The original studio model of the Starship Enterprise used in the television series “Star Trek” came to the Smithsonian Institution thirty-five years ago, donated by Paramount Studios in 1974.
When the television show ended in 1969, the starship had been crated and stored at the studios. Over time, heat, cold, humidity and other elements had taken a toll on the structure, the wiring and other internal components as well as the exterior paint scheme. Before it could be put on exhibit, extensive restoration was required.
The hull and one nacelle of the Starship Enterprise as it was received by the National Air and Space Museum from Paramount studios on March 1, 1974.
The first Smithsonian restoration took place shortly after the starship was received and was completed by July 29, 1974. This restoration was coordinated with Matt Jeffries, one of the original designers of the starship, and Gene Roddenberry, the creator of Star Trek.
The Starship Enterprise during its first Smithsonian restoration. SI Neg # 74-3977
A second restoration was done ten years later, between August 8, and September 11, 1984. And a third restoration was carried out in the Winter of 1991.
The Starship Enterprise during its third Smithsonian restoration, December, 1991. Frank H. Winter, Photographer
In addition to these restoration and conservation efforts, on June 22, 1999, the starship underwent X-Ray analysis at QC Laboratories, Inc., in Aberdeen, Maryland.
The Starship Enterprise undergoing X-Ray analysis at QC Laboratories, Inc. Frank H. Winter, Photographer.
X-ray photograph, detail.
In the 35 years that the National Air and Space Museum has held it, the Starship Enterprise has gone through in-depth conservation and restoration, making it one of the more extensively preserved and studied objects in the Museum’s collection. It is currently on display in the lower level of the National Air and Space Museum Store, where every year it is seen by millions of people from all over the world.
Gregory K. H. Bryant is Museum Registrar in the Office of the Registrar at the Smithsonian, National Air and Space Museum.
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Facebook National Mall Building
I know that the Smithsonian uses ca glue for skeletal reconstruction in the Natural History Museum. Does the Air and Space Museum use it as well?
Your inquiry elicited two responses from the Museum’s staff.
Museum specialist Ed Mautner reports that he does use CA (cyanoacrylate) glue “as do most modelers in at least some assembly of most models. I have used it to repair some of the Museum’s models where two very dissimilar (plexi and wood or styrene and brass) materials need bonding.”
Chief conservator Malcolm Collum emphasizes that such adhesives have limited applications, however. “CA’s are occasionally used in conservation but primarily as a spot-setting technique where pieces can be held in place to give a slow-setting primary adhesive time to cure. It is rarely used as a primary adhesive because of its poor reversibility characteristics and because it has a relatively short bond life expectancy. It can be dissolved but it is difficult and slow. It is also too hard and brittle for any join that needs to respond to movement caused by changes in temp or humidity. We rarely use it on artifacts.”
We hope this helps.
A detailed reply here, from Robert McLean, Museum Specialist of the Restoration Team at the Garber Facility in Suitland, MD:
I cannot think of an occasion where we have used CA adhesive in the restoration of objects in the restoration shop. We could argue that we only use reversible adhesives; oddly enough, CA adhesive may actually be one of the more reversible adhesives (they sell a de-bonder agent for people who stick their fingers together).
The reality of our restoration process involves the use of carpenter’s wood glue, epoxies, contact cement, rubber cement, polyester resins, and specialized adhesives for aircraft fabric work, only some on our list are actually reversible.
Conservators operate in rare air, and likely have their own protocols. I am anxious to see their contribution. Someday I can imagine an alignment, where we will have unified protocols across the spectrum of artifact treatments/restorations/conservations. We’re trying hard, we haven’t yet arrived.
I hope that this helps…
Bob McLean,
Museum Specialist
I don’t know, precisely, which glues were used on the restorations of the Starship Enterprise, or, generally, which glues are used by the Restoration Team at the Garber Facility. I have forwarded the question to Garber, and to one of the individuals involved with the 1991 restoration.
gkhb
Does the museum have any future plans to ever restore E to her original glory in the tradition of her original paint-job, as opposed to the green-toned highly inaccurate one on her now?
Thank you for these new (old) shots.
deg
What is that shown in the x-ray? It looks like a compact-fluorescent bulb in the secondary hull just behind the shuttle bay doors.
Fascinating! A testimony to the enduring appeal of a timeless design. A thing of beauty is a joy for ever:its loveliness increases.
Are more photographs available? As an avid modelmaker, I would love to see the X-ray series.
Is the Enterprise ever going to be restored (again, and possibly to it’s original state)?
Was there any justification for the model’s last paint job?
If you want to see the later “restoration/alteration” in progress:
http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=8672
You can see the pencil lines in the process of being “enhanced” onto the top of the primary from pencil vestiges into plates and new lines being created on the bottom of the primary and around the edges.
The CFL bulb mentioned above, most likely dating to the second or third restoration, can also be seen.
Oh wow! Post the rest of the X-Rays please.
As a bit of a starship fan – bravo! What spectacular shots.
I did recently see “the old girl”, and it might be time for a tune up.
YES!
NASM could make a lot of money selling a book that compiled the photos and X-rays.
I’m in for two copies!
Wow, love these photos!! Please post more of the Enterprise; particularly this arrival and x-ray photos.
Please post more photos, especially those of the x-ray images along with descriptions of what we are seeing.
Thank you for posting this! Is there any chance that reproductions of the photos from the various restorations will be made available, if not in some form of publication then perhaps individually?
We do have many very detailed photographs of the various restorations, and will be posting those shortly, along with the X-Ray photographs, with caption information and more background information.
gkhb
Thanks very much for the response. Looking forward to seeing what you’ve got!
Please reverse what Ed Miarecki did to the old girl, PLEASE!
It seems to me that the Smithsonian has a duty to preserve the historical artifacts they hold for the American people in thier original condition, without modifying them to fit someone’s notions of contemporary expectations. Does the fact that the Enterprise was used to create a television show somehow make it exempt from the same standards of curation that the museum applies to the rest of its collection?
The new paint scheme is inaccurate and hideous, and was a huge mistake on the part of the Smithsonian.
You are correct that the Smithsonian has a duty to preserve historical objects in our collections. The question of an object’s original condition, however, becomes complex as we study it more deeply.
All objects change with time, and this is true of museum objects, as with all others. Original paints fade, wood, plastic and other materials become brittle, and must be replaced. Materials used at the time of manufacture become obsolete, and are no longer manufactured. As well, contemporary documentation of the object is subject to aging, and also to the technical limitations of the time. Those who work in restoration find that it is very much an art, not a science, and based very much on serendipitous detective work.
Nor is any restoration the final word on any object. Restored objects age with time, and each object must be continually revisited throughout its lifetime.
By no means is the starship Enterprise exempt in any way from the Smithsonian’s rigorous standards of curation, or preservation. In fact, because it is so very well-known, so passionately loved, and because of its unique historical significance, I might say that those standards have been even ratcheted up a notch, as they say. We preserve an extensive and detailed record of its history and its movements within the museum, and every treatment it receives is scrupulously documented.
I cannot speak to the details of the most recent restoration work, nor to the aesthetics of it. Those discussions are properly held by the restorers and curators who were directly involved with that work. This restoration has provoked much commentary, some positive, some not so positive, all very strongly felt, and all reflecting the importance of this object. The National Air and Space Museum does take note of all these points, and these discussions do provide us guidance as we work to preserve these objects.
I believe the logic used for the inaccurate paint job is that the studio lights “washed out” the details…however photos of the model from that time period, as well as photos of the smaller model indicate a vastly different paint job. For those of us who care very much about this artifact, it is as if someone gave one of the apollo capsules a quick coat of royal blue because it looked “nice” or added lipstick to the Mona Lisa.
It should be corrected.
I would love to see the model painted as it was during Star Trek’s third season. This model is not painted as it was during 1968. It’s known what the model looked like during that time and this, while interesting, isn’t original.
I have to agree.
It should be restored.
At least get rid of the totally inaccurate grid lines on the lower primary.
I just returned from Washington DC about two weeks ago and had the pleasure of visiting my favourite starship again at Air and Space. I must concur with the various opinions that the ‘new’ painting of the model certainly does not reflect what was seen on television. The green grid lines underneath the saucer should certainly be removed.
More importantly, why is the model displayed in the gift shop? I must admit I was disappointed in this location. The lighting is terrible and the paned plexi-glass does not allow for good photography. Why not move the model to the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center (aka The Hanger) display near the Dulles Airport. There is far more room and the model could be properly lit. I also noted that the model/ship from Close Encounters is displayed in the same room as the Enterprise shuttle at the Hanger.
Keep up the great work!
It is always refreshing to read your posts – thanks again and best regards
I really think that if the restoration artists had been concerned with trying to *restore* the model to it’s original condition, they would have brought in as many pictures of the original as they could and tried to get it looking like it did on the TV screen.
Look at it this way: Lucasfilm has hundreds of miniatures they used in the Star Wars films, including the Millennium Falcon 5-foot miniature. If LF had restored the Millennium Falcon in the same manner as the NASM restored the Starship Enterprise, it would probably be gray with bright red panels and heavy soot instead of off-white with rust panels, as it was originally painted. And the fans would have been outraged, especially the modelers who try to replicate the model as it was.
Now, I think if they wanted to get it looking like it should, they would pay fan modelers to restore her. Sounds crazy, but I think they are the only ones who would have the passion and the skills necessary for a *proper* restoration.
And at last, it may be an art, but that does not mean the artist should ignore the original state of the model to make it more . . . ‘hip’.
I just want to tell you that your blog is very interesting, bookmarked