# R2 Galileo shuttle



## bane-7 (Jan 10, 2009)

Any new updates on the progress of the R2 Galileo shuttle kit?
Hope we'll see it this year.


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

Definitely looking forward to it whenever it comes (will it be an AMT or Polar Lights branded kit? Wait...doesn't matter). 

Pulled out an old AMT galileo kit last weekend that I had stashed away a number of years and thought that I would do a quick build. I guess I have gotten spoiled with more recent kits because it just didn't look worth the bother of construction (loved the kit when I was 9 years old though). Between a box splitting apart at every seam, my modern disappointment, and a missing piece, I just chucked the kit in the trash.

This is one kit I am glad will not merely be reissued with tweaks. A few tweaks to this old kit just wouldn't do it for me anyway.

Just imagining a new kit with lit pods (even at age 9, I wanted those) and control consoles with lovely photoetch parts and backlighting, interior lighting. Hmmmm.... .


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

bane-7 said:


> Any new updates on the progress of the R2 Galileo shuttle kit?
> Hope we'll see it this year.


If it does get released this year, it won't be until 4th quarter. I doubt we will hear anything before Wonderfest. If we don't hear anything there I will be concerned it won't make it for this year.


----------



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

It will be about 11.25 inches long, if that helps. Other then that not really any new info. Gary K would be the best person to ask about timeframes, etc., or other info. Have you followed the 32nd scale Galileo thread Bane-7?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

In the Moebius Forum, Gary said a few weeks ago he is still working on the drawings for the Shuttlecraft. He said he is over drawing it in hopes that there will be less screw-ups in China. I wouldn't be looking for in anytime in 2014.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Sparky said:


> Definitely looking forward to it whenever it comes (will it be an AMT or Polar Lights branded kit? Wait...doesn't matter)...


So far it seems the Star Trek kits that were previously issued under the AMT brand are reissued under the AMT brand as well, while brand new kits are issued under the Polar Lights brand, so I'm guessing this will be a Polar Lights kit.



Sparky said:


> ...Pulled out an old AMT galileo kit last weekend...Between a box splitting apart at every seam, my modern disappointment, and a missing piece, I just chucked the kit in the trash.


Bummer; I'd have given you a few bucks for it.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Gary's working on it, but it sounds like real life is getting in the way for him (we're Facebook friends). He says he's worked out compromises in size to fit a full interior, but he doesn't know if PL will be willing to spend the extra money for a full interior.


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

Zombie_61 said:


> So far it seems the Star Trek kits that were previously issued under the AMT brand are reissued under the AMT brand as well, while brand new kits are issued under the Polar Lights brand, so I'm guessing this will be a Polar Lights kit.
> 
> Bummer; I'd have given you a few bucks for it.


Crap, I should have thought to offer it up here for someone to use it for at least spare parts. Just didn't think about it. Have to make a mental note to do so in the future.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

I have an AMT kit missing the top (came that way)


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

John P said:


> He says he's worked out compromises in size to fit a full interior, but he doesn't know if PL will be willing to spend the extra money for a full interior.


That statement takes me by surprise. I assume many of us are looking forward to a full interior and would be willing to pay a bit more for one.


----------



## wander1107 (Aug 12, 2006)

I'm looking forward to it and would pay more for a complete interior.


----------



## Scott1768 (Jul 19, 2011)

wander1107 said:


> I'm looking forward to it and would pay more for a complete interior.


At 11.25", I wouldn't be willing to buy one _without_ an interior. Paying $40 or so for what amounts to a plastic box with a couple of tubes just isn't in the realm of reasonable, at least to me...


----------



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

Scott1768 said:


> At 11.25", I wouldn't be willing to buy one _without_ an interior. Paying $40 or so for what amounts to a plastic box with a couple of tubes just isn't in the realm of reasonable, at least to me...


I don't see it being $40 bucks. Not sure where that figure came from, maybe you have some inside info I haven't seen so maybe I'm wrong. From what I can gleen from the way R2 has been pricing their kits it will probably be in the retail range of $26-30 bucks.

And I can assure you that even without a full interior it will not just be a box with two tubes.

Gary's already said that it will have at least a helm, chairs, and properly scaled walls.

You're letting your angst get ahead of you, my friend. :thumbsup:


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

Perhaps a separate shuttle interior upgrade package would be the answer. Keep the base kit cheap for mass appeal but allow those of us who wish to add a full interior to do so. This would be similar to the 350 TOS E supplemental parts pack for creating the pilot versions (MKA004).


----------



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

Unfortunately that would require separate packaging shipping yada yada yada.
I think they would be wiser just to charge an extra $4 bucks and produce a kit that ends up retailing at about $30 bucks instead of $26 - which is about what the new bridge kit retails for.

But none of this is set in stone guys. There is every chance this will be able to be designed in a cost-effective way and Gary will convince the powers that be to include a full Galileo 7 style interior. It's not a done deal.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

I think a lot of model airplane companies put out very sparse cockpits to save money on production. They know that the certain number who want a detailed cockpit will pay the bucks for an aftermarket resin set.

If it costs less to get this boxy little ship kitted, I'm good to buy a resin interior in the after market.


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

12.5 ? Is that a typo or are they releasing different scale Boma, Stears etc. figures for this ? I was under the impression the inclusion of these figures for the bridge set was in preparation for the eventual Galileo issue... wouldn't there be a scale issue ?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Nope.

He's ignoring Kirk's 24-foot comment and making it a size that makes real-world sense for fitting the interior set. I think he also got a confirmation from the original builders that the 22-foot full-size prop was meant to be a 3/4 scale forced-perspective prop that didn't always get filmed the way it was meant to be.

As it happens a 30-ish-foot-long shuttlecraft would have a 24-foot-long _interior_, so it works if you mentally squint a little.


----------



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

pagni said:


> 12.5 ? Is that a typo or are they releasing different scale Boma, Stears etc. figures for this ? I was under the impression the inclusion of these figures for the bridge set was in preparation for the eventual Galileo issue... wouldn't there be a scale issue ?


Not sure where the 12.5 came from. I stated 11.25" or 30 feet at 1/32nd scale.


----------



## CaptCBoard (Aug 3, 2002)

If they monkey with the exterior to make an interior fit, I'll be passing on this. I would rather have fidelity to what we saw in the show, to what was actually built, than a compromise to accommodate what didn't fit in reality. Further, being faithful to the proportions of the FX model is the most preferable, but adding/correcting detail to be in line with the full-size version is important, too. I want what my eyes saw instead of what the production wanted me to perceive. Exterior accuracy is the only thing I care about with regard to this model.

Scott


----------



## LARSON DESIGNS (Nov 15, 2013)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Not sure where the 12.5 came from. I stated 11.25" or 30 feet at 1/32nd scale.


Chuck ! what is the width on the kit?
Are do you know?

Thanks
Chris


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

CaptCBoard said:


> If they monkey with the exterior to make an interior fit, I'll be passing on this. I would rather have fidelity to what we saw in the show, to what was actually built, than a compromise to accommodate what didn't fit in reality. Further, being faithful to the proportions of the FX model is the most preferable, but adding/correcting detail to be in line with the full-size version is important, too. I want what my eyes saw instead of what the production wanted me to perceive. Exterior accuracy is the only thing I care about with regard to this model.
> 
> Scott


Not to worry. The exterior takes top priority, combining features of both the mock-up & miniature, and I'm adjusting the interior to fit inside, with the least amount of distortion I can manage. Plus a couple optional exterior parts & interior details/markings that were planned for the mock-up, but were cut due to budget problems.

Btw, the max width is just over 7".

Gary


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Oh man, that is sad to hear. I hope they don't cut any more.


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

Gary K said:


> Not to worry. The exterior takes top priority, combining features of both the mock-up & miniature, and I'm adjusting the interior to fit inside, with the least amount of distortion I can manage. Plus a couple optional exterior parts & interior details/markings that were planned for the mock-up, but were cut due to budget problems.
> 
> Btw, the max width is just over 7".
> 
> Gary


Gary,
As indicated earlier, I certainly am one of those really interested a well detailed interior. Problem is that unlike say with the Moebius LIS Chariot model, there is pretty limited viewing of the interior detailing through the windows the Galileo.

Would displaying the interior on this new kit will amount to lifting the lid as with the original Galileo kit or is there any way to have one side solid and the other side clear in order to view the interior? I always thought that would solve the problem and just wonder if it was ever considered as a possible design approach. 

Jim


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> Nope.
> 
> He's ignoring Kirk's 24-foot comment and making it a size that makes real-world sense for fitting the interior set. I think he also got a confirmation from the original builders that the 22-foot full-size prop was meant to be a 3/4 scale forced-perspective prop that didn't always get filmed the way it was meant to be.
> 
> As it happens a 30-ish-foot-long shuttlecraft would have a 24-foot-long _interior_, so it works if you mentally squint a little.


That is probably the most encouraging news about this model kit that I've heard so far! :thumbsup:

I've very much looking forward to this kit. I remember literally dreaming about such a kit when I was 12 years old.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Opus Penguin said:


> Oh man, that is sad to hear. I hope they don't cut any more.


No, you misunderstood. I was referring to things that were supposed to be on the mock-up, but which the studio never installed due to budgetary considerations. These will be options on the kit.

Gary


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Sparky said:


> Gary,
> As indicated earlier, I certainly am one of those really interested a well detailed interior. Problem is that unlike say with the Moebius LIS Chariot model, there is pretty limited viewing of the interior detailing through the windows the Galileo.
> 
> Would displaying the interior on this new kit will amount to lifting the lid as with the original Galileo kit or is there any way to have one side solid and the other side clear in order to view the interior? I always thought that would solve the problem and just wonder if it was ever considered as a possible design approach.
> ...


There are technical reasons why a clear side wouldn't be feasible, but we *think* we've got a better alternative that will provide a good view of the interior. Knock on wood. 

Gary


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

I agree with Scott on this. Exterior is the main thing that really matters to me. And personally, I would not want the side and or the top lifting up as I would not be doing this to exhibit the interior on any regular basis (unless I opted for 2 models—one convertible and one hardtop—which I would also not want). My model would probably be under acrylic anyway. And I hope that if the top or a side lifts up that it would be an option to build it that way. I fear that the exterior would likely be compromised to accommodate the lift-away feature in the way of inevitable gaps and or ill-fitting areas.


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

Gary K said:


> There are technical reasons why a clear side wouldn't be feasible, but we *think* we've got a better alternative that will provide a good view of the interior. Knock on wood.
> 
> Gary


Oh man, so anxious to see what you come with. I know the exterior is the most important but the interior had a fair amount of screen time too. Hopefully interior detailing will extend to the rear compartment (always thought that little room was fascinating for some reason).


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Sparky said:


> Hopefully interior detailing will extend to the rear compartment (always thought that little room was fascinating for some reason).


Probably because the location of the back wall was different in every scene it was in! 

Gary


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Gary K said:


> Probably because the location of the back wall was different in every scene it was in!
> 
> Gary


Not to mention the scene in "The Galileo Seven" when several people turn to go outside and exit through the aft engine area. If I recall correctly, there is even the sound of a door opening?!!


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

RSN said:


> Not to mention the scene in "The Galileo Seven" when several people turn to go outside and exit through the aft engine area. If I recall correctly, there is even the sound of a door opening?!!


I know. Sorry, folks, but the magical back door ain't gonna happen on this kit!

Gary


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

Gary K said:


> Probably because the location of the back wall was different in every scene it was in!
> 
> Gary


Perhaps the ever apparently ever changing size of that room may have indeed been what made it fascinating (seriously). When I brought home the original Galileo and thinking it was properly scaled (hey, I was 9 years old ) I wondered how in the world they stored some much stuff back there. Spock said in the Galileo 7 episode to check the rear compartment for anything that could be ejected to lighten the load. There was a reference to a dead body being stored back there. I looked at the AMT kit and marveled how control panels, miscellaneous storage, and a dead body could be in that tiny space (Tardis effect I guess).


----------



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

Gary K said:


> There are technical reasons why a clear side wouldn't be feasible, but we *think* we've got a better alternative that will provide a good view of the interior. Knock on wood.
> 
> Gary


I would go with a partially removable top with the rear seam being located just forward of the rear engine, as seen from above in at least one episode on the 3/4 scale mock up.


----------



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

Also, to anyone worried about the removable top being obvious it could be designed to lift slightly up and backwards, and would be held in place from slipping by both gravity and the curvature of the upper side walls. It would end up looking exactly like the top roof of the 3/4 scale exterior set. At least that's how I would do it.


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

Thank you for the update Gary. Really looking forward to seeing how all of your hard work turns out. I know everyone really appreciates the effort that you are putting into this. After all, who needs time off anyway!!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

For some alternate color schemes, skim thru this thread at TrekBBS:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=216409


----------



## Havok69 (Nov 3, 2012)

A working door? I plan on building mine with the door left open so you can see some more internal details than just through the windows...



Gary K said:


> There are technical reasons why a clear side wouldn't be feasible, but we *think* we've got a better alternative that will provide a good view of the interior. Knock on wood.
> 
> Gary


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

I bet you have hit the target. :woohoo:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

If not working, at least posable open?


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

John P said:


> If not working, at least posable open?


No, no! Working, working, pleeeeease...


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Gary K said:


> Btw, the max width is just over 7".
> 
> Gary


Overall width or between vertical sides?


----------



## veedubb67 (Jul 11, 2003)

With the "whooshing" sound effect??? :jest:


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

KUROK said:


> Overall width or between vertical sides?


7" overall width. I WISH it would be 7" between vertical sides!

Gary


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

John P said:


> For some alternate color schemes, skim thru this thread at TrekBBS:
> http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=216409


Whew, glad he didn't do my idea.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Partridge Family bus?


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Those are actually cool. Gives opportunities to do more variants.


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

Opus Penguin said:


> Those are actually cool. Gives opportunities to do more variants.


How about a vulcan version of the TOS shuttlecraft? The AMT ST:TMP Vulcan Shuttle can be constructed either as the onscreen Surak or a Federation version. 

Maybe a "Surak 7" :tongue:.


----------



## Carl_G (Jun 30, 2012)

Sparky said:


> How about a vulcan version of the TOS shuttlecraft? The AMT ST:TMP Vulcan Shuttle can be constructed either as the onscreen Surak or a Federation version.
> 
> Maybe a "Surak 7" :tongue:.


Something like this maybe?

http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Zodiac_class_(warp_shuttle)


----------



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

Carl_G said:


> Something like this maybe?
> 
> http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Zodiac_class_(warp_shuttle)


Did you maybe create the page and forget to save/upload it?

The link's not working for me.


----------



## zysurge (Sep 6, 2002)

The link is missing the end parethesis. Try this:

http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Zodiac_class_(warp_shuttle)


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

zysurge said:


> The link is missing the end parethesis. Try this:
> 
> http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Zodiac_class_(warp_shuttle)


Hey, that is interesting. Perhaps combining the new Galileo kit and the Warp nacelles from an 18" AMT Enterprise this baby could be built!


----------

