# TOS Galileo Shuttlecraft, The Bob Villa version - Part 4



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

He's been lurking but not saying anything...

Probably either very busy or just tired of us.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I'm here, thanks for the concern. I had some colleauges from overseas visiting this week so I've been busy with early days (working) and light nights (wining and dining). Which all adds up to very little sleep and/or time for much else. And in the middle of that my laptop started it's slow and painful death throws. Anyway... I'm finding myself not much in the mood for sitting at the computer right now until I get a chance to recharge. The back is starting to feel better and should be O.K. again soon.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Darn!
Wish I had some colleauges!
I'd be okay with dining and you KNOW I'd be great at wining! :tongue:

Oh well, it's good to know that at least one of us has a real life. :lol:

I sent a couple of emails. Found a company that can do up to 20" x 20" pieces from 3D computer files! They could actually directly make a 1/24th shuttle, when probably sliced up for molding, in one shot! Which would be 100% accurate to your model.

Zero unavoidable deviation!

They are also allegedly able to do a higher detail level then the other company.

I do have a very strong suspicion that such a construct would be out of my price range, though it might be less then I've already spent on the project if I added it all up. 

However quotes don't cost anything, and I'm real curious to see what the cost would be. 

I also think I've found a way to overcome much of the lack of detail on the interior computer panels from the less expensive company.

Drop me a line when you can.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Here's a pic of the 1/24th scale Picard from PL's Scorpion kit reclining in a class F Shuttlecraft seat.

He's still a little stiff in the arms and legs but I'm sure he's more comfortable.
Especially since I had to remove the sprue from his butt to seat him properly!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

As you can see, the material's finish is too rough.
However the resin I have currently is too thick to make a good copy of it, even though I've molded it in RTV. Even once cast in resin properly parts of it will be very thin. 

Not until I can redo it in resin do I dare try sanding it. 

I'll probably thicken it up a bit and remold it in RTV again to give myself some sanding wiggle room.

But the most important thing is that the basic shape is dead on! 

Thanks again, FourMadMen!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Cool pics Chuck! I'm not ignoring your requests I've just got quite a bit on my plate(s) at the moment so I'm just stealing bit of time here and there for Blender "work". Another week and I should be back to my normal mode of insanely busy (down from the current level of "crazy-a'int-it?" busy).

Us captains of industry :freak: must keep the machine greased and running...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I totally understand. Captain or no captain I understand having to pay the billls before indulging in a hobby, no matter how much we love that hobby.

In the mean time I'll work on parts sheet #3, to be able to do all of the exterior and most of the interior via my current scratchbuild. I'll also put in some work on designing the "Mega-Sheet" that would do most of the shuttle on one 20" x 20" sheet.

Like I said, that will probably be too expensive to have made, but I'd like to find out how much it would cost out of curiosity.

Good luck with your new venture! :thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

To keep the info visible on each page, for convience sake here's the links to the key Galileo Project page, owned by FourMadMen:



http://www.fourmadmen.com/gallery/index.php



Keep in mind that the pages' links contain working views that are in flux. I would recommend members posting recommendations and observations here so tons of people don't repeat the same observations over and over again in individual emails, thus slowing FourMadMen down.



Also, early in the project, X-15A2(Phil Broad) did some incredible work. He already had a great page on his website dedicated to the Galileo. Phil expanded it tremendously and did tons of 2D prints and screen captures to help the project. He did some fantastic exterior 
drawings of the stage prop "as built," meaning that in the exterior prints he posted he wasn't concerned with trying to create an integrated interior/exterior craft, but rather in doing prints which showed the stage prop as close to how it was actually built. Thomas is currently using his prints done for the Galileo project in order to build a 24" filming miniature for "Starship Exeter". Phil also did some prints of interior details and *tons* of valuable screen captures as well. 

Phil had planned to also do a version that integrated an upsized external Galileo wrapped around a full size interior too, but seems to have lost interest in that  .


The great Galileo work Phil Broad has done can be found here:


http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/GalileoTop.htm


Also, a valuable resource for original Trek prop info is the IDICPage, which can be found here:

http://members.aol.com/IDICPage/main.html


Also, for a key link to the plans which inspired me to start this thread in the first place checkout this link to prints which have been posted WITH the author's gracious approval: 


http://www.fourmadmen.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=25


David Winfrey was the first to approach the subject of Galileo Blueprints from the perspective of modeling the interior as close to the sound stage interior as he thought practical, then upsizing the exterior to create a functionally believable craft.



Even if drawn today they would be extremely impressive, and considering the fact that all of this was done by hand in 1989 at a time when far less info was available and when most of the people using the internet wore lab coats and military uniforms they are truly amazing.



His chronology of when certain details were added and his line drawings of them will undoubtedly be incredibly valuable to the project, not to mention the rest of his incredibly inspiring Blues.



Thanks for starting it all Dave Winfrey!


*N.B. Originally this was part of a tremendously larger thread that was begun on January 20th, 2004. *

*For database purposes Thomas attempted to break it up into three roughly equal parts and to then start a fourth. During the creation of the third part that part was lost... So this thread was once much larger.*

*However, here are the links to the 1st*

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=101255&highlight=Galileo+Villa+version

*and second,*

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=101257&highlight=Galileo+Villa+version

*surviving parts of the threads which were not damaged.*
*The stuff from 8-14-04 to 1-14-05... gone... *


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Didn't want this to end up on page 3 without an update.
After getting the "shuttlecraft-on-the-halfshell" renders found the rear end of my top and bottom are about .75" too long. 

Plus am redoing the back...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

... tumbleweeds and dust roll across the abandoned streets...
... dilapidated signs swing in the ghostly, whistling breeze...


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Wagon train to the stars?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Really I should just go buy a scroll saw and do this thing "close enough" for the pieces I have left that I'd prefer to have the parts made for.

But I'm caught in the spiraling web of my own anal retentiveness! 

Now that I see perfectly machined parts for the rear of the ship, which I sort of needed in order to get the roof and aft of the ship just right, 

I badly want to do the front top panel that holds the windows and the wings that way too.

So I haven't messed with it much at all other then casting the parts, and redoing the rear end of the ship. However, I've found out that I'm going to have to lop of about .75" off the back and redo it, thought that part will not be so hard as getting the engine section right, which I've accomplished via the first sheet of parts FourMadMen was able to do in 3D for me.

I've figured a way to do the second and maybe a third sheet of parts all in one shot, if FourMadMen gets time to contact me about it.

I've scheduled a couple of days vacation time with my regular time off at my other job so I'll at least have the rear of the ship done in the next couple of days.

Past that the forecast is cloudy...

Going to watch the rebroadcast of the best episode Enterprise has ever turned out!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Hello everyone. Still sick (and now the baby too). Hopefully I'll be up to making that second sheet next weekend. Hang in there man, and if you have any pics let's please see them.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^ As soon as I hack off and redo the backs I'll be posting some.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Chuck,
It is strange to read about using a scroll saw. I just used mine to cut some plastic for a model I am scratch/kitbashing. It sure beats the Dremel.

4MM,
Hope you get better! I have been sick for two weeks, and just now getting better. Damn sex crazed plants! :wave:


----------



## Thom S. (Sep 28, 2004)

Continued from this thread.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Hello everyone. Still sick (and now the baby too). Hopefully I'll be up to making that second sheet next weekend.


I'm working on a third sheet too. Hopefully it'll have virtually everything remaining needed.

Glad to see you are feeling better, based on your Tardis thread. How's the baby?

Once done I'll email the third sheet to you.

I was thinking, since we have 10" high we can use(but didn't on the first run), why not try something like stackable(in reality cut-able) in-out trays?

We could make them two-tier, one 8" x 8" sheet on top of another by way of side walls, similar to the side walls I included in sheet two to protect the brittle pieces. A thin 1/8" "seam" cut line could be modeled just below where the second tier starts! It would probably be a little cheaper then two seperate sheets and would get them done in one shot too...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

To keep the info visible on each page, for convience sake here's the links to the key Galileo Project page, owned by FourMadMen:



http://www.fourmadmen.com/gallery/index.php



Keep in mind that the pages' links contain working views that are in flux. I would recommend members posting recommendations and observations here so tons of people don't repeat the same observations over and over again in individual emails, thus slowing FourMadMen down.



Also, early in the project, X-15A2(Phil Broad) did some incredible work. He already had a great page on his website dedicated to the Galileo. Phil expanded it tremendously and did tons of 2D prints and screen captures to help the project. He did some fantastic exterior 
drawings of the stage prop "as built," meaning that in the exterior prints he posted he wasn't concerned with trying to create an integrated interior/exterior craft, but rather in doing prints which showed the stage prop as close to how it was actually built. Thomas is currently using his prints done for the Galileo project in order to build a 24" filming miniature for "Starship Exeter". Phil also did some prints of interior details and *tons* of valuable screen captures as well. 

Phil had planned to also do a version that integrated an upsized external Galileo wrapped around a full size interior too, but seems to have lost interest in that  .


The great Galileo work Phil Broad has done can be found here:


http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/GalileoTop.htm


Also, a valuable resource for original Trek prop info is the IDICPage, which can be found here:

http://members.aol.com/IDICPage/main.html


Also, for a key link to the plans which inspired me to start this thread in the first place checkout this link to prints which have been posted WITH the author's gracious approval: 


http://www.fourmadmen.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=25


David Winfrey was the first to approach the subject of Galileo Blueprints from the perspective of modeling the interior as close to the sound stage interior as he thought practical, then upsizing the exterior to create a functionally believable craft.



Even if drawn today they would be extremely impressive, and considering the fact that all of this was done by hand in 1989 at a time when far less info was available and when most of the people using the internet wore lab coats and military uniforms they are truly amazing.



His chronology of when certain details were added and his line drawings of them will undoubtedly be incredibly valuable to the project, not to mention the rest of his incredibly inspiring Blues.



Thanks for starting it all Dave Winfrey!


*N.B. Originally this was part of a tremendously larger thread that was begun on January 20th, 2004. *

*For database purposes Thomas attempted to break it up into three roughly equal parts and to then start a fourth. During the creation of the third part that part was lost... So this thread was once much larger.*

*However, here are the links to the 1st*

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=101255&highlight=Galileo+Villa+version

*second,*

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=101257&highlight=Galileo+Villa+version

*and third,*

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=101267

*surviving parts of the threads which were not damaged.*
*The stuff from 8-14-04 to 1-14-05 which should have been in the third thread... gone... *


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Hope everyone's okay, FourMadMen.
Sent you another parts sheet earlier today.
Was thinking we could stack it over the previous one
making it sort of like a single piece in/out box.

That way they could do both in one shot!
(hopefully cheaper, plus the side walls will help protect them too.)

Please let me know if any of my confusing doodles need explanation.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Here's a few new pics.
These pieces haven't been finished.
The rough resin panel I'm using on the test fit will be replaced with a better one.
The impulse engine module will be sanded and seams cleanly filled.
The side rear has some unsightly seams, but the side wings haven't been added yet and will completely cover them even on the scratchbuilt original. Once I redo the scratchbuilt one in resin they will cease to exist.

I'll also need to make the engine shafts smaller then originally calculated.
But I like the way it's coming together and thought someone might like to see an update.

Sorry about the gloss, paint's not dry yet!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

*Picard at his first tailgate party!!!*


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

*Lesson learned:*

Never trade all your *"nonessential"* shuttle parts to Ferengi for more beer when you are already drunk!!!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Nice pics! But you really should try to get your computer gear back. I know a joker like Picard could never be trusted with a proper shuttle.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^ Yep.

I know it's a classic, but he should have never let the Ferengi turn it into a convertible!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Nice to see the pictures. I really did not believe you were working on it. 
Is that going to be mine? :jest:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

And just so no one forgets what it looks like...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Lloyd Collins said:


> Nice to see the pictures. I really did not believe you were working on it.
> Is that going to be mine? :jest:


Had to do a ton of resizing/shaping the rear end of the top and bottom once I got the machined pieces and the "Galileo-on-the-halfshell" renders.

While it was a lot of work, it doesn't look like I did a lot since the last pics.
Plus the ugly nasty seams where I did the reshaping will show on the side until I add the outer side panels.

On top of the little _apparent_ difference(though I promise there are big differences) the impulse engine housing has to have a new insert added that has very slightly smaller vents. The housing's current vent piece is just sitting in there, as the outer housing that holds it is just sitting there as well.

So with those issues - little _apparent_ difference, nasty seams, unfinished vent insert, I wasn't very enthusiastic about posting new pics.

Also I'm sure that some may have noticed that the impulse vents are slightly different then the TOS ones in style(my size miscalculations aside).

I'll be doing two versions of the impulse vents. One which is identical to the TOS version that is on the current sheet that FourMadMen is working on; and a FourMadMen designed version that is just like the one in the picture but slightly smaller.

For that reason, but also primarily for lighting purposes, the rear impulse engine housing will be a seperate removable piece on the final model.



Lloyd Collins said:


> Is that going to be mine? :jest:


The prototype won't. It probably won't be anywhere near as clean as the resin version I end up with. But who gets what and how will not just be my decision but FourMadMen's as well. 

I may be scratchbuilding the majority of the ship and paying for the machined parts and materials, and I've had a hand in designing and redesigning lots of the pieces. 

But without FourMadMen's 3D modeling and re-modeling I would have never gotten this far. 

I don't have that level of scratchbuilding skill, regardless of how much time I've spent on it. About 2-3 more 8" x 8" parts sheets though and she'll be ready to fly through and through! :thumbsup:


----------



## Steven Coffey (Jan 5, 2005)

Great work ,both of you ! So is this going to end up a kit? If so I want one! That is if I can aford it!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

No telling at this point. Again it wouldn't be up to me, not entirely of course.
I'm just hoping to get 'er done at this point!


----------



## norge71 (Apr 13, 2004)

Ditto what Steven said.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

norge71 said:


> Ditto what Steven said.


 
Lots of people seem interested, but aside from it not being my exclusive decision, I also wouldn't want to even think about seriously suggesting such a thing until I'm finished the scratchbuild. There are so many tons of projects, like the guy who said he was about to do a STTMP Refit dock about 10 months ago, that countless people promise to be "about to" release and months later you never hear a thing.

So I'd seriously never pre-promise such a thing, especially considering how I've been working on it for well over a year(have only been scratchbuilding it for a couple of months, we've been working on the plans in the Galileo thread since January 20th of 2004) and I'm still not done. Also especially considering how I'm not the only one who would have to make the decision.

Right now I'm 100% fixated on satisfying my own personal obsession with the subject, which has seemed to snowball and grow larger as I've put more and more time into it.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

To keep the info visible on each page, for convience sake here's the links to the key Galileo Project page, owned by FourMadMen:



http://www.fourmadmen.com/gallery/index.php



Keep in mind that the pages' links contain working views that are in flux. I would recommend members posting recommendations and observations here so tons of people don't repeat the same observations over and over again in individual emails, thus slowing FourMadMen down.



Also, early in the project, X-15A2(Phil Broad) did some incredible work. He already had a great page on his website dedicated to the Galileo. Phil expanded it tremendously and did tons of 2D prints and screen captures to help the project. He did some fantastic exterior 
drawings of the stage prop "as built," meaning that in the exterior prints he posted he wasn't concerned with trying to create an integrated interior/exterior craft, but rather in doing prints which showed the stage prop as close to how it was actually built. Thomas is currently using his prints done for the Galileo project in order to build a 24" filming miniature for "Starship Exeter". Phil also did some prints of interior details and *tons* of valuable screen captures as well. 

Phil had planned to also do a version that integrated an upsized external Galileo wrapped around a full size interior too, but seems to have lost interest in that  .


The great Galileo work Phil Broad has done can be found here:


http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/GalileoTop.htm


Also, a valuable resource for original Trek prop info is the IDICPage, which can be found here:

http://members.aol.com/IDICPage/main.html


Also, for a key link to the plans which inspired me to start this thread in the first place checkout this link to prints which have been posted WITH the author's gracious approval: 


http://www.fourmadmen.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=25


David Winfrey was the first to approach the subject of Galileo Blueprints from the perspective of modeling the interior as close to the sound stage interior as he thought practical, then upsizing the exterior to create a functionally believable craft.



Even if drawn today they would be extremely impressive, and considering the fact that all of this was done by hand in 1989 at a time when far less info was available and when most of the people using the internet wore lab coats and military uniforms they are truly amazing.



His chronology of when certain details were added and his line drawings of them will undoubtedly be incredibly valuable to the project, not to mention the rest of his incredibly inspiring Blues.



Thanks for starting it all Dave Winfrey!


*N.B. Originally this was part of a tremendously larger thread that was begun on January 20th, 2004. *

*For database purposes Thomas attempted to break it up into three roughly equal parts and to then start a fourth. During the creation of the third part that part was lost... So this thread was once much larger.*

*However, here are the links to the 1st*

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=101255&highlight=Galileo+Villa+version

*second,*

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=101257&highlight=Galileo+Villa+version

*and third,*

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=101267

*surviving parts of the threads which were not damaged.*

*The stuff from 8-14-04 to 1-14-05 which should have been in the third thread... gone... *


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> ...Hopefully I'll be up to making that second sheet next weekend. Hang in there man, and if you have any pics let's please see them.


I should have replied to this a week and a half ago but forgot.
Please don't forget to do the _underside_ vents(that can be seen from the front) equi-distant and as a flat sheet. I'll then mold them in some flexible resin and then apply the panel to the prototype. Molding and sanding the panel the proper depth while curve would be very difficult. Plus the current vents are a little off. They look evenly spaced from below because of the curve of the hull, but don't look natural as the vents are actually different distances from one another.

On the TOS-style engine insert, please use second version I sent which has them reduced in size a bit. You don't have to trim the left and right sides I marked in red. I can do that myself. Just need the slightly smaller TOS style version vents.

If you need clarification on any of this please email me.

Thanks again in advance!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Haven't had a chance to even start Blender in what a week? More? Can't say exactly but having withdrawals. Anyway, I thought I'd post a few images or where we've been with the shuttlecraft. So, here we go...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)




----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

_And dusting off the the WayBack machine..._


----------



## nx01Rob (Mar 1, 2005)

Oooooo very nice..


----------



## Steven Coffey (Jan 5, 2005)

Stunning ! :thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Peeeeeerty!!! 

It's been a long, long, winding road my friend!
When I look at some of the tons of crude 2D sketches and pics we've emailed back and forth and redone over and over for the last year it's hard to believe we've gotten so close and gotten this puppy done as thoroughly as it now stands in 3D...

But don't forget to replace the fourth cylinder with the Scotty Potty. :lol:

After the parts sheets, of course. 

On that subject. When you do get a chance to do 2 and 3, they could be combined by making the second one I sent appear on the _*bottom*_ of the third, with the side walls in place, of course. That way it could be flipped over for molding. Or, better yet, it could be done like two four-sided in-out boxes stacked but made as one piece with a seam where it would be safe for me to cut the two apart. That way we could do 2 at once and save some time and bucks.​

Just got two Refit kits today!​

So I'll have a little something to keep me busy in the meantime and will probably be pestering you a lot less about the shuttlecraft. Again, thanks a ton for getting me this far. :thumbsup:​


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Just think Chuck, now you have more shuttles to build with the refit.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Those aren't very interesting. Even more box-like then the Class F.

Even if I never end up finishing one now that interest seems to have dried up, at least the Project left behind a ton of reference info that can be used in the future.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

OK man. Things begin to settle down and I've had a chance to go over the sheet requests in detail. However they are in some obscure Andorian dialect that I'm having trouble understanding. One more time in English please sir


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

So Chuck is and Andorian spy. DON'T GIVE HIM THE INFORMATION!! It will be the end of the Federation. I will get him! Phasers on kill, neck pinch. We are doomed!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> OK man. Things begin to settle down and I've had a chance to go over the sheet requests in detail. However they are in some obscure Andorian dialect that I'm having trouble understanding. One more time in English please sir


Thought that might be a problem...

Here are two files one you already have another I don't think you do...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^The underside starboard vents are the simplest part. I'd like to have them done flat and the background panel about three times higher then it actually is on the bottom of the ship.

The problem with the original was though they looked equidistant apart, the two rows of actual individual vents are actually spaced different distances apart. If you could do it flat and equidistanced apart I can use some flexible resin and glue it to the main body.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^The two front slices of the hull are done in a way so I can insert a clear piece of plastic in the middle. 

The outer "slice" should completely contain all curves from the top of the forward roof to the outer rim. The inner slice should be simply flat except for the curve at the top of the roof. Please make the top curve or the inner front slice slightly shorter(about .08"). That way I can curve the front of the roof over in and have it meet the front slice level.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^

On the engine block, you can use the main shape of the first render, but I would like the engines vents to be smaller and designed/spaced more like as seen in TOS. I inserted redrawn vents. If you could cut them into the taller version of your engine.

If you could trim them a bit as seen in red that would help but isn't necessary.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I haven't seen Chuck this happy in awhile. Ok,cancel red alert!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I'm good on all of that sheet but the fronts. Are you wanting two copies of it one flat and one curved? Bear in mind that I can't reliably (i.e. with precision) flatten the curved forward section. Flattening the vent is one thing (mostly given to the fact that I would flatten what's there now, just make a new rectangle with depth for the vent to sit on).


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Lloyd Collins said:


> I haven't seen Chuck this happy in awhile. Ok,cancel red alert!


OK, but don't tell him I'm leaving for vacation first thing in the morning. Might have to restrain him or sedate him (or both).


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> I'm good on all of that sheet but the fronts. Are you wanting two copies of it one flat and one curved? Bear in mind that I can't reliably (i.e. with precision) flatten the curved forward section. Flattening the vent is one thing (mostly given to the fact that I would flatten what's there now, just make a new rectangle with depth for the vent to sit on).


Think of the bulkhead as one piece between the exterior/interior viewed from the side.

Then slice the forward, curved piece. which would then leave a second slice(viewed from the side) that would be flat. The outside "slice" containing the curves and regular window cavities. The inside second "slice" containing a rectangular "depression" larger then the three windows then continuing with three regular size window cutouts(sort of the _reverse_ of the AMT kit, in which you can see the the clear panel that is supposed to go _behind_ the windows from the inside, on ours, that clear piece would go between the two panels).


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> OK, but don't tell him I'm leaving for vacation first thing in the morning. Might have to restrain him or sedate him (or both).


No need. You could just finish everything before the morning. That would be okay.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Okay, here's the other sheet and explaination.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^ The only parts that really need explaination is that the nacelles/endcaps should be reduced by 4% in diameter so that they are exactly 1" in diameter. The high rez 600 dpi version of the 8" sheets I sent should be scaled to 600 pixels per inch.
So another way to rescale them would be to make them 600 pixels in diameter on the sheet.

The side vents for the nacelles, please do the same way as the underside vents - flat and equidistant, sticking out of the background sheet higher then from the actual model...

The wings are the only things that are a little more difficult to convey...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

They should remain the same size. No changes to that.

The Wing pieces, as shown, should extend horizontally into the hull as far as the interior wall surfaces, deeper into the nacelles, too.

I'd like to change a couple of the holes in the underside "crossbeams" so that we can "thicken" the cavity highlighted in green in order to make the wings significantly stronger. The increased thickness will not be visible from the front, side or the rear, and probably difficult to see when viewed from below...

Hope this all makes sense...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Let me know when your vacation is over, 4MMen. I've got some stuff I want to ship to you but don't want to send it when you are not home.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I'm home. Got some stuff to say about the preceeding posts but might not get to that until tomorrow.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Welcome back!
I'll send out that stuff I haven't been able to ship Monday morning.

Hope the front piece explanation was sufficient.
Basically I want to take a slice of the front hull past the curve part(also leaving the front "lip" of the ship intact); then slice it at the curve, thus leaving the second flat piece. The second flat slice would have one rectangular cavity extending past the edges of the three window cavities so I can insert a piece of clear rectangular plastic for the windows between the two.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> ^^^The two front slices of the hull are done in a way so I can insert a clear piece of plastic in the middle.
> 
> The outer "slice" should completely contain all curves from the top of the forward roof to the outer rim. The inner slice should be simply flat except for the curve at the top of the roof. Please make the top curve or the inner front slice slightly shorter(about .08"). That way I can curve the front of the roof over in and have it meet the front slice level.


OK, Sliceman. Do you intend both "slices" (when combined) to form the outer hull surface and the inner hull surface (as seen by an occupant)?

If so then I must remind you that the inner hull is smaller than the outer. Or are you excluding the part of the "face" where it physically meets the interior? I must also remind you that the model is not made out of cheese. Any slicing will require a non-small amount of effort. Not a problem as long as it's done the way you need it the first time around.

Also please take this next question in the fun and friendly way it is intended: You are planning on scratch building some part of the shuttle? The doors perhaps? :tongue:


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Put him on the spot. Make him sweat. LOL


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> OK, Sliceman. Do you intend both "slices" (when combined) to form the outer hull surface and the inner hull surface (as seen by an occupant)?


Yes.



Four Mad Men said:


> OK, Sliceman. Do you intend both "slices" (when combined) to form the outer hull surface and the inner hull surface (as seen by an occupant)?
> 
> If so then I must remind you that the inner hull is smaller than the outer.


Yes. But if you think of the areas between the outer hull and inner as filled and solid(which they wouldn't be in a "real" shuttle but will be on a model) they would be the same size.

The key to the whole thing is putting in the rectangular cavity on the inner face then going down to the normal window size openings(sort of the reverse of what you see on the AMT kit that has a rectangular cavity on the inside, this cavity will allow the windows to be sandwiched between the two). 



Four Mad Men said:


> OK, Sliceman. Do you intend both "slices" (when combined) to form the outer hull surface and the inner hull surface (as seen by an occupant)?
> 
> If so then I must remind you that the inner hull is smaller than the outer. Or are you excluding the part of the "face" where it physically meets the interior? I must also remind you that the model is not made out of cheese. Any slicing will require a non-small amount of effort. Not a problem as long as it's done the way you need it the first time around.
> 
> Also please take this next question in the fun and friendly way it is intended: You are planning on scratch building some part of the shuttle? The doors perhaps? :tongue:


I thought I'd put the doors on the next sheet...

Hey, I've already done the big honkin' body!!! Getting the curves on the underside alone was a bitchin' task!

Besides, there are key pieces that just *have* to look right and machined. Your eyes are just naturally drawn to them. If the front and rear don't look right, the whole thing looks off...


I could do the doors, but since we will probably have to do one more sheet to do the rest of the interior helm, etc we might do just add that too...

I've figured out a way around the limited detail that the process provides that could vastly improve the computer consoles, but those aren't urgent now. Though I really would like to see the chair base on the B sheet.

After the A and B sheets are done, you could slap the A sheet(with front slices, engines, underside vents, etc) on the bottom of the more delicate B sheet.

That way we could get them both done in one shot!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Enterprise mirror episode 2 is one!

I'm off to watch more of NX-01 Rob's handiwork!

I'll be back shortly!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

If there is anything else unclear about either sheets just let me know, 4MadMen.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I think I've got it. I'll let you know. Stay tuned...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Will do!

I got the day off tommorrow and between reading up on Microstation J plan on going to see Batman Begins at the local Imax theater.

But I'll still be tuned in and waiting with baited breath(ran out of Altoids).


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Remind me again what I'm doing for you Mr. Smarty Pants. I can't seem to remember. It was something about... hmm... it's on the tip of my brain...



I think it was this stuff^^^


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I was looking at a magazine of mine,and found photos of the full size Galileo being built. Ever seen the before?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Yep. We had a link that Capt Locknar hosted early in the project with about 20 of the original pics in it.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

If you are interested in seeing them all I can see if I can find the link.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Sure I would like to see them, if you can find the link.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

4MM,
I don't mean to hijack the thread but could you do a DY-100 "Botany Bay" as your next graphical challenge?

Thanks...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Hey no problem. I have in fact already started one. Although at this point I should probably get back to finishing the USS Cairo and my K-7 (along with the standard arry of diversions along the way).


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

The needs for 3D projection to a 2D viewing plane (i.e. rendering) are one thing. And the needs for solid geometry 3D printing (i.e. physical object creation) are vastly different. I'll let you decide which is more a pain in the a** with a model not created for the latter.

Now given 1) the level of effort and aggravation I just put in/up-with and 2) None of the objects you see here are as they exist on the model itself... there truly is only one reply possible.

Oh, yes. Here is an image...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Lloyd Collins said:


> Sure I would like to see them, if you can find the link.


I found the link. But unfortunately they aren't working.
I'll email you everything I have though as soon as I can dig them up.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Someone want to go check on Chuck? He may have collapsed.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Someone want to go check on Chuck? He may have collapsed.


I'm here!

That's Beautiful!

Somehow last night your post didn't show up when I responded to Lloyd's comment. Even though mine was allegedly done two minutes later then yours. Weird.

That looks fantastic!

I do have to ask, are the vent holes slightly smaller horizontally(horizontally from the model view rather then the parts sheet view) on the impulse engine then on your original set? It's hard to tell from the picture above. Could also be that you were able to physically trim off the sides making the smaller vents look close to the original ones.

Anyhow it's gorgeous!
Thanks a ton! :thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> The needs for 3D projection to a 2D viewing plane (i.e. rendering) are one thing. And the needs for solid geometry 3D printing (i.e. physical object creation) are vastly different. I'll let you decide which is more a pain in the a** with a model not created for the latter.
> 
> Now given 1) the level of effort and aggravation I just put in/up-with and 2) None of the objects you see here are as they exist on the model itself... there truly is only one reply possible.
> 
> Oh, yes. Here is an image...


Like I said above, gorgeous!

I know and apologize for the fact that these are a pain in the butt.

Look at it this way, your artistic vision will remain unbelemished, undilitued, uncompromised!

Thanks again! 


P.S. I'd like to slap this one on the bottom of the next sheet if possible, then I could send them both in as one piece and probably save a buck or two. But if that's not possible I totally understand.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> So another way to rescale them would be to make them 600 pixels in diameter on the sheet.


Sorry, we don't deal in pixels 'round these parts. You from New York City or sumthin'?



Chuck_P.R. said:


> nacelles/endcaps should be reduced by 4% in diameter so that they are exactly 1" in diameter


Well I don't see the nacelles on the sample pic so I'll assume you mean the forward and rear caps. And can I have more details on the tenons (as in mortise and tenon joint) you've shown in your image. Here I'll assume that how you want to attach them to the nacelle body. Either way, more details please. Now...
The nacelle diameter is 1.034". At 96% that makes the new diameter 0.99264". And just to confirm: the length stays the same? If so, colour me confused.



Chuck_P.R. said:


> The side vents for the nacelles...


Got it. No questions.



Chuck_P.R. said:


> The wings


Again, no questions (pain in the butt, but no questions).

Now...

The rear landing pad: Going by the picture it looks like you want it upside now? Are you sure?
Chair base: Not really pictured. I'll assume your going to mold them in situ and want it standing as it would inside the shuttlecraft.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^
"Sorry, we don't deal in pixels 'round these parts. You from New York City or sumthin'?"

Hey! I might be dumb, but that's no excuse for calling me a New Yorker! 


"Well I don't see the nacelles on the sample pic so I'll assume you mean the forward and rear caps. And can I have more details on the tenons (as in mortise and tenon joint) you've shown in your image. Here I'll assume that how you want to attach them to the nacelle body. Either way, more details please. Now...
The nacelle diameter is 1.034". At 96% that makes the new diameter 0.99264". And just to confirm: the length stays the same? If so, colour me confused."

You are correct about my talking about the forward and rear endcaps.
Perhaps my calculations were a little off, maybe 96.001%?. I do want to bring down the diameter to exactly 1 inch, and yes, please keep the length the same.

The reason being is I can then use standard stock PVC or styrene tubing for the nacelles and there won't be any discernable difference in nacelle diameter. It would be discernable if the endcaps were a little too big or small, but the reduced diameter endcaps shouldn't affect the model's look.

As to the connection on the endcaps, I'd just like to reduce the inner diameter.
Since I don't yet have the stock cylinders it's better to over-reduce then under-reduce the inner "plugs." I can always add a thicker "ring" around the inner "plugs" later before final molding.

I think I once sent a side view of the front/rear endcaps. Did you get them?(may be in your inbox from a way's back)

Also hope you got the info on extending the "wings" surfaces deep into the interior of the side hulls and nacelles for fitting.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Alright I think I've got it.

You know, you can get a subtractive RP system that will make parts 6 x 4 x 2-3/8 for *$2,995.00* (I think perhaps you should get one of these). Could make solid parts. But maybe better yet, just use it to make a mold as step 1.

For 8 x 6 x 2-3/8 the price jumps $4,995.00

Either of these can also be fitted for 3D Scanning. Be sure to let us know when you place your order.

Milling Resolution: 0.00024''
Scanning Resolution: 0.002"


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Alright I think I've got it.
> 
> You know, you can get a subtractive RP system that will make parts 6 x 4 x 2-3/8 for *$2,995.00* (I think perhaps you should get one of these). Could make solid parts. But maybe better yet, just use it to make a mold as step 1.
> 
> ...


Gee, just $5K?
Seems cheap but it's capacity is way too small to be of interest to me.


I recently found a company who can do 20" x 20" x 20" prototypes.
Wonder how much their equipment cost?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I'd go for the $3000 one myself. So just order that one and I think you'll be happy.

And speaking of my DY-100. Here it is (so far)...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Looks like the beginning of an interesting Blender lesson! 

By the way, the impulse engine vents on the parts sheet above, were they trimmed and/or made slightly smaller horizontally(when seen from the "installed" angle)?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Getting the nose correct was way eaiser than I thought it would be. Nailed it on the first try.

And yes, the impulse deck has been trimmed.

Mrs. Four Mad Men left this morning on a weekend trip (she also left the kids with me) so I haven't had a large enough block of time to do anything with the next partsheet but I'll get to it tomorrow or Sunday. Three bags full, Sir!

Now don't be alarmed. I'm going to start a thread for my DY-100 class. Work and the kids took most of the day today but I did do a few things to it. Let's not have any histrionics. "All work and no play" and all that.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

"histrionics." Heck I couldn't even spell it if you hadn't first!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Well you seem to have taken that pretty well. I found an obscure bug in Blender that has forced me to start over with the 3rd sheet. Last night when I rendered the in progress sheet, the majority of my faces were invisible. Nothing I could do would brind them back into visibility. Remind me to never do that again. So here is where I stand currently...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck, you are now offically cut-off until I see some shuttle progress. And while you're at it have a go at scratchbuilding _something_


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

No sweat. Looks cool! I'm guessing you can shift that stuff around a bit. Will need to fit the two wings diagonally.

On the front nacelle caps, could you perhaps insert a slanted reduction ring to have a 7/8" cavity for store-bought nacelle half hemispheres? It didn't register until just now that there wasn't a reduction ring there. It shouldn't be very deep at all. Just deep enough to hide any glue from adding the forward caps.

On the chair, could you insert a small plug on the bottom center for insertion into the deck? Also if you could add the knobs to them too and thicken them slightly port to starbord I'd appreciate it.

On the vents, you probably already did it, but if not please try to make the side vents protrude from the bottom plane of the sheet more then they would from the nacelle walls. I'll just pour less deeply when making them.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

And just which part of "cut-off" does everyone think Chuck doesn't understand?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> No sweat. Looks cool! I'm guessing you can shift that stuff around a bit. Will need to fit the two wings diagonally.
> 
> On the front nacelle caps, could you perhaps insert a slanted reduction ring to have a 7/8" cavity for store-bought nacelle half hemispheres? It didn't register until just now that there wasn't a reduction ring there. It shouldn't be very deep at all. Just deep enough to hide any glue from adding the forward caps.
> 
> ...


The two wings are diagonal and they fit on the sheet perfectly. What? You fink I"m sum sorta maroon?

As for the rest, I'm sorry I wen't with the orignal (and several subsequent copies thereof) requirements document. Any changes after the fact will require a full round of discussions and sign-offs. Could take weeks.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> The two wings are diagonal and they fit on the sheet perfectly. What? You fink I"m sum sorta maroon?


I always pictured you being a shade of green...



Four Mad Men said:


> As for the rest, I'm sorry I wen't with the orignal (and several subsequent copies thereof) requirements document. Any changes after the fact will require a full round of discussions and sign-offs. Could take weeks.


As Rosan, Rosanna Danna would say "Never Mind!"


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Chuck, you are now offically cut-off until I see some shuttle progress. And while you're at it have a go at scratchbuilding _something_


Hey! How'd ya sneek that in?!? 

Could have sworn this wasn't there a few minutes ago!

Have any more views?

Any chance you included the rings behind the front nacelle caps?

However you snuck it in, it's gorgeous!!!!

I'm off to check my email for the 3-D versions!  :thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Chuck, you are now offically cut-off until I see some shuttle progress. And while you're at it have a go at scratchbuilding _something_


I just started scratchbuilding a DY-100 by hand.

I'll post pics later tonight when I get home from work.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Ummm... could you email me the 3D files?

I'll send them off tommorrow for the quote.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

A DY-100, cool.

Can't say that I snuck that image in as it was part of the original post.

I haven't sent the file yet because I need to assemble the two sheets on top of each other. Also about the whole 7/8" reduction front cap bit... I think I understand all of that except the "slanted" part. If you can clarify what you mean by that tonight I'll get it in there otherwise I'll do the rest and get it assembled.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Post Some More Pictures,Chuck!!!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

What's the definition of "scratchbuilding" again? Perhaps my dictionary has a mistake in it.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

No model parts involved.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> A DY-100, cool.
> 
> Can't say that I snuck that image in as it was part of the original post.
> 
> I haven't sent the file yet because I need to assemble the two sheets on top of each other. Also about the whole 7/8" reduction front cap bit... I think I understand all of that except the "slanted" part. If you can clarify what you mean by that tonight I'll get it in there otherwise I'll do the rest and get it assembled.


Here ya' go.

If you can't make the side walls of the sheets thick enough with the 8" x 8" to support the weight don't worry about the sheet combination. Remember there has to be a little space around each part for the RTV molds to be able to hold up without tearing earlier then they would if they were thicker.

There are a couple of ways to go in combining them if you have the time and room.

Stacked trays like letter boxes for one.

But a simpler and more preferable way would be to put the sheet with the impulse engine and two front pieces on the *bottom* of the base of the third sheet.

Key to this must be that all four side walls coming down must be the same depth and thick enough to protect the bottom pieces.

The more I think about it the more I'm inclined to do them both seperately.
May be more expensive but safer in the long run.
If you can do them both ways I might just send them in both ways for seperate quotes.


[Ducks and covers as he runs from the room...]


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

OK, two seperate files then. And, yes, the "thing-a-ma-bobs" are there you just can't see them very well in the render I posted.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

BTWay, did you ever read that email about that company that does up to 20" x 20" x 20" buildups? The one that uses the smoother PVC type finish and that can do thinner parts?

If you want to try and do a single sheet version like the mockup I sent you(I can resend if you never got it) I'd be curious to see what kind of quote they would give me.

Heck, quotes are free.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> OK, two seperate files then. And, yes, the "thing-a-ma-bobs" are there you just can't see them very well in the render I posted.


Kewl! :thumbsup:

If you could send me a duplicate in Blender as well as the other format we sent in last time I'd like to play around with the copies a little. Not that I have the ability to do anything with them yet. At this early stage I'm a little bit like a chimp with a calculator as far as 3D programs are concerned.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Please resend the stuff your talking about as it's been awhile.

Just sent the STLs will get a .blend out to you as well.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Kewl! Thanks! :thumbsup:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Didn't you promise us some pictures?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Didn't you promise us some pictures?


Oops!

Forgot. Give me a few minutes...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Here ya' go! 
Before shot showing materials.
After shot - not sure about the scale...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

We are NOT amused.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Chuck, your pictures of the shuttle nacelles are just......wait a minute! You built them backwards! I am going to have to strap you in a chair, and force you to watch episodes of Barney and PeeWee Herman, for making that mistake!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Lloyd Collins said:


> Chuck, your pictures of the shuttle nacelles are just......wait a minute! You built them backwards! I am going to have to strap you in a chair, and force you to watch episodes of Barney and PeeWee Herman, for making that mistake!


They aren't nacelles silly!

Can't you recognize a scratchbuilt Botany Bay when you see one? :tongue:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> We are NOT amused.


Darn!

I've failed you again... 

Try this out then:
http://www.wigwamvillage.com/

don't forget to download the cool IPIX pictures!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I thought the botany bay had trees? Oh they are tree trunks.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Lloyd Collins said:


> I thought the botany bay had trees? Oh they are tree trunks.


I know they are incredibly similar, but I think you are confusing Kahn's ship from Star Trek TOS with the movie Silent Running...

Go back two pages in this thread for 4MadMen's first rendering of the DY-102 and also what I wrote on the last page and maybe what we are talking about on this page will become clear.

Keep up with the class, young Lloyd!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Yes, my master!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

"The Smart A** force is strong in this one!


Lloyd I must be your ...."


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

FourMadMen, 

please check your blender mailbox.

just got a question from the buildup guys that I don't have a clue how to answer!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Relax man. Answer is on the way.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I'm perfect relaxed. Guess I need to cut down on my use of the exclaimation point!

Oops! Did it again!
Darn!
Again!

nevermind...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

While we are waiting for the parts sheets, any interest in working on the blueprint views, 4MadMen?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

BTWay also sent some info you'll be happy to get via PM, 4Madmen.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I know it has been awhile, but here is a new pic.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Shall we assume the part sheet came in? How did it look? Pictures?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

The two front pieces came out too thin, but that was my fault for not being too specific or double checking.

I was able to correct them though. I basically used rtv filled in windows on the second piece that I glued together and stuck into a homemade mold.

The outer piece will need a little trimming. I'll try to do more picks later tonight.

The other two pieces on sheet two came out perfect! I'll be sending in sheet 3 for buildup at the end of next week.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

When did you start working on the Galileo model? :freak: 

Oh! Wait a minute. It has been so long I forgot you were doing it. :jest: 

It is not space worthy yet, but looking really good! :thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Shall we assume the part sheet came in? How did it look? Pictures?


Sorry it took so long.
Working two jobs plus my air conditioning went out, which in New Orleans becomes more of an immediate concern then a refrigerator full of food breaking down. 

This shows all the parts except for the one that goes behind the front curved panel. That one was too thin for an insert or to represent the bulkhead so I tried to modify it, in the process screwed it up. But I was able to use the window cut outs from the front curved piece(original seen painted in blue to smooth it out before molding) to make my own.

There were slight variations in height/width that ended up forcing me to take the curved part off the bottom of the front panel but that will be replaced with a slightly narrower version before long.

Basically everything except that one piece came out fantastic!



P.S. Any way you can provide me with two "dead-on" render views, 4MadMen?
One of the upper door half from a point directly parallel from the upper starboard hull, and one of the bottom half done the same way?

I want to get them as perfect as possible and all of the side orthographics necessarily show the top and bottom from a slanted position...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

N.B. No need for the side tilted renders, FourMadMen.
While figuring out the measurement via fore and port comparison I noticed that a couple of corrections needed to be made to the 3D version. Nothing big, first the windows were missing the slight outer slant, second the doors at the point of the hull horizontal centerpoint needed to have straight sides.
No biggie. 

I was able to get the right dimensions for the door and opening by just cross drawing the appropriate lines between the fore and port views and measuring the slanted lines in the fore view.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

How did your shuttle fare in the storm, and breakin?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I found all of the parts and most of the physical 1/24th scale printouts I had made.
My hard drive was fried by a lightning strike at my transformer(my power company actually left the charred old transformer on the sidewalk for a good while as they were stringing up new lines and poles to quickly to carry the old stuff along with them). 

So tons of research pics, blues, 3D orthographics, etc are gone.

However since FourMadMen essentially finalized his 3D model he's assured me he can email the info I might need as I go along.

Soon I plan on ordering the next to last batch of 3D parts. I'll have to make sure they are Fed-Ex'ed though, or sent by UPS. Mail service down here is useless. The USPS claims they are only blocking "junk mail". However, I've only gotten 6 letters in 3 months. I haven't gotten a third of the bills that were mailed to me muchless junk mail!
My aunt who lives next door to me had a relative send her a package via Priority Mail, which the USPS assured her was trackable and would definitely get through, and IT has yet to arrive!

The sob's at the USPS have to be simply throwing away MOST of the mail headed our way to New Orleans - first class stuff as well as junk mail. There is no other explanation.

But Fed Ex and UPS seems to be getting through okay.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Not all is lost, then. That is good news. Good thing it was you and 4MM. If you had everthing on your own, then POOF! You need to make a backup on disc, if you can. When it comes to packages, I prefer UPS, and FedEX. USPS, I don't trust, but a lot of the shippers, ship that way.


----------



## marcal (Jun 2, 2005)

Sorry to be late on that thread...

I have detailing decals for the Galileo II (AMT/ERTL). You can detail the interior, like control panels, etc...

Maybe it is too late, but here is the link:

www.galileo2.org

then click on "store" (left side)


and please, do not paint that shuttle the way I did, it was horrible !


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Chuck,

Any work on your Galileo? Just asking, no pressure.

Lloyd


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Have to get some new blades for my band saw.
Glad you reminded me!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Doing my part.


----------



## KARR X (Feb 15, 2006)

I will soon be building a Full scale Shuttle for Star Trek Excalibur :thumbsup: Just thought that yall would like to know that all the info on here is great.http://www.startrekexcalibur.com/ 
My name is Cameron and Im the head of construction for the project. 
Our Shuttle "Armstrong" will be rigged for filming interior and exterior shots.

Let me know what yall think ..........


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Hi Cameron,

Will you be basing your Shuttlecraft on my plans of the Galileo (found here: http://cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/ShuttlecraftPlans/GalileoVaultExteriorPlans.htm )? If so, it would be very cool if you could send me some shots of it to post on my web site. I checked out the Excalibur web site, it looks like it will be a really fun project.

Phil Broad


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

I was fortunate enough to be the only bidder on a shuttlecraft-style Burke chair on Ebay last week, and acquired it for a song. With this rapidly-delivered (and relatively comfortable) item, I've 3 questions:

1)Anyone want measurements?

2)Anyone feel up to designing/drafting the (shuttle-style, of course) support base (I've the chair only...no legs...not that I wanted any)?

3)Anyone know where I would search (hopefully locally to Nashville TN) for an individual capable of replicating said chair 6-8 times in a load-bearing material? I've a reference book to making stage props and dressings, which describes at some length the use of fiberglas (which I presume would serve) -- but also says the chemicals employed are quite dangerous in and of themselves, and prone to explosion(!) if a particular pair are mixed. Offhand, I don't think I'll be trying the Merriman-route in THIS particular bit of "model" making...

Trekkist


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

Regarding question 2 -- d'oh! I'd forgotten Phil (thanks, Phil!) had already done that.

Questions 1 & 2 stand, however.

Trekkist


----------



## portland182 (Jul 19, 2003)

There's a Burke on now with no bids yet!

Eames era fiberglass ORANGE tulip shell Burke chair Item number: 6610858742 

Jim


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Just for "old times" sake when most of the info in this thread hadn't been lost...


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

1st (not guaranteed precise) measurements:

width overall 24.5 in
height overall 17 in

Portland192 said:

>There's a Burke on now with no bids yet!

Eames era fiberglass ORANGE tulip shell Burke chair Item number: 6610858742 

HEY! Don't go telling EVERYONE!!!

Trekkist


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Tell me about it. It's up to 41 bucks so far. Makes it hard to snipe once everyone starts running stuff up.  

Some nutter has a set of four, with table no less, that has a mere $295 shipping cost. Yes, that's for shipping! Buy it now was on the order of $595. I'd really like to have something like that for the pool but yeeesh(!!!!) that's outrageous.

Thanks for the measurements *trekkist*, I wonder if it would be possible to measure the shuttle interior set from something like that? Ah well... where is Chuck when you need him?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I'm here!

Got home from a 16 hour workday about 40 minutes or so ago.
I'm bushed!

IF and that's a big if with my worn out and sleep deprived mind in the state it is, if I remember correctly we used an even more precise way to measure the interior of the first cabin. One of the computer panels was measured via measurements taken by an ebay auction of one of the side computer panels that was used both in the shuttlecraft and on a couple of "industrial size" computer systems. That's how we figured out which of the standard lamp and switch sizes were used.

Once we had that info we were able to pretty much confirm what someone else had guessed earlier and seemed self evident, that the vertical panels that were complete(equal width) were 48 inches wide. I believe in the process of trying to fit everything under the 31.9' length we and Trekist both came up with as a minimum length we shaved 6" off those panels and shifted the chair spacing to an unnoticable degree.

We made sure to start the first vertical panel line where it started on the TOS original interior set relative to the helm. I believe the first panel forward of that point was less then 42" and the last panel before the middle wall was also less then 42". Then I used pixel measurements to determine the forward piece's sub-42" width and the shorter then 42" rear panel's width where it intersected with the front of the middle wall between the two cabins.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Tell me about it. It's up to 41 bucks so far. Makes it hard to snipe once everyone starts running stuff up.
> 
> Some nutter has a set of four, with table no less, that has a mere $295 shipping cost. Yes, that's for shipping! Buy it now was on the order of $595. I'd really like to have something like that for the pool but yeeesh(!!!!) that's outrageous.
> 
> Thanks for the measurements *trekkist*, I wonder if it would be possible to measure the shuttle interior set from something like that? Ah well... where is Chuck when you need him?


BTWay, there is sniping software I've seen offered on Ebay for less then a buck that can be emailed to you.

It supposedly is incredibly precise in snipping less then a second prior to the auction end and is automatic. It even sinks your computer's clock to Ebay's online clock.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Any front to back(sideview) measurements of the black plastic chair part?
(the problem with measuring that depth accurately is that the furthest forward part of the chair is at the lowest part of the black plastic seat and the furtherst rear part is at the lip at the top part of the chair.

If you can find a three foot wide caliper that might help you take an accurate measurement Trekist.:tongue:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

N.B. Also remember, on the chair specs, once we decided we could not avoid changing the height of the interior cabin's horizontal centerline to match the exterior centerline the base of the chair had to be adjusted in height(width too, to make the change less noticable) so everyone looked to be sitting at the same height relative to the side wall computers' horizontal positioning.

I have no idea if the above paragraph's sentences are at all clear. I'll try to check back tommorrow and give it another shot if not. :wave:


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

Well...it wasn't clear to me. But then, it's 3:38 AM and I'm unsure how much sleep I've had in the last 48 hrs (not enough).

My best thought on taking precise measurements of the chair is attach an interim base (nothing more than a large-diameter tube attached with Elmers) and attach that to a rig via which I can station the chair normally, on its side and lying back -- all angles verified via use of a level across or along the length of the arms -- and then drop a plumb bob to the floor to produce a tracing. A laborious process to say the least...but subject to no error but that of the "operator."

In the meantime, Chuck, could I trouble you for a collection of all final-draft non-perspective-type diagrams produced by you and FourMad over the last -- what is it now, 2 years? Even wide awake, I weary at the thought of paging through the first two parts of this ever-lengthening thread.

My intent is to replicate the cabin interior in full scale from the back of the hatch forward. I figure on producing a 1:12 study model to resolve construction issues, but remain (if I recall correctly...been a long time since I've lurked here) convinced that the shuttle interior is -- due to its height/width proportions -- significantly narrower than the exterior. Though this does away with the thin-walled "look through the door at that giant anthropoid" shot(s), it doesn't trouble me a whit more than pretending Kirk didn't say "24 foot" -- being as how it allows for A)an airlock & B)space suit storage (as well as vehicle "guts," for which space is otherwise sadly lacking).

But obviously, I've got to be damn sure of achieving an "as depicted on screen" result before I start cutting plywood.

Trekkist


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Not a problem as long as it's okay with FourMadMen.

However I hope you have a huge mailbox per-message allotment. As a zip file it's about 99MB.

We sent far more information between ourselves then ever appeared in the thread. Most of the stuff I did was photo breakdown and doing strictly 2D drawings that were turned into 3D, or some modification request to 3D stuff FourMadMen did drawn in 2D.

Tons of the stuff FourMadMen did entirely on his own in 3D that needed no modification at all and there are no 2D drawings of, or drafts that include measurements however.

To get final measurements I would take a size of the ship we had standardized on and them through high-resolution pixel measurement reverse engineer to get the measurements.

However, as far as what is final draft and all that gets a bit complicated.
I have tons of 2D stuff that got changed several times and sometimes the final change is only reflected in the 3D model. For instance in order to make the nacelles come out to a more standard real/world and 1/24th size(1 inch in 1/24, 2 feet real world BTWay) I think I asked FourMadMen to thin the then existing 3D model's nacelles by .004% or something like that.

Because of the way that 4MadMen's 3D software(and most other 3D software for that matter) works, I'd have to express changes needed in terms of percentages of particular objects. The nacelle adjustment, and many more like it, exists nowhere but in the model itself now. Often after figuring out what the piece needed to be through measurement of the original I wouldn't even list the final markup size details after I knew the whole outline and key elements were right in the final 3D version.

Also, again, tons of the renders were dead on perfect and never needed adjustment. Those I might have measured once but never bothered marking up any of the renders because no changes were necessary and I wasn't trying to build anything at the time.

I'd be happy to do some, even a ton, of high-res measurements of the latestest model if FourMadMen can do some wireline, under-cut hidden high res renders.

There are a few parts, like the pilots helm and Scotty Potty though, that aren't totally done but I think those are the only parts if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

4MadMen, would you still happen to have that proposed list of different views I did once? I think it ended up being about 30-40 views total(though about half were just versions to be printed without markups in the way).

After searching the old threads I can't find it. Must have been in the lost thread. 

I may have sent it as a .txt or .doc file or simply as an email. If I weren't working from a new hard drive I could find it but alas... I must be a pain in the a... and ask.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

But, I want to know, how is the Chuck shuttle coming along, or not?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I'm about to start up on it again.

I'm at an impass on the Refit. I've got 90% of the stuff I need to finish one. But until I can find someone selling non-defective decals for it I think I'll put it on the back burner.

I just bought 3D Studio Max 8. Found a DVD with about 20 hours of training on it on Ebay so I haven't been able to resist spending a little time on that.

But I'm about ready to start on the shuttle again as I hit the Refit brick wall.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I will be glad, when you get to post some pictures. 

As for my refit, 0% done. No hurry to start. Just want to finish the K-7 model. I am going to stick with it, I hate having unfinished kits every where.

Have fun with the 3D program!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck & trekkist,

I do have the list you sent chuck and I have no problems sharing the info with trekkist. I can't remember right now if the url is still active but check it and let me know if you would please. It's been awhile since Chuck and I we're involved in this so he might have forgotten but at this time I can provide renders with measurements. Although you might have to convert the "Blender Units" into whatever realworld units you need as I don't believe I ever scalled the mesh to be inline with a realworld size. Showing of the measurements in a render is manual process but the information is available to me in edit mode.

Anyway, just let me know what you need first in terms of measurements and I'll get it to you as fast as I can.


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

OK, let's see if I can boil my immediate needs down to something practical.

Although eventually intending to tackle a full-scale shuttle interior, my short-term goal is the inside from the back of the hatch forward. It sounds, however, as though this would be more practically sent on a CD-ROM, rather than as file attachments (I'm not sure what the attachment capacity of my earthlink and/or hotmail accounts are offhand, but I'm certain they're both well below the total cited). 

Thinking further, I think I will in fact plow through the Bob Villa thread, as I daresay most or all of what I need is posted there. And hell, y'all have done more than your share of work already, without being bothered by collating same to send in any fashion.

On the other hand, I'm certain a CD-ROM (or several(!)) comprising such info would be a ready seller, and a playable sale under "fair use" copyright laws.

We are after all modelers of nonexistent objects...indeed, of objects whose copyright status may well (after all these years) be in doubt. 

To pose my primary question: as I recall, the only compromise made to the fwd. interior dimensions/proportions/details as vs. those shown on screen was to relocate the windows so as to more closely (though not exactly) match their external position. Or did you (as in my prints on Phil's site) "stretch" the inter-chair aisle to match the interior's overall width to that of an enlarged-to-standing-erect sized exterior?

_That_ compromise is one I don't intend making, both to duplicate the set as shown, and to allow for the interwall existence of airlock, space suit storage, and mechanical "guts."

On the Burke chair blueprinting lofting issue, I just picked up an item at Lowe's which should permit my building a "handling jig." Said tool is a -- how do I describe this? -- a one-piece plastic form, L-shaped when seen from above, that incorporates 3 bubble levels. Using this device, I expect to Rube Goldberg a right-angled structure capable of supporting the chair in any of 3 positions.

A crude real-world expedient, to be sure...but once I've "generated" 3-view outlines, I'll lay a dimensioned grid over the result...and maybe even get around to hooking up my scanner, so to join the late 20th century. 

"Just plug it in, Trekkist!" I hear you saying. Well...the thing is, I first need to build a slide-out tray table to render it both accessible and out of the way. You wouldn't believe how many books, videos, models, magazines, CDs, LPs and filing cabinets (6 -- some of whose 16 drawers are actually not quite full...yet) occupy my 30 x 30 foot living space...

Trekkist


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

FourMadMen, if you could do a port side centerline cutaway orthos at high res, also maybe the two "Gallieo on the halfshell" ortho renders, preferably all three in *wireline* with the undercuts hidden(have you ever been able to get that process down pat? I remember you said something about it when you did the sidewall swingarm sensors.) Then I can give Trekkist all the info I think he'll immediately need.

The wireline "Gallileo on the halfshell" (top and bottom of the ship split like an oyster) renders would help with his aisle and chair width concerns.

Also the wirelines never give me slightly different measurements, whereas the solid renders sometimes do when doing pixel-to-realworld measurements.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Well we (we?) didn't do a very good job of measuring pixels. I did these last night but have not had a chance to post them until now. I think we need to get this out of the way before we can proceed...

Item 1 - Port Side view that Chuck put together along with his measurements for overall length.

Item 2 - Port Side view using most current model. Note that the nacelles have changed from Item 1 to Item 2 and therefore changing the overall length.

Item 3 -A composite  of Item 1 and Item 2

Item 4 - Item 2 with an interior overlay and measurements as noted.









Measurement Legend (in Blender Units):
A) Distance between chairs - 2.017 BU
B) Distance between forward consoles - 2.02 BU
C) Width of large console - 0.673 BU
D) Width of small console - 0.551 BU
E) Length of "Engineering" - 2.329 BU
F) Length of nacelle - 13.981 BU
G) Length of main hull - 17.638 BU
H) Length overall - 17.845 BU

Issue here is now that we have precise measurments we see the errors introduced by counting pixels. The small consoles should be 12" wide and the large ones should be 15.43" inches wide. You'll note here that the ratio between 15.43 and 12 is not the same as the ratio between .673 and .551. Bottom line is whichever one you start with (A-H) as the basis for scaling the others don't come out as they should. Question is which one should be the basis for adjusting the others? I don't suppose I'm opening discussins here as much as I'm asking Chuck to run some numbers and see what develops.

So Chuck, you seem to have your work cut out for you. And trekkist is probably running screaming from the idea of using this as a reference. Bear in mind though that once a scale factor is determined resizing something like say the consoles is easy enough. But I don't want to "lead the witness" here so I'll just stop now and see what you guys come up with.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Hmmm... the ole throw the populace into chaos by changing their system of measurement ploy... eh?

I hope you get the package I sent you soon!

BTWay, any progress in finding out how to do the wirelines with the undercuts hidden?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

P.S. I have no problem doing the numbers.

But the vertical interior wallboard seams are missing or not visible at this resolution.

Could you reinsert them and maybe use a white background so I won't risk taking part of the hull out of the shot when I remove the black background?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

How's this? Distance between seam centerlines is 2.017 (same as chairs)










If you can it would be best to take the measurements given in my previous post and figure which is the one to use as the basis for establishing the proper scale factor (without "counting pixels"). After that the other elements can be adjusted so they proportionally correct.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

You are right about the computer panels.

They are actually both off a bit.
The large panel measures 14.12".
To get the right size on the large panel multiply by 1.093.

The small panel that should be 12" wide is 11.64 inches, as far as I can tell without wirelines. To get the right size on the small panel multiply by 1.031.

The interior cabin from the front where the upper hull meets the lower hull in the interior, back to the rear wall BEFORE the door ever recesses is 17 feet 9.25". 

The doorway flares inward to the point where the sliding door surface meets it, 4" back from the wall.

So the entire interior front cabin space is 18 feet 1.25" from front to the outer surface of the cabin interconnecting door.

I'll email both Trekkist and FourMadMen a picture that maybe FourMadMen can host and link to, as a low res version is useless and I'm out of my hobbytalk jpeg allotment anyway.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Well, I had spent a couple of hours digging out and resizing an older render/drawing and overlaying that before doing all the calculations above.

I just now resized the new seamed render and it fits perfectly over the older one I had chosen/emailed.

So the above info still stands as is. No adjustments needed to the above statement of mine as to the measurements.


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

FourMad said:

>And trekkist is probably running screaming from the idea of using this as a reference. 

Nah, I'm perfectly comfortable with upscaling from a drawing including at least one object (i.e., a side panel) of known size. Have already received and printed the combo inside/outside. Many thanks! 

I remain puzzled, however -- and intend on deviating from the plans provided (no offense) on several matters.

First, this page

http://cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DesignStudy/GalileoDesignStudy.htm

--includes a full-length interior assembled from "Galileo Seven" screen captures by Phil, which -- like the tracking shot down the length of the shuttle interior -- appears to show the inter-chair spacing as considerably less than that shown on the cutaway. This lessened distance (reflected in my own antideluvian prints) allows room for an "aft compartment" (aft of "Scotty's room," that is to say) large enough to contain (among other things) corpse storage (remember, a redshirt's body was back there).

Second, I'm puzzled at the cutaway's non-inclusion of a differing slope to the interior upper and exterior upper front walls (as shown in the B&W image of Spock from "Immunity Syndrome" posted on Phil's 1st pg. of interior screen grabs). A set built without this odd feature will not reflect what was shown on screen...and treknologically, its existance allows room for whatever "mechanics" might be called for to make the "windows" viewscreen-capable (as well as easing the issue of the protective window covers). 

Third, a "on screen" style set would narrow the interior relative to the exterior, providing a "'tween-hulls" space sufficient for machinery (as well as an airlock and spacesuit storage).

Finally -- and the issue that puzzles me most (though I'm not sure whether this has been discarded), how did youse guys get the idea "Scotty's room" had four vertical "oxygen tanks?" (Picard voice)*There*were*three*tanks.*

On an utterly random note, what is it with the ink-drinking solid black backgrounds on CGI images? Is that some sort of Blender artifact? 

Trekkist


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

trekkist,

Sorry for the ink draining but I had not intended you to start printing until Chuck had a chance at making some calculations. I'll address your comments sortly but first I must admit that I am confused as well...

Chuck,

I'm afraid your numbers just don't work my friend. Using the scaling factor implied in your post then the interior panel sections work out to be 42.613" wide. You can't scale based on the 31' 5" of the previous drawing because the overall length has changed due the changed to the nacelle. You can see this in the overlay I posted and in the one you sent back. So here are my calculations:

Using the 42" section width as the basis the final scaling factor is 20.823 (plus a few more digits that I wont bother transcribing here). The smal computer panel changes by 1.046 and the large on my 1.101. After all that the computer panels are 12" and 15.43" respectively, the 42" sections are indeed 42" and the overall length of the shuttle (nose to nacelle cowl) is 30' 11.5865".


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

So onto some of the items above:



trekkist said:


> Second, I'm puzzled at the cutaway's non-inclusion of a differing slope to the interior upper and exterior upper front walls (as shown in the B&W image of Spock from "Immunity Syndrome" posted on Phil's 1st pg. of interior screen grabs). A set built without this odd feature will not reflect what was shown on screen...and treknologically, its existance allows room for whatever "mechanics" might be called for to make the "windows" viewscreen-capable (as well as easing the issue of the protective window covers).


The first interior cutaway I used did not include the forward bulkhead where the windows are. I was focusing on getting the computer panels and overall length sorted out. I'll provide future examples of this and as I recall the depth of this structure is on the order of 9" from exterior to interior.



trekkist said:


> Third, a "on screen" style set would narrow the interior relative to the exterior, providing a "'tween-hulls" space sufficient for machinery (as well as an airlock and spacesuit storage).


I can't say that I see evidence of an internal narrowing for the set. There is however ample room for tween hulls space. The "one the half shell" renders that Chuck mentions demonstrate what space there is in the model I have. I'll get some of those posted as soon as I can.



trekkist said:


> Finally -- and the issue that puzzles me most (though I'm not sure whether this has been discarded), how did youse guys get the idea "Scotty's room" had four vertical "oxygen tanks?" (Picard voice)*There*were*three*tanks.*


100% me there. I wasn't convinced there were only three (until I was convinced), and simply have not made the changes for three.

Another deviation that you may not be aware of from the as seen set is that the interior centerline was lowered to be inline with the exterior centerline. If these renders help you that is great and I'll do what I can to further the effor, but the consolidated interior/exterior shuttle you see here is not representative of what was seen "on screen" from either an interior or exterior perspective. So let me dig up the "half shell" (with a white background) renders and then you can decide what additional hirez rendering you fell will be help you.

Later,
4MM


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

trekkist said:


> FourMad said:
> 
> >And trekkist is probably running screaming from the idea of using this as a reference.
> 
> ...


Actually that shot is not orthographic or to scale. Phil did a fantastic job putting it together but I don't believe he meant that picture to be an accurate rendition of the spacing.

In fact if you checkout his own cutaway based on his scale:

http://cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DesignStudy/Real_Shuttlecraft_01.jpg

and measure the distances between chair centerlines(the reason I wanted the seams on last nights renders was that I prefer straight lines as markers, though Fourmadmen was 100% right about chair spacing being the same thing as panel lines); you'll find that his chair spacings are exactly the same distance apart measured center to center - 42 inches.

His inner to outer hull thickness is less, but the interior cabin spacing is the same. In fact, if you measure the cabin from the same points his cabin comes out right at 17"7.156" vs. FourMadMen's model at 17"9.25". Not much of a difference.






trekkist said:


> Second, I'm puzzled at the cutaway's non-inclusion of a differing slope to the interior upper and exterior upper front walls (as shown in the B&W image of Spock from "Immunity Syndrome" posted on Phil's 1st pg. of interior screen grabs). A set built without this odd feature will not reflect what was shown on screen...and treknologically, its existance allows room for whatever "mechanics" might be called for to make the "windows" viewscreen-capable (as well as easing the issue of the protective window covers).


That we spent a good solid 10 to 15 pages discussing(not all at once but put together, most notably in the *Lost Thread*), not just the angle but window size, positioning, etc.

Sorry you missed out on the fun of that one(though I thought you had joined in a couple of times).

I don't want to rehash the whole thing, but if you think there isn't enough room alloted between the interior and exterior with a 9 inch thick front wall, forget about trying to show both nonparallel angles.

Some other points to consider on the issue:
1) Onscreen shots didn't really show there being two different angles. When you saw the windows from the outside the inside looked parallel to the outside. 

2) When you saw the outside hull from the inside the outside hull lines looked parallel to the inside hull angle.

3) To show both in a single mockup would actually show something never seen onscreen, when looking in or out the angle of the inner and outer wall would look different. Something seen neither from interior or exterior shots.

So clearly, logic dictates that you have to decide which angle to go with, inside or outside. To parallel the angle of the interior filming set would physically change the look of the outside of the ship. The ship wouldn't look right from the outside.

Not the least important reason to mirror the outside angle, in my opinion, is that it plain never made sense that the two were different or that someone would build a craft that way. 

Here is a view from inside the craft, courtesy of FourMadMen:



Four Mad Men said:


>


If it makes you feel any better, we _were_ forced to maintain the illogical fact that the pilots can't see where they are going. :tongue:




trekkist said:


> Third, a "on screen" style set would narrow the interior relative to the exterior, providing a "'tween-hulls" space sufficient for machinery (as well as an airlock and spacesuit storage).
> Trekkist


The interior is indeed much narrower then the exterior. You can't tell because you are looking at the side view.

Checkout this view:

http://www.fourmadmen.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=16&pos=7

The narrowest point is the space between the interior and exterior front hull, which runs between 6 and 9 inches thick depending on where you measure.





trekkist said:


> Finally -- and the issue that puzzles me most (though I'm not sure whether this has been discarded), how did youse guys get the idea "Scotty's room" had four vertical "oxygen tanks?" (Picard voice)*There*were*three*tanks.*
> 
> Trekkist


It didn't make sense to FourMadMen that there would be three. I was only able to show a pic definitely showing it to him relatively recently.

I have another few 2D drawings that incorporates both 3 tanks and a never seen onscreen "Scotty Potty." Even a food replicator and storage area on the unseen wall opposite of the one Scotty had to crosscircuit to electrify the hull.

I even posed the idea that being a sanitary waste disposal room, it may have happened to have a self sanitizing "field" of some sort that sterilizes bacteria not just on the seat but in the whole booth, etc after you've flushed, used your "magic seashells(Demolition Man?)" or whatever people in the 24th Century use to whipe their butts.:lol: 

This sanitizing "stasis field" could perhaps be used short term to store a body without necessarily having to be dedicated to that purpose.

The Scotty Potty I drew fits perfectly. I even put the mylar toolbox under the door to it as a dual-purpose removable tool-box and step up to the Scotty Potty!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Now that I look back over Phil's designstudy page you quoted above, Trekkist,
I must confess that I probably got the idea for the door and placement of the "Scotty Potty" from this drawing of his:

http://cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DesignStudy/Real_Shuttlecraft_04.jpg

though I do remember that a long time ago I planned on putting a toilet right next to the back portside "vents." With the idea that the rest of the occupants would appreciate the facilities being freshly ventilated.:lol:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> So onto some of the items above:
> 
> 
> The first interior cutaway I used did not include the forward bulkhead where the windows are. I was focusing on getting the computer panels and overall length sorted out. I'll provide future examples of this and as I recall the depth of this structure is on the order of 9" from exterior to interior.
> ...


Wow! Just now noticed you had hit the post button while I was typing.
You hit on almost the exact same points I did and even used an example I had linked to in my response!

Gee! Our brain waves are merging buddy! :tongue:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> trekkist,
> 
> Sorry for the ink draining but I had not intended you to start printing until Chuck had a chance at making some calculations. I'll address your comments sortly but first I must admit that I am confused as well...
> 
> ...


Ah! But therein lies the rub!

The nacelle length has changed, but that main body hasn't!

The length of the nacelles, and technically the length of the ship changing, doesn't need to affect the main body of the ship at all.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

It doesn't effect the length of the main body you are right. But the 31' 5" was from nose to nacelle cowl (the end of which protrudes past main body). So the overall length of the vehicle has been shortened. And there for can not be used as the basis for figuring any scale adjustments required.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Don't understand, "cowl"?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Not sure what you mean, however these are the parts I used for scaling.
I matched all overlays, including the last one you made, they all fit perfectly if you ignore the nacelles.

The seams must be 42". That's the key to scaling the entire ship. When working on the interior vs exterior I've been totally ignoring the nacelles for awhile.

Pretend like the nacelles have been plucked off. Don't exist. 

The multiplication factors I gave you last night was not to be applied to the distance between the seams.

They were only to be applied to the computer consoles themselves and reinserted in the unchanged body of the ship.

Here's that final render to show you it all adds up(except I have not increased the computer panels, nor did I in the one I emailed last night).

Now again, once you resize and reinsert them, the sizing of the computers could be off by a fraction because the anti-aliasing and bluring of the image makes it difficult to get an exact measurement. That's why I was hoping for the wirelines with undercuts hidden.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

My emphasis...



Chuck_P.R. said:


> Not sure what you mean, however these are the parts I used for scaling.
> 
> I matched all overlays, including the last one you made, they all fit perfectly *if you ignore the nacelles*.


You CAN'T ignore the nacelles they are part of the 31' 5" overall length (which is no longer valid and must be recalculated).



Chuck_P.R. said:


> *The seams must be 42". That's the key to scaling the entire ship*. When working on the interior vs exterior I've been totally ignoring the nacelles for awhile.


Yes they must. And it is the key to scaling the ship. However your calcualtions result in the seams being 42.6" apart not 42". This can not be.



Chuck_P.R. said:


> *Pretend like the nacelles have been plucked off. Don't exist.*


Can't. Sorry.

In any event...

1) The "cowl" is the corrugated bit covering the rear most portion of the neacelle. (Covers the ball thingy).

2) I understand about the adjustment factors only being applied to the computer consoles.

and 3) Since we both agree that the seams are the key and that my final scale factor results in seams at 42" intervals then stop arguing with me buster :tongue: Or we'll have to stop by and uhhhhhhh... put the bag on you!

Check?

[Spock]Riiiiight[/Spock]


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Check!!!
Bring a coupla' dames witca too, whydontcha?


To your message. If the factors for resizing are a little bit off I'm not sure how to recalculate. I'm sure it has something to do that I can't really get a perfect measurement from the solid renders.

I need to crash and get up super early. 

But let me take one last pre-crash crack at it. 

Let's approach it from a different angle.


The 12" panel is 28.571428571428571428571428571429% of the 42" panels' size.

The 15.43" panel is 36.738095238095238095238095238095% of the 42" panels' size.

Will that approach work?(I'm too brain dead :freak: to think it all the way through).


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Me thinks perhaps you totally missed the point. Go crash. I'll be away most of the weekend so see you on the other side.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

The problem on my end is that I can't get an accurate reading of your "blender units".

But if you can measure the seams accurately(I can't), and you can measure the consoles accurately(I can't), can't you take the distance between seams in "blender units" and make the large console .367380 times the size of that number of blender units? That would give you the size of the large console in blender units.

Then take the seam width in blender units and make it .285714 times the size of that number. That would give you the size of the small console in blender units.

I don't know how many decimal points blender extends it's blender units out to, so I didn't round off below. 

If the distance between chairs is 2.017 BU units the distance between seams should also be 2.017 BU so the following formula I was trying to describe last night should be 100% accurate in blender units as long as the 2.017 BU measurement is correct. Formula described in bold, actual numbers not so bold.

*I.E.:*

*X equals *2.017 *the width between the standard seams in blender units.(also = 42")*

*X(width between seams in blender units) *2.017 ** .367380 =* 0.74100738095238095238095238095046 *width of the large console in blender units (also =15.43 inches)*

*X(width between seams in blender units) *2.017 ** .285714 = *0.57628571428571428571428571428514* width of the small console in blender units (also =12 inches)*

So the large console should be .74100738095238095238095238095046 BU
And the small console should be .57628571428571428571428571428514 BU, realizing you probably need to round off a bit.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

So that Trekkist is not totally confused, this doesn't affect the measurements I emailed at all.

If you place a 15.43" large computer console and a 12" small computer console in the places they are located in the drawing I sent everything will be accurate.

Assuming you didn't finish building the set since last night. 

If you did finish it last night you just need to make the holes in the walls for the computer console a tad bigger. Enlarge *away* from the nearest horizontal and vertical seams.

If you have already built the computer consoles since last night you have my abject apologies.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

BTWay, if the ship is exactly 17.845 Blender Units(assuming it's not rounded off),

the new length of the total ship should be 371.58651462568170550322260783342 inches, or 30'11.586514625" in length. In 1/24th scale 15.482771 inches.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Well ladies and gentlemen it took two dozen posts but he finally gets it!!!

So maybe now we can proceed onto other matters like some renders for trekkist.

Oh and in the "I must get the final word department"... In your original post you did not site the overal scaling factor (from BUs to inches) so I had to compute them from your computer console adjustment factors. And said adjustment factors you posted we're incorrect resulting in seam distances greater than 42"

But you've seen the light now so we'll just absolve you and let it go.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Thanks!

Actually I was flat out wrong to begin with.

After going through the old 2D drawings and cutaways I found a couple that referred to the 42" seams being the key.

I had used an old ebay post to verify the overall sizing of one of the panels, but I didn't then use that to get the panel width. The panel width was decided on seperately.

That's what I get for relying on my faulty memory. My mistake.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Oh great! More over my head talk. No wonder I keep a headache!


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

I'm continuing to be the contratrion. To wit:

1)Front wall's slope's being different from that of the outer is established by every interior shot showing the interior wall from an angle (e.g., the B&W Spock shot on cloudster.com, establishing angles on Decker in "Doomsday", etc.). Yes, this makes the view through the windows wrong (in that said view shows a thin hull with no apparent "glass" thickness at bottom). But if I've a choice of which to disregard, I'd pick that over the visible lesser slope of the inner wall.

2)Inter-seam calculation notwithstanding...and the assembly process of Phil's full-length view likewise...a screen capture of the "Galileo Seven" track-down-the-aisle shot including the back and front of any 2 chairs will I think confirm that they are closer together than the various cutaways thus generated show. In generating my prints, I estimated this distance by the simple expedient of placing two office chairs in a line. What with now possessing a shuttle chair, a more precise measurement could be made. Alas, I can't do screen captures. Anyone want to post a sequence of same?

3)Aisle width is wider than "prototypical" in every cross-section generated to date (including mine). Once the exterior is enlarged to accomodate Spock (6' 1", if memory serves) standing erect, to retain the thin hull shown from inside (through the open door) requires widening the space between the seats...with the corresponding result that the front panel's proportions are changed. Initially (i.e., circa 1992), I found this an acceptable compromise. Faced with the prospect of replicating the "Doomsday Machine" footage, I no longer do. Compare any cross-section drawing with the "from behind" screen captures on cloudster. The former's seats are more than a seat width apart; the latter, a bit more than a seat width apart (I think...I'm guesstimating from memory). 

None of these are personal criticisms, as I hope it's needless to say. And I'm the first to grant a comprehensive one-to-one inner/outer resolution is impossible (as in the case of the damn "windows"). I've often wondered, had any of us contacted Matt Jeffries (or...did someone?), would he have been amused at, flattered by or scornful of our blood-sweating. 

On a like note, as to why I didn't turn my hand to a "Class F Plans" revision, some years back (thus setting y'all to your incredible work(s)), it's simply that the time I put into the original blues had left me a bit sick of the thing. As you all know, even accurate exterior plans involve an inordinate amount of time (whatever the means of generation). In the "days of the dinosaurs," that time was expended without benefit of community -- which is to say, it left me sweating over a light table at a seemingly endless task which often seemed to me of no more account than trying to count the angels dancing on a pinhead. 

Little could I imagine that, years later, I'd be debating -- and enjoying the "company" of -- like-minded madmen. 

One of these days I'll get around to sending Phil my last take (to date) on the subject: a cutaway, including the nacelles, and a "flow diagram" making sense of the three tanks, the various fuel supplies, etc. Far more "tech manualish" stuff than I put out for sale. 

Rest assured I haven't drunk ink printing plans-on-black pages. I was simply curious about the origin of such. 

Trekkist


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Sorry Lloyd it should get better from here on out.

trekkist, here are a couple of renders showing the top and bottom half of the shuttle. Literally split in half (well virtually split in half). Let me know if this is the sort of thing that is helpful to you. Also instead of me putting measurements on them just let me know what you need measured and I'll post that as well. Here are the renders (2560px wide):

Bottom, 4 tanks and all
Top

If the chairs look funny it's becuase they are both above and below the "cut" line so on the bottom view you are seeing them with the top of the backs cut off.


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

By the way, to forstall the I'm sure soon-coming queries as to "how's that set coming along?" -- prior to beginning, I've the task of clearing the other end of my basement-of-residence of 3 dead people's stuff (and not a little of mine). Which in turn necessitates rearranging the (mostly worthless, but either a)toxic or b)too large to load into an SUV) contents of half a carport. Which latter task I'm now off to wearily return to.

Anyone live local to Nashville TN?

Trekkist


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

No but if I did I'd offer to give you a hand. That sort of thing is a lot of work. I myself just finished the removal of 1,200 pounds of tile, cement, and metal that was once a standup shower.


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

My condolences; I've some family whose home (fortunately unrazed, due to father & son having stayed and gotten a hole in the roof repaired in real time) lay directly on Katrina's ground-track.

Trekkist


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

trekkist said:


> I'm continuing to be the contratrion. To wit:
> 
> 1)Front wall's slope's being different from that of the outer is established by every interior shot showing the interior wall from an angle (e.g., the B&W Spock shot on cloudster.com, establishing angles on Decker in "Doomsday", etc.). Yes, this makes the view through the windows wrong (in that said view shows a thin hull with no apparent "glass" thickness at bottom). But if I've a choice of which to disregard, I'd pick that over the visible lesser slope of the inner wall.


Heck, you're building it. It's totally up to you. 

So basically you are going to go with the original interior set's angle to the front hull, (which differed from the external one, if you measure both - or just eyeball it it is even obvious)

but if you did have to choose one or the other you would choose the outer hull's angle.

Since we were trying to make the most believable craft possible, we felt it necessary to pick one, and the only logical choice when picking one or the other is the outside hull's angle.

To fit the lesser interior angle into the outer hull though without making the shuttlecraft much larger, consider that you would have a thicker hull at the bottom of the slant and a paper thin hull(or worse) near the ceiling between the interior and exterior.

But again, that's your call. She's your ship.



trekkist said:


> 2)Inter-seam calculation notwithstanding...and the assembly process of Phil's full-length view likewise...a screen capture of the "Galileo Seven" track-down-the-aisle shot including the back and front of any 2 chairs will I think confirm that they are closer together than the various cutaways thus generated show. In generating my prints, I estimated this distance by the simple expedient of placing two office chairs in a line. What with now possessing a shuttle chair, a more precise measurement could be made. Alas, I can't do screen captures. Anyone want to post a sequence of same?


Again, but maybe I wasn't clear earlier. Phils own plans show the chairs the exact same distance apart. The chair bases are different from his because we had to raise them a bit higher.

The picture you keep referring to was never intended to be either orthographic or to be taken literally for spacing purposes, if I recall what Phil said when he originally put it together. The main purpose was to show all the equipment. Maybe Phil can comment if you're still not sure about that.

That composite shot shows the chairs even closer then the 42".
I believe that all of us who have studied the pictures and screengrabs agree the original spacing was 48". More space then what is shown in the cutaways, not less. They basically used standard size wallboard.

The reason Phil came up with the 42" idea, and FourMadMen and I thought his 42" idea was a good one, is because it lets you take a good two whole feet off the craft's length without messing up the apparent consistency in a noticable way.



trekkist said:


> 3)Aisle width is wider than "prototypical" in every cross-section generated to date (including mine). Once the exterior is enlarged to accomodate Spock (6' 1", if memory serves) standing erect, to retain the thin hull shown from inside (through the open door) requires widening the space between the seats...


FourMadMen and I didn't try to maintain the thin hull.
I think making the interior wider then ever seen onscreen is a tremendous departure from what was seen onscreen. I don't see a problem with ignoring the difference between the hulls, at least compared to widening the ship.

Remember the interior set didn't even have the same kind of door opening process as the exterior.



trekkist said:


> Compare any cross-section drawing with the "from behind" screen captures on cloudster. The former's seats are more than a seat width apart; the latter, a bit more than a seat width apart (I think...I'm guesstimating from memory).
> 
> None of these are personal criticisms, as I hope it's needless to say.


Of course you need not say they're not personal criticisms.

I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say in this quote, however.
You're thinking that our interpretation of the shuttle has aisles that are a little too wide maybe?

If that is the case let me say that you can't judge the aisle width based on that picture. 

The final aisle width we came up with came only after doing a fully measured front helm console, Though it hasn't been rendered yet, I finished the console and those width dimensions is what we used to determine the width of the cabin. 

No disrespect, but I think that Phil's console is slightly too narrow. If he had gotten the chance to do a complete layout of the panel the difference would have become apparent to him, I'm sure.




trekkist said:


> On a like note, as to why I didn't turn my hand to a "Class F Plans" revision, some years back (thus setting y'all to your incredible work(s)), it's simply that the time I put into the original blues had left me a bit sick of the thing. As you all know, even accurate exterior plans involve an inordinate amount of time (whatever the means of generation). In the "days of the dinosaurs," that time was expended without benefit of community -- which is to say, it left me sweating over a light table at a seemingly endless task which often seemed to me of no more account than trying to count the angels dancing on a pinhead.
> 
> Little could I imagine that, years later, I'd be debating -- and enjoying the "company" of -- like-minded madmen.
> 
> ...


Your work is still incredible to this day, Trekkist.

I can't imagine how many issues, like the difference in front hull angles, would have never occurred to me had you not documented them first.

You did a tremendous job, period.
Considering that you did such a tremendous job using pen, paper, and a ruler makes the effort even more impressive! :thumbsup:


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

4MM, I can't help being a whiner! 

I know the work that has been, will help mankind, and solve many of the problems in life, but I don't get it!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Looks like I missed that last post by trekkist that Chuck quoted. I think I was typing mine when he posted his. I understand what you are saying trekkist and I still offer any help you think you may require from me, however I've always said that the model I've built is perhaps not the best subject to look to if you are looking to duplicate what was seen on screen. But as I say just let me know what I can do to help and I'll do my best to do so.

Lloyd, don't get what?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Life, the universe, and everything. 
Ok, I am just cranky, for lack of sleep.


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

After close examination of the contents of “the package” (thanks, “cp” – is that you, Chuck?), I feel I owe the “Galileo team” an apology or two. I hadn’t realized (or had forgotten – I turn 47 tomorrow, and sometimes feel it) that Phil had done several drawings contrasting and integrating the divergent interior/exterior angles of the front wall. These and other drawings have been “Kinko-ized” to 1:10 scale, for to cobble together a study model which will (hopefully) solve most (though I’m not sure not all) of the constructional issues involved in my projected full-scale forward cabin. 

If anyone’s curious, 1:10 scale is a fraction larger than the scale of the Art Asylum Spock figure (1:10.3, measuring from bare heel to head top, and assuming 6’ 1”, which I think I recall as Nimoy’s height). I’d hoped for 1:12, for ease of measurement conversion…but thank the Great Bird for 1:10, which will allow me to “build metric.”

Which reminds me: anyone able/willing to craft a couple of 1:10 scale shuttle chairs (with bases)? Flat surfaces and greeblies I don’t shy from; complex curves are another matter…


CHUCK P.R. wrote:

>To fit the lesser interior angle into the outer hull though without making the shuttlecraft much larger, consider that you would have a thicker hull at the bottom of the slant and a paper thin hull (or worse) near the ceiling between the interior and exterior.

No issue “treknologically,” so thin a hull. TOS never showed a Starship destroyed outright by phaser fire (“Day of the Dove’s” immolated Klingon doesn’t count; she was unshielded, and damaged). “Wrath of Khan” showed why: Reliant’s pinpoint phaser (cannon?) strike along the hull merely scorched it until it burst through the airlock doors. I posit the existence of a Larry Niven-esque “hullmetal” (tritanium, I think TOS cited), immune to phaser disintigration, and so strong that the damage done Constellation by the planet-killer’s anti-proton beam brought a shocked “Look at that!” from Kirk.

>That composite shot shows the chairs even closer then the 42".

Yeah, and I think they were, based on the apparent chair-to-chair spacing. I need to study this further, though, in the face of such unified disagreement on y’all’s parts. 

>I believe that all of us who have studied the pictures and screengrabs agree the original spacing was 48". More space then what is shown in the cutaways, not less. They basically used standard size wallboard.

Again, I’m dubious. I need to freeze a frame of “Galileo Seven” showing the back and front of a chair, and compare it to my Burke’s dimensions, to feel sure of this. Would it be logical for standard wallboard to have been used? Sure. But the determining factor wouldn’t have been the off-the-shelf convenience of not cutting such board, but the space capable of being allotted to the shuttle interior set. From my recollection (long diluted by time, I admit) of studying videos, I found Phil’s composite a fair reflection of the actual chair-to-chair spacing. 

>The reason Phil came up with the 42" idea, and FourMadMen and I thought his 42" idea was a good one, is because it lets you take a good two whole feet off the craft's length without messing up the apparent consistency in a noticable way.

I’ve no issues with this. Many a compromise (again, the inner/outer window placement comes to mind) must be made to “resolve” (such as is possible) the interior and exterior.

Incidentally, I seem to recall that the reason I posited a longer first panel was to put the second row of seats in line with the doorway. This too is an issue I need to re-examine before starting to build.

>I think making the interior wider then ever seen onscreen is a tremendous departure from what was seen onscreen. I don't see a problem with ignoring the difference between the hulls, at least compared to widening the ship.

You misunderstand me. I’m not positing making the interior wider than that shown; my argument is that the “final draft” cross-section renders appear to do exactly that (as did my plans). To restate the compromise process: once the exterior is enlarged to (barely) accommodate an interior-set-height contents, one finds the exterior proportions differ from the interior, such that the exterior is wider than the interior. In order to keep the hull-thickness-as-shown, the only solution is to widen the aisle (and thus the center console), resulting in an interior not-as-shown. My preferred solution is to put a ‘tween-hulls area between the interior and exterior.

>Remember the interior set didn't even have the same kind of door opening process as the exterior.

No problem, no contradiction, being as how a ‘tween-hulls space would create 2 different (but similar) sets of doors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trekkist
Compare any cross-section drawing with the "from behind" screen captures on cloudster. The former's seats are more than a seat width apart; the latter, a bit more than a seat width apart (I think...I'm guesstimating from memory). 

>I’m not sure exactly what you are trying to say in this quote, however.
You're thinking that our interpretation of the shuttle has aisles that are a little too wide maybe?

To belabor the point: yes.

>If that is the case let me say that you can't judge the aisle width based on that picture. 

Not on Phil’s “interior forward with crew photoshoped out,” no. But I’ve an old Lincoln Enterprise’s slide of that view without crew, taken so close that I feel no perspective distortion would affect the aisle-width-relative-to-seat-width measurement. 

>The final aisle width we came up with came only after doing a fully measured front helm console, Though it hasn't been rendered yet, I finished the console and those width dimensions is what we used to determine the width of the cabin. 

“Measured” based on the known dimensions of the intercom panel (as given in the description of the TOS prop sold over Ebay by…I forget the name of the gougers-of-fanboys sales company)? 

>No disrespect, but I think that Phil's console is slightly too narrow. If he had gotten the chance to do a complete layout of the panel the difference would have become apparent to him, I'm sure.

As you said re: me, I think all references to “disrespect” can be dispensed with forthwith. Each and every one of us has fought this beast to the ground with their own rendering tools, and refused to relent despite the many inconsistencies, unknowns, and hair-tearers. Having had the experience of having done a complete panel layout (actually two: the first to the widened interior width, the second – not posted at Phil’s site, as it comprises part of my never-completed revision), I tend – pending further study – to stick with my argument that the interior is significantly narrower than the exterior.

>Considering that you did such a tremendous job using pen, paper, and a ruler makes the effort even more impressive!

‘twern’t nothing. Hardware or software – and to some extent, the nature of references – aren’t the driver of accuracy. Attention to detail (for which read: obsession) is. My tools had/have their limitations and irritations, as do (I gather) Blender & etc. As Kirk said to Decker, each of us knows of the rest: “We’re stronger with you than without you.”

Trekkist


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

Append to my last paragraph that the true Master of the pen-&-ink art was the late Michael Mc--, whose TOS bridge blues date to '76, and may have predated use of VCRs! Now THAT's a job of heroic "re-construction."

Which reminds me: did any of you know either McMaster or Allen Everhart (the other late great bluesman, RIP via the battleship Iowa's turret explosion)? I met both -- briefly -- and will never forget (shouldn't say that, what with aging) the latter's saying he'd drawn only one side of the Galactica on account of its detailing being asymetric, and his not having reference on the other side...

In a just world, Pocket Books would have long since issued a anthology of all the antideluvian blues artists' work (Geoffrey Mandel also comes to mind...but in a different light than the above), including bios and interviews of friends & family. Instead, we all know (thanks to the internet) the deceaseds' names & work, and little more. Save for the site devoted to Franz Joseph Schnaubelt, of course. But he was a pro...

Trekkist


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

">The final aisle width we came up with came only after doing a fully measured front helm console, Though it hasn't been rendered yet, I finished the console and those width dimensions is what we used to determine the width of the cabin. 

“Measured” based on the known dimensions of the intercom panel (as given in the description of the TOS prop sold over eBay! by…I forget the name of the gougers-of-fanboys sales company)?" 

Sorry about the above quote, but no matter how many times I hit the refresh button or open new windows, hobbytalk's quote button seems to not want to pull up a complete quote of your post. 

Anyhow, no I didn't try and use the communications panel to do the measurements.
I tried that at first, but it kept giving me measurements that didn't make sense at all based on the other, more standard buttons and switches on the board.

At the time I drew my version of the helm console, I had owned versions of most of the switches and lights shown on the console, the most rare the larger round panel lights. Unfortunately those were in a rickety shed that was not lifted off the ground like my home here in New Orleans is and I ended up having all the contents hauled off a couple of months ago.

But there are more standard switches, like the sub-miniature metal toggle flip-switch shown on one of the helm panels, that can be used to measure and confirm the size of the front helm panel.

From what I can tell, it seems that there is an extreme likelihood that at the very least the communicator panel on the shuttlecraft was not exactly the same size as the one Phil saw for sale on Ebay. Either that or the other switches and lights were all totally non-standard. When you are talking about the measurements of something as small as the communicator panel being slightly different it can easily make the entire panel way way off in total port to starboard width.

On the center console, the measurements were taken first from the reel to reel platens used on the center console. They actually used a then high-tech "portable" miniature reel to reel tape player/recorder! You can even read the brand name in one shot!

Also note, while the width and panels were drawn and FourMadMen modeled( or will model, I think he has modeled all the individual parts but not pasted them together) should be close to 100% accurate port to starboard, we raised the height of the entire console by a couple of inches or so so that we could equalize the interior/exterior centerline.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

On the aisle issue, I don't believe our aisle is too wide. I think you might believe that is the case based on the width of Phil's interior fore to aft cutaways, but I think those are not quite wide enough, for the reasons stated above. One of the reasons I'm pretty sure about the aisle width is that I measured the "Scotty Hatch" (the plate that covers the place where he drained the phasers into the engine's power supply) based on one of the standard tools sitting right next to it, I forget which at the moment. But once I plugged it into the drawings it looked perfectly proportional, which helped further confirm the cabin measurements.

On the interior/exterior issue, I don't know why you keep repeating your idea that the interior is far more narrower then the exterior once you enlarge the exterior enough to contain it.

I don't think that anyone has ever disputed that. FourMadMen and I just decided from the get-go to make the walls thicker, rather then go with a widened interior as in your original blues. 

The perceived enlarged aisles you seem to see in the renders is due to a misreading of how wide the aisles should be. But even if we had widened the aisles, that widening still doesn't come close to matching them to the exterior walls proportionally and making them thin. 

Have you checked or looked at the "Galileo on the half-shell"(just like an oyster opened and served ala' "oysters on the half-shell," it shows the ship bisected horizontally along the centerline) renders that FourMadMen linked to above?


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

The communicator panel is far too small to get accurate measurements of the overall panel width. The fuzz-factor is too great and only the slightest error in the comm panel will result in gross errors overall (it represents too small of a measuring unit). The recorder that Chuck mentions is better because it represents a larger unit.

It just occured to me that there might be a better way to measure the Shuttlecraft chairs and thereby, the rest of the cabin, hmmm...

It is obvious from the other sets built for the show that they rarely stuck to standard units when making wall panels. This is not a valid basis for determining the width of the wall joints in the Shuttlecraft cabin. My version at 42 inches may be incorrect but don't fooled into thinking that Mr Jefferies automatically used a board-width here. I began my cabin drawing with that assumption but rejected it as the drawing progressed. There was some discussion about this in the lost thread as I recall.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I definitely think that the original walls were larger then 42". 

You may be right that they weren't originally 48" either, but going with the 42" width idea you came up with worked perfectly once all the panels were plugged in.

The original set apparently had wall sections that were at least a bit bigger then 42" up to a standard 48." Where exactly that width falls we may never know for sure.

The only panel were it might be apparent that the cabin length in both your(Phil) and FourMadMen's versions were slightly foreshortened by the 42" standard is when looking at the phaser cabinet's distance from the first cabin rear wall. Plus all the other components fit dead-on. Not a big compromise, in my opinion.

The only other alternative would be to make the craft larger then 32 feet long. Not an acceptable idea to me personally.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> It just occured to me that there might be a better way to measure the Shuttlecraft chairs and thereby, the rest of the cabin, hmmm...


Has anyone ever really found a set of shuttlecraft chairs???

I think we examined a lot of different stills and it seems we agreed that those seats didn't exactly match ANY of the other mass produced Burke chairs used in the series, though they were close in most respects stylistically.

Plus, some shots suggested that these were grossly unfinished, really roughly cast chairs, as someone else in the thread back there somewhere noted(can't remember who, just don't want to steal the credit for first noticing it) The rough casting not likely to be seen on a mass produced chair is most noticible when looking at the upper rear back of the chairs in some shots. Suggesting perhaps they were custom made by the prop department, or for the prop department.

It looks to me as if the builders of the set, while perhaps being able to justify chairs that didn't physically attach to the hull in a large starship, weren't able to justify chairs that weren't bolted, magnetically attached(remember, in several scenes the chairs were detached in The Galileo Seven) or in some other way attached to the hull on such a small, and presumably more unstable, craft.

I think it's highly likely they couldn't justify not having chairs that didn't bolt down to the hull in a shuttlecraft, yet wanted to maintain the same chair style as seen in the rest of the starfleet Burke chairs, and as a result may have just fiberglass-fabricated what we saw on the shuttlecraft.

Either that or they used a really really roughly cast mass-produced chair that no one has ever been able to find an exact copy of. Perhaps some kind of fishing chair made for boat fishing? But given the rough cast and the fact that no one has been able to find a copy that's highly unlikely.

Seems more likely they were one(or seven) of a kind.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

I saw and sat in those chairs so I have detailed knowledge of their physical appearance. Based on the design and how they were finished, I believe that AMT made them (the Paramount Prop Dept might have but the full scale mockup came with a set too so I think AMT supplied them). They were indeed "rough cast" and only finished on one side (fiberglass lay-up in a female mold). It is always possible that they were purchased but not likely. Manufactured items such as this are finished on both sides, like the Burke chairs are.

The chairs were attached to a swivel mount built into the floor of the Shuttlecraft set, this mount is visible in one scene were the chairs have been removed. They were also designed to be un-naturally (and uncomfortably) low so as to fit in an interior that would actually (or very nearly) fit inside the exterior. This is the same interior we see in the Matt Jefferies sketch where the crewman is stooped over between the chairs. Also, in this version the front windows would have been low enough to be at a reasonable height for the pilots to look through. Apparently they decided to go with a cabin height that would allow the actors to stand up-right, after construction had begun and the chairs delivered. This is why the actors are forced to sqwat in chairs that seem un-necessarily low for such a roomy cabin, the chairs were designed for the much lower version.

I wish that they had gone with the lower ceiling on the interior set, it would have made all our projects much easier to deal with.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Wow. So the chairs left the lot with the exterior mock up?
(I'm assuming you sat in them when they were on that fellow's lawn in Pasedena - or was it Palo Alto?)

I'm hoping that somewhere, somehow someone who knows what they are still has one or two and that they will someday re-surface(like the original Galileo, herself).

I'd hate to think that they were stolen while in that trailer storage lot by some thief or thieves who didn't even know what a "Galileo" was and since has discarded them.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> I wish that they had gone with the lower ceiling on the interior set, it would have made all our projects much easier to deal with.


That might be true, but it just occured to me that they would have had to make the interior set much much shorter as well, or we still would have ended up with the same type of problems. At least in that the external ship would still need to grow to contain the lengthwise interior, with the added issue that the hull over the lower ceiling would then be unexplainably thick too. 

In fact, the script calling for 7 team members plus an "engineering room" in which Scotty fiddles with the hull power might have made them suddenly realize it made little sense to make the ship that long and yet not have the ceiling proportionally higher. 

A much lower ceiling might have exaggerated the exceptionally long two-cabin length to the point that the interior/exterior disparity in size was even more glaring.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Well, I actually got the top and bottom halves of my model reassembled to the right length. 

For those of you who won't remember, way before Katrina I discovered that the prints I had done on 11 x 17 inch paper that I thought were in perfect 1/24th scale weren't. It turns out that the shots I had been using had been enlarged to fit the entire page automatically by the printer I had used. 

Then I realized I had overcompensated somehow!

Long story short the hacked up version was what was strewn around my house during my evacuation from New Orleans.

I had found all the parts, but just now got around to making the necessary refits.

I've figured out how I want to tackle the rest of the model and am working on the top side wings and top aft now.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

P.S. Have also ordered a gallon of RTV rubber and a gallon of resin for the last of the parts...


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Oh Yea! Back in business! Reading this, a song popped in my mind, "The heat is on....".


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Lloyd Collins said:


> Oh Yea! Back in business! Reading this, a song popped in my mind, "The heat is on....".


I have little choice, seeing that "Waiting for Chuck to finish his shuttlecraft model" signature in every thread I open.


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

Chuck P.R. wrote:

>On the aisle issue, I don't believe our aisle is too wide. I think you might believe that is the case based on the width of Phil's interior fore to aft cutaways, but I think those are not quite wide enough, for the reasons stated above. One of the reasons I'm pretty sure about the aisle width is that I measured the "Scotty Hatch" (the plate that covers the place where he drained the phasers into the engine's power supply) based on one of the standard tools sitting right next to it, I forget which at the moment. But once I plugged it into the drawings it looked perfectly proportional, which helped further confirm the cabin measurements.

That's as may be...but these images:

http://cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/Metamorphosis_002.jpg



http://cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/14_StarTrek_TOS_171.jpg



http://cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/Metamorphosis_019.jpg


appear to me to show a far narrower aisle than this reconstruction:


http://www.fourmadmen.com/gallery/albums/images/sgcp/ref1/6.jpg


In the first image, I guesstimate the total floor width at McCoy's feet to be about his height plus 11/2 times his head height (a rough measurement, based on taking his headless body height as endding about the center of his ear, adding his head height to that, then drawing a horizontal line at his feet, and guessing where the floor edges would fall.

The latter two images appear to me to show an aisle width about equal to -- or at best, a little greater than -- a chair's; whereas the reconstruction shows an aisle width greater than a chair's width.

Honestly, I know I've become tiresome on this point...but I simply don't see/understand how the images can be taken to imply an aisle width anywhere near as wide as the reconstruction's, and furthermore don't see what "distortion" could be present in terms of width. Take the first image above and check the distance between the inward elbows of Kirk and Spock (i.e., about the inner edges of their respective chairs). This distance is about that of a single chair's width.

I'm curious what a "point of view" shots using the reconstruction above, taken from the apparent camera positions as seen in the screen grabs, would look like. I suspect it would NOT match the screen grabs. Thus, my contention that the inside is narrower by a considerable amount than the outside...

Trekkist


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

X-15A2 wrote:

>The chairs were attached to a swivel mount built into the floor of the Shuttlecraft set, this mount is visible in one scene were the chairs have been removed. 

I would like VERY much to get a copy of this image, which I don't recall ever seeing (or is it posted in the Vault?). 

>They were also designed to be un-naturally (and uncomfortably) low so as to fit in an interior that would actually (or very nearly) fit inside the exterior. 

I recall being puzzled over this incongruity when studying the shuttle myself. Fascinating that such a puzzle should have so simple an origin.

>This is the same interior we see in the Matt Jefferies sketch where the crewman is stooped over between the chairs. 

This is another image I don't recall seeing. Wait...is it in Jeffries' ST Sketchbook? I haven't studied those very closely in some time, realizing on first sight they didn't apply to the interior set as built...

Trekkist


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

trekkist said:


> Chuck P.R. wrote:
> 
> >On the aisle issue, I don't believe our aisle is too wide. I think you might believe that is the case based on the width of Phil's interior fore to aft cutaways, but I think those are not quite wide enough, for the reasons stated above. One of the reasons I'm pretty sure about the aisle width is that I measured the "Scotty Hatch" (the plate that covers the place where he drained the phasers into the engine's power supply) based on one of the standard tools sitting right next to it, I forget which at the moment. But once I plugged it into the drawings it looked perfectly proportional, which helped further confirm the cabin measurements.
> 
> ...


 
We discussed these scaling issues for months.
The inside is narrower by a considerable amount, both on the interior stage site and in our version(and Phil's).

As to cabin height, again, I don't want to get into your methods of calculation as we beat that horse past death until it was little more then a bloody stain.

Maybe our interior(scaled at about 10 feet) is a bit too wide. 

I had forgotten that while I did the final adjustments to the center console, I don't have any final orthographic render views of the inset panels I drew in order to plug them into what will be the final helm.

If FourMadMen wants to do some frontview orthographic renders of the front helm left/right inset panels(one's good enough, they're both to be the same size) and the whole helm - as well as the helm's size in "blender units" - I'll be happy to refine my rough estimates. 2560 x 1920 would help, if you're willing to do this, FourMadMen, I'll do newer, more accurate measurements of the front helm, which will tell us how wide the helm should be.

But if it is a little wider(or narrower) it's not the end of the world.
All one would have to do is move the first cabin walls and chairs in a bit.
Nothing else would change. 

Another issue is that it could not be narrowed tremendously due to the windows.

If the interior were narrowed as much as you seem to think it needs to be the interior walls would be inside the outermost width of the windows. Not doable past a certain point.

So if the cabin width *is* more then a relatively few inches too wide, the helm would have to be made wider then it would be as a perfect reproduction of the interior helm.

One way to make the interior appear a bit narrower would be to move the seats in a tiny bit without changing the other objects. But we're only talking 2" away from each wall, tops. Can't have the front two chairs too close to the center helm console, or the rest too much further away from the outer walls.

Plus I don't want FourMadMen to need to go through making any major revisions. And again, we've got the limiting factor of the windows.

You have never said how much you think the cabin width is off. 

How much do you guesstimate the difference to be in inches?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

P.S. I've found a hi-res orthographic shot that includes the helm, FourMadMen...




It was still in my online mail account(by the way, "you've got mail!"), so I really only need the frontview hi-res orthographic of the left helm panel, and a measurement(as many decimals as you can go) of the entire helm's width in Blender Units.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

If I could chime in here for a minute. I've followed this thread (and its predecessors) since the beginning -- though it's been a long while since I was an active contributor to it.

I wonder if the interior width issue could benefit from coming at it from a different angle. It's pretty clear that the interior was at least in the beginning planned to fit the exterior set. Most of the scale, angle and proportion issues come from them "stretching" the upper half of the interior to gain standing room. Perhaps we can arrive at an educated guess for the interior width by considering the exterior width. I posit that the interior width was left unchanged when they "raised the roof" and we only need to subtract for a very small thickeness of wall to rediscover it. 

An obvious objection to the original design ever fitting in the exterior would be the apparent spaciousness of the aft compartment. Surely it would have been too long even if the roof was low enough. But consider how sets like these are built in wild sections to admit cameras and lighting. The rear wall of that compartment was surely wild so they could get those angles looking forward up the center aisle. The aft bulkhead and door were also most likely wild as well. It is no great stretch to see that back compartment becoming as large as needed on the spot the day of filming. Just move the walls. My point is, how it was designed and how it was used are two different things. The "length" of the aft compartment doesn't necessarily disallow that the interior might have been intended to fit--and can serve as a clue for the interior width.

Why not work the width from the outside in, assuming the original scale of 1:1, and see if the result matches what we see in the screen shots.

M.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

You make some interesting points, MGagen. I definitely agree that the aft bulkhead wall, probably virtually every wall, was wild.

In a couple of shots it is obvious that the aft compart is about 4-5 feet deep, based apon contrasting some views seen behind Kirk from The Menagerie that shows the area where the starboard side wall meets the aft interior wall(one with the cylinders), with the shot showing Scotty electrifying the outer hull.

Phil is probably right that the 48" depth of the cabin in Fourmadmen's model is probably too short, maybe by as much as a foot, but based on scenes from the Menagerie I don't think its as much as a foot off.

But neither do I think that the rear cabin shot showing it to be over six feet deep can be right either. http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/Galileo_Seven_239.jpg

True, it's seen onscreen, I believe with the back wall removed for whatever reason(maybe because in the shot immediately prior to it, http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/14_StarTrek_TOS_166.jpg it was definitely removed and they didn't bother to replace it, or they were shooting with two cameras simultaneously and couldn't) 

However I don't think that those shots should be taken literally any more then this one: http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/Doomsday_Machine_299.jpg

If that one is to be taken literally then not only was the shuttle flying without a side, but it had a protruding hull plate that jets off into space! 

So though Phil might be right that the 48" depth of the aft cabin maybe off, I think the compromise to make the ship fit under 32' feet in total length justifies it. Plus I don't think it is short by much, probably less then a half a foot I believe(unless one takes that Scotty wild-wall pic literally).

On the width issue, it won't be a problem to figure out what the first cabin's interior set's width dimensions were pretty accurately once I get the orthographic panel render and the helm's dimensions(in BU) from FourMadMen and I double check the rough measurements I made before finishing the left panel.

I'd prefer to get the measurements from known dimensions like the panel components, that way we won't have to guess.

Again, the cabin might have to stay a few inches too wide in order to fit the "real-world" redesign of the windows - remember FourMadMen's model's aim is to create a functional integration, if it is too wide.

However I also think a lot of what Trekkist(maybe not all, but a good deal) attributes to the cabin looking too wide might also have to do with the fact that we raised the chairs (along with the upper part of the helm console and interior centerline) so that everything was level with the heightened interior horizontal centerline.

When you raise the wide-at-the-bottom chairs by making the bases higher, the widest parts of the chairs are no longer close to the floor they way they were on the onscreen interior set. 

When the wide-bottomed seat part is close to the floor they seem to take up more aisle space because they are so close to the floor.

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/14_StarTrek_TOS_128.jpg

When you raise them your attention is drawn away from the chairs to the seemingly more spacious floorspace.

http://www.fourmadmen.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=16&pos=0


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

To get off my hobbyhorse for a moment...speaking of this shot:

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehic...Machine_299.jpg

Look at the lower right (as seen from behind) section of Decker's chair. Does it look as though it's all there? As far as I can tell, it appears a "bite" was taken out of the chair (perhaps one of the cheap slush-cast chairs broke?), thus revealing a part of the center console that should by rights be hidden.

Trekkist


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I think its all there, it's just the weird angle of the shot taken from outside the ship.

The curve dips very sharply. I think what you are seeing is the extra-wide arms, best seen in this shot:
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/The_Menagerie_247.jpg

From most angles the chair arms appear thicker then they are due to the way the fiberglass curves downward and the edges have a sort of overhanging "lip."

That particular shot you are referencing shows the right hand arm from an angle that only shows the actual thickness, the bending lip isn't visible so it looks thiner then seen from most angles.


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

That's the only interpretation that makes sense, agreed. But isn't the small bright area above the (partially concealed) white gauge of the center console the top of the chair's right support? 

If so...it still appears as though there's a chunk of the chair itself missing.

I'm not arguing this one. It just struck me as weird. 

Trekkist


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

Okay, here are some rough approximations...not reduced to inches at the moment, as I found I'd posted only the width and height of my Burke chair, not other detail dimensions.

In this photo:



http://cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/Metamorphosis_019.jpg

Wcan see the whole width of the top of Spock's chair, the camera angle appeard to be looking right down the aisle centerline, and Kirk's chairtop ends behind McCoy's chin at the same width as Spock's. Allowing 94% of the measured top of front wall/bottom of console distance (to account somewhat for our not seeing the actual front of the floor), seat centerline spacing is 47% of the height overall.

In this shot




http://cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/14_StarTrek_TOS_152.jpg

My best guess is that the distance from the shuttle's centerline to a seat's centerline is some 1.7 times the width of "Scotty's hatch."

In this shot

 

http://cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/14_StarTrek_TOS_171.jpg


I make the rear wall's height/width ratio at 1:1/56

which (considering I'm taking mm to B&W printouts of about 3 X 5 in) is a close match to this shot

http://cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/14_StarTrek_TOS_128.jpg

from which I get a height/width ratio of 1:1.5.

I've forgotten offhand what the derived interior height was; 
http://cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/14_StarTrek_TOS_171.jpg

seems to imply it MIGHT be as little as 6.5 ft (i.e., 5 in. greater than Nimoy's 6 ' 1"...if not in fact a trifle less.

6.5 x 1.5 = 9.75. 

My argument is simply visual, and basically intuitive. Neither the half-shell renders, nor my own floor-view cutaway...both incorporating a relatively wide aisle, for the same reasons (to preserve inner/outer hatch & window match as closely as possible)...seem to me to reflect the sort of interior as seen here:

http://cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/Metamorphosis_019.jpg

or indeed, here:

http://cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/14_StarTrek_TOS_165.jpg

The plans' aisles (halfshell, and mine) are a "lot" wider than the chairs' width; the set's, not that much wider. For lack of a second full scale Burke, I'll try over the next couple of days to do a crude mockup using the AMT kit's "Burkes," applying aisle widths 

1)commensurate with our plans and 
2)reflective of the set-as-seen. 

and take digital pix of the results. 

I do realize the result will completely mismatch the interior and exterior windows (one of the reasons I widened the interior in my plans to begin with). It's an aesthetic point which compromise -- aisle width or window-matching -- is less desirable. 

But as to the aisle width itself...I think the visuals speak for themselves. I'd be delighted to be proven wrong...but thus far, I don't see otherwise.

Trekkist


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

It may or may not be off a little.

Again, until I can get an orthographic view of the front of the port helm panel plugged into the front helm at high-res I can't comment any further then I have.

However FourMadMen must be otherwise occupied(unlike myself he has a family, kids, and a real life that sometimes precludes him coming out to play). 

So we'll have to wait and see.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Trekkst,

What does Burke have to do with the Shuttlecraft?

Those chairs are not from Burke, they were custom made for the set. Sorry if I am misreading your meaning here, I just wanted it to be clear here that Burke is not involved with this set.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Hey FourMadMen!

Any chance of getting you to email me a STL version of the shuttlecraft?

I don't know the pros or cons of this file format, but it is the only type of all the ones you've posted or emailed me(the parts files were STL's) that I can open.


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

X15-A2 wrote:

>What does Burke have to do with the Shuttlecraft?

Those chairs are not from Burke, they were custom made for the set. Sorry if I am misreading your meaning here, I just wanted it to be clear here that Burke is not involved with this set.

Ebay item # 6607725781 (now in my possession) sure looks like a shuttlecraft chair to me. 

My guess is, being as how you sat in 'em and noted their being rough-cast, one of these formed the master for the shuttle chairs. Which is exactly what I bought it for.

Trekkist


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Hi Trekkist,

That particular chair is just one of the standard Burke chairs with arms which featured in many of the Enterprise interior sets. It is similar in appearance but smaller in size. I have several of those types of Burkes myself so I know what the differences are. The Shuttlecraft chairs are not as sophisticated in shape as the Burkes, they don't have the all compound curve surfaces the Burkes have.

The difference in size is about what the "Burke with arms" would be to the Madison that the Captain's chair on the bridge is made from. The Shuttlecraft seats are closer in size to an armchair (not quite that big but bigger than the dinning-set size Burkes). If you just want to simulate the chairs for your project then they aren't too bad but I wouldn't try to base measurments of the set off them. That was my only concern, that the Burkes might be used as a basis for measurements of the set.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Earth to FourMadMen, Earth to FourMadMen. Come in, Fourmadmen!


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

You'd think at least ONE of the four would respond...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Perhaps he's gone sane? If that is the case we may never hear from him again...


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Chuck,what did you do to make them sane? Maybe he went more mad, and finially got caught!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I started work on my Galileo conversion, but nothing to show yet. Took a break from my K-7, but not back on it. So how is yours coming along, Chuck?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I'll need to get the last batch of exterior parts ordered to get it to where I want it.
If I cut the back end without having the wings in front of me I know I'll screw something up.

A week from now I'll be able to afford to order the last batch of exterior parts.

I think I've figured out how all the parts *should* go together.

Most notably, how to make the roof removable without it having any obvious seams.

I think rather then try to make the thing absolutely perfect, I'm going to get my prototype done so that I can send a copy to FourMadMen(assuming he's still with us) so he can then see exactly where I'm coming from.

Then if he's willing, I'll bite the bullet and see about getting the whole ship done at the approximate 15" size if he can duplicate the way I'm making the physical model in 3D.

Basically when finished, it will be designed so that the model could be done with or without an interior, hung from the ceiling or a desktop piece with removable roof.

I'm not happy about the detail level of the interior pieces from the company I've been getting the pieces done with. Actually the rear panel with the vents, etc. aren't so crisp and clean either, due to the material they use.

So I plan at the very least to redo most of the interior pieces plus the helm that FourMadMen has not yet gotten a chance to finish in 3D form and the rear panel via a more expensive company, those parts at the very least. Even if FourMadMen doesn't want to try to copy my prototype layout in 3D I'm at least planing on redoing those already designed parts.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Lloyd Collins said:


> Chuck,what did you do to make them sane? Maybe he went more mad, and finially got caught!


I don't know. I just tried to order him a strip-o-gram to cheer him up. There is nowhere I can find that will send a singing stripper that far!

Can you believe that the nearest place to FourMadMen that sends out singing strippers is over 55 miles from his city! 

55 miles to find a singing stripper!

That's both sad and outrageous! 

I guess living about 7 blocks from Bourbon Street I keep forgeting how singing-stripper-deprived some communities in this great land of ours is. 

There's a guy named "Cotton the Clown" about 50 miles away. But I didn't ask him if he stripped as well as sang. Somehow I just don't think it would have the same effect as a female blonde bombshell.

Never know, maybe I should call him back and find out just in case...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Major Tom to Ground Control... do you read?... Over.

Massive overdose of real life. Doing the 20 hour day thing right now (even the weekend). I have moments to look but no time until now to post. Got a major presentation first thing Monday morning and might just be ready for it if I don't stop working for very long.

Oh, and Cotton the Clown is, infact, a woman. And blonde.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I don't know how modelers let REAL life get in the way. I am sure you can take a mental health day off, since your job is driving you crazy. 

Chuck, I pester you, because I'm bored, and I just want to make you work. It's...Working..haHA.


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

X-15A2 wrote:

>The Shuttlecraft seats are closer in size to an armchair (not quite that big but bigger than the dinning-set size Burkes). If you just want to simulate the chairs for your project then they aren't too bad but I wouldn't try to base measurments of the set off them.

ARRRGH! (he moaned in belatedly-educated frustration)

(message ends)

Trekkist


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Major Tom to Ground Control... do you read?... Over.
> 
> Massive overdose of real life. Doing the 20 hour day thing right now (even the weekend). I have moments to look but no time until now to post. Got a major presentation first thing Monday morning and might just be ready for it if I don't stop working for very long.


Work, sleep and eat. Gee, our lives aren't too totally different after all! 

Get some rest and some real-world work done. If you get the chance wave to the kids and wife on your journeys between your home office and the bathroom. My most serious live-in girlfriend once made me combine my home office with the bedroom just so she could at least see the back of my head framed by the glow of my monitor as she drifted off to sleep.

We'll get back to our regularly scheduled pestering next week!

Good luck Monday. 




Four Mad Men said:


> Oh, and Cotton the Clown is, infact, a woman. And blonde.


:lol: Guess that's what I get for going by text listings!

Actually I did a websearch after you said that and found a real-life pic of her, sans the makeup, etc:

http://www.cottontheclown.com/pages/473783/index.htm

Actually kinda cute in a M.I.L.F.'ish sorta way! :lol:

But considering most of her gigs are aimed at church groups, etc I think I'll pass on asking her.

A town without singing strippers! Hard to imagine. Here in New Orleans I think after Katrina they worked harder and faster to bring back the strippers then to restore the power and water.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

So much to say to that and so little time. I'm calling it a day and I'm now off to grab 4 hours sleep before I start again.

And let this be a lesson to the rest of you. When opportunity knocks... slam the door in his vile pugnosed face. Or better yet...

_Knock, Knock. "Oh, hi Opportunity. Yes I can. You need it when? *1969?!!!* um, let's see... -- click -- KABLAM!!!! ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz......."_


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

WOOT WOOT WOOT!!! My 79 hour marathon is over (as of 10:03 tonight). The 31 page document that goes along with my presentation is winding it's way through the electronic corridors of this great land of ours and will be waiting for me as real paper! 6:30 comes early (and so does that 2 hour drive that I have to make) so I'm sitting here sipping on 3 fingers of Wild Turkey 101 and half a can of Coca-Cola. Then it's off to bed.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Good Luck! Make us proud!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Kewl!
Good luck and let us know how it came out.
Then take a well-deserved crash and rest up a bit.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Hope the presentation went okay!
Let us know when you get a chance.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

So....any new pics?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Not yet. I was hoping to send off for the last batch of parts this week but FourMadMen seems to be unavailable for the forseeable future.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Hope the email I sent early this (saturday) morning before heading off to work got through and made sense, FourMadMen.

I had spent a good deal time putting it together and just wanted to get it to you, hoping that I could explain further later.

I'd like to make the 1:24th look as "machined" as possible. So what I would like to do it stick the sheet I emailed you attachments about on the bottom of the Parts Sheet 3 sheet, with walls(green outline) on the sides to protect them from damage.

That way for a relatively few more bucks I can get twice the parts that I would otherwise get.

Also notice I'd like to redo the back panel with vents. Notice the white back panel is slightly larger then the last one you rendered(extends past the thin purple outline on the sides) Also the angled part of the top of the piece should go in the opposide direction.

Once we do those changes I'd like to try that other company I was looking into that uses a smoother process. The crispness of the details was okay, but not spectacular with the other company.

I'm curious to see what kind of quote the other company gives me. If it's not ridiculous I'll probably give them a try.

Let me know what part of this needs any explaining.
Heck, for that matter just let me know you're still alive and kicking somewhere out there.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I emailed the original partsheet3 for a quote.
Haven't gotten a quote back yet, though.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Here's a couple of renders.
Original file created in Blender by FourMadMen.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Just got the quote back on the above parts.
They had to correct a few things before quoting the price.

Will have to wait until this payday Friday night to order them but I should have the parts in about two weeks.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

So does this mean you can do more, on my shuttle. LOL


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Gotta get the prototype done before I can do any copies...

plus I don't plan on doing any copies without talking to FourMadMen about it and he seems to be giving me the cold shoulder lately.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Got the parts rendered below yesterday!

Having a problem getting my pictures transfered from my camera though.

I'll save them and post them when I can. 


http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=28400


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> BTWay, if the ship is exactly 17.845 Blender Units(assuming it's not rounded off),
> 
> the new length of the total ship should be 371.58651462568170550322260783342 inches, or 30'11.586514625" in length. In 1/24th scale 15.482771 inches.


the photos on page 12


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Looking good! :thumbsup:

(What are they exactly?  )


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Chuck! Update, please!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Here 'ya go!

While I'm not finished the finish line is in sight.

What I'm struggling with right now is that using resin and purely filling the negative space between the inner and outer hulls will end up making her waaaay to heavy for resin wings. But I'm working on a solution.

I finally was able to stop and buy a USB reader.

Here are the last set of parts FourMadMen made a 3D model for!

Thanks again, FourMadMen!

I had them made into the real thing.

Neat seeing something from cyberspace made real!

Hope you like the pics!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

And here is another, unfortunately there is a five file limit per post.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Hi res versions of the pics headed your way, FourMadMen!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Looking really good,Chuck! It has been slow going, but seeing it getting worked on , is worth it. Very detailed, from what I can see. Thanks for the update.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Wow, those look great! The last time I saw that arrangement was in a simple image file. The wonders of technology. I should probably put all these "3D prints" up on my site for all the world to see. Good stuff.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Go right ahead!

Actually if you want to post the high-res versions I emailed you and screen shots of the model and link to them that'll do a lot more justice to the parts then the dinky size files my account will let me post here. 

I've been real busy at work but am planning on freeing up more time(and money) to finish this soon.

Thanks again for the .stl's that made these and the others possible, FourMadMen!:thumbsup:


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

What! You didn't thank me for prodding poking, jabbing, and such. I'm hurt, oh the pain! Wait, thats gas.:lol:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Gas? I thought that was Lloyd...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Same thing really


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Did you get the email I sent, FourMadMen?

The more I look at the low res pics above, the less justice I think they do to the work you did on the parts.

Links to high res pics I sent would be appreciated if you have the webspace or the inclination.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I did thanks! I'll be adding them to the Galileo Construction Project gallery in it's own album. How about some new photos of the overall progress so far?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Sure thing. I loaned my camera to a neighbor so he could take some pics of some roof repairs that were screwed up on his house but I'll get it back tommorrow night or Tuesday from him or his wife. I may get home too late tommorrow to get it but will be off this Tuesday and Wednesday. 

The only parts that need to be done are the top and bottom side panels/ port door and a few interior pieces.

The biggest problem I'm going to have to figure out is how to do the main top and bottom sections. 

The area between the interior and exterior walls on what I have now are filled solid and I fear the two pieces will be far too heavy to be supported by the wings as solid resin pieces.

I've ordered some urethane foam and will experiment with either gluing styrene to a molded version of them in foam or perhaps spraying the foam with fiberglass or resin. A third idea is to possibly vacuform covers for a foam core.

Glueing thin styrene sheets to a urethane foam version of the core seem simplest but won't exactly lend itself to quick and easy reproductions.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Haven't gotten my camera back yet but I did get my urethane foam order in from Smooth-On sooner then I expected.

So I hope to have a couple of molds of the core of the ship done by Wednesday night, hopefully with pics. 

Here's hoping the glued-styrene-sheet-over-foam approach works...

Anybody here tried this method before?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Just an update. I'm halfway through molding the bottom of the Galileo core.


I'm going to need at least another gallon of silicon RTV rubber to do the top half.



After molding the outside of the bottom half of the Galileo, I turned it over to find that some of the thin sheeting I had used to level off and make the floor perfectly flat had bubbled up and seperated, apparently as a reaction to the rubber cement I used to attach to the bottom floor of the mold.



I thought Elmer's rubber cement didn't adversely react to pretty much anything...  



It's got me thoroughly confused as to why that happened.



So when I get home tonight I have to finish redoing some of the inside floors/walls before finishing the second half of the mold.



But that should be doable by late late tonight.


(BTWay I haven't gotten ahold of my neighbor yet to retrieve my camera, but as soon as I do they'll be new pictures.)


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Sweet man! Looking forward to it.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I just can't believe Chuck is not finished! Got to stop letting life get in the way, of modeling.LOL


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Unfortunately I need stupid stuff like electricity and food. Not to mention the resin, RTV rubber and urethane foam/plastic stuff I'm using aren't free either.

Oh well...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

As I left for work this morning the urethane foam I'm using for the second part of the mold was expanding all over the place.

I'm interested in what I'll find when I get home.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

^^Your whole home full, and you can't get in!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Nope.

Just had the urethane so thoroughly stick to the inside of the part I was molding I had to literally pry it out with a hammer!!!

Took a good bit of the resin I used to level and repair the inside with it too, as well as some plastic!!!

I used about THREE freakin' coats of Mold Release 1700 that was supposed to work perfectly for keeping urethane from sticking to plastic, resin, RTV or even other urethane.

Urethane crap still stuck almost as bad as CA!!!  

I should have gone with my initial impulse and just used plain ole' petroleum jelly as the fancy/smancy mold release stuff that was supposedly "specially formulated" for the urethane didn't look/feel too substantial to me, even with three coats.

At least it didn't stick to the RTV rubber mold, so I guess I'm at least a little lucky on that count.

Had the urethane ruined 3 quarts worth of expensive RTV I would have been super P.O.'ed!!!

Now I've got to go re-repair the inside of the lower half of the ship and then use plain old RTV for the second half!  



I thought if I used it for the second half of the mold it would save some RTV. If it seperated properly it would have been a good idea.

*If* being the operative word here...

I'll probably cut down some of the foam to make space for RTV and at least use is as sort of a filler.

Oh well, here we go again...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

BTWay, Fourmadmen,

I've been trying to email you for a couple of days to no avail, so I just tried a Private Message via Hobbytalk.

Seems your Hobbytalk box is full so I couldn't send one.

If you decide to, you can download the contents of your Hobbytalk boxes as a Text file and thereby save them locally, freeing up space without loosing anything.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Any updates on you model?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Sorry, 

Money problems along with my being anal about the dimensions/parts have caused me to take waaaaaaaaaay longer then I imagined. I made one resin copy before realizing the bottom half interior wasn't deep enough along with a half dozen little boring details I won't bore everybody else with.

I've gotten the bottom very close to "presentable" and may take pictures later today/tonight.

I'm hoping to finish the "core" bottom and top by Friday and mail out a resin copy to FourMadMen Saturday or Monday, depending on whether or not I can get an hour away from work or not to get to a functioning Post Office(there still aren't a lot of them here in the New Orleans area).

Again, I'm still a bit stumped on the weight issue of the bottom and top core parts.

I'm thinking of maybe making the wing configuration out of molded 280 degree tin bismuth and somehow integrating that into the superstructure. Considering the main body's weight I certainly can't just glue the wings on and wait for them to fall off 'ala the Unobtainium DrooperPrise.

It would be a lot more expensive then resin(not to mention a mondo pain in the butt dealing with boiling metal), but I don't plan on making a ton of these anyway.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

You can't use sheet styrene?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

For the core?

The resin copy turned out to be lighter then the sheet styrene original. 

The volume of these pieces will be more obvious once you see the pieces.

The bottom half alone takes approximately 38 _*liquid*_ ounces of resin.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^I was thinking you might could use styrene for the wings. If that's the only part that's styrene it might not be too much trouble.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

It's where the wings attach to the hulls that I'm worried about warping, bending.

The wings are extremely thin compared to the body of the ship.

I think even styrene would bend. I'm thinking metal wings/connection points and/or armature may end up being necessary. 

Once I get the bottom half molded later tonight I'm going to try a couple of experiments with foam, though just being able to screw on molded metal wings might be easier. Right now the only way I might consider using foam is if it comes out smooth and clean enough that a simple painted or sprayed-on coating would result in a good, accurate piece.

I was thinking of maybe trying a thin vacuum-formed "core" with foam injected, but I have zero experience making vacuumformed pieces. 

I'd rather not try to reinvent the wheel and try to learn a whole new process from scratch at this point.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

The wings on the shuttle, have the supports that go to the nacelles, that won't be enough support?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Probably not, at least not if made by resin. If you felt the weight on this thing you'd understand...

BTWay... I have half of the bottom half molded and curing at home as I type this.
I should have the other half of the bottom finished sometime tonight.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

When you have something to show, would like to see photos.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Just a few minutes ago I poured the top half of the shuttlecraft "core."

With any luck I'll have it in the mail to FourMadMen Saturday or Monday.

Ran out of RTV and just yesterday got enough to finish the top half. 

I should be able to do some photos late late tonight(Friday AM) or tommorrow night(Saturday AM).
(I've been up for a day now, working through the night on the mold for the top shuttlecraft "core" and will have to leave for work in a little over an hour. I will probably crash when I get home tonight, about 7:30-8PM Central.)


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

BTWay, I pulled the first piece from the mold before leaving for work.

Needs a bit sanding, but I'll be able to send it out for FourMadMen's edification as soon as I get a few hours free during the middle of the day to get to a Post Office.

Pictures early tommorrow or Friday night/Saturday morning...


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Thanks for the update. If you did not have me nagging at you, would you be working on it?


----------



## actias (May 19, 2003)

Use sheet acrylic or Plexiglass for the wings. It's quite rigid and will not bend or warp (Unless you use a paper thin piece).


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Lloyd Collins said:


> Thanks for the update. If you did not have me nagging at you, would you be working on it?


 
Yep. But the long days at work have been the primary obstacle.

For the last few months I just don't seem to have much more energy then enough to come home, eat, sleep, get up, go to work, repeat... repeat... repeat.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

actias said:


> Use sheet acrylic or Plexiglass for the wings. It's quite rigid and will not bend or warp (Unless you use a paper thin piece).


Thanks for the suggestion.

I believe I have found some very very good foam that is very dense and yet still light.

Can polyurethane foam be sprayed with flat polyurethane spray?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Yep. But the long days at work have been the primary obstacle.
> 
> For the last few months I just don't seem to have much more energy then enough to come home, eat, sleep, get up, go to work, repeat... repeat... repeat.


I am glad to out of the rat race, since they won anyway!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck, where you been man! I know I've been slack in responding to e-mails but no need to avoid us.  Hope you are well, rat race or no.

In my own defence I was in Germany for the first part of the month and things have not slowed down for me yet.

I said this to Lloyd and I'll say it to you too... Pictures, man! Pictures!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Working, working, and sleeping mostly.

I should be posting a few pics tonight.

I *finally* got some decent casts done.

My mighty pile of rejects is much higher then what I've accomplished though.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

No one ever called you a reject, misfit maybe. OH, the Galileo. Never mind!


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

Why arent you using instacast with either phenolic microballoons or glass beads as filler ?
Wings could still be sheet styrene with an aluminum core.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Chuck, where you been man! I know I've been slack in responding to e-mails but no need to avoid us. Hope you are well, rat race or no.
> 
> In my own defence I was in Germany for the first part of the month and things have not slowed down for me yet.
> 
> I said this to Lloyd and I'll say it to you too... Pictures, man! Pictures!


These are very poor res due to forum restrictiions, but I'll email you better ones, and more importantly will be mailing you some parts that could stand being made into 3D Stl's that I could have more cleanly produced via our usual process...

I'll be mailing out some parts and explanations to you probably tuesday.

I've at least figured out how the parts should fit together and the final part count, as well as done rough versions of most.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Here are pics of the last part sheet produced.

I think they came out pretty well


----------



## actias (May 19, 2003)

Very nice! How big is this shuttle going to be? Will it be available to the board members ? If so whats the target price?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

WOW! Big update, and worth the wait. Looking awesome,Chuck!!

I think they will go for, about $10,000 each. You got to figure the cost of Research, Development, E-Mail charges,Parts, Clean-up of New Orleans, protection money cost, Internet fees.......So on! A real bargain, I would say.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

actias said:


> Very nice! How big is this shuttle going to be? Will it be available to the board members ? If so whats the target price?


Other then for my 3D mentor FourMadMen, I might make a few for some other friends but other then those I'll be giving to them I have no idea what the cost would be as I haven't even definitely(though probably have) solved the major technical issue of weight and final type of materials I'll be using. Between tools and materials and 3D buildup of parts I've definitely spent over $1000, probably already spent well over $1500.

I won't be attempting to recoupe anywhere near all(if any) of the development costs if I do sell any. The only question will be how much over the simple cost of materials and post-prototype cost I'd pass on. Not to mention I've no idea of the number I'd make, which would also affect the cost.

Plus I wouldn't consider charging even a penny above cost without sharing said proceeds with FourMadMen.

We've spent literally hundreds of hours together emailing my crude 2D drawings and his magnificent 3D renders back and forth through countless revisions. 

Even down to designing a complete phaser cabinet based around the exact dimensions of the MR TOS phaser(while some people aren't impressed by the MR version, it has appeared onscreen in the Enterprise Mirror Universe Episodes.) Courtesy of FourMadMen's website:http://www.fourmadmen.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=7&pos=0

I've got over a hundred megs of 2D final drawings and that's only about a fourth of the actual drawings we created and sent back and forth between one another to get to the final drawings/3D versions.


BTWay, she'll be about 15.5" roughly and be 1/24th in scale.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Also let me add that Phil Broad's tremendous help with screen captures and his blueprints were also invaluable as benchmarks and all the other help and his personal insights that he shared(having seen the original stage prop firsthand quite alot) will definitely warrant a free copy of whatever Class F shuttlecraft I can eventually bring into being. While both my and FourMadMen's interpretations of the Class F differ from his on several points, Phil's fantastic blueprints helped show all of us how involved an exhaustive set of plans would be. Check them out and tons of other Class F related stuff at his website here:http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/GalileoTop.htm



Since Phil did a thorough set of plans for the stage prop exterior as built, and some beautiful plans of some of the interior set's key props, but did not attempt to integrate the two(I believe he wants to, but has not had the chance to) FourMadMen and I's take on the Class F necessarily differs as we only wanted to do an integrated craft. We also didn't do an exact as built version of either the exterior or interior sets because it is impossible to integrate them without modifying both - hopefully we did that integration in the most seamless manner possible. Also in laying out a few of the front helm panels I think I differ with Phil on a few minor dimensions, but Phil's drawings still have all the elements of the version he did in there.



Which leads me to thank the first guy who strived and did an excellent job of making sure all of the stuff of a full size, as seen onscreen, Class F shuttlecraft was drawn with all the stuff in there - David Winfrey who started the first attempt to lay out a truly logical, functional, set of plans and published them way back in 1979!



With his permission check them out here:http://www.fourmadmen.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=25


----------



## actias (May 19, 2003)

You could rotocast the body which would cut way down on the amount of resin used as well as most of the weight (you end up with a hollow cast body). Dennis Stines has a rotocaster and he makes beautiful clean castings. He makes parts for people at very reasonable prices, especially if you have already made the molds. In fact he makes vacuumform canopy's and rotocast bodies (for Sci Fi Models) of the New Battlestar Galactica Viper. If you are interested in being put in touch with him, email me at [email protected]


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Hey cool, Chuck. I look forward to seeing it!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

The parts should arrive by Friday, FourMadMen.

I included a partial reproduction(ran out of material) of the upper along with the complete resin version.

The partial reproduction of the upper half I did with a sampler bottle of foam from Smooth On.

I had not held out much hope for being able to do the pieces in foam because of results with the other formulas I tried.

Once you see the Foam-It 15 sample I think you'll see that it's probably very doable.


The Foam-It 15 urethane foam is extremely dense and comes to a finish almost as sharp as resin, especially once sealed with a primer and sanded.

It's much much lighter then resin or plastic even though it volumetrically only expands to four times it' original volume.

Question to guys with more advanced experience with urethane, chemically mixed liquid to solid foam:

Is there any point to attempting degassing the liquid before it begins to reacte and expand? 

Or would removing air actually screw up or interfere with the expanding cell structure of the foam?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

actias said:


> You could rotocast the body which would cut way down on the amount of resin used as well as most of the weight (you end up with a hollow cast body). Dennis Stines has a rotocaster and he makes beautiful clean castings. He makes parts for people at very reasonable prices, especially if you have already made the molds. In fact he makes vacuumform canopy's and rotocast bodies (for Sci Fi Models) of the New Battlestar Galactica Viper. If you are interested in being put in touch with him, email me at [email protected]


 
Thanks actias!

I think I've found a foam material that will help me solve the weight problem(the two main upper and lower parts of the shuttlecraft *weigh over 4 LBS* when done in resin!) while still using conventional RTV molding techniques.

If that doesn't work out though I might take you up on your gracious offer.


Rotocasting does sound interesting though. And I'll always willing to learn more, as I'm sure a lot more of us here are.

*Anyone have good links to info on the topic?* 

I'm confused as to how it would be used on a non-rounded object,
though I admit I may be reading too much into the subject, based on it's name. (See, I'm not only willing to learn new stuff, I'm also willing to admit my complete and utter ignorance of a subject as well  ).


----------



## actias (May 19, 2003)

Rotocasting is where a mold is filled with the desired amount of resin in it (Determined by how thick you want the resin walls to be). Then the mold, with the resin in it, is put on the rotocasting machine (which is a machine like a gyroscope). The machine is usually cranked by hand which rotates the mold in multiple directions until the resin moving around inside is cured. The resin literally sloshes around inside the mold until is becomes thick enough to start collecting on the walls of the mold. The result is a perfectly hollow casting of whatever the mold was of. The details of the casting are crisp and clean. In fact, if not for the weight of the casting being so light you would swear it was solid cast.:wave:

One problem with the dense foam is that it will develop surface imperfections as it ages. Over time the air cells under the surface deteriorate and collapse. You can see this as the surface of your parts no longer look perfectly level. The other problem is that it slowly shrinks over time and you will start to develop fine spiderweb-like cracks in your finished paint job. Many movie stunt props use this material. If you have seen any stunt props made of this material, they look like you painted a rubber ball and then squeezed and squished it until the paint job was all full of cracks.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I'll let you know when they arrive. Thanks!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> I'll let you know when they arrive. Thanks!


I went ahead and sent the tracking number to your fourmadmen email address.
I sent it Fed Ex. 

That way, if no one is home you'll definitely at least know if they tried to deliver and where it is being held until the next attempt, they've got about the most detailed tracking available, though Priority Mail is usually a much bigger bargain.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

actias said:


> Rotocasting is where a mold is filled with the desired amount of resin in it (Determined by how thick you want the resin walls to be). Then the mold, with the resin in it, is put on the rotocasting machine (which is a machine like a gyroscope). The machine is usually cranked by hand which rotates the mold in multiple directions until the resin moving around inside is cured. The resin literally sloshes around inside the mold until is becomes thick enough to start collecting on the walls of the mold. The result is a perfectly hollow casting of whatever the mold was of. The details of the casting are crisp and clean. In fact, if not for the weight of the casting being so light you would swear it was solid cast.:wave:
> 
> One problem with the dense foam is that it will develop surface imperfections as it ages. Over time the air cells under the surface deteriorate and collapse. You can see this as the surface of your parts no longer look perfectly level. The other problem is that it slowly shrinks over time and you will start to develop fine spiderweb-like cracks in your finished paint job. Many movie stunt props use this material. If you have seen any stunt props made of this material, they look like you painted a rubber ball and then squeezed and squished it until the paint job was all full of cracks.


Thanks for the info.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

There should be a package sitting on your doorstep, FourMadMen!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

There should be, but I intercepted it.:devil:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Hmmm....


I can make more copies of them. So no problem.

Of course, there are many more parts required.

Where is that mailing list delete key... ?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Well, nothing on the doorstep. It managed it's way into the hallway. I've got more to say but in a small rush just this second but let me say, How bloody cool is that!!! The resin pieces are VERY heavy. The foam has some weight to it too. It's a shame you ran out of material I would have like to have seen the outer finish on a complete foam piece.

Again, more to say soon but WAY COOL!!!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Ok, 4MM got it out of my hands! I was SO close.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

hehehe. Too slow Joe.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Well, nothing on the doorstep. It managed it's way into the hallway. I've got more to say but in a small rush just this second but let me say, How bloody cool is that!!! The resin pieces are VERY heavy.


Believe it or not, the re-re-re-re redone plastic and heavily glue-laden original cores are even heavier then the resin by a few ounces!

I'm glad you can now see and fully appreciate where my worries came from about the wings not ending up sagging like the nacelles on the UnObtainium Drooper-Prises. 

People seem incredulous when I talk about drooping wings, maybe because their main experience has been with the thin plastic shells of the AMT kit - perhaps they are thinking the tops and bottom of a full blown 15.5" shuttle should just barely be twice as heavy as the featherweight AMT kits.

I never weighed the two pieces individually but based on the combinede shipping weight the resin pieces have to each be at/over two pounds!

It's still difficult to impart and accurately describe the amount of "heft" the parts have with actually holding them in your hands.





Four Mad Men said:


> The foam has some weight to it too.


True. But in comparison it's tremendously lighter. Maybe even light enough to allow resin wings but I'm still not sure about that.



Four Mad Men said:


> It's a shame you ran out of material I would have like to have seen the outer finish on a complete foam piece.


Sorry about that, I kind of obscured the finish possible a bit by spraying the top of the foam piece to make sure auto primer would take without peeling.

But if you look at the smooth parts of the inner-underside of the partial foam piece you'll get an idea of the smooth yet firm, crisp, surface possible even before any attempted finishing.

It's a shame I ran out, but I'm glad I decided to take a chance and buy the sample pack of foam. I had been entirely ready to give up on the foam approach before trying that last formula.

I'm not saying that it will definitely be the solution, but it least it looks doable.
Notice how very small the round cell structure of the foam is.

According to the product info it's dense enough to be machine toolable.




Four Mad Men said:


> Again, more to say soon but WAY COOL!!!


There are problems with both the top and bottom, most noticably on the bottom interior after I decided to add some floor detail to the bottom half interior - i.e. holes where the seven chairs would be centered, outline of the "Scotty Hatch," indented slot for 1st to 2nd cabin sliding door, and cavity for rear room's metal floor grate - the upper half of the mold shifted as I was using one of my last batches of resin.

That's why the interior floor has a slight indentation in it.
But since all the major details were clearly visible I thought it best to just send it out to you rather then wait another week for more resin.

There are other imperfections to the parts but I thought at least the design structure was clear(some things I'll have to email you about).

Sorry these took so long to send you.

But I thought that since the design is clear if we could do them in 3D and I sent the parts out for build up mechanically I could finally stop staring at calipers and redoing and redoing and redoing them until I can no longer stand to look at the objects of my anal retentiveness.

*to be continued...*


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

*continued...*


My major aims in the design of the core pieces were:


1) to insure the stability of the ship, not just the wings but also the hull walls so that the walls will be thick enough whether they end up being made of foam or resin, so that no significant warping will happen to the main structure.

As I'm not going to be able to drop $500,000 on aluminum or steel plastic injection molds and will likely use at least some type of liquid to solid medium(whether foam or resin) the thicker more simply/sturdily constructed the core the less like she will be to warp.

2) to design a core around which the other components can as simply as possibly be "plugged into" or added on. 

3) Preferably the lower the part count the better.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

BTWay, there were smaller parts in the package too...

I probably should have mentioned that waaaaaay earlier. 

Here's hoping they are still kicking around there somewhere...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Would you still happen to have some of the 2D orthos I did of the Scotty hatch components, by any chance, FourMadMen?

I think those and the rear cabin floor grate drawings are the only ones I'm lacking from the backup set of files you sent me after Katrina ate my originals.

Actually, the floor grating is waaay more important to me then the Scotty hatch stuff as I'll probably never show that stuff in our final 1:24th physical mockups.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I sent everything I had so you should have them too. The main one I have has "Scotty" and "Hatch" in the image name. The only image I have of the rear grate is from TG7 and shows no real detail.

I don't recall any grate drawings you've sent, and I certainly can't find any in my reference files.

I found the two sets of smaller pieces. Eventually. I didn't find the front and read panels until I was filling the trash with the packing peanuts.

I recieved you e-mail too. I'm not entirely sure what you want me to do. I see you want a door pocket for the interiror but other than that I'm not sure where you are going with it.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Basically I'd like to do the top and bottom cores in 3D and have them built up, the imperfections/flaws would be gone.

Actually, on the interior of the top and bottom, you could use the 3D model interior details in their entirety with the exception of the chairs, helm, side computers and swingout sensors, plus I'd like to take out the interveening wall between the two chambers and do them similar to the way I described in the JPEGs.

So when I do the final interiors I'll then do the chairs, helm, side computers and swingout sensors, plus the interveening wall between the two chambers, and the three rear cabin walls in resin(the only rear cabin wall I really need done would be the starboard interior one with the instruments). On the walls/floors all that would have to be there is a descernable indentation in order to show where to plug in the computers/sensors/chairs etc.

The rest of the interior could be molded(either in resin or high density foam) exactly from the model.

The core I made to show how the space between your interior and exterior might be filled and the appropriate amount of space taken away to allow for the insert of the walls I mentioned.

On the exterior top I'd like to just add a small piece on top that would complete the curve(that I would do as a resin piece and glue to the foam to assure a perfect finish) and basically cut out the shape I designed from your model so the side wings and rear wing details aft of the rear hull would be the only parts left.

I would then cast the resultant "wings" in resin. When the top, thin curved sliver of resin, side resin wings and front resin panel were added, the only part of the top that would then need to be added would be the rear engine module and the back panel with the vents(which would be glued to the bottom part).

The process would be the same on the exterior bottom half.
Basically, subtract the shape of the "core" from a "filled in" version of your model(cavities between inner and outer hulls filled in solid).

Slicing out the bottom exteriors' "core" shape would also leave the sides that extend back past the rear of the main core hull. It would be best to cut those vertical sides from the core around the wing connections, so they could be slipped upward around where the wings/pylons connect to the side of the ship.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I'm sure a lot of this is unclear.

But I think the best point to start would be for you to take a spare back-up copy of the full shuttle, then find some magic blender fairy dust, and make that model solid, through and through. As if all the spaces between your interior and exterior are filled in and solid.

Then, when subtracting the core shapes I scratchbuilt, the other parts will end up being properly formed parts.

The process of subtracting the core parts almost creates the other parts .

Simple, huh?!?

[He says as he ducks and runs for cover...]


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I am quite sure, if I *HAD* understood what you said, then their would be something wrong with me! :freak: 
Lucky for me I am still *N* _O_ R MAL!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I understood (most) of it this time. Not entirely sure what "The process of subtracting the core parts almost creates the other parts." means without knowing what "the other parts" refer to.

In general I have to say that it just doesn't work that way Chuck. Not automatically anyway. Sadly I'm swamped at work at will remain so for the rest of the year. Besides, based on the cores I've seen the out skin goes on top of the core so minor imperfections won't show. So, why are you trying to make a perfect core that people won't see?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> I understood (most) of it this time. Not entirely sure what "The process of subtracting the core parts almost creates the other parts." means without knowing what "the other parts" refer to.
> 
> In general I have to say that it just doesn't work that way Chuck. Not automatically anyway. Sadly I'm swamped at work at will remain so for the rest of the year. Besides, based on the cores I've seen the out skin goes on top of the core so minor imperfections won't show. So, why are you trying to make a perfect core that people won't see?


My core isn't a glove match to your model. I know it's not quite that simple, I was being fecious, of course.

If you can make a solid version of your model, make the rear engine module removable like the scratchbuilt one, take out enough space for the center and three rear cabin walls, and just slice her in half at the vertical centerline('ala the AMT kit) I can do the rest.(No "cores" just the whole top and bottom of the ship).

Heck, worse comes to worse, if you could just make her solid, cut her in the two pieces, and make the rear engine module removable similar to the way the scratchbuilt one is, I can do the rest.(Again, no "cores" necessary).

(I'll just have to mold the rear cabin wall components from the bisected version and router out enough room to re-insert scratchbuilt walls.)

Do you think that would be doable? Pretty please?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Well if you can graphically demonstrate exactly what you just described I'll see what it would take to do.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Kewl beans!

I'll post/send it to you tonight. Right now I'm stuck at work at the moment.
Just had a customer from your city a minute ago who said he knew you.

Small small world...

Thanks!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Do tell. People from my city are notorious liars. And people from my city in your city are notorious drunks.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Anybody from other cities are usually notorious drunks when in New Orleans! :lol:

On people from your city being liars I'll have to take your word on that - or not...

(hmmm... if he swears people from his city are liars then he must be lying... but if he's lying... that means he's telling the truth, but if he's telling the truth he must be lying... ERROR ERROR ERROR ERROR)


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

FourMadMen, you've got mail!

Just sent you a file that I hope will help explain what I'm clumsily proposing instead of my "core" idea.



Basically you have to start with a solid model(i.e. where your interior and exteriors are "filled-in" and connected with no voids).

After that, if you could remove the parts I highlighted in the first diagram and place them aside to be done seperately that would extremely helpful.

Then you take what is left and slice her in half at the center seam like the old AMT kit.

If it's too time consuming or difficult to make all of the removals I highlighted in the first diagram, if you could then instead do the removable engine block(and socket for it to plug into similar to the scratchbuilt one I sent you) and remove the front panel and curved parts at the top of the two side wings I could(with much greater effort but nonetheless probably doable) probably copy the other parts in their bisected form then cut them out and replace them manually.

Heck, if I have to make the whole bottom half out of molton tin alloy or design a stand that puts no weight on the nacelles/landing pads in order to get around the weight problem I'm ready to do it.

I really want to *get'er done!,* if you know what I mean.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Hoping my email made at least a little sense...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Just got a fantastic 1970's poster of a shuttlecraft taking off from TOS E in the mail today!

I didn't know it existed until I saw her on Ebay.

She's puuuuuuuuurty!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Cool find.

And here I thought that first explanation was hard to understand. Wow. I know English is my native language. And the words looked like English by themselves, but put them together with the colors and the arrows and it's academia all over again. _Oh the colors..._.

Not trying to be dense but now I'm entirely lost. Any chance of a non-2D sketch? I can give you the mesh and you can have a go at it with your 3D app?

Where IS Norman when you need him?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Can you output in a 3D studio max 8 compatible file? The 3D studio max files that you currently have don't work with the version 8 even though the program says it imports the older versions.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

??? 

can you output to 3D Studio Max 8?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Oh well, guess I've run him off...

No shuttlecrafts for Christmas. 

My 9-5 job is more fun anyway.
I love spending endless hours answering the same questions over and over with no end in sight.

Guess I could go build a birdhouse...

Birds are nice and cheery!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Yet another package headed your way, FourMadMen, it should arrive today via Priority Mail. So if you get a weird looking tube in the mail with a PayPal shipping sticker on it, it's yours.

Didn't want you or the Mrs to decline acceptance thinking you hadn't bought anything via Ebay/Paypal...


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> My 9-5 job is more fun anyway.
> I love spending endless hours answering the same questions over and over with no end in sight.


Ah! The joys of job satisfaction. :devil:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Lloyd Collins said:


> Ah! The joys of job satisfaction. :devil:


I like most of my job. But there are times it becomes a grind...


But, like the Rally's hamburger commercial says... Gotta Eat!!!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Here's hoping you got that Galileo poster I sent you, FourMadMen...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Sorry for the delay. I've been swamped with work and real life. I did get it, Thanks!!! It actually only showed up a few days ago. Very cool and not something you had to do but, again, thanks.

Now, download this file it contains several test exports from Blender in file types that 3DS can import. Try them all as the mesh also contains a texture and we'll see which imports reflect that. As I say, try them all and let me know which ones work and which ones don't (although they should all work). Your job, also, is to tell me what the mesh is and what color it is.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Thanks.
It might take a few days as I'm having trouble with my home internet connection.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

You still alive out there somewhere, FourMadMen?

Please check out your email box if you get a chance...


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

^^ I was wondering about you. Been awhile!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Updates on your model?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I want to have the whole thing built up in two halves.

But it will be awhile until I either have the knowledge to be able to manipulate the 3D files FourMadMen worked up for me in order to be able to do that.

Not to mention I am operating on low fundage at the moment too.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Thanks for the update.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

And another very old thread pops back to life! This is fun!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Have you checked your email lately?


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Yes, catching up on threads one by one ... I'll get there.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I thought I might resurrect this thread as Round 2 is working on a 1/32 scale version of the Galileo.

There is a ton of info here in this and the three other parts of this thread. Sadly a large chunk of posts were accidently deleted by an unintentional moderator error.

However FourMadMen and myself spent literally hundreds of hours researching the subject, emailing stills and 2D drawings. He created tons of 3D renders as well from our drawings, some of which I even had turned into 1/24th scale parts.

FourMadMen has once again started working on this again of late, though real life has gotten in both of our ways in the last couple of years.

I hope anyone going through this will enjoy the info and work not just he and I put into the thread but many other posters as well, like Phil Broad, JohnP, Warped9, and countless others.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

P.S.

I unforgivably forgot to give credit, when naming only a few of the people who contributed to all the parts of the this thread,

to the great David Winfrey! 

The guy who was the first to both attempt and actually succeeded in coming up with the first set of blueprints that integrated the full size interior set with a properly detailed as-seen-onscreen-but-necessarily-enlarged exterior.

He achieved this feat way back in 1979 in the early days of videotape back when one had terrible resolution, couldn't really freeze anything and had to have developed carpel tunnel syndrome just due to the number times he had to hit rewind and play!!!! 

Kudos David Winfrey, wherever you are!!!!:thumbsup:


Please chime in and let us know how your are, if possible.
Anybody who knows David Winfrey's current email, etc, please contact me as I'd like to see how he's doing.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Check out the two photos on this page...

http://www.trekplace.com/article18.html


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

trekkist said:


> A'hm back...still not fully up to speed (couple busy nights, not to mention lotsa meat in this thread) but have read forward from where I entered the fray.
> 
> To the Perfesser: thanks for your compliments as to the amount of detail incorporated in my plans; I endeavoured to depict "all that was knowable" and, comparing Phil Broad's DVD grabs to what I recall seeing from my old videotape off-the-screen Kodak analog prints (*sigh*) and my examined-to-page-removal copy of the "Galileo Seven" Fotonovel, think I succeeded (though I never noticed "Spock's levers" in "Immunity Syndrome" were the butts of steak knives).
> 
> ...


Found 'em!

With my feeble memory I forgot who is who among some of the monickers used here.

Time for a PM!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Tried an old email I had for David Winfrey, aka Trekkist, but it's not working. 

Anyone have an email for the guy they can share please PM me with it(please don't post it, though).

Thanks in advance for any help you guys can give.:thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Are there any pictures of the current state of the Galileo stage mockup?

Or even better, some of the current restoration work in progress?

Any and all links and/or pics, links to pics, etc people can contribute would be appreciated.

Even some that showed the first restoration pre-2K.

I'd especially like to see pics of the skelton of the old girl.

I had some that showed a lot of that from the first restoration.

Unfortunately that was prior to the hard drive they were on being fried,
and recently my girlfriend decided to move two stashes of dozens of 
boxes of stuff - both old and new into one room.

I knew where my back up DVD's were before the boxes were moved
and jumbled all together - but unfortunately my labeling wasn't all
that specific. So my back up DVD's could be anywhere. 

So any links and/or pics anyone can post either of the older restoration
or the one going on now would be very very greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance for anything you guys can come up with! :thumbsup:


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

Here you go:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Thanks!

Anybody have old first restoration(or new) pics?


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

Here is a recent one:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Long live the _Galileo._ :thumbsup:


----------



## zysurge (Sep 6, 2002)

I think the patient's going to live....


----------



## Carl_G (Jun 30, 2012)

I can't wait for updates. She's going to look glorious once they're done!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Thanks again, feek61!

She had been fully(or very nearly), fully restored from being in even worse damage.

And had even appeared in a convention or two, I believe.

How the heck did she get back into such bad shape?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

feek61 said:


> Here is a recent one:


Ah! The shuttlecraft from the _USS Theseus!_ 

Seriously, looking good!:thumbsup:


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

feek61 said:


> Here you go:
> 
> Original Galileo Shuttle Arrives in New Jersey for Restoration - October 2012 - YouTube


Oh, that sure does my heart GOOD!!!!


----------



## Carl_G (Jun 30, 2012)

Oh, poor baby.  She really was in rough shape, eh?


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Ah! The shuttlecraft from the _USS Theseus!_


I had to look that one up. A rather esoteric reference for this board, wouldn't you say?


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

scotpens said:


> I had to look that one up. A rather esoteric reference for this board, wouldn't you say?


It's great to learn new stuff IMO!:thumbsup:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

scotpens said:


> I had to look that one up. A rather esoteric reference for this board, wouldn't you say?


Oh, no! I'm a latecomer! That very term has come up before on more than one occasion. :thumbsup:

Yet another reason I enjoy the erudite company here on HT.


----------



## kenlee (Feb 11, 2010)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Ah! The shuttlecraft from the _USS Theseus!_
> 
> Seriously, looking good!:thumbsup:


 Theseus' paradox, I have always wondered what that was called, I do wonder at what point this ceases to be the original Galileo mock-up and just a recreation.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

kenlee said:


> Theseus' paradox, I have always wondered what that was called, I do wonder at what point this ceases to be the original Galileo mock-up and just a recreation.


My gosh! It has to have ceased being the original Galileo a long time ago--after the first restoration. And for good reason. There just wasn't enough left of the original to call it the original. The most it can be now is the Galileo built to the original set specs on the original frame with many of the original parts.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> My gosh! It has to have ceased being the original Galileo a long time ago--after the first restoration. And for good reason. There just wasn't enough left of the original to call it the original. The most it can be now is the Galileo built to the original set specs on the original frame with many of the original parts.


*It's spirit lives on!*


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Chrisisall said:


> *It's spirit lives on!*


Yeah, that's the main thing. And an accurate reproduction of the original is really the best possible thing considering the fact that the "flesh" of the original is long rotted away.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> My gosh! It has to have ceased being the original Galileo a long time ago--after the first restoration. And for good reason. There just wasn't enough left of the original to call it the original. The most it can be now is the Galileo built to the original set specs on the original frame with many of the original parts.


Not sure I can agree on that.

The human body replaces every cell in the body(different types take different amounts of time - but none longer then 8 years - until you become so old the body stops doing it)

every 8 years.

So none of us are really original either. :tongue:


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> So none of us are really original either. :tongue:


I'm just an imperfect copy of my former self...:freak:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Chrisisall said:


> I'm just an imperfect copy of my former self...:freak:


Why imperfect? 

You might spend the next years working to become . . .

*better, stronger, faster!

Gentlemen, we have the technology! . . .
*




If I could just stop eating swiss rolls and donuts I might have a shot at that myself. :freak:


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Why imperfect?


Well, _aging_ is cells making imperfect copies... if they were perfect, you'd be prcatically immortal!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Chrisisall said:


> Well, _aging_ is cells making imperfect copies... if they were perfect, you'd be prcatically immortal!


Yep. But they usually don't go crazy(barring something like cancer) until very old age.

New cells eventually stop being replaced altogether. Which is why a major bone break can be so devasting to an 80 year old, when a 30 year old might come back from such an injury fully recovered.  

There has been some research that has shown by slowing down cell replacement and tightly controling insulin production it might eventually be possible to more then double the human lifespan.

But then where would everyone park?


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> There has been some research that has shown by slowing down cell replacement and tightly controling insulin production it might eventually be possible to more then double the human lifespan.


 Seen some, slowing metabolism in general seems good for one.


> But then where would everyone park?


Pack the cah in the yadd.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Good impression of Chief Brody.

"They're in the yahd not too fah from the cah.


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> My gosh! It has to have ceased being the original Galileo a long time ago--after the first restoration. And for good reason. There just wasn't enough left of the original to call it the original. The most it can be now is the Galileo built to the original set specs on the original frame with many of the original parts.


I disagree 100% The main structure which is the steel frame is all original. Both engines, pylons and wings are steel and weigh 400 pounds each and are both original. The rear landing gear is all original. The fact that some press board that was layed over the steel frame decayed and was replaced is really unimportant. Would it have been nice to have had the Galileo stored indoors and have everything in tact from the show: yes. Is replacing rotten press board on the exterior with new wood changing or rebuilding the Galileo: No! 

Many, many aircraft that are in museums contain very few original pieces. The fact that so much of the Galileo has survived and is being restored to it's former glory quite frankly is a miracle!! It is particularly noteworthy because just 2 years ago the Galileo was thought destroyed and sold for scrap.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I find this interesting and inspirational. Makes me think of what it might have been like when it was first built and slowly taking form. Man those guys had imagination. And to my thinking no subsequent full-size Trek mock-up was as effective. Certainly not the dorky looking TNG shuttlepods.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

feek61 said:


> I disagree 100% The main structure which is the steel frame is all original. Both engines, pylons and wings are steel and weigh 400 pounds each and are both original. The rear landing gear is all original. The fact that some press board that was layed over the steel frame decayed and was replaced is really unimportant. Would it have been nice to have had the Galileo stored indoors and have everything in tact from the show: yes. Is replacing rotten press board on the exterior with new wood changing or rebuilding the Galileo: No!
> 
> Many, many aircraft that are in museums contain very few original pieces. The fact that so much of the Galileo has survived and is being restored to it's former glory quite frankly is a miracle!! It is particularly noteworthy because just 2 years ago the Galileo was thought destroyed and sold for scrap.



You are completely right that the metal framing is all there, and many other components.

It seems that the parts that decayed are the most commonly replacable parts, wooden supports and beams, and paneling.

The fact that a large cubic volume of the material once again has to be replaced doesn't really concern me since they don't look like they will affect the accuracy of the rebuild.

Heck, Gene Winfield, the guy who built her and the interior set is still alive and in business if they ever need to consult with him. He might not remember everything about her original construction now off the top of his head anymore, 

but maybe if he saw the old girl again a good deal of it would come back to him.

He's perfectly lucid and still churning out custom cars, from what I've been able to find out about him via altavista.com.

I'm hoping that before they put in all the walls, etc and seal her up they take extensive measurements of the wooden as well as metal framework - especially including angles of the supports/beams, angle of the curved metal bow that makes up the front edge, etc.

That way if perhaps accurate blueprints can be drawn for an upsized version using conventional materials might be drawn.

Then perhaps a Trek fan with the resources, like Paul Allen, or anyone who just want's one in their back yard, :tongue: can build one big enough for an integrated interior.

Then we can truly have "Bob Villa" Galileo blueprints for a full sized integrated craft.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> I find this interesting and inspirational. Makes me think of what it might have been like when it was first built and slowly taking form. Man those guys had imagination. And to my thinking no subsequent full-size Trek mock-up was as effective. Certainly not the dorky looking TNG shuttlepods.


Can't agree with you more! :thumbsup:

AMT was forced to ask Jefferies to modify his original plans for the TOS shuttlecraft because they were not practical to either build or transport given the budget as well as time allotted.

But at least Gene Winfield worked with Jefferies to come up with some kind of compromise so she had a little flare, like the bow and the roof that slanted backwards.

I won't overstate her flair, as she's nowhere near Jefferies' original shuttle/bus type craft that had a ton of curves,
but it was definitely better looking then the shuttlepods.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Don't forget to give credit where credit is due. The basic form of the Galileo was the work of Thomas Kellogg, the man principally responsible for designing the Studebaker Avanti as part of Raymond Loewy's design team.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

scotpens said:


> Don't forget to give credit where credit is due. The basic form of the Galileo was the work of Thomas Kellogg, the man principally responsible for designing the Studebaker Avanti as part of Raymond Loewy's design team.


So did Kellogg work in Winfield's shop? 

I'm not sure what you mean by the term "basic form" being Kellogg's work.

Maybe I'm reading too much into the statement and you just mean the guy worked on the actual construction.

If so, I apologize in advance.

According to Winfield, he contacted Jefferies with a list of limitations and constraints Winfield and his team had to work under, and Jefferies sent back the modified plans.
According to Winfield, even the final modified plans were drawn by Jefferies.

Perhaps Kellogg had a hand in preparing the punch list of limitations and constraints,
but Winfield gives all the credit for the final design to Jefferies, a guy totally outside his shop.

Don't get me wrong, if Kellogg worked on the old girl I don't blame the guy for listing whatever
contribution he had on the project as part of his portfolio and resume.

But if he suggests he had a major part of determining it's "basic form" 
-other then actually building it and/or listing and providing the info Jefferies had to have to design her -

he may be embellishing his contribution a bit.

Not an uncommon thing, artists - as well many people who write resumes - can suggest they have
done a lot and exaggerate their contribution without being completely untruthful.

I've even seen one or two views of the Jefferies final design, I believe it went up for auction a few years back.

<<< It's probably way back somewhere in the near 2000 posts that have been cut into the four parts of the thread. If you are interested.

Unless it's one of the 400 or so that were accidentally deleted by Sasser & Captain Locknair. 

I believe the plans were complete, but the auction house only posted one, perhaps two, orthographic views of it - for obvious reasons.

They weren't perfectly scaled I believe, so slight license may have been taken in terms of slight angles and curves, but everything I've 
seen leads to the conclusion that the design was Jefferies'.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

I'm as big a Jefferies fan as you can get, but the foundations of the Galileo (the aspects that differentiate her from just a flying box) are Kellogg's contributions. Jefferies modified Kellogg's design (removed the large windows, added nacelles) and designed the interior, but Kellogg deserves primary credit for the design.

All drawings by Jefferies of the Galileo are derivative works based on Kellogg's original design. If this was a patent case, Kellogg would win based on prior artwork. From a historical stand point, the same principle can be applied, which is why Kellogg deserves the credit here.

Jefferies design contributions to Trek are staggering in their own right, there isn't any need to rewrite history to add this to them. Plus, mixing in other peoples' design styles clouds any study of Jefferies' design style (which is why I've always attempted to identify and isolate contribution from others when documenting Jefferies works or looking at the final models or sets). In this case, Jefferies task was to integrate Kellogg's design into the TOS universe without straying too far from what had been approved... and that is exactly what he did.


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> You are completely right that the metal framing is all there, and many other components.
> 
> It seems that the parts that decayed are the most commonly replacable parts, wooden supports and beams, and paneling.
> 
> ...


Gene Winfield was one of the three companies to bid on the current restoration. In the end; it was the location of current restoration company that was the deciding factor (which is nearby the owner). Of the three bids; Gene's and the company actually doing the restoration were fairly close in price while the third was extremely high.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I've looked at the website attributed to Kellogg.

http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2009...galileo-shuttle/comment-page-1/#comment-35325

The drawing on it is intriguing.

But there is no way to know the date of the drawing from what I can tell.

But the idea that he was the "father" of the Galileo shuttlecraft and not Jefferies is a bit irritatingly absurd.

Perhaps Kellogg may have sent some suggestions along with the info Winfield said was sent to Jefferies.
Assuming the Kellogg sketch wasn't penned afterwards maybe he even sent him that.
But even if it was penned and sent as a suggestion to Jefferies,
I'd have to note that as a design attributed to Kellogg even less 
buildable and practical then what Jefferies ended up with.

We know the 22'8" or so stage piece they came up with would never hold the interior, even lengthwise muchless height.

And size was an issue in creation, budget and transportation.

The sketch attributed to Kellogg, if sent to Jefferies as a suggestion of the kind of changes 
they needed to be able to build her without needing to create the many difficult curves of the Jefferies original design might have helped.

But that sketch was many times more impractical then even what Jefferies came up with.

Proportionally it is tremendously smaller vertically.

Which looks really neat and sleek in a sketch.

But in order to fit an interior big enough to hold an interior set 
as big as the one built by AMT the thing would have had to have been over 50 feet long
and god only knows how wide to fit an interior where the actors 
could have stood upright.

Granted the Jefferies' designed set piece didn't due this either 
- it would taken a Jefferies designed mockup built a bit under 32 feet to fit
the interior set close to the way they were seen onscreen.

But at least he was closer, and they in most cases seemed to attempt to film from angles that masked 
that it probably was built as a 3/4 scale setpiece in order make her fit on a standard truck - sans the removable pylons.

Had the Kellogg sketch been used the mockup would have had to have been shipped on a truck designed to move houses!

And been completely a budget buster.

It's only the fault of the guy who posted the info on the website,

but it kind of irks me that the website claims that a guy who may
have helped Jefferies get the shuttlecraft down into a manageable 
size with a totally impractical sketch and some truck 
measurementss is suddenly now crowned as 
the shuttlecraft's creator!:freak:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Shaw said:


> I'm as big a Jefferies fan as you can get, but the foundations of the Galileo (the aspects that differentiate her from just a flying box) are Kellogg's contributions. Jefferies modified Kellogg's design (removed the large windows, added nacelles) and designed the interior, but Kellogg deserves primary credit for the design.
> 
> All drawings by Jefferies of the Galileo are derivative works based on Kellogg's original design. If this was a patent case, Kellogg would win based on prior artwork. From a historical stand point, the same principle can be applied, which is why Kellogg deserves the credit here.
> 
> Jefferies design contributions to Trek are staggering in their own right, there isn't any need to rewrite history to add this to them. Plus, mixing in other peoples' design styles clouds any study of Jefferies' design style (which is why I've always attempted to identify and isolate contribution from others when documenting Jefferies works or looking at the final models or sets). In this case, Jefferies task was to integrate Kellogg's design into the TOS universe without straying too far from what had been approved... and that is exactly what he did.


I'm sure you are right.

But it irks me that the website would claim the guy created the shuttlecraft.

The shuttle Jefferies originally designed was impractical to build.

I get that.

But Kellogg's sketch was also every bit as impractical due to his squat height to length and width proportions, plus it was sans the nacelles.

To me the final product was a compromise, and neither were completely responsible.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

feek61 said:


> Gene Winfield was one of the three companies to bid on the current restoration. In the end; it was the location of current restoration company that was the deciding factor (which is nearby the owner). Of the three bids; Gene's and the company actually doing the restoration were fairly close in price while the third was extremely high.


Thanks for the info!

I just hope they are taking a lot measurements, recording angles, and taking a ton of pictures along the way!

And, of course, decide to share that info freely within the Trek community.

Too much of that kind of info gets hoarded.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

scotpens said:


> Don't forget to give credit where credit is due. The basic form of the Galileo was the work of Thomas Kellogg, the man principally responsible for designing the Studebaker Avanti as part of Raymond Loewy's design team.


I was wrong.

I apologize.

Sorry about that. 

It looks like Kellogg did have a substantial bit to do with the final design.

I still don't like that the webpage in question gives Kellogg all the credit, he didn't do the final design.

But it's obvious to me now that they both contributed, even though neither's original designs were practical to build.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

feek61 said:


> Is replacing rotten press board on the exterior with new wood changing or rebuilding the Galileo: No!


Correct. And I thank all of you for your work on her as a fan from original broadcast days!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Thanks to a post by Warped9,

I came across this video by Winfield who oversaw the building of the Galileo interior and 3/4 scale set pieces.



http://www.space.com/20781-original-star-trek-galileo-spacecraft-where-is-it-today-video.html

Don't know if you have seen it yet.

He goes into incredible detail on both the exterior and interior.

At about 9:50 into the interview,

he states that the wild sections were indeed 4 feet wide.

Which always made sense to me, the idea that they
bothered to trim 4-6 inches off the wild sections never
really seemed to make sense to me.

Especially since they didn't seem to make hardly any
effort to keep it in scale -even with the 3/4 scale version - with the exterior.

So it does look like the wild sections were indeed 48 inches.

However, I don't think it's practical to do them that way for
anyone trying to do a full sized mockup - or model kit - that
tries to integrate a visually convincing integration of the interior/exterior.

And would still recommend cutting 4-6" inches off each anyway.

While a few inches meant nothing to them, it could easily be the
only way to get the ship down to near 30 feet. 

Also, I found it interesting that Winfield still has a couple of interior pieces,
a knob for one of the chairs, and still has the custom mold for the chairs!


Thanks again to Warped9!!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Thanks to a post by Warped9,
> 
> I came across this video by Winfield who oversaw the building of the Galileo interior and 3/4 scale set pieces.
> 
> ...


That's a wonderful video, thank you!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Kudos really belong to Warped9.

I first came across it when he posted the link in the 
Sci-Fi Movie and TV discussion thread about the 3/4 scale
mockup renovations being almost complete.

Also checkout www.galileorestoration.com if you haven't 
been there yet.

Thanks again, Warped9! :thumbsup:


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Also checkout www.galileorestoration.com if you haven't
> been there yet.


Oooooo it's lookin' great already!!!:thumbsup:


----------



## Owen E Oulton (Jan 6, 2012)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Here's a pic of the 1/24th scale Picard from PL's Scorpion kit reclining in a class F Shuttlecraft seat.
> 
> He's still a little stiff in the arms and legs but I'm sure he's more comfortable.
> Especially since I had to remove the sprue from his butt to seat him properly!


 No matter what anyone says, the model is not 1/24th. It is, in fact , about 1/33. The figures are 1/30th Try laying a ruler to the plastic, or just compare Picard to a real 1/24th scale figure. He's nowhere near the same scale, and you won't be able to fit the 1/24th scale igure into the kit. See my article The Mystery of the Scorpion's Scale at http://www.coldnorth.com/sfmba/articles/a-03/scorpion.htm for details.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Owen E Oulton said:


> No matter what anyone says, the model is not 1/24th. It is, in fact , about 1/33. The figures are 1/30th Try laying a ruler to the plastic, or just compare Picard to a real 1/24th scale figure. He's nowhere near the same scale, and you won't be able to fit the 1/24th scale igure into the kit. See my article The Mystery of the Scorpion's Scale at http://www.coldnorth.com/sfmba/articles/a-03/scorpion.htm for details.



Thanks!

Interesting info. I did notice that the Picard figure looked a bit small, but to tell you the truth it never occurred to me to check the scale of either the Picard figure or the Scorpion.

Looks like they played fast and loose with not just the scale of the ship, but the scale of the figure as well.

On your page it appears that the figure is 1/30th and the ship 1/34.xth.

:freak: Wow.

And this was a very recently used ship that really no one was clamoring to see produced - yet they spent resources to produce it. I just assumed that they had access to very exacting CGI info and did it because it took little effort to do properly.

BTWay, on your page it's posited that perhaps the idea that the kit was 1/24th scale came from a comment made at a convention. I don't have any way of knowing when that comment was made, but Polar Lights used to have their own Hobbytalk forum back then

(not sure, but I think maybe when Moebius created his they may have left that database of posts under what is now his forum)

and it was stated by actual Polar Lights staffers several times that the Scorpion ship was 1/24th scale.

While that's not the same thing as printing the scale on the box, the staff of the first incarnation of Polar Lights were confident enough in the scale being 1/24th to put it in cyberspace writing on their forum board here.

It just seems that no one then here on Hobbytalk bothered to check to see if they were right.

Based on the evidence on your web page it seems that their scale info was wrong. They never bothered to print it on the box I have just now noticed.

Good eye, Owen.


----------



## NemVia (Jan 6, 2007)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Oh wait...got a question:
> 
> Fellow who followed my plans to the tune of 1/12(!!) scale, I think it was, sent me loads of in-progress (analog) pix, showing ribbing etc. Anyone know Mark Nehmzow? I can't imagine he'd mind his shots being shared or posted...but lacking a scanner (I'll get around to it), I can't help. I can, however, provide color copies (ala Kinkos) of same to one(1) interested party...for to host/distribute scans. This of interest? Or must we dig up Mr. Nehmzow first?
> 
> ...


Well.... I'M still out here and kicking Dave! I just go by the name of "NemVia" now. I just happened to check this thread and saw this wordy quote and thought: hmmmmm.... this diary of thoughts looks familiar. I remember our lengthy communiques via the old fashioned postal delivery system which took weeks for response. After you moved I lost track of you and was hoping to find your whereabouts once again. Anyway, all of my pictures of the Galileo build are posted on my website so you won't need to scan them. Anyone can take a look at them for reference. There free to look at under the "TOS Galileo Shuttle" Page. As always new members are welcome.
http://www.NemVia.com


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

NemVia said:


> Well.... I'M still out here and kicking Dave! I just go by the name of "NemVia" now. I just happened to check this thread and saw this wordy quote and thought: hmmmmm.... this diary of thoughts looks familiar. I remember our lengthy communiques via the old fashioned postal delivery system which took weeks for response. After you moved I lost track of you and was hoping to find your whereabouts once again. Anyway, all of my pictures of the Galileo build are posted on my website so you won't need to scan them. Anyone can take a look at them for reference. There free to look at under the "TOS Galileo Shuttle" Page. As always new members are welcome.
> http://www.NemVia.com


Ummmmmm...

That has to be a post that was sniped from a quote of David Winfrey, who I believe goes by the monicker of Trekkist on this board.

Probably cut out my attribution of what Dave said.

By the way, I haven't been able to contact Dave in awhile. Hope he's doing okay!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

NemVia said:


> Well.... I'M still out here and kicking Dave! I just go by the name of "NemVia" now. I just happened to check this thread and saw this wordy quote and thought: hmmmmm.... this diary of thoughts looks familiar. I remember our lengthy communiques via the old fashioned postal delivery system which took weeks for response. After you moved I lost track of you and was hoping to find your whereabouts once again. Anyway, all of my pictures of the Galileo build are posted on my website so you won't need to scan them. Anyone can take a look at them for reference. There free to look at under the "TOS Galileo Shuttle" Page. As always new members are welcome.
> http://www.NemVia.com



Just looked at your website.

Gorgeous!!!

Hope you are able to contact David Winfrey, or that he'll log on here and catch up with us.


----------

