Thank you. Very happy to do this. I've argued some facts that were self-evident in these photos and clips for years and have had "The Know it All's" tell me I didn't know what I was talking about, or they would use some super-secret photo from Billy Bob Bumblesnatch to Prove me wrong. It's all been so funny, for so long and to use Rodenberry's own vault references to prove that I was correct all along has given me great joy indeed.
@@josephmelvin7508 I would never criticise somebody for doing what they can with the resources that they have. You’re just extending your admiration for Star Trek to others. My wife and I went to I think the first Star Trek convention (early 70s) at the Commodore Hotel in Manhattan. That was a very exciting time.
@@Bippy55 Yes, it was an exciting time indeed. My stepfather took me to the 76 New York convention, had a great time and was very young, it was the strangest experience I had had.
@@josephmelvin7508 Wow! Wow! Wow! A delight for a Trekkie/Trekker like me who owns the Starfleet Tech manual & the Enterprise Blue prints from the 70's.. Thanks again!🖖
I was disappointed that for the motion picture they removed the illuminated spinning hemispheres of the nacelles from the Enterprise. It was such a striking feature.
And I kinda preferred the radar dish on the front of the lower level, too. It was an amazing design, and my opinion is there was no reason to alter it.
@@gallery7596 Well.... What can I say? "They" wanted to update it, however, I always found it funny that when TNG started they went back to the forward bussard collectors, at least that's what they call them now. LOL!
@@JGG1701 Well, that's a funny comment, but let's be real. If it weren't for engineers, you wouldn't have cars, trucks, planes, bridges, toasters, radios, televisions, electronics... Just saying.
I have a 1970's, flying model rocket, had to retire it because the thrust was really hard on it, rebuilt it and have another from the 1991 rerelease as well as a Kligon battle cruiser that flies beautifully, D7
You know, I had the TOS Enterprise version. Don't know what I did wrong, but when the rocket launched it disintigrated the enterprise body. I was 12, or something like that. It was so disappointing that I never tried the Kling version
@josephmelvin7508 The nacelle pylons took the heavy stress, after they cracked the glue bond, I used an exacto blade to cut the hanger bay door out and rebuild the pylons and glued in a balsa wood block that rested against the inner hull, that and super glue did the trick. The ship hung down on the launch rod and at take off it righted itself everyone including me was amazed, beautiful flight, and and I actually caught it by the balance tube before it hit the ground, a C6-5 engine. Even named one of my shuttles Enterprise, I still remember that day in 1977, the first space shuttle flight great days
Thank you, John! I've been wanting to do this for some time, as there is so much disinformation out there and so many people that purport false data, or deny truth... I felt I had to set the record straight.
Actually, the used pretty much all that Anderson could get right. They had a real issue with compositing and budget. By the time of the end of the second season it was cancelled until the fans started a letter writing campaign and that got it one more year, but the monsy wasn't there for the special effects. Roddenberry wanted to show a lot more, but... It was over after three years and he was done and moved on.
I'm pretty sure that was old school animation and a moving, black fely with pinholes in it and a light behind it, the ships movements were then composited over the starfield.
I would guess that some weasel douchebag like you complained and put a cc strike on the video. That doesn't discount the factual presentation of the video. That only means that some ass hole had to be a dick and tried to fuck it up for eveyone. right?
One more thing I find annoying is the straight sides on all the Enterprise models, including the tv models, rather than the curved secondary hull on the Franz Joseph plans. You see the secondary hull is MUCH more curvy on the refit. I like the curves!
Please note that Franz Joseph had nothing whatsoever to do with designing any part of Star Trek's miniatures or props. He created his "Star Trek Blueprints" in the 1970s, years after the series had wrapped production. His Booklet of General Plans amounts to nothing more than fan art.
The bottom of the 11 foot model is not flat. It's not really curvy, either. That was because of the limitations of the time in following Matt Jefferies' original plan drawings for the ship. Jefferies drawings for the Writers' Bible and for "The Making of Star Trek", secondard hull is also curvier, and that's what FJ was using as his guide since he didn't have access to the plans or to the studio models or he might've done things differently. And as willmfrank also noted, FJ was never involved in the original series or the movies as an artist or art director.
That is your opinion. The power from the warp nacelles goes straight through the pylons into engineering. The back wall of engineering backs up to the back of the shuttle bay. I am correct. You are mistaken. Your theory does not make sense. You are in error.
@@josephmelvin7508 I'm sorry, I should have mentioned my source. It's the Franz Joseph deck plans. Of course nothing is absolute in imaginary spaceships lol
@@brookestephen Fanz Joseph Schnaubelt is not a valid reference and is not canon. Matt Jeffries designed the ship and Richard Datin built it with his crew. This ain't my first rodeo with this ship, or the Refit, Phase II et al. I'm going strictly by notes and blueprints created by Jeffries for the series. I'm an engineer and have been my entire adult life. I go by facts and engineering, things that make sense and not supposition, or theory, he said, she said and other so called "Professinal's" advice, or theory. To me the restoration is a travesty and is inaccurate and incorrect even though it was overseen, by those supposedly in the know. There are glaring errors, overly intense lighting, paint bubbles on the upper primary hull etc.. I again go by facts. The Roddenberry vault has much in it that proves that the nacelle domes were not painted orange but were in fact frosted and the color came from the lighting inside. This is a fact. Additionally, I have collected and collated data mined through the internet and friends that actually work in the industry.
@@brookestephen I'm afraid I don't see it that way. Pictures disprove supposition, or prove facts, everything has context. There are people in the Trek community that purposely put out false information and laugh to no end when there's is a silly debate that goes on for five years, ten, or more about something that is patently untrue.
@@josephmelvin7508 it is difficult to imagine when all the after market model kit parts for the shuttlebay are short. The difference between the imaginary ship and the physical model kits involves poorly designed connection points in the model kits for the warp nacelle struts, which take up lots of space inside the secondary hull, space that should be used by the shuttlebay.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
This is absolutely wonderful you were able to show these reference photographs. Thanks very much!
Thank you. Very happy to do this. I've argued some facts that were self-evident in these photos and clips for years and have had "The Know it All's" tell me I didn't know what I was talking about, or they would use some super-secret photo from Billy Bob Bumblesnatch to Prove me wrong. It's all been so funny, for so long and to use Rodenberry's own vault references to prove that I was correct all along has given me great joy indeed.
@@josephmelvin7508 I would never criticise somebody for doing what they can with the resources that they have. You’re just extending your admiration for Star Trek to others. My wife and I went to I think the first Star Trek convention (early 70s) at the Commodore Hotel in Manhattan. That was a very exciting time.
@@Bippy55 Yes, it was an exciting time indeed. My stepfather took me to the 76 New York convention, had a great time and was very young, it was the strangest experience I had had.
An absolute "gem" . Thank You for sharing this..👍🖖💖
Thank you, glad to do it. There's a newer, more involved version here. ruclips.net/video/5tyJm6TgWXM/видео.html
@@josephmelvin7508 Wow! Wow! Wow! A delight for a Trekkie/Trekker like me who owns the Starfleet Tech manual & the Enterprise Blue prints from the 70's.. Thanks again!🖖
@@avantgarde7956 Happy to do it. Been trying to prove a few points to folks for a long time, finally got it done. :)=/\=
I was disappointed that for the motion picture they removed the illuminated spinning hemispheres of the nacelles from the Enterprise. It was such a striking feature.
I felt exactly the same way. My first impression was... "What the F^&* is that? Where are the spinnys?"
And I kinda preferred the radar dish on the front of the lower level, too. It was an amazing design, and my opinion is there was no reason to alter it.
@@gallery7596 Well.... What can I say? "They" wanted to update it, however, I always found it funny that when TNG started they went back to the forward bussard collectors, at least that's what they call them now. LOL!
You know how engineers are. They like to change things.
- Dr. Leonard H. McCoy
@@JGG1701 Well, that's a funny comment, but let's be real. If it weren't for engineers, you wouldn't have cars, trucks, planes, bridges, toasters, radios, televisions, electronics... Just saying.
I have a 1970's, flying model rocket, had to retire it because the thrust was really hard on it, rebuilt it and have another from the 1991 rerelease as well as a Kligon battle cruiser that flies beautifully, D7
You know, I had the TOS Enterprise version. Don't know what I did wrong, but when the rocket launched it disintigrated the enterprise body. I was 12, or something like that. It was so disappointing that I never tried the Kling version
@josephmelvin7508 The nacelle pylons took the heavy stress, after they cracked the glue bond, I used an exacto blade to cut the hanger bay door out and rebuild the pylons and glued in a balsa wood block that rested against the inner hull, that and super glue did the trick. The ship hung down on the launch rod and at take off it righted itself everyone including me was amazed, beautiful flight, and and I actually caught it by the balance tube before it hit the ground, a C6-5 engine. Even named one of my shuttles Enterprise, I still remember that day in 1977, the first space shuttle flight great days
I've never seen most of this. Amazing.
Thank you, John! I've been wanting to do this for some time, as there is so much disinformation out there and so many people that purport false data, or deny truth... I felt I had to set the record straight.
Just beautiful
Star Trek reused so many ship shots. Wonder why they just didn’t use these unused ones.
Actually, the used pretty much all that Anderson could get right. They had a real issue with compositing and budget. By the time of the end of the second season it was cancelled until the fans started a letter writing campaign and that got it one more year, but the monsy wasn't there for the special effects. Roddenberry wanted to show a lot more, but... It was over after three years and he was done and moved on.
How do they do the moving star fields back then?
I'm pretty sure that was old school animation and a moving, black fely with pinholes in it and a light behind it, the ships movements were then composited over the starfield.
Future history.
Thank you. One could only hope right? =/\=
@josephmelvin7508, you definitely have the spirit of Scotty going through you. Thank you. Live long and prosper!🖖
Aye Sair. I'm givin her all she's got Laddy.
What is, "TOS"??? Nobody seems to know.
Really? No one knows... The Original Series... TOS as in TOS Enterprise. =/\=
where is the audio?
I would guess that some weasel douchebag like you complained and put a cc strike on the video. That doesn't discount the factual presentation of the video. That only means that some ass hole had to be a dick and tried to fuck it up for eveyone. right?
There is none.
Thank You
One more thing I find annoying is the straight sides on all the Enterprise models, including the tv models, rather than the curved secondary hull on the Franz Joseph plans. You see the secondary hull is MUCH more curvy on the refit. I like the curves!
Please note that Franz Joseph had nothing whatsoever to do with designing any part of Star Trek's miniatures or props. He created his "Star Trek Blueprints" in the 1970s, years after the series had wrapped production. His Booklet of General Plans amounts to nothing more than fan art.
The bottom of the 11 foot model is not flat. It's not really curvy, either. That was because of the limitations of the time in following Matt Jefferies' original plan drawings for the ship. Jefferies drawings for the Writers' Bible and for "The Making of Star Trek", secondard hull is also curvier, and that's what FJ was using as his guide since he didn't have access to the plans or to the studio models or he might've done things differently.
And as willmfrank also noted, FJ was never involved in the original series or the movies as an artist or art director.
just fyi shuttle bay fwd end is fwd of the warp engine nacelle strut/secondary hull connection point.
That is your opinion. The power from the warp nacelles goes straight through the pylons into engineering. The back wall of engineering backs up to the back of the shuttle bay. I am correct. You are mistaken. Your theory does not make sense. You are in error.
@@josephmelvin7508 I'm sorry, I should have mentioned my source. It's the Franz Joseph deck plans. Of course nothing is absolute in imaginary spaceships lol
@@brookestephen Fanz Joseph Schnaubelt is not a valid reference and is not canon. Matt Jeffries designed the ship and Richard Datin built it with his crew. This ain't my first rodeo with this ship, or the Refit, Phase II et al. I'm going strictly by notes and blueprints created by Jeffries for the series. I'm an engineer and have been my entire adult life. I go by facts and engineering, things that make sense and not supposition, or theory, he said, she said and other so called "Professinal's" advice, or theory. To me the restoration is a travesty and is inaccurate and incorrect even though it was overseen, by those supposedly in the know. There are glaring errors, overly intense lighting, paint bubbles on the upper primary hull etc.. I again go by facts. The Roddenberry vault has much in it that proves that the nacelle domes were not painted orange but were in fact frosted and the color came from the lighting inside. This is a fact. Additionally, I have collected and collated data mined through the internet and friends that actually work in the industry.
@@brookestephen I'm afraid I don't see it that way. Pictures disprove supposition, or prove facts, everything has context. There are people in the Trek community that purposely put out false information and laugh to no end when there's is a silly debate that goes on for five years, ten, or more about something that is patently untrue.
@@josephmelvin7508 it is difficult to imagine when all the after market model kit parts for the shuttlebay are short. The difference between the imaginary ship and the physical model kits involves poorly designed connection points in the model kits for the warp nacelle struts, which take up lots of space inside the secondary hull, space that should be used by the shuttlebay.