Matt Jefferies and the TOS Enterprise...

[Warped9]

MJ designed the TOS E--established fact.

But I have some question marks in the back of my mind for quite sometime.

How much of the E did he design?

I ask this only because we have never seen construction drawings of the 11 footer. We have seen numerous sketches and illustrations as MJ worked towards a viable concept. We have seen the familiar three-view orthographic drawing reprinted in TMoST, on posters and the side of the boxof the old AMT 18 in. model kit. And that drawing differs in many details from the 11 footer as built.

What was Pato Guzman's contribution to the design process? (Guzman was involved early on during "The Cage's" development I believe). And Richard Datin built or oversaw the building of the 11 footer (and maybe the 22 incher as well, but I'm not sure). But how much of his work was simply following construction drawings and how much (if any) did he possibly detail himself to flnalize the design?

Design is rarely a solo effort. Even constructive criticism is a contribution of sorts (and assuming the criticism is heeded and leads to improvement).


We know that AMT (with Thomas Kellogg and Gene Whitfield) designed and built the Galileo mockups and miniature with MJ's input. So MJ gave input but didn't actually design the shuttlecraft himself (although some of his sketches might have influenced Kellogg and Whitfield).

So the essential question is: is the design of the TOS E all MJ or did others contribute to finalizing it? How much of the revisions to the 11 footer as it was modified from 1st pilot to 2nd pilot to series production version did MJ oversee?

Maybe these questions can't even be answered.


This sounds like a question for Shaw but others' feedback is certainly welcome.

 

[Albertese]

I think that all the MJ sketches of radically un-Enterprise designs tells us that the whole design process proceeded under his pencil. And I'd have to go back and re-read stuff, but I think Shaw has presented us with construction drawings for the 11 foot model that were delivered to and used by Datin to actually build the thing.

I don't actually know how much Pato Guzman contributed. My impression has been that he just started the conceptual process of some of the set design, notably the bridge, but that he was replaced with Jefferies early on for reasons unknown to me.

Like you said, I think this might be more up Shaw's alley.

--Alex

 

[Shaw]

This is going to be a mix of timeline and story telling, and this is based on known facts, analysis of supporting data and some hearsay (for those of you who understand that humans are not perfect and/or have played the game Telephone, you'll understand why people's word on some matters is given less weight that other evidence).

Did Matt Jefferies design the Enterprise?

Yes.

After meeting with Jefferies, Roddenberry singled him out for the task of designing of the Enterprise (both exterior and the bridge) after Roddenberry realized they had a connection (having both been pilots). Yes, Guzman had input, but also had his hands full with the rest of production... and there was a lot to that. Roddenberry had the most input, working very closely with Jefferies... which in turn made the process take much longer than Jefferies would have wanted.

Jefferies favored the final general design, but still had to convince Roddenberry to go in that direction. Here are a series of sketches in that process...

Originally Jefferies would have been fine with something much simpler... this was for a pilot of a show, and that pilot might never even air. Roddenberry kept pushing for more detail and more realism in the design. It was the executives at Desilu that finally forced Roddenberry to go with what they had because they needed to start actually building the sets and models. And yet Roddenberry still made changes... sending Jefferies back to the drawing table after final plans had been drawn to redesign the Enterprise as a much larger vessel.

The original Enterprise had many of the familiar features, but was still different from what the final design would end up being. Had the design been the same, it would have scaled out to about 540', but it wasn't the same. This is a rough approximation of the size change...

And, as always, Roddenberry wanted more detail to give the ship life. On the original design Jefferies had the navigational sensor behind a nose cone on the secondary hull (like the radar on many airplanes). When the Enterprise was scaled up, the nose cone was dropped so that the dish could be shown moving (which it never was in TOS).

To Roddenberry, doubling meant doubling... so the crew went from about 100 to 200. He didn't realize that when you double somethings size, you get an 8x increase in volume (this is part of the reason for the second doubling of the crew size later on).

As most of us know, it takes time to do this stuff... and the production was already behind schedule. At the beginning of November, Datin was hired to over see the building of the models. He was given what they had on hand (the original plans) to get started with but told not to use some of the elements of those plans as things had changed. Jefferies actually made notes on the plans to show what was not to be used...

Datin farmed out the turning of the major elements of the 33 inch model (he had since forgot who that was) and completed the construction with Jefferies new plans that were finished a few days later on November 7, 1964...

So people aren't ever going to get this, but these plans weren't drawn to any fixed scale... they were drawn to fit the page and elements on the previous drawings that Datin was already started building from. The only part of the Enterprise that mattered as far as scale was that the bridge structure needed to work with the bridge set. I bring this up because a lot of people have gotten stuck on this and can't get around the fact that the Enterprise wasn't made to an exact scale fraction.

Jefferies had to redesign the Enterprise after finishing the design Enterprise... everything was late! Jefferies was rushed to get things to Datin, and in the end there was one copy of the final plans.

Let me repeat that... in the end there was one copy of the final plans.

Why didn't Jefferies' later drawings look exactly like the original plans? He didn't have them. Why did the AMT Enterprise model (designed by Jefferies) look exactly like the original plans? He didn't have them.

He had notes, but not the plans. Having done a study of the original 1966 AMT Enterprise model (because it was used as a studio model in TOS), here is a comparison of the dimensions of the original (final) Enterprise plans and that model (scaled to the diameter of the model's primary hull)...

And this is my progress on document the AMT Enterprise model...

Click to Enlarge​

For someone who didn't have the original plans in hand, that is amazingly close.

What did the original plans look like?

Datin had released the dimensions and small segments of the drawings, from that I put this together back in 2007...

Click to Download (PDF, 1.4 MB)
- JPEG version here -​

More recently I've been fleshing them out a bit more...

Click to Enlarge​

But yeah, this is a hand drawn era where getting stuff to look the same each time is hard... specially if you don't even have your original drawings to work from.


Did Datin follow Jefferies drawings exactly?

Yes... mostly.

Datin flipped the nacelles. What do I mean by that? This...

How did this look over all?

And this is effectively what happened...

This change was okayed on the 33 inch model and carried over to the building of the 11 foot model.

Datin finished the 33 inch model in a few weeks, and showed it to Roddenberry... who wanted changes. Jefferies original design had no windows, Roddenberry wanted windows. Jefferies met with Datin and drew windows onto the original plans which were then painted onto the models.

I'll talk about this and other aspects later when I have more time.

 

[Warped9]

Thanks, Shaw. I look forward to hearing more.

 

[CrazyMatt]

Superb, Mr. Shaw. Superb....

 

[Ronald Held]

Good report. Looking forward to more.

 

[Mytran]

That is a great summing up of your research in this area, thanks!

Also, I never knew that "Chinese Whispers" had an alternative name in the USA. I am learning all sorts of things today

 

[ZapBrannigan]

This is great work, Shaw.

I have one editing note for you. In this drawing:

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/shaw/jefferies_1964-sheet-2.jpg

"Mark Gagen has eluded" should read "alluded." Not a big thing, but they're two different words.

 

[Shaw]

Thanks guys!

I have a few minutes, so we'll pick up with finishing the 33 inch Enterprise...

As I said, Jefferies had finished plans for a smaller version of the Enterprise. All of the hull markings had been drawn on these plans, but were absent from the final plans being used for the models. Those earlier plans were supplied to Datin to add the markings on the 33 inch model.

While adding those markings, Datin added on some of the length annotations that were on the drawings thinking that they were hull markings. As this was more detail, Roddenberry liked them so they stayed on the 33 inch model and were included on the 11 foot model when it was built.

Even after it's approval, Datin kept the 33 inch model as a reference for a while into the building of the 11 foot model. Datin's records showed the construction beginning on December 8, 1964, but some accounts say that it actually began at the end of November.

Either way, this was a monstrous build and they needed to figure out any way to cut down on the time needed to complete it... and that was by skipping many of the physical details on the port side of the model. Many of the painted details were added and some of the missing details were replicated by painted on features. In this way the model could still be filmed showing parts of the port side if not seen directly. Between the audience assuming symmetry and seeing the port side on the 33 inch model, they would fill in the blanks.

And sure enough, there are people today who truly believe that the port side had at one time been complete. That, in and of itself, is a testament to the artistry of those guys.

Of course the amount of the port side that could be seen was further limited later when it was used for accessing the model to add lighting... and most of the details were later covered up. One thing that is somewhat visible on the model when it was delivered to the Smithsonian in 1974 is the faint outline of where the pennant on the port side of the secondary hull was. After the lighting was added, the view of the camera couldn't travel that far without seeing all the wires (mostly coming from the dorsal), so it wasn't retained.

Getting back to the story, the 33 inch model was deliver to the production team on December 14th at Culver City... here are some shots of the delivery...

By this point most of the sound stage elements had already been shot... including the crane shot that would later be composited with the unfinished 11 foot model. I have the shooting schedule, but I think they got behind.

I'll pick up from here later.

 

[Warped9]

Thatnks, Shaw. Can't wait.

 

[Tallguy]

Well, I don't have much to say other than that's a fantastic summation of years of research. Well done!

 

[Warped9]

It must have been quite something when folks got a first look at the 33 in. miniature and the 11 footer. Back then when flying saucers and rocketships were pretty well all one knew those replicas must have looked quite alien and very futuristic.

 

[plynch]

Yeah, I've been seeing it my whole life. To me it always looked like the secondary hull "supports" the saucer and engines. I know one could sort of view the saucer pulling along the cylinder, which in turn kind of pulls the engines. I tried a thread on that once and it didn't really tell me how people "feel" the enterprise. But it sure is nice, at any rate. Props to Mr. J and D. and GR too. His original brainchild after all. With cultural influences of course. There are no beginnings.

 

[MGagen]

So people aren't ever going to get this, but these plans weren't drawn to any fixed scale... they were drawn to fit the page and elements on the previous drawings that Datin was already started building from. The only part of the Enterprise that mattered as far as scale was that the bridge structure needed to work with the bridge set. I bring this up because a lot of people have gotten stuck on this and can't get around the fact that the Enterprise wasn't made to an exact scale fraction.

I must take exception to this. The first plans given to Datin did have fictional real-world scale information on them. The plans were drafted at a specific scale working out to 1/16 inch = 1 foot, with the earlier configuration of the ship called out at an overall length of 543 feet. The later plans, the ones used to construct the models, as you have stated, had only actual dimensions 1:1 with the smaller model and a notation that the larger model would be 4x scale. But these drawings were drawn to the same scale as the earlier ones. Later, the same drawings were taken to represent a different sized ship. The point is, that Jefferies had a definite scale in mind when he set pencil to paper to draw the plans.

Jefferies was rushed to get things to Datin, and in the end there was one copy of the final plans.

Let me repeat that... in the end there was one copy of the final plans.

Back in '07 I asked Richard Datin whether the plans he had were originals and he said they were blueline prints, not the original vellums. Presumably Jefferies still had the original drawings in his possession. Where, oh, where are they now?!?

Interestingly, the originals should lack the window markings, as these were added to Datin's bluelines by he and Jefferies later, at Jefferies' home.

Shaw, please PM me with an email address and I will provide some documentation you may be lacking. Years ago I spent quite a lot of time researching the models and their construction with an eye toward eventually making a website of my findings. You have walked the same road after me, but have gone much further than I ever did; and I approve of the rigorous method you employ. As I do not have the time these days to carry on my work (I have school-aged kids now), and you appear to have boundless energy to devote to this, may I say it, enterprise, it seems a good time to pass on some of the primary source material I have collected. It will add a few additional touches to the mass of information you have already assembled.

M.

 

[MarsWeeps]

Thanks guys!

I have a few minutes, so we'll pick up with finishing the 33 inch Enterprise...

Does anybody know what happened to the 33" model? When was the last known sighting?

 

[xvicente]

Does anybody know what happened to the 33" model? When was the last known sighting?

Legend says it was loaned by Roddenberry to someone in the mid-70s and never returned.

 

[Shaw]

Shaw, please PM me with an email ...

PM sent.

Does anybody know what happened to the 33" model? When was the last known sighting?

Legend says it was loaned by Roddenberry to someone in the mid-70s and never returned.

Early in 1978 Roddenberry loaned it to Robert Abel and Associates during the early production of TMP (assuming that they would need it in the same way that Jefferies/Price/Loos used it as a reference for the Phase II Enterprise). It appears that Richard Taylor mistook the model as having been made for Phase II and disposed of it. Consequently, when Roddenberry contacted Bob Abel to get the model back, Abel was unable to locate it.

Taylor's recollections...

"The model that was being built really didn’t have that — I can’t remember any lights that were built into it but it was about two and a half, three feet long or something."​

The Phase II Enterprise was almost 6 feet long and fully lit. I don't think that anyone from Robert Abel and Associates actually saw the Phase II Enterprise, the guys at Magicam were just itching to start over so they could get credit for building the model (this was their first major project). Anyone who has seen Steve Neill's Enterprise, that is about how big the Phase II Enterprise studio model was, so there was no mistaking it for something that small.

Taylor, not being a Trek fan, was something of a bull in a china shop with some of these things... and was more than happy to take credit for aspects of the refit design that were purely of Jefferies' doing for Phase II.

According to Taylor...

"I totally redesigned the nacelles so they weren’t, as in the original television series, like cigar containers, or circular. They were much more rectilinear and longer, a lot of parallel lines."​

But that is another story.

Yeah, the 33 inch model is gone. I am working on a one-to-one scale replica of the model, it is just a massive endeavor and may take awhile to finish.

 

[MarsWeeps]

Does anybody know what happened to the 33" model? When was the last known sighting?

Early in 1978 Roddenberry loaned it to Robert Abel and Associates during the early production of TMP (assuming that they would need it in the same way that Jefferies/Price/Loos used it as a reference for the Phase II Enterprise). It appears that Richard Taylor mistook the model as having been made for Phase II and disposed of it.

 

[Tallguy]

Maybe the 3 footer is with the Aries 1B? No? *sigh*

 

[Redfern]

Mogg only knows how many heads would explode from shock and disillusionment if someone made public some personal letters from Jefferies that read something like this:

"Well, I finally wrapped up that project for that TV producer. You know the one, Roddenberry, big guy, big ego, trying to slip his mistress a part. Anyway, the spaceship is done.

'G*d! I should have realized this was insane after Rod' rejected the second round of sketches. Guy claimed he wanted something 'believable', but I couldn't sell him on the idea of a spherical main hull. Yeah, I tried explaining a sphere was the most structurely sound shape, allowing the greatest internal volume compared to surface area. But, no, he wants a d*mned saucer! 'Spheres look like storage tanks; saucers are futuristic,' he ranted. I tell you, he's letting 'Forbidden Planet' influence him too much. Oh, I told you how he wanted the decks oriented as though the thing's an airliner or a cruise ship. Wouldn't listen to the reasons why the decks should be positioned along the path of flight. I relented and drew a quick scribble of a cross section 'cut away'. As to what goes where, how should I know? I just drew some interesting lines that might look good on some diagram. At one time I cared, but I've come to realize how true that saying is, 'too many cooks spoil the broth.' Roddenberry has his ideas, the director, his, the set designer, another. Oh, those surface details I added to the engine, like the three tapered blocks near the domes? I have no idea what they should do; the writers can concoct some gibberish explanation, but I think they balance out the look. Those tubes looked rather bare earlier; they needed 'something'.

"OK, I'll admit it's been fun, doing something crazy and getting paid for it, but I'm ready to get back to the real world, away from 'Hollyweird' and do some real aerospace design. Hope to see you in six to eight weeks."

To to be clear, this was posted in jest. I certainly know of no such letter.

Sincerely,

Bill