# The TOS Shuttlecraft you want...



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Okay, mods, I know there's another thread discussing this subject, but now it's beginning to get specialized and perhaps we can have a new place to discuss the kit R2 will (hopefully) finally produced. Here is where we can weigh in on what we'd like to see and discuss what form the final kit might actually take. The goal is not to tell the folks at R2 what must be, but to offer suggestions and food for thought amongst the wish lists.

I would urge posters to indicate what is most important rather than just clicking "all of the above." 


_Note: I hope I haven't forgotten anything._


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Ok, Thanks for the thread!

I'm most interested in the exterior. A hybrid of the filming model and the 
full sized mock up. I would lean to the filming miniature as I would guess more real world/filming limitations were taken with the full sized mock up, I'm guessing the filming model was closest to what MJ had in mind.

The interior should be as close to the original set as possible, but should not drive the kit. The reason I say this is because the choice of lenses, filters, perspective all modify what the set was to what the director wanted (or as close as he could get). If the interior needs to be "adjusted" to get it to look right so be it.

As for scale, I'm OK with either 1/32 or 1/24, or whatever. I do worry that a 1/24th might be too big for shelf space.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

This was in another thread, but I think it's pertinent here.



CLBrown said:


> I think that in this case we need to base the "want list" on the actual model size...


Gary raised this issue that it really isn't determined what size the shuttlecraft was really meant to be. Well, yeah, that's what some of us have been wrestling with since the dark days of the '70s.

There are some who are going to insist the interior be as close as possible to what we see onscreen and not worry about whether the exterior could actually work within the _Enterprise's_ hangar facilities. This is little different than the insistence the bridge simply has to be facing forward despite convincing evidence it's offset. Some might insist the exterior can't be any more than 24ft. overall in length even though that means completely ignoring the interior we saw.

Matt Jefferies was certainly aware of the discrepancies between the exterior mock-up and interior set so is it safe to assume the "real" shuttlecraft MJ had in mind was a compromise somewhere in the middle? Lynne Miller says MJ once told her the exterior was built to 3/4 scale. Well, was his reply (years after the fact) meant literally and exactly or approximately? Who knows? Maybe if original construction drawings could be unearthed from somewhere then Gary could have something more definitive to go on.

Without actual construction drawings the only recourse is to weigh every bit of information available about the shuttlecraft then try to piece it all together into a coherent and integrated whole.

- *What does the exterior look like?* We have images of the full-size exterior mock-up and the filming miniature. That's all we have without actual construction drawings from the period.
- *What does the interior look like?* We have visuals of the interior set, but without original construction drawings that's all we have.
- *How much room does the Enterprise's flight deck afford?* There's _some_ flexibility here, but we know the ship likely isn't smaller than 947ft. and quite possibly a bit larger, somewhere about 100ft. or so larger.
- *Is there any evidence regarding the originally intended size for the exterior?* There are concept sketches illustrating a lees spacious interior than what we saw onscreen. There are also apparent clues right onscreen in how the interior set was used.
- _*How much weight is each bit of evidence to be given?*_ Ah, now we come down to interpretation and people are going to come to differing conclusions influenced by what each considers important.

Gary and Jamie and company have already given us evidence of their intent regardless of what size they conclude the "real" shuttlecraft is supposed to be. They chose to create a model of the *starship* _Enterprise_ as opposed to simply replicating an approximation of the 11ft. studio model. In like manner I think they intend to make a model of the *shuttlecraft* _Galileo_ rather than just replicating a plywood and metal studio mock-up. 

That's an important distinction because they're approaching the subject little differently than making a quality model of an actual aircraft or naval ship. They're approaching the subject matter as if it were meant to be real rather than as merely a fictional approximation.

It means they might be as crazy as the rest of us. :lol:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

mach7 said:


> As for scale, I'm OK with either 1/32 or 1/24, or whatever. I do worry that a 1/24th might be too big for shelf space.


1/32 scale:
24ft. shuttlecraft = 9in.
26ft. shuttlecraft = 9.75in.
29ft. shuttlecraft = 10.875in.

1/24 scale:
24ft. shuttlecraft = 12in.
26ft. shuttlecraft = 13in.
29ft. shuttlecraft = 14.5in.

Note that the above measurements are not exact in that the "real" vehicle would likely measure out to fractions of an inch rather than dead-on the foot.

And if you're voting "other" then it would be kinda nice to know what that _other_ thing is.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

My "wants"...

1) *1/24 scale.* A 1/32 scale might be nice as a "garage kit" (in order to sit alongside other 1/32 garage-kit shuttles), but wouldn't permit the sort of highly-detailed interior work I think this subject really requires. 1/24 is good for a "complete shuttle" while 1/32 is good for an "exterior only" shuttle, in other words.

2) *A 24' BODY* (or in other words, a 26' overall length). This works with Kirk's spoken line (which has to remain canon, IMHO). We can accept that Kirk might have only meant the main fuselage... we can't accept that Kirk was just totally wrong, though. But the 24' total length is just too small. The 26' overall length works very nicely.

3) An *interior scaled to fit*, with a full aft compartment, into that 24' body.

4) I don't feel the need to have any *"working" parts*, but I want OPTIONAL POSITIONS for certain parts. In other words... no need to have the hatch "retractable" but I should be able to build my kit with the hatch open, or closed, as I see fit. Same with the front (nacelle-mounted) pads, and even the aft pad (which should be "poseable" but not "moveable" if that makes sense).

5) *Alternative parts?* That should be left to the aftermarket, I think. No need to have R2 spend lots of extra money for parts that the majority of builders will never use. If someone wants the "lab interior" version, per "The Immunity Syndrome," that can be made as an after-market item. And I suspect that some non-canon aftermarket interiors (say, an ambulance interior?) would come along as well.

6) *Alternative decals*? Well... yeah, that's pretty much a no-brainer, and fits well with R2's business strategy. But what labels should there be? We know the Columbus, and (with the remastered series) we know the markings for the starbase shuttle. Other than that... I don't think R2 should provide anything "non-canon." Aftermarket can produce as much additional as we like, and I'm sure JTGraphics and others will start cranking out custom decal sheets on-demand almost immediately!

7) While I like the idea of the *transparent parts*, I don't want to pay extra for that in my kit. Maybe that can be provided as either an "aftermarket" version... or perhaps R2 can shoot a limited production run of clear styrene parts, available separately? 

I don't want them to shoot the "production" kit from clear styrene... because clear styrene is, by definition, much more brittle than the filled, and "alloyed" material normally used for kits like this. But there's no reason that they can't do a "special edition" clear version. It would be virtually no additional cost for them.

8) *Figures?* I think that should be left entirely to "aftermarket." And if they do this in a standard scale (like 1/32 or 1/24), there are plenty of existing figures, with a wide range of poses, which could be "converted" to Star Trek figures, as well.

For instance... THIS would be pretty easy to alter into a TOS-era female starfleet officer who Kirk would be panting over!

And these figures would be great, with minimal "resculpting," to do a full shuttle diorama:

Here

or 

Here

9) I think that *interior lighting should be an option*. Thus, the interior panels should all be shot in clear, and there should be wiring "routing" in the model to permit a white LED to be put behind each panel. The ceiling lighting might be a bit more complicated, but not too much, really... since we're still talking a "double hull" region up there.

I'd recommend putting the batteries inside of the impulse engine shroud. This wouldn't be too hard to accomplish... even with the engine shroud being "lightable" itself. I'd put the switch behind a "fold out panel" on the aft of the hull... or make one of those panels a "press to switch" button itself.

Those should be part of the kit, as provided. As for "nacelle lighting," well, that was never seen on-screen, so I'd leave it out. But I'd leave routing space for wires, for anyone who wants to do that (like what Rob seems to have been trying to do with his... using the 1:1000 R2 Enterprise nacelle PCBA in there!)

10) And finally...

I want to be able to show the *front windows in "open" or "closed" state*. Yes, that's the one place I differ from W9... I'd rather have the window positions "tweaked" a bit than have them not be "windows" at all. We we should have options to build with "windows open" or "windows closed" or any combination of windows mixed, just like with the main hatch, the aft compartment hatch, etc.


----------



## Mr. Wabac (Nov 9, 2002)

I voted for 1/24th and only 1/24th as a requirement.
Really I'm not concerned so much about the scale as size - scale is to a degree conjecture as the "full-size" prop was not constructed full-size.
I would like to see something larger than the original AMT version.

I don't care about the interior - the set for the interior was disappointing; the kit version even more so.
There are issues related to the interior set beyond just a size difference as others have pointed out.
If someone wanted to offer a resin add-on for the interior fine but no big deal.
The shuttlecraft design didn't provide viewports you could actually see through, so there is no problem in that regard.

By eliminating the interior you also eliminate the need for clear parts (unless you wanted to do the two small windows on the doors).

The big advantage is that you don't have to try and reconcile the discrepency between the interior dimensions and the exterior.

My two cents.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

An open or closed hatch and extended or retracted landing pads is what I actually meant. I worded that improperly.

The overhead lighting panel---aren't there lighting sheets available and could that be included if possible? Again this could be aftermarket.

Alternate decals. Well, TOS gave us _Galileo_ and _Columbus_ and TAS (as well as TFF) gave us _Copernicus._ Take from that what you will.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

I voted for the transparent or removavle exterior piece because no matter what other options R2 will give us, like for the interior we should be able to show off the interior.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Warped9 said:


> The overhead lighting panel---aren't there lighting sheets available and could that be included if possible? Again this could be aftermarket.


Well, while the sheet itself is quite thin, it requires a supporting electronic module (a high-frequency resonator, essentially) to work. That would have to go someplace.


> Alternate decals. Well, TOS gave us _Galileo_ and _Columbus_ and TAS (as well as TFF) gave us _Copernicus._ Take from that what you will.


But, the Copernicus, to me, is not one of the "standard shuttles" at all. (In my personal-canon version, this was a special-purpose craft, at one point replaced by an aquashuttle for a specific mission, which is normally carried in the underside secondary hull underneath the long rectangular "hatch" down there.)


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Well TFF had a _Copernicus_ as a standard movie era shuttlecraft. And since TFF also had a _Galileo_ one could extrapolate backwards, no different than the _Surya_-class was extrapolated from the _Reliant._

I agree that some of the options I mentioned could be offered as aftermarket pieces. That said I don't think it would be very involved to include a couple of cabinet sized devices as well as some of those tech bits we saw stuck onto the walls in the second season.

The figures and the lighting parts could and perhaps should be aftermarket items. Consequently that would simplify things for R2 and help reduce costs. That said it would be nice if the shuttlecraft kit allowed for lighting by having clear parts for the impulse engine ports and the forward "windows" should the individual modeler decide to go that route.

Alternate transparent parts to supplant the roof and/or the port or starboard upper side perhaps should be offered aftermarket also. Again it helps simplify things for R2. 

The simpler the model can be made (relatively speaking) then perhaps the easier to justify a 1/24 scale kit over a 1/32.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

CLBrown said:


> 10) And finally...
> 
> I want to be able to show the *front windows in "open" or "closed" state*. Yes, that's the one place I differ from W9... I'd rather have the window positions "tweaked" a bit than have them not be "windows" at all. We we should have options to build with "windows open" or "windows closed" or any combination of windows mixed, just like with the main hatch, the aft compartment hatch, etc.


This, my friend, is where you run into a seriously major headache. To allow for the "windows" both inside and out to line up you have widen the interior considerably to the point of losing any practical double hull structure (on the sides) and really changing the appearance of the interior. You not only now have a pointlessly wide cabin (wider than the onscreen version) but you also have to steepen the angle of the forward bulkhead to match the angle of the exterior hull. And another point not previously mentioned: the forward exterior hull is _curved_ while the interior bulkhead is _flat_---yet another wrinkle to the exterior/interior discrepancies. Do you now widen, steepen the angle and curve the forward bulkead (and hence drastically change the appearance of the interior) to accommodate windows that are essentially pointless to the navigator and pilot? And if you widen the cabin correspondingly then how do you accommodate the swing-out equipment compartments seen in the shuttlecraft's interior walls?

Granted to a lot of people this mightn't matter for the purpose of presentation, but you immediately jettison the notion of treating this as a "real" vehicle we imagined seeing onscreen.


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

A fun topic, thanks for putting the poll together.

The AMT Shuttle offered a kind of fun (for kids of course....) that nothing other than the Exploration Set offered, interactability. Taking the lid off the shuttle allowed you to play inside it...I'd hate to see that go away....for my daughter of course.

As for me, while inaccurate, the AMT kit is a good starting point for the new kit. It certainly shouldn't be anything less and absolutely should be more. I'm in for 24", interior, working/optional set doors & gear. I think clear pieces for lighting are a must but would rather have a pop-off top than a clear one that I'd never use.

The figures....well here I am a bit conflicted. Some of the aftermarket figures I've seen are pretty cool, but so expensive that I'd never be able to buy them. Case in point - the Batman & Robin figures for the 1:18 Hotwheels Batmobile from Pimpmybatmobile.....beautifully done but something like $90 for the pair. My wife would kill me. The LIS Robinson family are more reasonable but still add quite a chunk to the kit price. I say R2 should include them, and do them as well as possible, and let the aftermarket improve upon them for those wish a lot of coin....it shouldn't affect the kit price much.

Anyhow those are my thoughts on the matter, I'm glad it's going to happen either way.

Tib


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Why are you talking 1/24th when 1/32 has been decided already by Round 2?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Ductapeforever said:


> Why are you talking 1/24th when 1/32 has been decided already by Round 2?


Well, has it actually been confirmed? All we've seen so far is the presentation and poll results from the Wonderfest 2012 video. Isn't it still on open question until they formally announce it's been green-lighted for development and production?

At any rate the ensuing discussion can apply pretty much just as easily to a 1/32 scale model as a 1/24.



Tiberious said:


> The AMT Shuttle offered a kind of fun (for kids of course....) that nothing other than the Exploration Set offered, interactability. Taking the lid off the shuttle allowed you to play inside it...I'd hate to see that go away....
> 
> Tib


I think this is certainly doable although there are some considerations in regard to accuracy. Where the upper hull meets stabilizer/rim is not actually a right-angle (or near right-angle) joint or seam. All along the joint it is a round. In other words the sides curve sharply into the rim. This is true of the sloping forward hull as well where it meets the rim. The underside hull is the same. There are other considerations as well in the aft area of the ship where there is no convenient midpoint to accommodate a seam. A removable top isn't impossible, but it would take somewhat more consideration than the way AMT did it.

I think it boils down to how does one want to be able to see the interior? Remove the whole upper hull or just the roof (relatively easy) or remove one or either of the upper hull sides?


Perhaps R2 could also adopt some of the ideas they're doing with the 1/350 TOS _E._ Namely, parts molded in different coloured plastics as well as assembly facilitating painting of the model. Mind you this kit shouldn't be anywhere as complex as the _Enterprise._


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

I voted for 1/24 scale.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Hmmm. I was under the impression that 1/32 is the scale... But I'd certainly take 1/24 scale without complaining.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

It's still very early goings, but the trend so far seems to be...

Primary:
- preferably 1/24 scale (but a 1/32 scale kit wouldn't be a deal breaker)
- scaled interior to fit as yet-to-be-determined exterior
- kit made to facilitate lighting

Secondary:
- option for access hatch to be open or closed and landing pads extended or retracted
- alternate decals
- option to remove some part of the hull to display the interior.

Nice to haves, but not absolutely necessary since can be done aftermarket:
- lighting kit
- alternate parts for different interior variations
- crew figures


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Forgot to mention that I won't buy one without an interior - but I'd be shocked if they didn't include one!


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Ductapeforever said:


> Why are you talking 1/24th when 1/32 has been decided already by Round 2?


Has it been "decided?" I've seen no real indication of that. All they've really said is that they plan to do the TOS shuttle. It seems to me that no design work has even started, so they're not commited to ANYTHING yet.

Now is the best time for us to give our input... before any production choices have been made or any engineering resources expended!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

CLBrown said:


> My "wants"...
> 
> 2) *A 24' BODY* (or in other words, a 26' overall length). This works with Kirk's spoken line (which has to remain canon, IMHO). We can accept that Kirk might have only meant the main fuselage... we can't accept that Kirk was just totally wrong, though. But the 24' total length is just too small. The 26' overall length works very nicely.


For the record (in case anyone is interested) these were my final dimensions:

Length = 8.0549m. = 26.426837ft. (26'-5 1/4")
Width = 5.0473m. = 16.559383ft. (16'-6 11/16")
Height = 2.8298m. = 9.2841207ft. (9'-3 13/32")

And the main hull is about 2 feet shorter than the overall length so close enough to work for that "24ft. shuttlecraft" reference spoken onscreen.


1/32 scale:
Length = 9.91in.
Width = 6.21in.
Height = 3.48in.

1/24 scale:
Length = 13.21in.
Width = 8.28in.
Height = 4.64"


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

_*DOH!!!* In the poll I stupidly neglected to mention the option of having a stand to display the shuttlecraft in flight mode._ 

And this is something I'd like to have. Yet again, though, I suppose it could be an aftermarket item.


----------



## shabo451 (Jan 27, 2008)

Also voted for the 1/24. If they do settle for the 1/32, I'm hoping for figures which can also be used on the bridge model (hoping for R2 to release that eventually, but not essential since I'm accurizing my own). Actually, either way, figures should be included or available as an add-on.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Warped9 said:


> _*DOH!!!* In the poll I stupidly neglected to mention the option of having a stand to display the shuttlecraft in flight mode._
> 
> And this is something I'd like to have. Yet again, though, I suppose it could be an aftermarket item.


If they provide a stand, I'd prefer a "cradle" stand... no holes of slots in the hull!


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

CLBrown said:


> Has it been "decided?" I've seen no real indication of that. All they've really said is that they plan to do the TOS shuttle. It seems to me that no design work has even started, so they're not commited to ANYTHING yet.
> 
> Now is the best time for us to give our input... before any production choices have been made or any engineering resources expended!



Jamie Hood clearly stated so during the Wonderfest presentation video.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Ductapeforever said:


> Jamie Hood clearly stated so during the Wonderfest presentation video.


Even so it doesn't change the essence of this discussion.

And then there is this.


ffejG said:


> I was at their presentation this year and was not surprised the Galileo was on the list but I was surprised they had set the scale at 1/32 and not 1/24. Like others here I think that 1/32 is acceptable but I would much prefer 1/24. After the presentation I spoke to Jaime about that. I'm a person whose opinion carries absolutely no weight or meaning so I made the case that Moebius appeared to have great success with their 1/24 set of LIS kits for the pod and Chariot. That part seemed to make an impression and he said he would have to think about that but then they announced the poll at 1/32.


He could have been interested at the time, but chose not to go off-script during the presentation. And so a 1/24 kit might still be a consideration.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Ductapeforever said:


> Jamie Hood clearly stated so during the Wonderfest presentation video.


All that was, was "market research." They haven't committed to even doing one yet, and no $$$ has yet been spent. So, as far as I'm concerned, no real commitment has been made... and that includes EVERYTHING, oncluding scale. 

They can adjust scale at nearly any point up until they start to develop tooling, really.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Whatever Dude!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Now that the mock-up has resurfaced and in good hands to be restored it's hopefully a good time for R2 and particularly Gary to get some firm measurements and study it in detail. This is pretty much _a must_ no matter what the "real" shuttlecraft's eventual final size and the subsequent model's scale.

And do we know if the miniature is still available for whatever might be learned from it?


----------



## kenlee (Feb 11, 2010)

I will be just be grateful to finally get a Shuttlecraft that is accurate to the filming model in either 1:32 or 1:24 scale, interior is only a secondary consideration to me anyway since very little of it can be seen once the model is finished.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

For fun here's a little something I dug up that I did some years ago. It shows what a shuttlecraft might look like on the _Enterprise's_ flight deck if it were scaled up to about 26ft.











Here's another little thing I dug up from around that time. It show's a conjectural shuttlecraft variant in a proposed flight deck and hangar layout. It's based on *aridas'* 947ft. _Enterprise_ cross-section. It would work even better in *CLBrown's* slightly larger _Enterprise_ (about 1040ft. I think). The accompanying text in the image is self-exclamatory. 











What the above images illustrate is that a vehicle larger than the 22ft. mock-up could be accommodated within the available space. It could potentially accept a 29ft. vehicle, but there is a distinction between what is shown above and a Class F shuttlecraft measuring 29ft. in length. The variant shown above is 29ft. in length, but in width and height it's near exactly the same as a 26ft. Class F. However, a 29ft. Class F would be correspondingly and distinctly taller and wider than the two ships I was conjecturing---this would get rather difficult to accommodate within the available space and particularly within the storage decks below.

Make of it what you will.


_Note I am going to verify these figures since it's been sometime since I worked these out and I want to verify my measurements._


Warped9 said:


> For the record (in case anyone is interested) these were my final dimensions:
> 
> Length = 8.0549m. = 26.426837ft. (26'-5 1/4")
> Width = 5.0473m. = 16.559383ft. (16'-6 11/16")
> ...


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> For the record (in case anyone is interested) these were my final dimensions:
> 
> Length = 8.0549m. = 26.426837ft. (26'-5 1/4")
> Width = 5.0473m. = 16.559383ft. (16'-6 11/16")
> ...


Okay, I've hit a bit of a discrepancy. A 26.427ft. shuttlecraft will not give you a 24ft. main hull, but rather a 25.27ft. main hull. A vehicle of just under 26ft. will give you a main hull of just over 24ft. Somewhere along the line and over the years since I worked this out I got the figures confused---not surprising since I was tossing around a lot of figures and trying different scales back then.

However, I do know what the variable is: it's the overall height of the main cabin without significantly changing the shapes and proportions of everything else. A 5.75ft. cabin ceiling will give you a vehicle just under 26ft. in length and the 24ft. main hull, but with the overhead lighting panel in place you get only a 5.5ft. head clearance.

Now if you bump the cabin ceiling to 5.85ft. (5'-10") then you get a 5.553 (5'-7") head clearance and a 26.427ft. shuttlecraft and 25.27ft. main hull. Of course one could play around with the thickness of the overhead lighting panel. I was allowing about three inches for thickness of the panel, but conceivably I suppose that could be thinned even more. Mind you, though, it's already thinner than what we saw onscreen. You can see at this stage that you are really playing around with mere inches.

I admit I settled on the longer overall length because I wanted that little bit extra cabin space without being overly concerned about the 24ft. reference. At the time I felt the difference of 1ft. wasn't significant enough to get hung up on, but of course other people might feel differently.

Sorry about that, folks.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

Looks like the votes for 1/24 scale outweigh the votes for 1/32 so far.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

BolianAdmiral said:


> Looks like the votes for 1/24 scale outweigh the votes for 1/32 so far.


Like taking a political poll from only ONE party. I would like a 1/24th scale shuttle too , but Jamie seemed pretty sure 1/32nd was the way they would go, as the original kit was closest to this scale. The bridge was nearest this scale as well. Good-luck guys , but I think you are setting yourselves up for disapointment....I may be wrong.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

There's preference and there's acceptance. I can easily accept a 1/32 scale kit primarily because it will be an awesome kit unlike what we've ever had. I know Gary and R2 will do an awesome job and that more than makes up for any small disappointment I might have in terms of scale.

I just watched the R2 Wonderfest 2012 presentation video again and one thing jumped out at me at the end: Jamie's remark that he had Gary already working on plans. That still might not cement what the eventual scale could be, but it does mean they're already moving forward on this project.

That's awesome news and I can easily live with a 1/32 scale Shuttlecraft.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Personal preference would be 1/32 scale due to limited display space, but I'd probably get one in 1/24 scale if that's the final decision.

The interior depends on how it would be displayed. I'm not particularly in favor of a transparent or removable roof section (too "toy like"), but I don't know how else the interior would be visible. With regards to figures, perhaps seated _and_ standing; let the modeler decide which to use.

I couldn't care less about moving parts. I'm gonna build it and put it on a shelf, not play with it. However, I could understand having the ability to cement certain parts in different positions, i.e. the access hatch open or closed. For me this is a minor issue, and wouldn't be a deal breaker either way.

Aside from these issues, as long as the exterior is reasonably accurate I'll be happy.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I'd prefer a 1/24, but I won't balk at a 1/32 at all.

An interior is pretty much mandatory, I think - just the basic "Galileo Seven" layout.

Figures would be nice, but not necessary. I'd imagine clearing the portraits with the actors would cost more money? Or just take more time.

The hatches can be molded closed, but with scoring lines inside to make it easy to cut them open. Many airplane models do this with landing gear doors.

Clear parts? The nacelles domes and the front windows for sure. Maybe the control console too, for lighting?

Decals for the known Enterprise shuttles. Maybe TOS-R-inspired decals for the Starbase shuttles from _The Menagerie_ and_ Let That Be.._." ?

Optional position landing gear.

That's it for me!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Oh, btw, as to the "real" length - I'd also throw in a rationalization that Kirk could have meant it was 24 feet long_ inside the cabin_. I know it's stretching the facts, but it would allow for a longer vehicle.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

John P said:


> Oh, btw, as to the "real" length - I'd also throw in a rationalization that Kirk could have meant it was 24 feet long_ inside the cabin_. I know it's stretching the facts, but it would allow for a longer vehicle.


That would be an awfully big vehicle on the outside. It would be _more_ than 32ft. in length overall. 

Now this is a bit of speculation, but if you're measuring from the foremost part of the main cabin to the end of the impulse engine housing then you get about 24ft. With an overall vehicle length of about 26-1/2ft. That's basically eyeballing it, though.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Great stuff here. Love technical drawings, even if they are speculative, (But then aren't they all!)!! As for Kirk's reference to the shuttle being 24 feet, it is quite possible that the writer just pulled that number out of the air becaust it sounded good. Not too big, not too small. Some things just need to be discarded in favor of visual reference.......and even that needs to be looked at carefully and incorporated.

Keep up the fine work! :thumbsup:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Kind of like Scotty making a reference to "almost a million gross tons of vessel".


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

I voted for 1/32 scale.

1/32 is a very common scale for aircraft. And while the shuttle is a space craft, its nearest cousin would be an aircraft, not a car, which 1/24 is a common car scale.

There are also plenty of other sci-fi subjects in 1/32 scale.

I don't think there is so much detail, that it can't be captured in 1/32 scale.
1/32 scale cockpits are pretty darned detailed.

Personally, I'd rather have stuff in common scales, where you can see how they are in comparison to each other and real world objects.

While, 1/24 would allow me to put it next to a 1/24 car model. I'm not a car modeler. 

IMHO, 1/24 is simply too big for this subject. And I fear it would end up looking like a big bland box on the shelf.

As for interior vs. exterior, I'm a little flexible there.
Perhaps a compromise between the two.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

People talk about options.........

Perhaps the computers that were loaded into a shuttle for Spock's trip into the ameba.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

ClubTepes said:


> People talk about options.........
> 
> Perhaps the computers that were loaded into a shuttle for Spock's trip into the amoeba.


You would not have survived.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

ClubTepes said:


> IMHO, 1/24 is simply too big for this subject. And I fear it would end up looking like a big bland box on the shelf.


There is a common misconception that the TOS shuttlecraft design is rather simplistic design. Anyone who has really studied this thing and spent time researching and drawing it quickly learns it isn't simple at all---there are a lot of nuances and complexities to it.

If Gary isn't already aware of this I suspect he'll soon find out. I'm presently in the early stages of building a 3D model of it and I'm learning all over again how not simplistic the design is. It also re-emphasizes how poor the old AMT kit was.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

Warped9 said:


> There is a common misconception that the TOS shuttlecraft design is rather simplistic design. Anyone who has really studied this thing and spent time researching and drawing it quickly learns it isn't simple at all---there are a lot of nuances and complexities to it.
> 
> If Gary isn't already aware of this I suspect he'll soon find out. I'm presently in the early stages of building a 3D model of it and I'm learning all over again how not simplistic the design is. It also re-emphasizes how poor the old AMT kit was.


I can fully second this. Even in 2D, the TOS shuttle is remarkably and surprisingly complex. To the casual observer, as *Warped9* stated above, it looks very simplistic and box-like, but there are multitudes of very subtle and odd curves and angles. TOS design is deceptively simplistic.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Yep, Gary reiterated this in his articles about the TOS _E._ It seems rather straightforward compared to more contemporary designs, but closer study soon reveals a multitude of detail and complexity.


With 59 voters so far the early trend seems to be holding.
- preferably 1/24 scale, but more people are expressing they'd be fine with a 1/32 scale kit.
- a scaled interior remains popular for most who want some measure of credibility between the exterior and interior.
- figures have gained support with about half the voters, maybe for perhaps a couple of figures to be included (but this could still be done aftermarket)
- alternate decals and a few alternate parts would be nice as well the option to have the access hatch and the landing pads open or closed.
- construction that facilitates an aftermarket lighting kit.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

At 1/32 I can park it next to all the Moebius BSG Vipers, the Revell Viper, the Monogram Buck Rogers fighter, the Moebius Flying Sub and Jupiter 2...


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

John P said:


> At 1/32 I can park it next to all the Moebius BSG Vipers, the Revell Viper, the Monogram Buck Rogers fighter, the Moebius Flying Sub and Jupiter 2...


Yep... 1:32 is great as "part of a fleet" but less so a a detailed stand-alone study. Thing is, I have a pretty decent 1:72 shuttle fleet already... mostly resin cast stuff except for the runabout... and what I, personnally want is a detailed stand-alone study of this subject. I'd settle for 1:32 but WANT 1:24.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

CLBrown said:


> I'd settle for 1:32 but WANT 1:24.


Me, too, but I don't want to badger them about it. I'll settle for Gary and the others peeking in here, see the votes and feedback and get a sense of what we're hoping for that way.


_Note: *CL*, I've sent you a PM and an email._


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

1/32 might be the sweet spot for sales.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

SteveR said:


> 1/32 might be the sweet spot for sales.


Yeah, that's what I've been thinking so I'm not inclined to belabour the issue.


Regarding figures (if inculded). I can understand the potential hassle of licensing someone's likeness, but at 1/32 scale generic crew figures could serve just as well.


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

I'm not sure that the difference in scales would affect likenesses of actors that much...nor sales for that matter. I don't see the need to scale the shuttle any more with aircraft than with cars...either way it's not really a factor, this is a space craft.

Thinking how much more that can be done with the extra size really makes me enthusiastic for the 1/24 kit. Of course I'd buy either one. I also don't see where the size difference will really affect shelf space, it's essentially a rectangle...it's not like we have another huge C-51D to try to figure out what to do with.....mine's in a box in the garage with no way in the world to display it sadly.

I'm glad that this will be in concerned, capable hands...I think that the 1/350 TOS E prooves that even if some other recent reissues might suggest otherwise.

Tib


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I think the size a 1/24 (you should see Randy Cooper's kit. It's big!) would give some people second thoughts (not me, mind you). But the more casual modelers might see a difference between "Oh, it's about the size of a car model! Cool!" and "OMG, it's the size of a fricking shoe box! Where would I put that?!"


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

John P said:


> I think the size a 1/24 (you should see Randy Cooper's kit. It's big!) would give some people second thoughts (not me, mind you). But the more casual modelers might see a difference between "Oh, it's about the size of a car model! Cool!" and "OMG, it's the size of a fricking shoe box! Where would I put that?!"


Of course, that's the same argument, but less so, that we see with the 1:350 TOS and TMP Enterprise models.

The question is... is this going to be a "commodity level kit" to be sold for very little money, or is it going to be a "definitive representation" of the subject, for a bit more coin?

That's really what we're talking about. A very basic model, accurate but with limitations, or a "showpiece?"

I have lots of smaller models, and for subjects I really don't care about, that's what I prefer. I only want the BIG kits for those I'm really passionate about. I suspect that most of us feel the same, right?

The 1:1000 Enterprise kits are great for the casual builder. They're "adequate" for the more fanatical type, but not "good enough," really. We want a bigger model, able to have more fidelity, more detail, more accuracy. Even if it's tougher to find a spot to put it. For those who want more... MUCH more... the 1:350 kits are there.

Ultimately, what this comes down to is "what market segment" is R2 going to pursue here? If they go all-out, and create "the definitive Galileo," it needs to be larger...1:24. If they're creating a "nice, commodity-level inexpensive kit," 1:32 or even 1:48 would be reasonable sizes. (1:72 would be great for a "set" like you suggested before, too.)

I want the "definitive Galileo." That means a bigger kit.

Most people will put their kits onto shelves. The typical shelf is 12" wide, plus an additional 1/2" from the wall (for the wall rails)... so a 14" long shuttle will fit onto this sort of shelf very easily. Size isn't remotely as significant here as it becomes when talking about a 1:350 starship.

After all, you could still put three, or even four, of these 1:24 Galleos, side by side, into the same space as an old Ertl TMP Enterprise kit.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I'd love it in 1/24, but I will accept it in 1/32. Even at 1/32, it would be larger than most people might think, and allow for some great dios.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

Well the good thing about polls like this is that it gives the producers (assuming they're looking/listening) a good preview sample of their potential customer base. Yes, a 1/24 scale kit will be a bit bigger, but so far all indications are that most of the people here (according to the poll results) would like a 1/24 kit, which translates to the fact that those people would be willing to pay for a 1/24 kit. The more people willing to pay for something, the more you can start to justify the costs of production. Granted, I'm assuming that said hypothetical 1/24 scale shuttle will be "reasonably" priced. The point is, that as the poll shows so far, there is a market for the 1/24 version, and that it is the majority (for now). Granted, it's only a poll sample of this forum, but it is what it is nonetheless.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

My only thoughts about size is that I wouldn't want it any smaller than the original AMT release. It seemed to be a good size for a display model. Ideally, I would like a 1/24 scale, but wouldn't flinch if it was 1/32. When I see what people want it to do (opening hatch, etc.), the smaller the model, the more difficult it would be to incorporate such extras IMHO.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Gemini1999 said:


> My only thoughts about size is that I wouldn't want it any smaller than the original AMT release. It seemed to be a good size for a display model. Ideally, I would like a 1/24 scale, but wouldn't flinch if it was 1/32. When I see what people want it to do (opening hatch, etc.), the smaller the model, the more difficult it would be to incorporate such extras IMHO.


Part of what I'd like to do would be to have "winky-blinky" panels around the interior. That's pretty easy to do with surface-mount LEDs, given sufficient size. And the more I think about it, the more I think that having "active bussard" devices, like what Rob put into his lamented 1:24 version, might be a great idea.

Then again, sometimes I also get more food at the buffet than I can really eat, sooooo....


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Well I for one would really like a 1/12 scale model.  You could get one helluva interior in that baby.


More seriously, they might feel a 1/32 is more marketable to the average or casual model builder. But there really isn't a huge difference in size between a 1/32 and a 1/24 kit. The difference would be less than 3.5in. in length, but of course the volume of the model increases as the size goes up.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Warped9 said:


> Well I for one would really like a 1/12 scale model.  You could get one helluva interior in that baby.
> 
> 
> More seriously, they might feel a 1/32 is more marketable to the average or casual model builder. But there really isn't a huge difference in size between a 1/32 and a 1/24 kit. The difference would be less than 3.5in. in length, but of course the volume of the model increases as the size goes up.


The size really only becomes a major issue once the model won't fit onto a conventional 12" deep shelf. At least, IMHO.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

Well, like I stated in my post... the fact that so many people want 1/24 indicates that those same people would presumably be willing to pay the cost of a 1/24 kit (within reason, of course), so the poll is indicating that there is a demand enough to justify a 1/24 release. Yes, people would be happy with anything... but they _want _1/24, for the time being, as the poll clearly indicates.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I don't know how many people attended R2's Wonderfest presentation and voted in their poll, but it strikes me those who have voted here so far might have already surpassed the number of people in that room.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

I voted 1/24, but I'll get whatever comes out.:thumbsup:


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

I voted 1/32 as it's a size I would personally like. 

I get such a laugh at 1/32 being considered as "too small"... try working with WW II fighters in 1/72 and then doing them in 1/32 (where they exist) and the 1/32 planes are incredibly huge in comparison...! 

Besides, my shelf space would fit 1/32 better and I concur with John's assessment as to what other models a 1/32 shuttle would be scaled to. 

Interesting commentary, though. I'd like all sorts of options to go with it to make any such kit a lot more appealing.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

BolianAdmiral said:


> Well, like I stated in my post... the fact that so many people want 1/24 indicates that those same people would presumably be willing to pay the cost of a 1/24 kit (within reason, of course), so the poll is indicating that there is a demand enough to justify a 1/24 release. Yes, people would be happy with anything... but they _want _1/24, for the time being, as the poll clearly indicates.




A 1/24th scale shuttle kit would not be compatable with a Bridge kit in 1/32nd. I don't think Round 2 would go that route just for that reason. And don't even think about a 1/24th scale Bridge kit , I know for a fact Round 2 won't even consider that.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Where is it written the shuttlecraft has to be in scale with a bridge kit that might not even be on R2's radar and might never see the light of day?


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

While I would like a 1/24th shuttle I think we have to be realistic and expect a 1/32.

The larger shuttle would have higher tooling costs, Higher production costs, Higher packaging costs, higher shipping costs, and take up more shelf space in hobby stores.

While these would not concern us, They are huge factors when deciding what kits to produce.

It seems to me that R2 likes the price point of the thirty dollar range. I would expect a 1/24th kit to push closer to the high forty/low fifty dollar range.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Warped9 said:


> Where is it written the shuttlecraft has to be in scale with a bridge kit that might not even be on R2's radar and might never see the light of day?


If you guys only knew........but I've already said too much.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Well if they're planning a bridge kit then we can only hope it's a new and well researched one.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

Ductapeforever said:


> A 1/24th scale shuttle kit would not be compatable with a Bridge kit in 1/32nd. I don't think Round 2 would go that route just for that reason. And don't even think about a 1/24th scale Bridge kit , I know for a fact Round 2 won't even consider that.


Why would this matter? Are you planning on landing your shuttle on the Captain's chair?  Are you going to try to jam the Bridge inside the shuttle?


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

BolianAdmiral said:


> Why would this matter? Are you planning on landing your shuttle on the Captain's chair?  Are you going to try to jam the Bridge inside the shuttle?


Consistancy is the key here and it matters to Round 2, that's why!


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Warped9 said:


> ^^ Well if they're planning a bridge kit then we can only hope it's a new and well researched one.


Round 2 is very aware of the issues with the current Bridge kit, as things shake out , a new tool I believe is a given.


Putting a cat back into a bag is a lot harder than letting one out!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Ductapeforever said:


> Round 2 is very aware of the issues with the current Bridge kit, as things shake out , a new tool I believe is a given.
> 
> 
> Putting a cat back into a bag is a lot harder than letting one out!


Then I think this particular cat is already out in the yard. Only a matter of time until it gets out of the yard and out onto the street.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

This thread is too catty...


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

At Wonderfest Jamie eluded to Round 2 maintaining the TREK license for years to come. Suffice to say many wonderful subjects are in consideration and it is anyones guess which ones Round 2 will spring for. It's fun to watch the Hobbytalk folks go bazerk with the rumor mill . 

Some are close,....others....not so much! All the wishing and second guessing is really a hoot , but as I said before carefull guys that you don't set yourselves up for disappointment. A terrible amount of this stuff is soooooo early in the process ANYTHING can and will happen! I only hope your wish lists see a glimmer of light in the end.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

Ductapeforever said:


> Consistancy is the key here and it matters to Round 2, that's why!


Yeah, but we're talking about two wholly separate kits here. I mean, if we follow your logic, then everything should be 1/350 scale, to be consistent with the new ship, which funny enough negates the need for either a shuttle OR a bridge kit, since both ARE included as 1/350 scale pieces that come with the new kit.

So I see no reason why the bridge and a shuttle as separate kits need be the same size... that just doesn't make that much sense to me. In any case, I'm not here to argue about it... like everyone else, I'll love a new shuttle regardless of size, since the shuttle is one of the kits I want most. But I'm merely emphasizing the merits of this poll, and the value of its information to Round 2.


----------



## HabuHunter32 (Aug 22, 2009)

1/24 scaled to the full sized on screen mockup is what I would like to see. The exterior is the most important to me. Interior is secondary. I don't light my models so for me that is a non issue. A couple of figures would be a nice option.

Mike


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

BolianAdmiral said:


> Yeah, but we're talking about two wholly separate kits here. I mean, if we follow your logic, then everything should be 1/350 scale, to be consistent with the new ship, which funny enough negates the need for either a shuttle OR a bridge kit, since both ARE included as 1/350 scale pieces that come with the new kit.
> 
> So I see no reason why the bridge and a shuttle as separate kits need be the same size... that just doesn't make that much sense to me. In any case, I'm not here to argue about it... like everyone else, I'll love a new shuttle regardless of size, since the shuttle is one of the kits I want most. But I'm merely emphasizing the merits of this poll, and the value of its information to Round 2.


It is anyones guess why the original Bridge Kit and Shuttlecraft were the same or so near in scale. Consistancy? perhaps, I think more for practical reasons than anything. Popularity , ...or perhaps some engineer at AMT more than likely made the decision. Other factors such as price point , box size , size of the display , the list is endless and mindless speculation. We have no idea just exactly where in the process they are , nor should we ,as Round 2 will make a business decision , our wants and opinions will have little to do with that I'm afraid.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Warped9 said:


> There is a common misconception that the TOS shuttlecraft design is rather simplistic design. Anyone who has really studied this thing and spent time researching and drawing it quickly learns it isn't simple at all---there are a lot of nuances and complexities to it.
> 
> If Gary isn't already aware of this I suspect he'll soon find out. I'm presently in the early stages of building a 3D model of it and I'm learning all over again how not simplistic the design is. It also re-emphasizes how poor the old AMT kit was.


Oh, believe me, I know there are a lot of nuances to it.

But still none that can't be captured in 1/32.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ True. It's only in the interior it could get a bit dicey, but if they do aircraft then it shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

I'm sure I don't understand all the discussion of what scale the shuttlecraft should be. Since the poll specifically asked about a 1/32 scale shuttle, I would expect that's what will be made.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Ductapeforever said:


> At Wonderfest Jamie eluded to Round 2 maintaining the TREK license for years to come. Suffice to say many wonderful subjects are in consideration and it is anyones guess which ones Round 2 will spring for. It's fun to watch the Hobbytalk folks go bazerk with the rumor mill .
> 
> Some are close,....others....not so much! All the wishing and second guessing is really a hoot , but as I said before carefull guys that you don't set yourselves up for disappointment. A terrible amount of this stuff is soooooo early in the process ANYTHING can and will happen! I only hope your wish lists see a glimmer of light in the end.


In light of a scarcity of actual information all anyone can do is speculate. It's hardly going berserk.

I certainly don't feel disappointed. Soon I'll own a kit I thought might never see the light of day. I thought the PL 1/1000 was the best we might see, but now we're getting a real goody next month. We've also just learned they're planning to release another long hoped for kit with the shuttlecraft.

For me anything after this is just icing on the already delicious cake.


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

Warped9 said:


> In light of a scarcity of actual information all anyone can do is speculate. It's hardly going berserk.
> 
> I certainly don't feel disappointed. Soon I'll own a kit I thought might never see the light of day. I thought the PL 1/1000 was the best we might see, but now we're getting a real goody next month. We've also just learned they're planning to release another long hoped for kit with the shuttlecraft.
> 
> For me anything after this is just icing on the already delicious cake.


Well said. Until we hear some real facts I say let the speculation continue! And I totally agree with the last statement.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I'm fairly sure that the Galileo wasn't fitted with Bussards.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Captain April said:


> I'm fairly sure that the Galileo wasn't fitted with Bussards.


I'm not lighting mine either on the forthcoming kit or my 3D version. I don't know for sure what colour the nacelle caps really are, but they look white to me. At times, though they also look a bit translucent.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

In the pics the front end doesn't appear to be lit up, but the backend does.
-Jim


----------



## ViperRecon (Aug 3, 2010)

JGG1701 said:


> In the pics the front end doesn't appear to be lit up, but the backend does.
> -Jim


Hmm, from where I sit the rear of those nacelles look more like they are reflecting light than actually being internally lit. Phil Broad's pics of the studio model and DVD captures seem to back that up...

Phil Broad's Galileo pics

Also of interest, in some of the "full size" set pics the front of the nacelles look like they might have had bussard fans in them (based on reflections I'm seeing)...

Mark in Okinawa


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Nope, those don't look lit up to me. The aft nacelle balls are metallic and reflecting light. The nacelle caps look like translucent white plastic.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

From an in-universe perspective, you could certainly fit a Class F shuttlecraft with Bussards, for long distance sorties, f'r instance, but for something within standard range, just a simple end cap is fitted on.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

^

Well assuming the shuttle is warp-capable, it would actually have bussards. In all reality, the only reason the TV shuttle didn't was because of budget and limitations... there was probably no way to jam all the spinny bits into a dome that small on the model, and since we only ever saw the full-size mockup on the ground, the engines would be inactive anyway.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

At the risk of sounding anal the anecdotal evidence is plentiful in TOS that the shuttlecraft were warp capable. Also the bussard term was a TNG invention. And finally the Pike era _Enterprise_ didn't have spinning f/x in the nacelles and we know it was warp capable. Ditto for the Klingon battle cruiser and Romulan BoP.


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

Thanks for saying that about the bussard collector thing, I promised myself to ignore it to keep the peace. 

Also a sublight shuttle would be almost completely useless, so I opt to believe that they have low warp capability.

Anyhow, that they were translucent suggests the possibility that lighting was intended and just didn't happen


----------



## ViperRecon (Aug 3, 2010)

I always figured that if form followed function, the shuttle nacelles were just too similar in appearance to the Enterprise's warp nacelles for them to be anything else...

Mark in Okinawa


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

Warped9 said:


> At the risk of sounding anal the anecdotal evidence is plentiful in TOS that the shuttlecraft were warp capable. Also the bussard term was a TNG invention. And finally the Pike era _Enterprise_ didn't have spinning f/x in the nacelles and we know it was warp capable. Ditto for the Klingon battle cruiser and Romulan BoP.


I know that in TOS they were called impellers, but most people just use the term ramscoop or bussard, so I figured if I go around saying impeller, nobody would know WTF I'm talking about, lol... but yeah, the whole ramscoop thing is TNG-native, and using it in a TOS context is retconning.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Didn't FJ call them energy sinks or something like that?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

When it comes to science fiction there's a lot of interpretation.

To quote Mythbusters:

_"I reject your reality and substitute my own."_ :lol:


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Warped9 said:


> At the risk of sounding anal the anecdotal evidence is plentiful in TOS that the shuttlecraft were warp capable. Also the bussard term was a TNG invention. And finally the Pike era _Enterprise_ didn't have spinning f/x in the nacelles and we know it was warp capable. Ditto for the Klingon battle cruiser and Romulan BoP.


The thing is, we've all come to associated "faster than light" and "warp" as being synonyms.

But that's a PURE ASSUMPTION, and is in no way supported by anything. In fact, we've seen different non-warp FTL propulsion methods, even within TNG-era Star Trek.

Furthermore, we have several items, in particular from TNG-era Trek, which support other conclusions.

We DO know the term "impulse" is a basic concept from within real-world Newtonian physics. (An "impulse" is simply a force applied over time... thus, the same "impulse" can be a small force applied over a long period of time, or a large force applied for a short period of time.) And while there are some who try to redefine the term, I personally object to that... much as I'd object to redefining the term "gravity" or "thrust" or "velocity" or any other real-physics term.

But, we know that (at least in TNG-era terms) a "subspace field" can be applied around a large object, to reduce it's "apparent mass" and allow it to be moved at "non-Newtonian" speeds... we see this done to an asteroid in TNG and we see it done to space station Deep Space Nine in the pilot for that series.

During TOS, we see several incidents which draw things into question as well.

In "Balance of Terror," we are told that the Romulan war was fought "entirely at impulse" and we are told that the Romulan Bird of Prey is manuevering at impulse as well.

In "Where No Man Has Gone Before," we are told that the Enterprise's warp drive is totally disabled, yet somehow they are able to make it from the "barrier" to solar system which is, albeit marginally, inhabitable and has a mining/refinery facility.

And, of course, we're told that TOS shuttlecraft are "impulse" craft, yet clearly they can move faster-than-light. (Most notably evident in "The Menagerie" but also quite clear in almost every other example we've seen, except for "The Doomsday Machine" and "The Immunity Syndrome."

There's also another bit of evidence... the idea, in "The Cage" where Jose Tyler points out that the Enterprise is using a new propulsion system, much, much faster than that which the survivor encampment would be expected to be familiar with. "And you wont' believe how fast you can get back! Why, our new ships...."

So... the pieces for the puzzle are all there.

My solution is, I think, an elegant one. "Warp drive" is the NEW propulsion system created at some point less than thirty years prior to "The Cage." Prior to that, they still had faster-than-light propulsion, however, just not the specific form of FTL called "warp drive."

In particular, I call this propulsion system "subspace assisted impulse." It's not entirely non-newtonian, like warp drive is, but instead uses a "static subspace field" to reduce the "apparent mass" of the object being accelerated... meaning a little thrust gives a LOT of acceleration... and the "effective speed of light" within that field is much greater, so the ship can move faster than light, but is still limited by some "subjective speed limit" (within-subspace relativity?)

In fact, I've even gone so far as to determine a speed limit for "FTL impulse"... about 75c, or the equivalent of WF 4.2 (old scale, not TNG-era scale).

This fits with everything. The shuttlecraft do not have "warp nacelles" but they DO have "subspace field nacelles." (The reason is, "warp" uses similar field generation hardware but manipulates it in much, much more complex ways.)

These "field nacelles" allow the shuttle to use its impulse engines to thrust itself to as fast as seventy five times the speed of light, while burning relatively small amounts of fuel. "Burning" isn't quite the right term, of course... since we're actually talking about a fusion reaction, not a chemical combustion reaction. The reactor/thruster element is along the upper aft edge of the hull. Without using the "field nacelles," this vessel would be a pure sublight craft, limited to only about three quarters of the speed of light before relativity would make further acceleration... "problematic." And that would consume huge amounts of fuel to accomplish.

But by creating a nice, symmetrical "subspace bubble" around the ship, you can reduce the "apparent mass" of the ship by many orders of magnitude, AND increase the "local speed of light" (relative to the "real universe" outside the bubble) by many orders of magnitude as well.

Using this approach, an "impulse only shuttle" could pursue the Enterprise and have SOME chance of accomplishing anything. Using this approach, a "no working warp drive" Enterprise could make it from the barrier to another system in a plausible length of time. Using this approach, you could fight the Romulan war as described. And so on and so on.

This is entirely consistent with everything we've ever seen on-screen, with the exception of some minor "nomenclature" issues related to the film "First Contact" and elements of the series "Enterprise" (both of which are big deviations from earlier Trek lore anyway... and I give "what came first" greater precedence in all cases, frankly.)

"First Contact" works perfectly fine... as long as we mentally retcon out the term "warp" and just substitute in "FTL." The ship itself, the Pheonix, is entirely consistent with this concept, in fact. Imagine... they energize the nacelles (creating the bubble) and then first the "fusion rocket" engine at the aft end of the ship, and that's what we see on-screen.

"Enterprise" is more problematic. The series would work much better if it wasn't set "a century before Kirk" but was, say, fifty years before Kirk (and that, at least, would allow for Scotty to have met Admiral Archer and his beagle....) That way, this could have been the first ship with the "new propulsion system" Jose Tyler mentioned to the survivors. Instead of the "first warp-five engine" it would be the "first warp drive engine" with prior engines all being "subspace assisted impulse." It really would work just fine, with those changes. Dubbing the show into another language, you could entirely "fix" this, and lose absolutely none of the storytelling from the series. But, you'd have to redub all the english language stuff where they say "warp drive" to say something else... as I said, problematic.

But really... that's the ONLY issue with what I suggest.

The TOS shuttlecraft is "impulse only," but has static-subspace-field-generation nacelles, allowing it to travel up to seventy five times the speed of light while "under impulse.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

CLBrown said:


> The thing is, we've all come to associated "faster than light" and "warp" as being synonyms.
> 
> But that's a PURE ASSUMPTION, and is in no way supported by anything. In fact, we've seen different non-warp FTL propulsion methods, even within TNG-era Star Trek.
> 
> ...


What? Er...what? 




When figuring out things in TOS I tend to ignore most of TNG onward, treknology wise, and most particularly ENT.


----------



## kenlee (Feb 11, 2010)

Warped9 said:


> What? Er...what?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In my mind "Enterprise" takes place in an altered timeline that started with the events in "First Contact". Picard and his crew directly interacting with Cochrane, giving him foreknowledge of what was to come altered the timeline enough to give us a much more advanced Starship Enterprise much earlier than it should have happened. The events in the 2009 "Star Trek" also fits in with the altered universe of "Enterprise", explaining the larger, more advanced ships in Kirk's time.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

CLBrown said:


> The thing is, we've all come to associated "faster than light" and "warp" as being synonyms.
> 
> But that's a PURE ASSUMPTION, and is in no way supported by anything. In fact, we've seen different non-warp FTL propulsion methods, even within TNG-era Star Trek.
> 
> ...





All.......righty then!


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

The point is... "warp" and "FTL" ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME THING.

ie, "warp" is a subset of "FTL."

The topic raised, WHICH I DID NOT RAISE, was "do shuttles have warp drive." My answer is... No, they don't. But they do travel faster than light.

I supported this proposition with an argument based entirely upon "on-screen evidence." Which is the only way to discuss this sort of fictional stuff.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

CLBrown said:


> The point is... "warp" and "FTL" ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME THING.
> 
> ie, "warp" is a subset of "FTL."
> 
> ...




UMmmmmmm............Yeah, ...never mind !


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

You sure youre not 'Doc Brown'? I love your way of looking at this, makes perfect sense.

Tib


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

CLBrown said:


> The point is... "warp" and "FTL" ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME THING.
> 
> ie, "warp" is a subset of "FTL."
> 
> ...


I bought it! Sounds reasonable to me.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Tiberious said:


> You sure youre not 'Doc Brown'? I love your way of looking at this, makes perfect sense.
> 
> Tib


Well, we all know that it takes... 1.21 gigawatts... to generate a static subspace field bubble for the Galileo.

*1.21 gigawatts?!?!? Great Scott!!! *


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Here's a grenade: which one is the real shuttlecraft, the miniature or the full-size mockup?

The miniature was used for action sequences of showing the shuttlecraft in motion whether on the flight deck or in flight. At a glance and when seen briefly it looks close enough to the full-size exterior to accept it as the same ship. But the miniature doesn't have as much detail and differs in some of its shapes and proportions, but it is the one we recognize when seeing it in action.

The full-size exterior is the one with a lot more detail. And while it, too, has production compromises it had to hold up to more "close up" scrutiny onscreen.

Now do you accept one or the other or do you try to reconcile or integrate the two?

For myself I accepted the full-size version as the "real" shuttlecraft in terms of overall shape, proportions and certainly in terms of detailing. The main thing I took from the miniature was the idea that the ship shouldn't look so "nose down" as the full-size version does. Mind you on the flip side if you shape the hull like the miniature the lower edge of access hatch looks too high and won't open onto the nacelle the way it should. I know because I tried it that way.

I solved it by playing with the lines around the midsection rim a bit. I was able to bring the nose up enough without totally losing the distinctive wedge look of the ship (which the miniature doesn't seem to have as much).

We'll see how it looks from a distance because I'm presently working on a 3D model of the shuttlecraft based mostly on the full-size exterior.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Warped9 said:


> Here's a grenade: which one is the real shuttlecraft, the miniature or the full-size mockup?


Well, we know that all three "versions" of the shuttle have compromises. Part of what you ought to do, as you analyze this, is to figure out WHY each compromise was made.

1) *The Interior:* This has a clear "compromise" which is made due to the need to get 1966-ish TV camera equipment inside of it. If they were doing this today, they could take a RED camera inside even if it were built at "true size" (although they'd need to be able to pull off walls for access, of course). But the "detailing" of the interior set is far more accurate than that seen in either of the other forms, obviously... especially since, as far as I'm aware, there IS not real "interior" in the miniature, and the interior of the "fullsize" version is very much bare-bones... just enough to look like it's there when they enter or exit.

So... the interior is "detail-wise" accurate, but the size/proportion/scale of the interior is likely not.

2) *The Miniature:* Well, this will have a bit less "fine detail" than the other versions, for the simple fact that ITS A MODEL... and a model intended for viewing on 1966-ish TV sets, where very, very little detail would be visible at any point.

However, it's easier to get the shape "100% right" in miniature than it is to accomplish the same thing on a plywood and tube-steel "full-size" mockup. For this reason, I would definitely give precedence to the miniature insofar as shape is concerned, but less so insofar as exterior detail is concerned.

3) *The "Full-Size" Prop:* Well, first off, we know that this isn't really "full size." I don't think anybody ever really intended it to be (and let's be clear, using partial-size "full size" mockups is very, very common in filmmaking... 3/4 scale is fairly common, and sometimes they go even smaller, and it turns out to be VERY obvious... see the Millennium Falcon in TESB.)

Also take into account that it's a lot harder to get shapes, proportions, etc 100% correct when you're working with a welding shop, then a carpentry shop, and so forth... on a TV budget and TV schedule, no less. The "full size" version is intended to be a "stand-in" for a "real" ship. It's almost never.. in fact, as far as I am aware, there has never been a case where this was true... never a 100% accurate representation of the "real design." If anyone can think of one, please share, because I'd be fascinated to learn about it.

On TOS Battlestar Galactica, or on nuBSG for that matter, they had "fullsize" mockups of Vipers, or shuttles/raptors/etc. In the case of the vipers, the overall proportions were off pretty dramatically (compare overall length versus "wingspan" between the models and the "full-size" prop mockups).

On the other hand, for a full-size mockup prop, it's relatively EASY to put fine detail on. They can, often, just use "found" objects to do it... something which is not necessarily even an option for the minature.

This was done on TOS Trek for the Galileo. Remember, they used a real aircraft landing gear for the aft gear of the full-size mockup, and a TOTALLY DIFFERENT scavenged model-kit gear for the aft gear of the model. The one from the model is more believable. But the one on the "full-size" mockup prop was the only one they likely were able to get their hands on cheaply!

So... MY approach is this:

1) The shape, proportions, and general configuration of the model take first priority.

2) The details on the "full-size" elements... interior or exterior... take precedence, unless they OVERTLY and VISIBLY contradict something on the model, in which case, I would defer to the model.

And example - the hatches on the aft "full-size" mockup don't appear to have been there on the model. But we know that they're there... we see Spock open them up. So, they should be there. But they might be a bit less visible on the "real" shuttle than they appear on the mockup prop. On the mockup, the "hatches" are actually above the surface of the hull, but I would say that on a "real" ship, they would be totally flush with the surface of the hull.

To sum up... think about why things were done the way that they were done. Each medium has its own shortcomings and its own advantages. When you pick and choose what elements to accept and which to... "deprecate?"... do it with these advantages, and disadvantages, in mind.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

CLBrown said:


> Well, we know that all three "versions" of the shuttle have compromises. Part of what you ought to do, as you analyze this, is to figure out WHY each compromise was made.
> 
> 1) *The Interior:* This has a clear "compromise" which is made due to the need to get 1966-ish TV camera equipment inside of it. If they were doing this today, they could take a RED camera inside even if it were built at "true size" (although they'd need to be able to pull off walls for access, of course). But the "detailing" of the interior set is far more accurate than that seen in either of the other forms, obviously... especially since, as far as I'm aware, there IS not real "interior" in the miniature, and the interior of the "fullsize" version is very much bare-bones... just enough to look like it's there when they enter or exit.
> 
> ...


Not too far with what I did. What I got off the miniature was it's basic shape and the underside detail. The rest comes from the full-size exterior. And building it in 3D I can say that the full-size shape that I tweaked looks pretty damned good. It's easy to see how it came off so well on TV. The miniature seems to have a bit more slope to the front end and it doesn't have those little upward kinks and the leading edge of the roof rails.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Best guess, Mr, Kerr...


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Captain April said:


> Best guess, Mr, Kerr...


Hey, didn't Sulu MISS when he tried that?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

CLBrown said:


> Well, we know that all three "versions" of the shuttle have compromises. Part of what you ought to do, as you analyze this, is to figure out WHY each compromise was made. . . .
> 
> To sum up... think about why things were done the way that they were done. Each medium has its own shortcomings and its own advantages. When you pick and choose what elements to accept and which to... "deprecate?"... do it with these advantages, and disadvantages, in mind.


I would have no problem with their going 100% with the c. 3/4 mockup in terms of proportions, etc. and ditching the smaller model altogether on proportions. The Galileo is one of the rare exceptions where the mockup was done so well that it sets the standard for the entire vehicle. Scaling the model up so that it reflects a larger vehicle for 1/32nd scale would be the only change needed, IMHO. I agree, of course, that the studio interior would need to be altered to fit inside the proportions of the mockup.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

*CL* was right in respect to the interior and that is the direction I followed. I kept the detals and the _shape_ of what we saw, but not the size. The walls are the same angle, the width is the same, the round corners where the walls meet the ceiling are the same, the angle of the forward bulkhead is the same, but the cabin length and height had to be altered.

I have a pic somewhere illustrating the difference between the two. I'll try to find it this evening.

Note, though, that if one did retain the exact same proportions of the full-size interior to keep a standing interior as we saw onscreen and also kept the exterior proportions as seen then you'd have _a lot_ of extra space between the interior and exterior walls, a lot more than I have with my double hull structure. The alternative would be to widen the cabin for more reasonable spacing between hulls, but then you've got one helluva spacious interior.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Captain April said:


> Best guess, Mr, Kerr...


No comment yet. We're still in the research phase, using a bunch of unpublished photos of both the mock-up and the miniature. I can say this: while the mock-up & miniature may appear to be very similar at first glance, at second glance - er, not so much.

Stay tuned...

Gary


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Gary K said:


> No comment yet. We're still in the research phase, using a bunch of unpublished photos of both the mock-up and the miniature. I can say this: while the mock-up & miniature may appear to be very similar at first glance, at second glance - er, not so much.
> 
> Stay tuned...
> 
> Gary


Yeah, no kidding. And you don't need to see unpublished pics to quickly see it.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Gary K said:


> I can say this: while the mock-up & miniature may appear to be very similar at first glance, at second glance - er, not so much.


From a kit-designing & model-building standpoint, this would seem to be one of those instances in which the contours and details of the full-scale mockup are more desirable than those of the miniature.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I think a happy average of all the dimensions would be the best solution.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Captain April said:


> I think a happy average of all the dimensions would be the best solution.


What does this really mean? You have to really think about how this can work in an integrated way. It can't be just hashed together.

I imagine getting the _Jupiter II_ interior into the exterior must have been a similar problem, maybe more so.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Well, I guess I'm in the minority insofar as preferring the overall shape of the model over that of the "prop mockup."

My rationale is simple... it's easier to get the shape right (according to "design intent") with the model than it is with the "mockup."

I've heard several people say that the "mockup" configuration is preferable, but I've yet to hear anyone say WHY they feel that way.

Is it just a matter of comfort level? IE, that it "looks more like the shuttle I have in my mind's eye?"

Or is there some other reason to prefer that over the miniature?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

CLBrown said:


> Well, I guess I'm in the minority insofar as preferring the overall shape of the model over that of the "prop mockup."
> 
> My rationale is simple... it's easier to get the shape right (according to "design intent") with the model than it is with the "mockup."
> 
> ...


The full-size exterior has the right shape overall as is---you don't have to tweak it much, certainly not noticeably much the same as you did with the TOS _E._ That plus its level of detail. If indeed the miniature has a more sharply raked nose then that cuts into interior space unless you lengthen the hull overall to compensate. Besides the angle of the bow section on the mock-up increases (marginally) when you bring the nose up a bit so it isn't so "nose down" in appearance.

Believe me, *CL*, I tried this numerous ways before I settled on my final approach. In some small ways I did massage the exterior so it looked a bit more like the miniature from a distance, but I was sold on the mock-up as the main template because it was overall more convincingly shaped and detailed.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Warped9 said:


> The full-size exterior has the right shape overall as is---you don't have to tweak it much, certainly not noticeably much the same as you did with the TOS _E._ That plus its level of detail. If indeed the miniature has a more sharply raked nose then that cuts into interior space unless you lengthen the hull overall to compensate. Besides the angle of the bow section on the mock-up increases (marginally) when you bring the nose up a bit so it isn't so "nose down" in appearance.
> 
> Believe me, *CL*, I tried this numerous ways before I settled on my final approach. In some small ways I did massage the exterior so it looked a bit more like the miniature from a distance, but I was sold on the mock-up as the main template because it was overall more convincingly shaped and detailed.


Well, "shape" and "detail level" are two very different issues. I do agree with retaining (mostly) the detail levels of the full-size mockup (though, as mentioned, I see no reason not to "de-emphasize" a few of those, like making the aft access hatches totally flush rather than "overlaid" as in the mockup).

But if you divorce the "detail level" from the "shape," what about the shape is "better" about the mockup versus the model? That's what I really, truly don't see.

If I were going to build a Viper, I'd use the proportions of the model, but might well use the details from the "fullsize" mockup. Same thing here.

I'm not being argumentative, exactly... I'm really not seeing why people PREFER the mockup (which, it seems to me, would have more shape-wise compromises than the model... see, for example, the TNG-era "shuttle mockups" for a similar issue).

Obviously, DEFECTS have a cut-and-dry argument against retaining them... if the miniature has problems at that level, dump'em.

I'm just saying... lacking any other personally-performed analysis... if I were starting off clean-sheet on a shuttle version of my own, I would likely use the shape of the model, unless there was a compelling reason to do otherwise.

I'm just looking for what that "compelling reason" is, that's all.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

There are far fewer discrepancies between TOS' mock-up and miniature than TNG's which I thought was brutal. The mock-up on TNG was really clumsy.

I don't mind the aft panels on the mock-up---it's a nice bit of detail. The TOS miniature was proportionately just as wide as the mock-up so following the miniature doesn't give you anything.

I suppose it's kind of like comparing the 33in. and 11ft. _Enterprise_ models. The 33in. Is nice and interesting and some neat things about it, but the 11 footer is much more the real thing onscreen.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

CLBrown said:


> I'm just looking for what that "compelling reason" is, that's all.


While it usually comes down to being simply a matter of preference, I would say in this case the "compelling reasons" are that the fact that the mockup was seen so much more (never have done a sampling but I would guess that the amount of footage of the mockup exterior in proportion to the footage of the miniature is something like 50-1 or more) AND that it was seen in much more detail (vs. fuzzy shots of the miniature) AND, as previously mentioned, there's not a whole lot of difference in the key elements, that it just doesn't make sense to refer to the filming miniature at all. 

The mockup alone, in this particular case, represents what most people think of in terms of what the shuttlecraft was. Unlike the J2, for example, where the level of realism was much more apparent in the filming miniatures' looks and functioning--far above the soundstage's rough "stand-in" version (the exteriors at least)--the mockup of the Galileo absolutely set the standard for the shuttlecraft. The flying miniature was the rough "stand-in" version for the shuttlecraft in STTOS which is very unusual--completely opposite of what most of us expect in sci-fi shows. No one would, for example, prefer the mockup of the Star Wars' X-wing over the hero version model.

Personally, I would prefer an absolute duplicate of the mockup exterior of the shuttlecraft with a compromised studio interior made to fit and the whole scaled up in size from 3/4 or 7/8 (or whatever it was supposed to be) over any proportions or details from the filming miniature.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Gary K said:


> I can say this: while the mock-up & miniature may appear to be very similar at first glance, at second glance - er, not so much.


I had been considering doing a studio scale replica of the filming miniature (at about 22 inches long) and had been doing study/comparisons between the two and see what you mean.










When I came across these differences, I put the study on hold to decide on whether I wanted a replica of the miniature or a 1/12 scale replica of the mock-up. The problem I faced was that I really liked the more wedged overall shape of the mock-up, and as I'll be the one having to live with the final product I wanted to be sure to build the model I wanted.

It is sort of the same issue I faced in deciding which model of the Enterprise I was going to build. I, like nearly everyone else, see the 11 foot version as _the Enterprise_ on screen, but the model I'd end up with wasn't going to be _on screen_... it was going to be _on table_. And ever since I first saw _"Requiem for Methuselah"_, I knew what model I wanted on my table.

Plus I really liked the feel of the Thomas Kellogg sketch which also has the more wedged shape... so that has been the direction I've been leaning in.

But again, I'm only going to build one and I'll be the primary audience for whatever I end up with (which isn't nearly as much pressure as having to design something for the masses).


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Shaw said:


> I really liked the feel of the Thomas Kellogg sketch which also has the more wedged shape...


You're not the only one.

:thumbsup:

The "wedge" lends a degree of streamlined contour to what might otherwise have been a rather boxy design. 

The trick is orienting the engine pods so they remain straight and level with the sight line (correct me if I'm wrong Gary, but from the images I've seen the mock-up's engine's flair out at the ends, whereas the engines on the miniature remain relatively parallel to the sight line).


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Carson Dyle said:


> The trick is orienting the engine pods so they remain straight and level with the sight line (correct me if I'm wrong Gary, but from the images I've seen the mock-up's engine's flair out at the ends, whereas the engines on the miniature remain relatively parallel to the sight line).


The mock-up's engines do flare out at the back, but they're also angled so they point slightly upward, relative to the wings. These & other aspects of the design, plus the fact that the actors seemed to hang out primarily at the rear end of the shuttle, have convinced me that the mock-up utilized some forced-perspective design elements to make the undersized prop appear larger than its actual size. The miniature, whose design is still under study, probably more closely represents the intended design of the ship. And that's all I should probably say until the analysis of the miniature is complete.

Gary


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Thanks, Shaw... that's exactly what I was looking for... an answer about WHY one solution might be "preferred."

In this case, I think I agree with Gary's sentiment, above, though. But... I think the final shape might end up being a "morph" intermediate shape... halfway between the two. 

In any case, it's a non-trivial problem, resolvng it all.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I think when it all shakes out, we'll wind up with something very close to Warped9's version.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Gary K said:


> ...have convinced me that the mock-up utilized some forced-perspective design elements to make the undersized prop appear larger than its actual size. The miniature, whose design is still under study, probably more closely represents the intended design of the ship.


Maybe, maybe not.

The Kellogg rendering clearly depicts a wedge-shaped craft.

My gut feeling is that the designers, faced with budget limitations and the task of making what is essentially a flying box look less boxy, elected to introduce an element of wedge-inspired streamlining simply because they found the results more aesthetically pleasing (I know I find them more aesthetically pleasing).

Don’t get me wrong; I’ve no doubt that once you’ve examined all the reference data you’ll eventually arrive at a suitable hybrid between mock-up and miniature. Just don’t be too sure the designers were motivated solely by a utilitarian desire to force the perspective. As the Kellogg rendering illustrates, the subtle wedge-like contouring goes a long way towards suggesting speed, power, and mid-century retro-space-age coolness.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Oh wow, I love that Kellogg version. Very cool. I can see why it never made it onto the screen, but it is very cool!


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Couple shots of the Randy Cooper model, just for the sake of discussion. At exactly 12” long, it's a perfect scale IMO for this subject; not to big… not too small.




























I’m pretty sure Randy based his model on Phil Broad’s drawings (there are subtle tells). Although the kit has issues, I like the way the profile suggests the somewhat sleeker lines of the FX miniature. I also think it strikes a nice balance wedge-wise, i.e. the stern is wider than the prow, but not alarmingly so.

Just to be clear, this is by no means a case of me telling Gary to follow Randy’s lead (I would never presume to give Gary Kerr kit-designing instructions). But, since Randy’s kit is the closest anyone has come to producing an accurate Galileo, I thought it would be interesting to see what my fellow shuttle fans make of the scale and overall contours.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

^

This is pretty much all I ask for... a decent-sized shuttle kit with the detail level of Randy's. If we get that, I'll be quite happy.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Shaw said:


> I had been considering doing a studio scale replica of the filming miniature (at about 22 inches long) and had been doing study/comparisons between the two and see what you mean.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What we see here illustrates another problem I had with the miniature. The more shallow bow and bottom section intrudes on interior space and the ship's size has to go up to compensate. I became very conscious of size. As I said earlier up thread I began with a 31ft. vehicle and once I figured out the "real" vehicle intended had to be smaller than what we saw I started figuring out how to shrink it without losing its appearance and detail. I concluded that I only had to lessen the interior's length and height and keep everything else the same. I managed to go from a 31ft. craft to 28ft and eventually 26ft+.

Even so the exterior remained proportionately wider than the interior. That along with the unusual profile of the centreline cross-section gave me a double hull structure, and that allowed for a more credible setup for a "real" shuttlecraft which was what I was aiming for.

The other difference between the two, as has already been noted, was the difference in detail on the underside of the ship. The full-size mock-up was basically flat (understandable since it was never intended to be seen onscreen), but the miniature's belly is much more interesting visually. I found it relatively easy to incorporate the miniature's underside detail with the mock-up's deeper bow. And it still allowed for some space between the interior deck and the bottom hull for Scotty to be working on some mechanical's down there even if he wouldn't actually be elbow deep in there.

The miniature makes the ship look a bit sleeker, but the in the end I feel the mock-up looks and feels more "real."


*Gary*, and anyone else interested, here.s where it all started for me: http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=31724
and http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=50073 and http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=119088 and http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=135182

From Hobbytalk the threads are http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=142783&highlight=My+TOS+shuttlecraft and http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=242510&highlight=My+TOS+shuttlecraft and http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=215626&highlight=My+TOS+shuttlecraft

The ongoing discussions from both the TrekBBS and Hobbytalk do parallell each other, but the feedback and insights from posters on both boards were of immeasurable help in getting the result I ended up with. I hope it's helpful.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

And here's a little something else to ponder. The dotted outline are a bit misleading because you are seeing the widest part of the main hull and not that it tapers in towards the front.








This shows the interior with a lowered ceiling that I went with (5.75ft). If you increase the height to be more like the interior set seen onscreen then the space between the interior and exterior hulls increases greatly even though the cabin width stays the same.


Another couple of things I dug up:


Warped9 said:


> Okay, finally some pics. The first is a comparison in elevation between the filming minature (as it appeared on TNG in 1987) and the fullsize mock-up as it appeared in TOS.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Warped9 said:


> Some more finessing. Here we have a cleaner look at the direction I'm going in. The pink line represents how the main hull is oriented in relation to the nacelles and the ground. It's subtle but here the inner deck would be pitched forward about two degrees or so, but since the vehicle will then be sitting back about the same two or three degrees then things cancel each other out and the inside deck will then be parallel with the ground when the craft is landed. The blue area obviously represents the countour of the interior.
> 
> 
> 
> Exercises such as this always give me a new appreciation for TOS' designers and production staff. They evidently had a very keen eye and overall sense of design that included a great deal of subtlety and detail that flies in the face of what are often assumed to be very plain and simple designs.





Warped9 said:


> Here is another shot of the fullsize mock-up in elevation.
> 
> 
> Here is my elevation. The red lines are all parallel at level. The blue line represents the ground when the craft is landed. My angles allong the centerline came out to be more subtle than I initially envisioned, but it still works to create the overall effect I was aiming for.
> ...


Note the bottom pick was early on when I was considering a full-size interior.

I never learned whether the mock-up's pitched forward look was deliberate or if the thing simply sagged up front after construction. But that's how it appeared onscreen so I wanted to retain some measure of that look yet without it looking broken or sagging.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

A recent Round 2 blog post CONFIRMS that the Galileo kit will be 1/32nd scale afterall. So endless conversation on the subject should be saved for lobbying some aftermarket company to produce one in 1/24th scale. On a further disappointing note: the 1/350 Big 'E' has been delayed, no time frame was mentioned.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Carson Dyle said:


> Couple shots of the Randy Cooper model, just for the sake of discussion. At exactly 12” long, it's a perfect scale IMO for this subject; not to big… not too small.


Agreed.


> I’m pretty sure Randy based his model on Phil Broad’s drawings (there are subtle tells). Although the kit has issues, I like the way the profile suggests the somewhat sleeker lines of the FX miniature. I also think it strikes a nice balance wedge-wise, i.e. the stern is wider than the prow, but not alarmingly so.


Also agreed. I can't see the "subtle tells" you mention, but then, I haven't examined the actual kit, just these photos.


> Just to be clear, this is by no means a case of me telling Gary to follow Randy’s lead (I would never presume to give Gary Kerr kit-designing instructions). But, since Randy’s kit is the closest anyone has come to producing an accurate Galileo, I thought it would be interesting to see what my fellow shuttle fans make of the scale and overall contours.


That IS a nice kit, no question about it... how much (approx) did that run you? I've never seen it for sale.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

FYI, I still think W9's work is the best "compromise" I've seen... though, I really, really like the more "pointed" prow of the filming miniature, from an aerodynamic/ship-design standpoint (which, unfortunately, would mean that the ship would no longer be a 24'/26' version, but more like a 27'/29' version!)

The 1:24 resin model, above, is pretty nice, all things considered, too.

As long as what we get is a "close blending" of the three versions... weighted, as much as possible with design intent, on-screen dialog/etc, overall shapes, and details, all present in a harmonious fashion... I'll be satisfied. But, of course, no matter what R2 comes up with, someone will always be able to come up with a different "solution" to the problem of reconciling it all, and that solution will be every bit as valid as whatever R2 finally produces.

Until/unless the intellectual property owner develops a "canon," and 100% consistent solution, every solution which attempts to blend the disparate elements will be "incorrect" to one extent or another. There simply isn't a "correct answer."


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Ductapeforever said:


> A recent Round 2 blog post CONFIRMS that the Galileo kit will be 1/32nd scale afterall. So endless conversation on the subject should be saved for lobbying some aftermarket company to produce one in 1/24th scale. On a further disappointing note: the 1/350 Big 'E' has been delayed, no time frame was mentioned.


Fine. I've got no problem with that.



CLBrown said:


> Until/unless the intellectual property owner develops a "canon," and 100% consistent solution, every solution which attempts to blend the disparate elements will be "incorrect" to one extent or another. There simply isn't a "correct answer."


Agreed. The "best" answer will always be the one that reflects the individual's biases or what they feel is most important.

I, too, like the more shallow bow and lower section of the miniature, but ultimately I'm swayed by the consideration of which is more believable or realistic in my eyes. And note I did temper the bow a smidgen on my version. Also seeing the design in plain and flat 2D profiles looks different than seeing it 3D perspective views.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Deleted.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

Just how big would a 1/32 scale shuttle be? How many inches long and wide?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

BolianAdmiral said:


> Just how big would a 1/32 scale shuttle be? How many inches long and wide?


1/32 scale:
24ft. shuttlecraft = 9in.
26ft. shuttlecraft = 9.75in.
29ft. shuttlecraft = 10.875in.

A 26ft. shuttlecraft would be a bit over 5in. wide.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

Damn... that's pretty small... I was hoping for something the size of the Randy Cooper model. Oh, well.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

BolianAdmiral said:


> Damn... that's pretty small... I was hoping for something the size of the Randy Cooper model. Oh, well.


It isn't so bad. A lot of aircraft models are in that scale and they can have a lot of good detail. I suspect it could prove a bit more challenging (for the average modeler) when it comes to detailing the interior. But the exterior would be rather easy.

Also, on another note, I'm presently endeavouring to build a 3D model. When finished it will help me refine my drawings for better accuracy allround. From that one could scratchbuild a model of whatever size they wish. The current drawings are in 1/24 scale so one could take the measuresments right off the page.

Note, too, that my plans to fashion my own scratchbuild are presently on hold until my 3D model is done and I see what R2's kit is like.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

1/32 is a pretty big scale for, say, a P-51D Mustang.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Captain April said:


> 1/32 is a pretty big scale for, say, a P-51D Mustang.


And a lot of rivets on a Mustang I'd gather.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Not to mention the gauges in the cockpit.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

When you really look at it the detailing in the shuttlecraft's interior is nowhere as daunting as an aircraft's. The finest detail would be on the control consoles and it wouldn't be that bad. A lot of it could be handled easily with decals or photoetching.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Warped9 said:


> It isn't so bad. A lot of aircraft models are in that scale and they can have a lot of good detail. I suspect it could prove a bit more challenging (for the average modeler) when it comes to detailing the interior. But the exterior would be rather easy.
> 
> Also, on another note, I'm presently endeavouring to build a 3D model. When finished it will help me refine my drawings for better accuracy allround. From that one could scratchbuild a model of whatever size they wish. The current drawings are in 1/24 scale so one could take the measuresments right off the page.
> 
> Note, too, that my plans to fashion my own scratchbuild are presently on hold until my 3D model is done and I see what R2's kit is like.


It's not a matter of detail, so much as it a matter of PRESENTATION.

Compare a really top-quality 1:72 aircraft to a really top quality 1:32 aircraft, and no matter how gorgeously done the smaller kit is, it's just not as... COMPELLING... as "impressive" as the bigger kit is?

See here, for a great example of this idea:

http://www.militarymodelling.com/news/article/neil-doman's-f16-fighting-falcon/5243/

The smaller kit is GORGEOUS, for the scale it's in. But it just can't compare to the big kit.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Oh, no question. But I can understand R2's thinking behind this. The shuttlecraft likely wouldn't have as broad an appeal as the TOS _E_ and so they could be inclined to be more cost conscious---the cost to them and the cost to the consumer. And there might be other considerations we're not privy to. The flipside is that a mass market 1/24 kit would be a lot more affordable (and better detailed and finished) than Randy Cooper's $200+ kit.

But I can live with a 1/32 and I won't lose sleep over it. If I ever really have to have bigger than I can still make one myself.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Just for fun. A 26.427ft. shuttlecraft at...

(measurements are approximate)
1/1000 = 5/16"
1/600 = 1/2"
1/350 = 7/8"
1/72 = 4-1/2"
1/32 = 9-7/8"
1/24 = 13-1/4"
1/12 = 26-3/8"
1/8 = 39-5/8"


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Ductapeforever said:


> A recent Round 2 blog post CONFIRMS that the Galileo kit will be 1/32nd scale.


Having traded emails with a Round 2 rep who requested anonymity, my understanding is that the company is considering a model measuring "12 inches long or less." 

I personally don't care if the model is 1/24 or 1/32... as long as it's 12" long.


----------



## geminibuildups (Apr 22, 2005)

*Here's the model I want:

Make it a decent size, get the sloped roof, curved sides and rear engine section right and I'll be satisfied. I don't know if the one from the series was capable of reaching warp speed, but since I am too big to get inside and wouldn't know how to fly it if I could, it doesn't really make any difference to me. It does make for an interesting discussion though. 

In any case, I'm sure it will be a vast improvement from the original 1970s issue and I am looking forward to its release.



Geminibuildiups

GEMINI MODEL BUILD-UP STUDIOS
www.geminibuildupstudios.com *


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> Having traded emails with a Round 2 rep who requested anonymity, my understanding is that the company is considering a model measuring "12 inches long or less."
> 
> I personally don't care if the model is 1/24 or 1/32... as long as it's 12" long.


Well then assuming a shuttlecraft that is longer than 24ft overall then that does automatically exclude 1/24 scale.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I'm idly wondering if R2 might consider some other shuttlecraft models sometime down the road. In particular I'm thinking of the TFF shuttlecraft as well as Probert's TNG design.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Warped9 said:


> I'm idly wondering if R2 might consider some other shuttlecraft models sometime down the road. In particular I'm thinking of the TFF shuttlecraft as well as Probert's TNG design.


Doubtful, I'd think.

This has to be supported by a BUSINESS CASE. You have to look at the levels of interest... how many people are likely to buy something and how much they'd be willing to pay for it. And you have to look at the cost to develop it, produce it, distribute it, market it, etc, etc. You have to have a sufficiently high "margin" (the difference between "cost out" and "revenue in," really) to justify doing it. A "break even" business case isn't sufficient... you need PROFIT in order to justify doing the work. You need to pay for your salaries, your facilities, your health care program, your utility bills, your lawyers, and on and on and on. And, if you're publicly held, you also need to make it worth their while for your investors (who are, in the end, mostly normal people, invested through their 401K, IRA, mutual funds, etc, etc), so you need to pick whatever provides the best "bang for the buck" for those investors... you know, the people who actually own the company.

Private businesses often look "long term" while publicly-held ones often focus (far too much, IMHO) on "quarterly results." I prefer working for private companies, as a result.

Now, Round 2 is a "niche market" company. Their market segment is relatively small (compared to most other businesses out there). They produce a nice product, at a reasonable price, that a small market wants to purchase.

But... they're (CORRECTLY) focusing on kits that are likely to sell a lot of copies, even if only within that market.

The Galileo (TOS) is an 'iconic" design. Show it to the average man on the street (or woman?) and they'll likely at least recognize it... at least 50% of the time.

I've been watching "Farscape" on netflix recently. It's a great show. Previously, I watched the whole run of LEXX on Netflix... entertaining, if a bit "weird." My point is... I think that the LEXX and Moya are both really slick ship concepts, and I PERSONALLY would enjoy having a model of either, or both, at a reasonable price, done by a top-quality manufacturer.

The thing is... the level of interest for either is way too small for that to be a profitable business move. Spending the time, and the money, required to create a commercial model of the LEXX would be a massive undertaking. And how many kits would really be sold? Not very many, I'm guessing. It would be a BAD BUSINESS CASE.

Now, the business case for the TOS 1701 is excellent. EVERYBODY, all over the world, recognizes that ship design. You'll never find a city where you can draw that shape and not have people recognize it as being from Star Trek. I've been to quite a few... I was surprised to find that folks in Addis Abuba, Ethiopia, know Star Trek, for example.  

The TOS Galileo is not quite as recognized, but still is well known, and appreciated. Maybe 25% of the population, worldwide, would recognize it?

A TNG shuttle? Less so. Maybe at the time TNG was on the air, but now? Not so much. But then again, you couldn't justify new tooling for a Runabout today, either, could you?

Round 2 has a great, effective business model. Get old tools, and repair them. Re-pop those models, with just a few new (but relatively inexpensive) fixes to justify them, but without spending on a whole new development process. And occasionally put out a new "showpiece" kit, for subjects which are can clearly justify the extra expenditure of resources.

I just can't see either of your suggestions bringing the level of interest of this one... and the tooling for the Probert "soap bar" TNG shuttle, in particular, will be pretty expensive.

Some subjects will always be better suited for garage-kits, conversions, and scratch-builds. And there's nothing wrong with that!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Well I was just idly wondering...


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

As a TNG fan, I would _LOVE_ to see a nice kit of the Type-6 shuttle (pic below).










I know that the roundness of *Probert's* Type-7 would be very difficult to pull off, but if it can be done, I would absolutely love to see a TNG shuttle set with the both of them in scale. I know it'll never happen, but I figured since we're mentioning it...


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

BolianAdmiral said:


> As a TNG fan, I would _LOVE_ to see a nice kit of the Type-6 shuttle (pic below).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've always liked the Type 7 shuttle:










I bought one of the Playmates shuttles that were released when TNG first came out, but it wasn't quite as good as a scale model of it would have been.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I'd love to see the Probert version done, but I agree, very unlikely R2 would do that and for good reasons. I kinda HATE the TNG Type 6...it's interesting to compare the compromises between Jefferies's original proposal for the Galileo and what got built (with a strong influence, due to the personnel involved, from a the classic Avanti car design) and the differences between the Probert concept and the Type 6. There just seems to be a bare-boned level of DESIGN to the Type 6--it's exactly what could be easily constructed, based I assume on building around the Trek V shuttlecraft (which is another example of bare-bones, "this is what we can make for the money" design). No matter what you think of the TOS Galileo design, aesthetically it's leagues more refined than the Type 6. It's a sculpted, unified design, whereas the Type 6 with those engines, ugh. And then there's the "shuttlepod." To me Probert's ideas fit in perfectly with the aesthetic of the Enterprise D, and it's just a shame that proved so problematic to build. I never liked the blocky, angular Starfleet designs that came out of that show--they seemed at odds both with Probert's style and the older aesthetics of TOS and the Trek movies most of the time. I understand, of course, that many people will feel exactly the opposite, hate the lines of the Enterprise D and all the other curvilinear designs associated with it...


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Has anyone ever built the 1/76 resin kit of Probert's TNG shuttlecraft? It's only about $35 though it's also only about 4-1/2in. long.

It's the only one of the TNG era shuttles I've ever liked. Similarly I'm disappointed they never built Probert's original concept for the _Enterprise C._ It's much better looking than the one we got. Hell, it might have been preferable to the E-D design.

http://www.modelermagic.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/KG_AP_TR_AMBASSADOR_006.jpg

Scroll down: http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=28446


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Warped9 said:


> Has anyone ever built the 1/76 resin kit of Probert's TNG shuttlecraft? It's only about $35 though it's also only about 4-1/2in. long.
> 
> It's the only one of the TNG era shuttles I've ever liked. Similarly I'm disappointed they never built Probert's original concept for the _Enterprise C._ It's much better looking than the one we got. Hell, it might have been preferable to the E-D design.
> 
> ...


I don't remember if Andrew ever "let this go" or if producing a kit of that is still on his back burner. It's been a while since he last discussed any of this, as far as I'm aware (hopefully due to finding more useful, productive, and fun ways to spend his time!).

But I do remember that the idea of his making a 3D model of that (which he eventually gave up when Tobias came along and took that part of things over from Andrew) was to drive making a limited run "garage kit" (along the lines of his kit of the original-concept TNG shuttle, or the "klingon fighter" he'd come up with, both of which have been "kit-i-fied").


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Warped9 said:


> Has anyone ever built the 1/76 resin kit of Probert's TNG shuttlecraft? It's only about $35 though it's also only about 4-1/2in. long.
> 
> It's the only one of the TNG era shuttles I've ever liked. http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=28446


DLM came out with a 1/35 scale resin one many years ago. It's still in my build pile, of course. I've started on it once or twice, but the clear blue nacelle inserts shrank shorter than the solid color nacelle halves they go into. Like, a full 1/8" difference! I'll tackle it some day.


----------

