that I think was done as part of the same set as the revised drawings as a lot of the details match).
And my slightly cleaned up version...
That front view shows the odd little detail on the inboard side, but as the stern fin and that detail were modeled on one side of the physical Nacelle and the stern fin is supposed to be on the outboard, I have both of them on the outboard. But this is where I nailed down the detail of the weapon pod (Jefferies Phaser location and TMP Photon Torpedo location.... I'm going with torpedo). This drawing also matches where I placed the nacelles after a lot of photo examination and drawing lots of perspective lines on them.
Yotsuya, is there anyway you can do a slight (Phase 2 / TMP) variant for me just to see what it would look like?
