# My TOS Shuttlecraft...



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Okay, I'm jumping the gun a bit here, but what the hell. Please bear with me.

Hopefully within the next few days (maybe a week) I'll begin posting images of my take on the TOS shuttlecraft. I've been greatly inspired by the work of *FourMadMen* and Phil Broad in their efforts to reconcile the three different shuttlecraft we saw onscreen: the filming minature, the fullsize exterior mock-up and the fullsize interior mock-up. It is indeed a challenge because the exterior was definitely a vehicle intended not to have standing room inside whille the interior mock-up obviously did (most likely to faciliate filming). Today that wouldn't be a problem and an appropriately sized interior could be built as MJ originally intended and filmied with ease. 

Strangely, though, I find the standing interior makes more sense conceptually for an auxiliary vehicle that is meant to operate independently from the parent ship for extended duration. The interior is also consistent aesthetically with what we saw onboard the _Enterprise._

One thing I've certainly noticed while studying Phil Broad's plans of the fullsize exterior mock-up is that MJ designed a vehicle with many intriguing details that I somehow missed all these years. The design certainly bears little resemblance to the shuttlecraft depicted in FJ's _Technical Manual_ as well as numerous depictions of the vehicle over the years. For example the "nose down" stance of the craft as well as the hull flaring outward from bow to stern. And that the craft's elevation centerline is _not_ parallel with the engine nacelles. Very interesting. It certainly isn't a simple box design.

One issue I intended to tackle differently is that of alligning the forward "windows" as shown from the inside and out. It's quite apparent that the windows as seen on the interior mock-up are useless for piloting since one cannot see directly forward through them while seated. And if you lower the position of the windows on the exterior then it blatantly changes the face of the vehicle and it doesn't look right anymore.

I know they were intended to be windows in the conventional sense, but they just don't work in practice or even conceptually. A forward window for piloting on such a vehicle would serve very little practical purpose anyway. Better, I think, to utilize the existing technology already evident aboard the _Enterprise._ The three "windows" on the forward hull of the interior are not windows at all in the conventional sense but rather they're overhead monitors or viewing screens. And they work quite well that way angled downward towards to the pilot and navigator. Those monitors function much the same as the overhead screens on the _Enterprise_ bridge as well as the main viewscreen. And as seen from the outside I see those three rectangular panels on the forward hull demarking where the shuttlecraft's space and planetary sensor arrays are situated.

Anyway that's my take on it. And, yes, it can be considered a bit revisionist. But it just seems to work better in my view.

Lastly, I apologize that my images will not be done in up-to-date cgi or CAD simply because I don't have any of those programs and I also don't know how to use them. _*Sigh*_ Someday perhaps. Instead I'll be using oldfashioned hand drafting for my little project.

Comments?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I look forward to your take on the shuttlecraft. After I finish my K-7 model, I plan to do my version of the shuttlecraft.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Correction: I do have Blender, but I haven't a clue how to use it. I'll have to get myself a tutorial at some point and start learning.


In some respects the miniature is closer to all the depictions of the shuttlecraft we've seen over the years. But for me the fullsize exterior mock-up seems more "real" even if it is inconsistent with the standing room interior mock-up we saw onscreen.

At this point I'm more inclined to use the fullsize exterior as the main guide and modifying it to some degree to incorporate some of the features of the miniature. By this I mostly mean that my version will not be guite as obviously "nose down" as the construction plans show. However, I see no reason why the TOS production staff couldn't have constructed their fullsize exterior with the craft's centerline exactly parallel with the engine nacelles. The fact that they didn't strongly suggests that that is what they waned the vehicle to look like. And it does make for a more intriguing looking vehicle and far less plain and simple as many of us have long assumed.

I've come to realize that all these years I've envisioned the shuttlecraft quite differently than the one that was actually designed and built. I admit to some extent it can be a little disturbing to reevaluate long held perceptions. This isn't without precedent because there have been many things I've learned about TOS over the years that I hadn't realized or even suspected before. Upon studying more faithful drawings of the Enterprise than FJ's for example I've learned of details that I somehow missed even with seeing the ship on tv for God knows how many times. Some of the detail was lost due to poor picture resolution on those old tv sets and went unnoticed until the better televisions of today and the digital remastering of the episodes as well as dvd.


----------



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

Warped9 said:


> However, I see no reason why the TOS production staff couldn't have constructed their fullsize exterior with the craft's centerline exactly parallel with the engine nacelles. The fact that they didn't strongly suggests that that is what they waned the vehicle to look like.


Both the miniature and the larger mockup were made by AMT. I doubt they had much direct feedback from any of the show's writers as to the intent of the look. If they diverged from the construction drawings, I doubt it was because of a conscious decision on the part of the TOS production people.



Warped9 said:


> At this point I'm more inclined to use the fullsize exterior as the main guide and modifying it to some degree to incorporate some of the features of the miniature. By this I mostly mean that my version will not be guite as obviously "nose down" as the construction plans show.


If you have access to construction plans please share! 

No one has ever been able to locate them to my knowledge before now.



Warped9 said:


> However, I see no reason why the TOS production staff couldn't have constructed their fullsize exterior with the craft's centerline exactly parallel with the engine nacelles. The fact that they didn't strongly suggests that that is what they waned the vehicle to look like.


That's a problematic assumption.

Some pictures of the shuttlecraft show her with widely varying side profiles.
The most nose-down shot I know of was the hangerbay shot. The main body of the ship almost looks twisted unnaturally.

That probably has a lot to do with the fact that the prop never rested on the same points every time it was set up. They used jacks underneath the body to hold her up, keeping the weight off the nacelle and rear pads.

I totally agree that the centerline wasn't parallel to the nacelles, question is how much it diverged, just a little as seen in some shots or quite a bit as seen in that hangerbay shot.

Personally I think it makes a ton of sense to ignore the divergence.
The reason being is that if you don't, the interior set can not either be drawn level or have a consistent centerline if you do draw it as level. 



Warped9 said:


> Anyway that's my take on it. And, yes, it can be considered a bit revisionist. But it just seems to work better in my view.
> 
> Comments?


Lots of revisionism is needed to make the interior vs. the exterior agree in an even semi-logical way, such as the windows.

No need to apologize.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Warped9 said:


> One issue I intended to tackle differently is that of alligning the forward "windows" as shown from the inside and out...
> 
> Anyway that's my take on it. And, yes, it can be considered a bit revisionist. But it just seems to work better in my view.


Actually that doesn't seem as _revisionist_ as you might think.

When considering that the _windows_ tended to be closed most of the time, and that on more than one occasion we saw only the center _window_ opened to display for everyone what was happening outside the shuttlecraft, the idea that they were actually view screens rather than strictly windows makes sense.


Hopefully the act of Exeter with my take on the shuttlecraft interior will show up soon. When I was doing my plans I didn't have to worry about reconciling the interior with the exterior or a miniature... I was to produce plans that would exactly recreate the look and feel of the original interior filming set. And after seeing the constructed set... and images of the set, I think I came pretty darn close.

I guess the real test will be how well it filmed... and I haven't seen any of that footage.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Both the miniature and the larger mockup were made by AMT. I doubt they had much direct feedback from any of the show's writers as to the intent of the look. If they diverged from the construction drawings, I doubt it was because of a conscious decision on the part of the TOS production people.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If possible I'd like to see those renderings.

By "construction plans" I'm refering to the drawings found on Phil Broad's cloudster.com.

One thing to remember: since the shuttlecraft has its own artificial gravity then there really is nothing to say that the floor absolutely has to be parallel to the hangar bay deck or the planetary ground outside the craft when landed.

Also upon studying photos of the miniature it at least appears that pretty much all the dimension of the craft were maintained only the main hull was oriented so that the hull's centerline was parallel with the engine nacelles.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I just had an odd experience today. On my lunch break I was doodling ideas about the shuttlecraft when there was something about the look of my sketch that leapt out at me. When looked at in a particular way the design has a jacked-up-in-the-rear hotrod look to it. I wonder if this is what was slyly intended.


----------



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

N.B. the stage prop was built by AMT's car division.

However, it wasn't designed by them, but by Matt Jeffries. 

If you look at the "in progress" pics of the shuttlecraft being built though, she looks more like a Chris Craft cruising boat then a hot rod.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

I think the actual consideration in the design was for a bit of a forced-perspective effect to make their little mockup look bigger. It was typically photographed from the rear looking forward which is where the tappered angles would be most effective. That's just my guess but it is in keeping with typical studio practices.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

The shuttlecraft is a wonderful example of how budgetary restrictions can actually work in an artist’s favor. When Jeffries’ sleeker, curvier, more complex designs were deemed financially impractical for a full-scale mockup he was faced with the challenge of making what is essentially a big box look streamlined. The result, IMO, is a more elegant and aesthetically pleasing design than what was originally envisioned. 

Once again, less was more.


----------



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

X15-A2 said:


> I think the actual consideration in the design was for a bit of a forced-perspective effect to make their little mockup look bigger. It was typically photographed from the rear looking forward which is where the tappered angles would be most effective. That's just my guess but it is in keeping with typical studio practices.


I agree. 
I also think the downward sloping roof combined with the upward sloping port and starboard sides also was designed to exaggerate the length of the craft.
I can't think of any logical reason to slope the roof downward.


----------



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

Carson Dyle said:


> The shuttlecraft is a wonderful example of how budgetary restrictions can actually work in an artist’s favor. When Jeffries’ sleeker, curvier, more complex designs were deemed financially impractical for a full-scale mockup he was faced with the challenge of making what is essentially a big box look streamlined. The result, IMO, is a more elegant and aesthetically pleasing design than what was originally envisioned.
> 
> Once again, less was more.


I agree. While some have accused the Galileo of looking box-like, it's much more complicated once you study it.

Jefferies' original drawing(which the series Enterprise's shuttlepods more closely resemble) seem to me to have been less imaginative. It basically looked like a big pill with the top front lopped off.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> While some have accused the Galileo of looking box-like, it's much more complicated once you study it.


I blame the AMT model kit for this misconception. 

I grew up a few blocks away from the suburban front yard where the full-scale shuttlecraft mockup sat for several years during mid 70's. I'll never forget how disappointed I was when the model came out. To this day I cannot understand how the company responsible for the studio mock-up could have gotten the model so wrong.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

The idea that MJ incorporated the idea of forced perspective into the design is quite possible. I will say, however, that a wedged shaped profile in a vehicle isn't without real world precedent. Cars certainly do have it as do many aircraft. And, of course, the U.S. shuttle orbiter also has a wedged shaped profile.

Personally I like the idea of there being at least some subtle wedge to the design rather than being all parallel lines. I find it more distinctive and interesting.


----------



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

Warped9 said:


> The idea that MJ incorporated the idea of forced perspective into the design is quite possible. I will say, however, that a wedged shaped profile in a vehicle isn't without real world precedent. Cars certainly do have it as do many aircraft. And, of course, the U.S. shuttle orbiter also has a wedged shaped profile.
> 
> Personally I like the idea of there being at least some subtle wedge to the design rather than being all parallel lines. I find it more distinctive and interesting.


 

It is wedge shaped.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Yes, but not the way many have drawn it over the years. A prominant example is FJ's version of the vehicle as seen in the _Star Fleet technical Manual._


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

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.



Note the distinctions between the two. The fullsize mock-up shows its obvious "nose down" orientation. Also evident when you look at the top leading edge of the forward hull is the lack of the small curve upwards of the leading edge on the minature.

Next is a comparison in straight on elevation.



The lowest image is, of course, my direction with my version. What may not be apparent here is the subtle tapering of the stabilizer/centerline from bow to stern. In the centre image (miniature orientation) the centerline is exactly parrallel with the nacelles and the ground. In the lowest image (proposed orientation) it is the underside of the stabilizer that is parallel with the nacelles and the ground. Yes, it is a subtle difference, but one I feel comes closest to accomodating the differences between the miniature and the fullsize mock-up in overall appearance.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Warped9 said:


> Note the distinctions between the two. The fullsize mock-up shows its obvious "nose down" orientation.


So what you are trying to do is match the fact that the full size shuttlecraft can't support it's own body weight?

What you are seeing is the fact that the wings/supports are bowing under the weight of the main hull. I'm pretty sure that the designers and builders of the full size shuttlecraft were *not* attempting to create that look.

Also the lines on your illustration are off a little on the full size drawing.


----------



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

While I agree that the craft is abnormally twisted in this view, the fullsize mockup does have a very slightly nose down profile even without the wings on.

Warped 9 seems to like the nose down look.
To each their own.

I know you probably don't seriously believe that he is trying to "match the fact that the full size shuttlecraft can't support it's own body weight."

No need to jump all over the guy with his very first drawing. Warped 9 is a pretty talented guy.

I think the line criticism could be helpful in that it shows the twisting of the wings. Good and helpful points made in your picture there.

But we both know he simply likes the nose down view and isn't trying to make the shuttle look unstable.

Give the guy the benefit of doing at least a few drawings and revisions before getting snippy with him, please? 

I can't tell you how many drawings, tracings and info FourMadMen and I sent back and forth to one another in order to get the different components to the point they are now on our Galileo effort, from the outer contours to the phaser cabinet we put in probably hundreds of hours of work.

Let's let Warped 9 get a few more under his belt before slapping him across the face with the wet fish of un-constructive criticism.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> No need to jump all over the guy with his very first drawing.
> 
> *and*​
> ...before getting snippy with him, please?
> ...


Firstly... wow, that is an incredible over reaction on your part! Truly amazing... as nothing I said matches any of your characterizations.

My suggestion... don't assume a post is attacking someone when it isn't. That is a very good way to get on people's (in this case, my) wrong side. And so far the only person jumping _all over_ any one seems to be you jumping all over me.

Here is a thought... you could lead by example. 



Well, now that we have that out of the way...



> I can't tell you how many drawings, tracings and info FourMadMen and I sent back and forth to one another in order to get the different components to the point they are now on our Galileo effort, from the outer contours to the phaser cabinet we put in probably hundreds of hours of work.
> 
> Let's let Warped 9 get a few more under his belt...


The point is, he is asking us for input (or he would not have put together this thread)... I surely hope that you are not saying that we should let him continue on without comment and then (at some point later on) point things out? Possibly at a point when it would be harder to make changes.

As for how talented Warped 9 is, I know how talented he is, I've been following his work in this forum for quite some time. More importantly, I respect him and his work enough not to coddle him.

If you respect his workmanship... help him with it.

I know that I, personally, hate it when people tell me after the fact that they saw something early on but held back to _not hurt my feelings_ or _that they didn't feel it was their place_.


I'm glad we had this chat.


----------



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

Sorry if your

"So what you are trying to do is match the fact that the full size shuttlecraft can't support it's own body weight?"

comment was meant to be fecious rather then Trek-geekish-sarcasm. 

It's a little hard to tell by the statement as it stands, and it seemed quite obvious that he wasn't trying to mimick instability. There is often a fine line between chiding feciousness and sarcasm.

If I missed the good natured point of your ribbing I apologize, and let me assure you I wasn't trying to make a big issue of it. You have my humble apologies.

I did compliment you on your pic and line illustrations showing the twisting quite clearly and I meant that sincerely.

I'm glad we had this chat too.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Please note that my goal is to ensure this vehicle does not look like it's sagging under its own weight while still looking most like the vehicle we saw onscreen.  And as we've seen over the years and most recently with Phil Broad's and *FourMadMen's* efforts different individuals with different perspectives can arrive at different solutions to such an exercise.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

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 (Sep 12, 2003)

Oh, I may have forgotten to mention that I plan on doing two versions of the shuttlecraft: the Clas F and the Class H.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

The mockup doesn't "sag", it is a very strong structure, as built. It sits the way it sits because that is how it was built. If that nose-down posture is the result of bad alignment during construction or a desire for a forced-perspective effect when viewed from the rear is anybody's guess but it most definitely does not sag.

It should also be pointed out here that it's ground stance changed from one episode to another, an effect that I ascribed to the fact that the forward landing feet were mounted to threaded shafts, which undoubtedly allowed them to be screwed up or down like a car jack.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ That makes more sense to me than shoddy workmanship.


----------



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

I would have not used the word "sag."

However, in the hangerbay photo it is undeniable to me that the centerline of the entire wing length is at a different angle then the forward centerline of the craft's seam.

Which I think what Shaw meant by "sagging" when he posted this pic:
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=28430

I doubt the designers intended the centerline of the entire craft to go up, then go down. 

Also in other shots the wings don't look cockeyed to the rest of the crafts' centerline.

It may have been due to the landing pads, it might have been due to the different ground conditions, it might have been due to the wings not being attached properly, but the centerline of the whole wing section is slightly out of whack with the centerline of the front of the ship in that hangerbay pic.

That is not to say that the wings being tightened or adjusted, or the stage jacks placed under the shuttlecraft being repositioned, would not have still resulted in the ship being nosedown - perhaps less so, perhaps moreso.

I wouldn't call it sagging because there is zero gradual bending of either the wing sections' centerline or the front of the craft's centerline seam. The wings are perfectly straight at the angle they are attached; and the front centerline seam is straight at the angle it gradually rises at.

But the two angles definitely don't agree with each other.

Again, it is not a "sagging" or gradual bending, but the wings definitely appear out of alignment with the front centerline of the ship in that pick.

Why? We have no way of knowing for sure. It could have to do with one of the two factors Phil mentioned or the wing attachment. We really aren't likely to figure it out with any confirmable certainty. 

To me the important thing is "how do you want to design your take on the shuttlecraft, Warped 9?"

She's your build, blueprint, design, etc.

It's all up to you. Don't over-obsess on an anomaly that appears to have occured one time forty years ago.

Draw her the way you want her to look.
I know you want and have asked for feedback, but past a certain point you have to just go with your tastes. 

Keep on plugging along!:thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ This is the challenge: what does one want the vehicle to look like? As I said initially I'm trying to reconcile the three versions of the craft as we saw onscreen to the best of my ability. And of course someone else tackling the project may well arrive at different solutions, as best evidenced by the work of *FourMadMen* and Phil Broad.

My shuttlecraft will have a taper to the stabilizer/enterline from bow to stern, thecraft's centerline slightly angled down (by the nose) of about two degrees. It will still be somewhat "nose down" although not as dramatically as the drawings on cloudster.com. For me this is the only way to reconcile the fullsize mock-up and the filming miniature which has no downward angle towards the bow.


----------



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

I think you should just make it the way you would like it to look and forget about reconciling the two.

You really can't reconcile them. The miniature looked one way and the stage prop slightly different. Making one between the way the miniature prop and the stage prop doesn't really reconcile the two.

If one has to make the shuttle slightly different I think one of the most important approaches would be to change it to simplify the glaring differences between the interior and exterior.

The approach that I prefer is to - section to "growing" the exterior to fit the interior as well as reasonably possible - secondly design the ship as logically as possible. The FourMadMen approach, if you'd like to characterize it that way. Most notably in this approach the very slight nose down profile shown in most shots was ignored as well as any possible(still debatable) *perceived* toe-in of the nacelles. It really would make no sense that engines capable of warp speed - or any speed - would be anything but parallel to one another. Yes, perhaps one could come up with a convoluted reason why they still could work skewed that way, but I doubt there could be an reason why they would *need *to be.

I personally think resizing/integrating the exterior and interior Galileo should aim towards simplifying the contradictions between the interior and exterior of the shuttlecraft.

For that reason I think that your idea that the interior of the shuttlecraft being level or in some way independent of the exterior which is nose down flies in the face with the aim of simplifying the contradictions between the interior and exterior. 

Plus there would be less and less space under the interior deck the further you went back if the interior were level inside of a nose-down ship. I seriously doubt enough space for a "Scotty Hatch" under the deck towards the back of the first cabin. Even with the interior deck level, the cavity underneath the "Scotty Hatch" will be somewhat shallower then it really should be.

Again, simplifying the contradictions between the interior/exterior is just my idea of a worthwhile aim, you don't have to take that into consideration at all, she's your baby.

Just thought I'd share my ideas on the subject.


----------



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

Maybe this will help as to whether or not the ship was designed with a nose down tilt. It's the basic steel framework around which the ship was built, while it was being built in AMT's automotive section.

Sorry I didn't post this sooner, forgot about it.


----------



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

Here's another one:


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Those photos won't help. Not only does the horizontal joint on the main hull tip down, it also moves away from the engine tube because the hull tappers towards the nose. The hull split line and the engine tube centerline are not parallel on any plane in 3D space. The only way to judge their relative angles in the horizontal plane is to view them together on that plane, as in a perfect side view photo or one close to it. The hangar deck shot is about as good as it will get until the mockup surfaces again and someone can get new pictures.


----------



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

This photo isn't close enough to show anything usefull? 

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=28624

It certainly seems that the part where the wing section would go is in a straight line with the hull centerline. This isn't the case in the hanger deck shot, which would suggest that something is out of alignment - either the hull or the wing section - in the hanger bay shot.

Now can we be sure the nose or hull/wing centerline isn't pointing a half degree or so nose downward? Whether the hull/wing centerline is parallel to the nacelles or pointing a hair downward. No, it's true we can't tell that. But I think it's obvious that the weird twisting of the wing centerline vs the hull centerline isn't happening in this picture.

Again, I don't claim to know why. It could be due to the two reasons or a combination of the two reasons you gave Phil: i.e. the landing pads or the ground conditions affecting the alignment.

But there seems to be little doubt that there is a drastically different profile going on here with the wing centerline dipping a bit backwards as opposed to the hull centerline dipping forward. They certainly don't seem to be aligned in a single row like in the AMT shop pic I linked to in this post. Are they in line with the nacelles? I don't know. But they seem to at least be lined up with one another, unlike in the hanger bay shot.

That's not to say that the ship wouldn't still be nose down if the wings were aligned differently in the hanger bay shot. I'm not claiming that. Only that something seems askew there.

But heck, my eyes are a little bloodshot right now, and it wouldn't be the first time I was mistaken.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Well, we'll see how it turns out. Describing what one has in mind isn't always quite the same as actually seeing it in execution. I'm going to proceed in my own fashion for now and see how it turns out. I really respect the work of those who proceeded me at this and I learned a great deal in watching their progress, but I still must honestly say that in the end I still felt their end product (exterior wise) didn't look quite like the vehicle I saw onscreen. If my notions don't pan out then so be it, but at least I'll have tried.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

It's hangar, doggone it! Not hanger!


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

X15-A2 said:


> The mockup doesn't "sag", it is a very strong structure, as built. It sits the way it sits because that is how it was built. If that nose-down posture is the result of bad alignment during construction or a desire for a forced-perspective effect when viewed from the rear is anybody's guess but it most definitely does not sag.


Well, I think that _sag_ is an accurate description... and it is not just the weight of the shuttlecraft itself that causes it.

Attached is an image, a superimposed _before and after_ showing the difference in hull position when the shuttlecraft is relieved of the weight of four people.

It looks like how the shuttlecraft was positioned on a set and how it was assembled... along with the number of people onboard made a difference. In the first use of the shuttlecraft (Galileo Seven) both the nacelles (which were flat on the ground) and the hull looked pretty much parallel.

From that point on, it seem to go through varying degrees of sag, looking better in some episodes and worse in others.



Also, for those wanting to study images of the shuttlecraft where you aren't given a nice straight on view... you can determine parallel lines by finding common vanishing points.

That is, take to lines that you *know* are parallel. If you extend those lines out to infinity they come together. That point is the vanishing point for all other lines parallel to the original two. 

So if you take another line that you are not sure about and extend it, if it hits that point you know it is parallel... and if it doesn't, you know it isn't.

My background is in mathematics, and there are many, many more ways of determining aspects of any thing in a photo... and if you have two or more images from different angles, you should be able to get exact relationships for everything in those images.

I was lucky on my interior designs as I had many images to work with, so I would use two images to make calculations, and then use a third image to correct the errors that cropped up when using the first two. Do that enough times and you should have very accurate drawings.

When attempting to reconcile things that just don't match (the interior, the exterior and the miniature), it'll pretty much always come down to choices of esthetics on the part of the artist... and here the term artist is most accurate as the end product is something new and interpretive.

Makes you wonder if the people building this stuff ever dreamed that people in the 21st century would be debating stuff that they thought would only be seen once.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Dang hippies and their dirty, blistered, puss-oozing bare feet messin' up that nice shuttle interior.

Shame on them!


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

The hull split line angles down even when no one is onboard. Further, you do not see the hull rise up after it is relieved of weight (as when the actors disembark), which it would do if the "sag" were caused by a flexible structure. The split line in the hull and the centerline of the engine pod have no common vanishing point or horizon line because they are not parallel in any plane. The slplit line on the side of the hull angles downward in the vertical plane and away from the engine pod in the horizontal plane (because the hull tappers towards the nose in the plan view). Also, I've climbed on the thing and can tell you from personal experience that the sturcture is quite ridged. The difference between the two images you've posted doesn't really account for the full range of difference in the angles involved.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

It would also appear from that composite image that the main hull shifts fore and aft. Not too likely from my point of view.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Even though this is a pointless exercise because it is obvious that if you (the shuttlecraft expert) didn't come up with something that you are going to be bias against it... but it is still an exercise none the less and maybe it'll help out others.

So shall we proceed then? 



X15-A2 said:


> The hull split line angles down even when no one is onboard.


That line changes angle in quite a few shots in the series with no one onboard, that was never a question.



> Further, you do not see the hull rise up after it is relieved of weight (as when the actors disembark), which it would do if the "sag" were caused by a flexible structure.


Well, the question is... why would you?

The change would be (as illustrated) very small. And we were talking (again, in the image) about 500 pounds relieved at a little more than 100 pounds a shot (as each person leaves the shuttlecraft) and in the end we only see a movement of about 2" (and even that is more of a rotational movement than an up and down movement).

More over, this isn't a car... we aren't talking about the type of movement shock absorbers would show, we are talking about the amount of give that a medal structure shows.

I (maybe wrongly) assumed that you have some science back ground... you are aware of the fact that even the strongest medal still has play in it. The amount of play (it's tensile strength) is determine by both it's geometry (stronger for box shaped cross sections than for flat or solid cross sections) and it's thickness (the actual medal depth in the cross section).



> The split line in the hull and the centerline of the engine pod have no common vanishing point or horizon line because they are not parallel in any plane. The slplit line on the side of the hull angles downward in the vertical plane and away from the engine pod in the horizontal plane (because the hull tappers towards the nose in the plan view).
> 
> 
> > I never said they were parallel.
> ...


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I accept that the fullsize mock-up was constructed exactly (or pretty much) as it was meant to appear. I also accept that it's quite possible that they may have employed elements of forced perspective into the design to make the mock-up look larger than it actually was, at least from some angles and most particularly from the rear.

OTH the filming miniature was constructed in a manner that seemed to totally ignore aspects of the fullsize mock-up that were quite evident onscreen: most notably the angled down attitude of the bow.

Thus reconciling the two would appear to be a hopeless exercise in futilitu and frustration. Well let it not be said that I can be stubborn when I get fixated on something. (-:

The filming miniature "as is" is flawed because it would result in raising the bottom edge of the entry hatch and thus the ship's floor to a truly awkward height if you are intent on rescaling the craft upward to allow for a standing interior. The only recourse I could see would be the change the shape and size of the forward lower hull to allow dor a lower deck as well as as lower entry hatch. The problem I have with this recourse is that it would drastically alter the shape of the bow in a manner I'd find unacceptable.

And so that brings me back to using the fullsize mock-up as my foundation and proceed from there. I'll be posting new images soon, but I feel you've already got the essence of what I plan. The underside of the stabilizer will be level with the ground and the engine nacelles. However the entire stabilizer will be gently tapered from bow to aft with the centerline at about 1.5 degrees and the upper surface of the stabilizer at about three degrees. What I'm essentially doing is playing on the ship's overall wedge shape to tidy up some of the awkward looking aspects of the fullsize mock-up. The end result is a ship that has some measure of a "nose down" look while not at all looking as if it's sagging. Note that to make this work and accomodate a lower floor and entry hatch I have had to fudge the shape of the lower bow, but I've been able to keep it subtle and to a minimum degree such that one almost has to compare my drawing with the drawings of the fullsize mock-up to see how it is actually different.

All in all I must confess that I'm rather satisfied so far with how it came out.

Another decision I've come to regards the interior. It's quite obvious that the angle of the foward bulkhead is certainly not as severe as the exterior's forward hull. One approach is, of course, to ignore that and simply make the inner forward bulkhead the same angle as the exterior particularly if you're intent on using actual viewports on the forward hull. However, since I've already stated that I intend to play on the idea that those three panels as seen on the interior's forward bulkhead are actually monitor screens rather than windows then I see no reason why I shouldn't retain the forward bulkhead exactly as we saw it onscreen. This approach obviously allows me extra space between the inner and outer forward hulls for mechanicals such as ship's sensors and the like.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

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.


And finally here is one just for fun.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

*Shaw:*

I believe you are on to something.

I have never been comfortable with the nose down configuration. Not that I deny it altogether. It's plainly there on screen in more than one instance. It's just that I find it hard to believe it was intentional. Set up problems or compromises; damage to the structure; poor alignment in construction; all these seem more likely to me than deliberate design. Especially when the small miniature, Jefferies own slightly curvier version and his later sketch of "what AMT built" all show otherwise.

I believe there is also a discernible depression from the "hangar bay" scene where Spock walks to it and gets in. It might provide further data points. One other observation: The drawbridge component of the door is obviously intended to be parallel to the top of the nacelle. When opened in some shots it lays flat against it. However, in the "nose down" shot from Way to Eden you analysed it is obvious that the nacelle is not properly aligned with it. The angle of the door edge and the angle of the nacelle top are not the same in this instance.

All this said, however, you should not attribute close-mindedness to Phil. He is quite willing to change his opinion if he is _convinced_ by the evidence. It's just that he _has_ spent more time studying the shuttle than any of the rest of us. He also has the advantage of having seen it up close and personal many years ago.

I have been following this topic for a long time and haven't chimed in recently because I haven't the time to devote to it at present. But I encourage you to follow this up. Treat Phil with the respect he deserves and you'll find him an excellent debate partner. You may bring him around to your point of view, or he might produce other data that casts your observations in a different light. He's certainly pointed out to me a few details about this craft that I'd missed (to the detriment of a pet theory of my own).

Whatever the outcome, the rest of us will benefit from following the discussion.

*Warped 9:*

I _love_ your final hangar image. Too cool!

M.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

There is one other thing to remember about the hatch: the edge that is supposed to sit on the nacelle is also not parallel to the nacelle when viewed from above, because the hull tapers towards the front as viewed from above.

I certainly don't dismiss Phil's perspective. And I'm trying like hell to incorporate everything I can learn about the shuttlecraft into my little project. I would like to add that one can be torn between what may have been initially intended for a design and what actually resulted onscreen. I certainly don't offer up my interpretation as the final solution. It's just that I'm bugged by the nose dipping down in the manner it appears to onscreen and on the drawings on cloudster.com. It does, however, offer the advantage of allowing more room within the belly of the ship for machinery to be fit under the deck even if the fullsize mock-up as built and the fullsize interior set conflict with each other.

Note: My drawings should start to look better since I've gotten a hold of Illustrator. I'm still drawing my basic outlines by hand but then scanning them in to do cleaner finished works with Illustrator.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)




----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)




----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

It will be a few days before I post any other images because I'm beginning to work on the interior.

Some observations (where others have tread before). When looked at in cross section from the bow the design allows for a reasonably wide cabin interior. The problem arises when one looks at length from the side. Rather than a simple and straightforward rectangular hull (more or less) that it appears to be in side elevation you are faced with an irregular countour when seen in cutaway. It isn't that you can't have a standing interior, but that you are challenged having one resembling the one as seen onscreen. And the upper hull sloping back lengthwise so dramatically doesn't help in the least as you lose valuable ceiling height. And all this while trying to keep the ship's overall length down as much as possible--after all the thing does have to fit fuctionally within the hangar bay.

So this is going to take some real thought. Presently I'm studying pics and calculating angles. It's nice to have the dimensions of some of the interior control panels as a loose basis for trying to establish dimensions. _*Sigh*_ It would be really nice if we had scaled drawings of the fullsize interior set as well as the exterior mock-up, but I'll make do as best as I can.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

One small point I neglected to mention, guys. My end plan is to do full schematics of both inside and out--effectively a set of general plans--as well as a small collection of my shuttlecraft oriented photomanips and then share them freely in a file with those interested. You would then be able to print out the sheets (assuming your printer can print 11x17 sheets) or have them printed off at pretty well any local print shop. The scale of the drawings should also serve as a good starting basis for anyone interested in building a scrathbuilt model of the shuttlecraft.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Anyone attempting to render a credibly scaled version of the TOS shuttlecraft probably can’t help but be taunted by Kirk’s well remembered “a twenty-four foot shuttlecraft” echoing through their brain. Those words taunt annoyingly because any such effort inevitably arrives at the fact that no version of the ship that allows for the standing interior set we see onscreen can possibly allow for a twenty-four foot exterior. Countless have tried. We just have to assume that Kirk either misstated the size of the ship or he was referring to some other obscure dimension of significance we have yet to uncover.

The only way to approach that illusive 24ft. figure is to accept a shuttlecraft with a cramped interior. Certainly the full-size mock-up we see onscreen would tend to support that notion. And that mock-up seems to be more in synch with what Matt Jeffries originally intended. But the reality of ‘60s era television production intruded and demanded an interior set that allowed for the actors to stand erect and facilitate the use of the era’s bulky filming equipment. Today, of course, there’d be little to no problem filming a vehicle with a cramped interior, but what’s done is done and we’re left with a visual inconsistency onscreen. The individual is now left to decide which version of the shuttlecraft is more “real:” the full-size exterior mock-up or the full-size interior set. I chose to accept the full-size interior set as fact because I find it easier to imagine a larger exterior onscreen than a more cramped interior. Also the more spacious interior is well in synch with the apparent design philosophy of the spacious interiors we see aboard the _Enterprise._ 

Ever since many fans have tried to reconcile the two versions of the shuttlecraft to varying degrees of success. All efforts deserve praise and credit because it’s a bitch of an endeavor that requires inevitable compromises and revisions. At this point I look back at my own earlier efforts and solutions over the years and can’t help but think, “What the hell was I thinking?” (-:

And so now I’m back at it one more time inspired by the recent efforts of *FourMadMen* and Phil Broad.

This time around I’ve established some guiding principles to work from:
1.	The vehicle has to look near exactly as it did onscreen, both inside and out, or in the very least as closely as possible. Thus any revisions and compromises must be kept to a minimum and be as subtle as possible.
2.	Accept and embrace the concept that this is meant to be a construct of science, technology and engineering three hundred years more advanced than anything we’re capable of today. This is clearly evidenced by the presence of a sophisticated inertial system and artificial gravity environment that precludes the need for personnel restraints while the ship is in-flight. The vehicle is clearly very ruggedly constructed as evidenced by a forced abrupt landing that resulted in relatively minor structural damage and certainly nothing significant enough to preclude it from flying once a new fuel source was found. And finally that the vehicle is capable of (albeit limited) FTL warp flight and thus capable of supporting up to seven people for an extended period ranging from at least several hours to several days. I accept this to mean that there must be some facility for personal hygiene (e.g.: a toilet system) aboard as well as likely some manner of food supply. You can’t help but wonder exactly what equipment they were trying to jettison to lighten the ship’s weight. (-:

When you scale up the exterior mock-up to allow for the full-size interior set you inevitably arrive at a glaringly obvious fact: it isn’t really the matter of the vehicle’s height or length that is a concern, but rather the vehicle’s width. The vehicle’s design when scaled up rather easily (more or less) accommodates the full-size interior set. However, you end up with a vehicle that has a significantly wider exterior than the interior set would otherwise suggest. On the face of it that isn’t a truly bad thing because a double hull actually makes a lot of sense for a credible “real” shuttlecraft. That “between hulls” space allows for needed systems and machinery as well as a safety minded double hatch entry/exit system. The problem is in that the scaled up exterior is _a lot_ wider than the interior set. You’re then faced with the choice of either making the exterior hull narrower (and drastically altering the exterior’s appearance), making the interior wider (and now drastically altering the interior’s appearance) or trying to find a happy compromise by doing both of the aforementioned and still resulting in an exterior/interior that looks close but not really quite like the ship we see onscreen.

I’ve opted for a simpler solution: accepting the exterior and interior pretty much “as is” and accepting the idea that there is significant space between the inner and outer hulls. Indeed the more I’ve pondered it the more I actually like the idea. For me it simply serves to make the shuttlecraft more credibly “real” and substantial.

Another inconsistency that many fans have wrestled with is the angle of the forward bulkhead and aligning the three interior windows with the apparent viewports as seen on the forward hull of the exterior. Well, if I accept a double hull design then there’s no reason I should have to force fit the forward inner bulkhead to be the same angle as the exterior forward hull. And if I accept that notion than I’m not compelled to align the inner “windows” with the outer “viewports” either. Also this is supposed to be a 23rd century construct. So my idea is that the three inner “windows” are not windows at all but rather viewscreen monitors. I think this makes more sense simply because those three panels are useless as windows for piloting the craft while being mounted above the pilot’s head. And lowering the panels to be more in line with the pilot’s line of sight then drastically alters the look of the interior. Also windows are really rather useless for a vehicle capably of FTL flight. If you have sophisticated sensing systems then you’re far better off with a system such as we see on the _Enterprise_ bridge where the ship is flown by sophisticated instrumentation and a viewscreen that allows a view of objects at extreme distances.

With my above thinking in mind here is my general plan of eventual presentation when I’ve gotten all the final details worked out:
Sheet 1: Port side elevation
Sheet 2: Starboard side elevation
Sheet 3: Bow and Aft elevations
Sheet 4: Top plan
Sheet 5: Bottom plan
Sheet 6: Port side cutaway
Sheet 7: Starboard side cutaway
Sheet 8: Bow and Aft cutaways
Sheet 9: Deck plan cutaway
Sheet 10: Ceiling plan cutaway

I don't have any truly hard numbers yet because I'm still playing with the aft compartment and fudging inches and scale: My best guess at this point is that my ship will come out between 29 and 31.5 ft.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Just a little something to show where I'm going with this. (-:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

This is a general take on where I'm going. I still have details to work out, but if all goes well then my ship will be between 29'-1" and 30ft.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Damned broken link. I don't know why this has been happening lately. I'll try to post this again a little later.

What my little cutaway doesn't show (because it's preliminary and not yet finished) are the control panels along the length of the cabin, the ceiling lighting panel and the aft compartment arrangement. It also doesn't show that the internal access hatch opening will be smaller than the exterior access hatch. In my view this is the only way to keep the exterior and interior each appearing as they did onscreen. Also this is bolstered by the fact that even though the interior set allowed the actors to stand upright the they still had to duck their heads a bit to exit through the hatch as well as pass through to the aft compartment. I also think I've left just sufficient space under the floor for mechanicals to run undernesth just as we saw when Scotty was working in there through a floor service panel.

I've also got the idea that there will be overhead compartments (where the walls curve into the ceilin) that hold environmental gear (should there ever be a breach of the double hulls). In the aft compartment on the port side (which I don't think we ever truly saw) and opposite the starboard electrical access panel we saw Scotty at I'm interested in trying to install a small toilet and limited food supply storage/dispensing setup. I'm also thinking along the lines that much of the equipment they jettisoned in "The Galileo Seven" may well have been ripped out from this area. Recall also that in "Metamorphosis" we saw McCoy dispensing beverages. Sure he may have brought along a thrmos and perhaps even a cooler of snacks, but in the 23rd century it's more plausible that the shuttlecraft was equipped with at least limited facilities for food and waste disposal.


----------



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

Warped9 said:


> Anyone attempting to render a credibly scaled version of the TOS shuttlecraft probably can’t help but be taunted by Kirk’s well remembered “a twenty-four foot shuttlecraft” echoing through their brain. Those words taunt annoyingly because any such effort inevitably arrives at the fact that no version of the ship that allows for the standing interior set we see onscreen can possibly allow for a twenty-four foot exterior. Countless have tried. We just have to assume that Kirk either misstated the size of the ship or he was referring to some other obscure dimension of significance we have yet to uncover.


At right about 31 feet, the _*interior*_ dimensions come out to be right at 24 feet from the inside wall of the first cabin to the back wall of the second cabin.

Again, we can only chalk up the Kirk comment to his misspeaking. There is no way 24 feet can make sense with what we see with our own eyes onscreen.

Perhaps Kirk had to take one too many long long trips in a shuttlecraft pacing back and forth so that the inside dimensions were burned into his brain?

Who knows? But we know the 24 feet length has to be nonsense.


----------



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

Warped9 said:


> Just a little something to show where I'm going with this. (-:


One problem with this is you are still using a shot of the forced perspective miniature hanger.

Maybe you can cajole Phil into posting some nice, high res orthographic renders of the hanger bay section of his 3D Enterprise model? 

I'd personally love to see a set of those done as orthographic, faux-blueprints in order to get a look at what the hanger-bay set should have looked like, at least an orthographic look at it.

No detailed markups would be necessary(I know Phil's busy with a couple of projects now, just a few high res ortho renders with a scale in each would suffice) ...

Thought I'd suggest you ask as it might affect some of your choices, or at least unsolidified pre-conceived notions as to what it would all look like "real-world."


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I am, uh, kinda toying with the idea of tackling the hangar deck after I'm done with the shuttlecraft. (-:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Warped9, your stuff still ROCKS! I like everything you've done so far with the shuttlecraft.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 1, 2001)

*Phaser Storage*

Don't they show an "armory" bin opening from the side wall with phasers and spare power packs in the shuttlecraft? You'd have to have the double hull to have room for that.

Tom


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

There are two other things I'm considering including in this booklet of plans. The first is a sheet of the hull markings because as they're shown on the plans you're not seeing them directly at right angles to the pov. And such as sheet might be appreciated by would-be scratchbuild modelers since my final plans will be in 1/24 scale.

Another idea I'm toying with is a separate three-view of the ship's structural framework or spaceframe as I like to call it.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> At right about 31 feet, the _*interior*_ dimensions come out to be right at 24 feet from the inside wall of the first cabin to the back wall of the second cabin.
> 
> Again, we can only chalk up the Kirk comment to his misspeaking. There is no way 24 feet can make sense with what we see with our own eyes onscreen.
> 
> Perhaps Kirk had to take one too many long long trips in a shuttlecraft pacing back and forth so that the inside dimensions were burned into his brain?


Or maybe shuttlecraft are measured something like the 6-, 8-, 10-, 12-, and 14-Meter divisions for international yacht racing, which have nothing to do with the length of the boat. All sorts of archaic and needlessly confusing measurement systems persist today; they will no doubt continue into the 23rd century and beyond. After all, isn't Starfleet supposed to universally use the metric system?


----------



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

Warped9 said:


> I am, uh, kinda toying with the idea of tackling the hangar deck after I'm done with the shuttlecraft. (-:


I was, uh, not really talking about *you* tackling it.

I was stating that Phil's shuttlecraft bay might help put the size compromises in proper perspective.

Plus I'd really really like to see a bunch of hi-resolution othographic renders of Phil's shuttlecraft hanger from as many angles as he'd like to post...

He's come up with some beautiful compromises(most notably in his ceiling design) in order to allow room for the bay without it looking tremendously smaller then the forced perspective miniature. The forced perspective miniature can not be taken to be the size it appears onscreen and fit in front of the warp pylons, or even in the space allowed for it in the writers' guide or TMOST.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Now that I've added the rear landing strut and plate I've a better estimation of size. Going with a 6'-5" ceiling gives me a ship of about 30'-4." I'm going to play with things some more that may allow me to shave off a few inches so we'll see. 

My rear landing plate will be different than the one seen in Phil Broad's drawings primarily because I've been influenced by those shots of the filming miniature flying away from the viewer's pov. Also the rear landing plate as seen on the fullsize mock-up is inconsistent. In "The Galileo Seven" it appears to look one way and in "Metamorphosis" it looks like Phil's drawings.


----------



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

There is no direct correlation between the ceiling height and interior length. But 6'5" is a good height. That's what FourMadMen and I settled on.


----------



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

Warped9 said:


> Now that I've added the rear landing strut and plate I've a better estimation of size. Going with a 6'-5" ceiling gives me a ship of about 30'-4." I'm going to play with things some more that may allow me to shave off a few inches so we'll see.
> 
> My rear landing plate will be different than the one seen in Phil Broad's drawings primarily because I've been influenced by those shots of the filming miniature flying away from the viewer's pov. Also the rear landing plate as seen on the fullsize mock-up is inconsistent. In "The Galileo Seven" it appears to look one way and in "Metamorphosis" it looks like Phil's drawings.


They are both the same. The only difference is in the shot where the shuttle is suspended the plate on the bottom of the gear has spun and is in widthwise orientation instead of being bow-to-stern oriented.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Anyway that rear plate just looks too anachronistic for my tastes, like something that was dragged out of someone's garage.

Okay, here are some sample pages. Please note that these are not 100% complete as I've still some tweaking to do with them. But they do show my general presentation for this set of plans. Also they're obviously not full size images.

Note also that some things (such as the entry hatch and ship's registration) may look slightly askew as opposed to how they've usually appeared on other drawings. That's because I've taken into account that those objects are not sitting on a surface at exact right angles to your pov. I've also chosen to depict the exterior views as "In flight" mode with the forward landing pads retracted.

The bottom sheet shows the ships only in silhuoette because I've not yet drawn the ship with the specific distinctive features of the Class H ship.

And finally I have some hard numbers and that's what they'll be unless there arises the need for some final tweaking.

LENGTH: 29'-11.56"
BEAM:18'-9.914"
DRAFT: 10'-3.975"

Note that this ship is only about 27% larger than TOS' fullsize exterior mock-up.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Nice...but why is there a step on the starboard nacelle?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Captain April said:


> Nice...but why is there a step on the starboard nacelle?


That step is also on Phil Broad's drawings of the fullsize mock-up. At first I wondered about it too, but after some thought it could be useful as a means of clambering up onto the nacelle and perhaps then onto the stabilizer for a closer inspection of the upper hull.

A little something else I'm already aware of in case someone else notices it. The font I've used is AmarilloUSAF which is not exactly like that used in TOS. There are some small differences particularly with the "7's," "1's" and "C's." I've modified it to some extent but it's still a little different. Also the "U.S.S. ENTERPRISE" looks more condensed on TOS as if the font werea bit emboldened and thus the letters are more squashed together.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Warped9 said:


> That step is also on Phil Broad's drawings of the fullsize mock-up. At first I wondered about it too, but after some thought it could be useful as a means of clambering up onto the nacelle and perhaps then onto the stabilizer for a closer inspection of the upper hull.
> 
> A little something else I'm already aware of in case someone else notices it. The font I've used is AmarilloUSAF which is not exactly like that used in TOS. There are some small differences particularly with the "7's," "1's" and "C's." I've modified it to some extent but it's still a little different. Also the "U.S.S. ENTERPRISE" looks more condensed on TOS as if the font werea bit emboldened and thus the letters are more squashed together.


Well, for the record, I've just checked out the pics of the mockup while it was still in that junkyard (ironically, the only clear shots I've ever seen of the starboard side), and there is definitely no step on the nacelle. Even more ironic, since I'm pretty sure the pics came from Phil's site.

As for the font, do a search for something called "Fleet Old School". It's a corrected version of AmarilloUSAF specifically for TOS era markings.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> . . . Anyway that rear plate just looks too anachronistic for my tastes, like something that was dragged out of someone's garage.


So? The rear oleo strut on the full-size _Galileo_ was from the nose gear of a scrapped Cessna!

Looks pretty good so far! Dimension-wise, I'd say you've hit just the right compromise to accommodate a standing-headroom interior while keeping the exterior details (e.g. the entry hatch) more or less properly proportioned.

Now for the nitpicking:


> _LENGTH: 29'-11.56"
> BEAM:18'-9.914"
> DRAFT: 10'-3.975"_


Uh, exqueeze me, but how can something that doesn't float have "draft"? Don't you mean "height"?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

scotpens said:


> Now for the nitpicking:Uh, exqueeze me, but how can something that doesn't float have "draft"? Don't you mean "height"?


Oops. I'm now recovering from a momentary episode of brain cramp. WTF was I thinking?


----------



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

scotpens said:


> So? The rear oleo strut on the full-size _Galileo_ was from the nose gear of a scrapped Cessna!


Damn!

Wish you had been able to notice when I asked that question about 2 years ago!!!!

Are you absolutely sure it was a Cessna? Where did the flate plate come from? If have that info too I'd appreciate knowing for sure(though it's likely it might have just been fabricated by the TOS crew to match the upper part of the side pads.)


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Could've been a pan from the studio commissary.

Anyhoo, regarding the signage, here's a prezzie....


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

According to Phil Broad's Cloudster site: "The central landing gear at the rear is a surplus aircraft nose landing gear strut." I seem to recall reading somewhere that it was from a Cessna, though I could be mistaken.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

The rear landing strut doesn't bother me, but the rear landing plate as is just looks wrong to my eyes even though that's the way it was.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Captain April said:


> Could've been a pan from the studio commissary.
> 
> Anyhoo, regarding the signage, here's a prezzie....


Thanks. I've since incorporated the changes.


----------



## bccanfield (Nov 17, 2002)

I have always had this rich man's fantasy to take a large van chassis and retrofit it (inside and out) to make it look like the Delta Flyer (maybe 1/2 or 3/4 scale). Or... take a motor home and convert it to a Rio Grande class shuttle. You could store a your snow skis in the nacelles. Just think of the looks you would get driving that thing down the highway.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Regarding the nacelle step;

The step built into the mockup was the same dimension as the outline of the toe reccess cut into the nacelle. Although it was actually welded into place, the two shapes being the same indicates that the step was meant to represent one which was retractable. In other words, the step would fold upwards during flight thus covering the toe hole. This is why there is one on each side of my version of the Shuttlecraft.

True, the mockup was not built with one on both sides but the "real" Shuttlecraft probably would have been, for access to the upper surfaces on both sides. So, in the case of the mockup, the starboard side step is simply retracted. Matt Jefferies was highly versed in aviation technology and this sort of detail is consistent with practices in that field. There is no doubt in my mind that this is what he intended to imply here.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ That's pretty much as I imagined it, that the "real" shuttlecraft would have one on both sides to facilitate access to the upper hull section.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I just had to see what this looked like.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^Thanks, Warped! I've always been curious about that, too!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I played around a bit more with this last night. A 24ft. shuttlecraft would allow for a 5.5ft. ceiling at best and with the main cabin the remaining same length. However, such a size leaves zero room for an aft compartment. That aft door in the main compartment would access directly into the impulse drive area. This size of vehicle really would be a short range craft I'd think.

You have to get to about a 27 or 28ft. ship before you have something like a 6ft. ceiling and perhaps some small aft compartment.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

A little extra perspective.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Later today I'll post a couple of new images offering two different perspectives I worked out over the weekend. One is my final scale with a shuttlecraft of 28.725' length overall. The other is a scale more in line with what MJ may have originally intended that has most of the elements of the fullsize interior set yet with a more cramped ceiling height. And--get this--by total chance I may have stumbled onto that mystical 24' measurement in regards to the exterior.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^Thanks for all the work you're doing in this regard! I can tell you that your work will be the determining factor in my scratchbuild scaling solution :thumbsup:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

One day, after I've made my fortune, I'd like to build a full-size mockup.

I think I'll opt for the middle size. Not as obviously bigger than the onscreen one, while still enough room inside for a decent interior.

Just need to convert Phil Broad's drawings to match the notion...


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Phil's drawings were a significant starting point for me. And my final drawings will be in 1/24 scale for any would-be scratchbuilders out there.

My "smaller" version of the ship comes out to 26.427 ft. with a 5.75 ft. ceiling. My first attempt at this started out at near exactly 26 ft. from nose to trailing edge of the aft landing pad. It was at this point that I accidently realized that at that size the length of the main hull from nose to end (and excluding the nacelles) came out to 24.088968 ft. However at the scale the ceiling height was a very tight 5.644 ft. and that's excluding the overhead lighting panel. I subsequently tinkered to arrive at a 26.427 ft. ship with the main hull then being 24.485 ft.--still close enough for Kirk to round off and say "A twenty-four foot shuttlecraft." The reference could conceiveably mean that the length of a ship's mail hull excluding "add ons" like engines and landing gear and whatever. Yes, it's a rationalization, but it isn't an unreasonable one. And I must say that the ship looks right at this scale even though the interior is certainly tighter than what we saw onscreen. It's on this basis, though, that I think MJ certainly understood that the full-size mock-up was undersized as built and an actual size reference was put into the script while the reference itself was not specific.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^I like that compromise scale on the 26 and 1/2 footer! :thumbsup:


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

So you are going with the lower diagram for the final scale?

Adding the Star Fleet officer for scale reference really does help with these diagrams.

Keep up the good work! :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Candidly I have likes and problems with both versions. _*Sigh*_

The 28 footer makes more sense conceptually in how the ship was used and is genuinely more consistent with the interior we saw onscreen. Mind you I still adapted my version of a fullsize interior to fit it within the design of the shuttlecraft without exterior alterations and scheming to keep the ship's overall size down as much as possible. The onscreen interior set looks to have a ceiling in the range of 7' and that would have given me a ship of about 33'--that's simply too big to be practical within the _Enterprise's_ hangar deck. However, that full size interior is odd because in other respects they scaled some things to suggest they were in a more confined space. For example the chairs are lower than could be reasonably expected in a fullsize craft and personnel still have to duck their heads to access the rear compartment as well as enter/exit the vehicle. But my major beef with the 28 ft. version is that it looks to big for its design. Of course part of it may simply be that we're not accustomed to seeing the TOS shuttlecraft that size. That said the 28 footer is the ship I initially set out to fashion and so I'm inclined to favour it over the smaller ship.

The smaller 26 footer looks more like the fullsize exterior mock-up. And it certainly wouldn't be a problem to fit in the existing hangar deck. Yet I can't ignore the fact that its interior is drastically smaller than what we saw onscreen particularly in terms of ceiling height. The main compartment is slightly shorter and the aft compartment is smaller as well.

I guess I might need some serious persuasion to sway me in favour of the smaller ship. All input is welcome.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

The larger one (based on the diagram) feels like a good fit to me...but seeing it inside the hanger deck would be helpful.

As it stands, the larger design seems to match what I would expect of a craft like that given TOS technology.


----------



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

The blueprints without anybody sitting in the chairs look okay.

But it looks like you took about a foot too much out of the sections that were originally 48" wide that myself, FourMadMen, and Phil cut down 6" to get the craft down to about 30'.6" - 31".

If anyone were sitting in those chairs it would immediately be obvious it's a lot more crampted then the original.

The people sitting in the chairs' knees would almost be touching the back of the chair in front of them and in the low slung design of the chairs their legs would have to go under the (swiveling) seats in front of them. 

You really could no longer swivel or have enough leg room.

I know it's hard to swallow but you are going to have to give in and go with a 30-31 foot design for the interior to comfortably appear similar to the onscreen interior.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ I thought of that seating issue. What isn't immediately apparent is that I raised the height of those chairs a couple of inches. In a fullsize exterior I couldn't any sense in them being so low to the deck and in the smaller craft it helps fit the people in better.

^^  In that over the past several hours I've found myself looking evermore favourably upon the 26 footer. I suppose part of it is because it fits better overall with what MJ tried to convey and I respect his perspective and insights--a very clever man.

The spacing and size of the chairs and consoles and all remain the same for both versions although I cut off some unused empty space from the main compartment behind the last pair of seats on the 26 footer. I'll try tweaking some more and see what happens.

One thing that isn't apparent, but will be seen soon will be how the interiors fit in both version as seen in fore/aft cross section as well as deck plan. The 28 ft. exterior is _a lot_ wider in relation to it's interior--you'd have a very spacious double hull almost to the point of accomodation a cramped airlock. I suspected that going in yet it's still rather odd to actually see.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> The smaller 26 footer looks more like the fullsize exterior mock-up. And it certainly wouldn't be a problem to fit in the existing hangar deck. Yet I can't ignore the fact that its interior is drastically smaller than what we saw onscreen particularly in terms of ceiling height. The main compartment is slightly shorter and the aft compartment is smaller as well.


Given the state of the art: exteriors often built 3/4 scale and interiors built 5/4 scale (even a typical full sized wagon in westerns had a much more capacious interior for filming than possible from seeing its exterior) I would say your 26 footer is the most promising in terms of compromise. No compromise will please everyone--that's the nature of the beast--but I think it makes a lot of sense. 

The much larger shuttlecraft (28' or 30') looks too large compared to the studio exterior while the 26' version seems to pass IMHO while giving, in the Hollywood sense, a reasonably large interior. :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

The more I think about it the more I find myself reconsidering and favouring the smaller ship. It just strikes me evermore convincingly that this is more in line with the ship they wanted to depict and be taken as the "real" shuttlecraft even though the realities of '60s tv production forced them to compromise. I think I'll focus on massaging the 26 footer into a workable vehicle with an overall length no more than about 26.5 ft.

If you think this is a headache just wait until I start drawing up my versions of the TAS shuttlecraft. :freak:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> If you think this is a headache just wait until I start drawing up my versions of the TAS shuttlecraft. :freak:


Can't wait if you're talking the Heavy Armor type.

There are some interesting variations in drawings, paintings, and blueprints of that ship. Some of the best references are the actual TAS scenes on Kailil's(sp?) site.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

It goes pretty much without saying that I will be adapting those designs and working out a backstory to explain them and their use by the _Enterprise_ crew. It also goes without saying that they will have to be rescaled as well as they are indeed too big for practical routine use within the _Enterprise_ small shuttlecraft complement.


----------



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

PerfesserCoffee said:


> What's with these hot twenty-something-year-old girls chasing after an old man like me?


It's commonly referred to as a *hallucination*. :lol:


----------



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

Warped9 said:


> ^^  In that over the past several hours I've found myself looking evermore favourably upon the 26 footer. I suppose part of it is because it fits better overall with what MJ tried to convey and I respect his perspective and insights--a very clever man.


 "it fits better overall with what MJ tried to convey"
MJ designed and oversaw the interior set construction.

What would be more believable then leaving it almost exactly as he built it?

I don't believe 31 feet is too big to fit within the 947 foot Enterprise.

And if it were, heck


*WARNING "CANONISTS" AVERT YOUR EYES........*


... then just ignore the 947 foot figure and make her a more logical(based on the original blueprints) 1080 feet.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I spent some hours rejigging the interior of the 26 footer last night as well as reviewing some of my earlier comments regarding how the ship was used. The argument for a larger ship is based mostly on comfort and the inclusion of standard facilities for periodic longer range trips. But we already know the ship has a flexible interior that can be reset for different missions so it isn't a stretch to accept that the ship could be equipped for longer range trips yet for a fewer group of people, say like five instead of seven. Just a thought. 

I also remarked that the interior set strikes me as having somewhat contradictory elements to it as if they were trying to convey the idea of a more cramped interior even though the actors were clearly able to stand upright.

This whole thing is aggravated because there is a HUGE discrepency in scale between the exterior mock-up and the fullsize interior set.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> It's commonly referred to as a *hallucination*. :lol:


 You know, that makes a lot of sense. I'm inclined to believe that over what I've experienced.

I need to bottle whatever is giving me those hallucinations, though. I could make a mint! :thumbsup:


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Warped9:

The Shuttlecraft that I am using is 26.8961 feet in length, as measured from the furthest forward edge of the mid-belt "chine" to the farthest aft point formed by the intersection of the upper and lower sloping hull plates.

This version just fits into the Hangar Deck of the 947 foot "E". It could be a bit bigger but if it is enlarged much over this dimension, it really narrows the operating margin of error when trying to land between the two aft-most "control towers". As it is, things are pretty tight. Simply scaling up the Enterprise might be a better way to go. After all, it is too small as well to house everything that was shown or talked about on the show and needs additional interior space. I've always believed that the "E" should have been at least 1200 feet long.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

X15-A2 said:


> I've always believed that the "E" should have been at least 1200 feet long.


Yeah, I was wondering that too. I suppose the junior officers would have to double up in the quarters unless there's enough room for 435 individual quarters. Although Rand had her own quarters.
I was watching Jouney to Babel the other night and they were transporting over 100 delegates. Where did they put 'em, the bowling alley? :tongue:


----------



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

X15-A2 said:


> Warped9:
> 
> The Shuttlecraft that I am using is 26.8961 feet in length, as measured from the furthest forward edge of the mid-belt "chine" to the farthest aft point formed by the intersection of the upper and lower sloping hull plates.
> 
> This version just fits into the Hangar Deck of the 947 foot "E". It could be a bit bigger but if it is enlarged much over this dimension, it really narrows the operating margin of error when trying to land between the two aft-most "control towers". As it is, things are pretty tight. Simply scaling up the Enterprise might be a better way to go. After all, it is too small as well to house everything that was shown or talked about on the show and needs additional interior space. I've always believed that the "E" should have been at least 1200 feet long.


 
Yep. 947 feet just doesn't make any more sense then a 24 foot shuttlecraft.

You certainly couldn't land a "fleet of modern aircraft fighters" in the shuttlecraft bay as described by MJ. if the TOS E was only 947 feet.

I liked the argument I believe made by either yourself or MGagen(maybe both of you at different times?) that based on the original blueprints the production E model was supposed to be a 1/96th scale model(I think I remember the scale right but it wouldn't be the first time I was mistaken). That would make her at least 1080.

Though I'm all for making her as big as need be to make the ship fit all that was shown and/or mentioned onscreen.


Even if interstellar warp drive is never invented, you never know. There might one day be an orbiting TOS E a hundred or so years from now.

We'll just have to make sure B & B and all their future descendants are kept away from Trek in the future. Otherwise the timeline with an orbiting TOS E Trek resort might be obliterated...

You know how much those guys love screwing up timelines...


----------



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

PerfesserCoffee said:


> You know, that makes a lot of sense. I'm inclined to believe that over what I've experienced.
> 
> I need to bottle whatever is giving me those hallucinations, though. I could make a mint! :thumbsup:


Maybe if you could bottle the hallucinations where they catch you. 
The chasing hallucinations just seem like hallucinations I'd rather fast forward through...


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

X15-A2 and myself reached the 1:96 scale conclusion independently. It was hearing that he had the same opinion that led me to contact him in the first place. In my case, I had come to 1:96 scale from studying Jefferies. He was so methodical and logical in his work that I just couldn't accept that he'd set out to design the ship in such an oddball scale. I had heard all the arguments that "no one designs anything like this in Hollywood in any particular scale" from some pretty well-connected folks. But it just didn't square with what I knew about MJ's working methods. I settled on 1:96 as the closest rational scale that made sense -- there being an easy equivalent between fractional inches and scale feet.

I changed my mind about it once I discovered evidence that the ship was blueprinted at a different scale altogether. The large model was originally planned to represent a ship about 540 feet in length at very reasonable scale of 1:48. The rescale was a mere bit of after-the-fact mathematical diddling. I'm still searching for the rationale behind the particular number of 947; but it is pretty well established. Even the exterior postion of the turbolift tube corresponds properly to the bridge set at that scale. My best guess is that MJ must have thought that merely doubling the length of the ship would throw off his deck spacing calculations because it would also double the deck thickness and the thickness of the hull. What we ended up with might be what he figured was needed to double the number of decks without changing the baselines planned for those items. 

M.


----------



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

That may all be correct.

But I do feel that it still doesn't necessarilly solve the fact that at 947 feet the TOS E's landing bay would probably still be too small.

So I still feel it might still be necessary to enlarge her, if not to 1080 perhaps to a size a tad bigger that would allow for a big enough hanger bay.

There should be some fractional multiple(1.xxx whatever) of 947 feet that would still line up with the window spacing as seen and yet be bigger then 947 feet, as 947 feet sure looks too crampt for a good hanger bay.

Could not such a length be calculated?

Some non-forced-perspective plans of the shuttlebay would help figure out what that size should be.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> Warped9:
> 
> The Shuttlecraft that I am using is 26.8961 feet in length, as measured from the furthest forward edge of the mid-belt "chine" to the farthest aft point formed by the intersection of the upper and lower sloping hull plates.
> 
> This version just fits into the Hangar Deck of the 947 foot "E". It could be a bit bigger but if it is enlarged much over this dimension, it really narrows the operating margin of error when trying to land between the two aft-most "control towers". As it is, things are pretty tight. Simply scaling up the Enterprise might be a better way to go. After all, it is too small as well to house everything that was shown or talked about on the show and needs additional interior space. I've always believed that the "E" should have been at least 1200 feet long.


I've rescaled my shuttlecraft _for the last time._ (-: 

Presently and finally I'm at 26.75 ft with a 5.76 ft. ceiling. I've almost completed both port and starboard cutaways and am presently working on the fore and aft cutaways as well as the deck and ceiling plan views. 

A 31 ft. shuttlecraft in itself is a reasonable idea, but you run into the very practical problem that the ship's design isn't really meant for this scale. The main problem (besides fitting it into the hangar bay) is that at that scale it's rather awkward in terms of ease of entry and exit for personnel. It might not matter in a fictional world, but if applying real world considerations then it becomes problematical. A 31 ft. shuttlecraft would have to be of a different design to allow ease of entry and exit.

Another idea I'm considering is elaborating on the idea we saw in TOS that the shuttlecraft interiors were adaptable for different missions. I'm considering doing some renderings to reflect that.

Standard variant. (this is the _Galileo_ and _Columbus)_
Extended survey variant (similar to what was seen in "The Immunity Syndrome")
Extended range variant (actually this is the Class H version, the _Copernicus_ and _Magellan)_
Medical support variant (for transporting sick and injured whenever the transporter is unavailable or cannot be used)


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

A few further points about the available space onboard the "E" when working to scale:

There is really only room for two Shuttlecraft onboard and they cannot use the elevator to be stored below decks. There simply isn't enough ceiling height underneath the Hangar Deck for them. If a person wants more than two Shuttlecraft, then those hangars must be created forward of the Hangar Deck itself and on the same level. The problem with that is that they just take up too much room and if you have more than two, you quickly have an Engineering Hull full of Shuttlecraft and nothing else. Worse, the structural carry-throughs (large bulkheads) which support the Enterprise Warp Nacelle pylon attach points are located in the area immediately forward of the Hangar Deck as well. You would not want too many holes cut through them to allow for the pass-through of small craft or equiment. This area is also occupied by equipment running up from main Engineering through the pylons into the Warp Nacelles. It is a very busy part of the ship which leaves Shuttlecraft storage space at a premium. Furthermore, the Shuttlecraft storage bays would need to include sufficient room for maintenance functions. How far can they be broken down while onboard the Starship? If we think of un-shipping the Warp Nacelles or the Impulse Engines then we need quite a bit of additional space. These are a few of the problems faced by anyone who trys to work out logical interior configurations for the "E".

Lets face it, the "E" is just too darn small, that's all there is to it.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> A few further points about the available space onboard the "E" when working to scale:
> 
> There is really only room for two Shuttlecraft onboard and they cannot use the elevator to be stored below decks. There simply isn't enough ceiling height underneath the Hangar Deck for them. If a person wants more than two Shuttlecraft, then those hangars must be created forward of the Hangar Deck itself and on the same level. The problem with that is that they just take up too much room and if you have more than two, you quickly have an Engineering Hull full of Shuttlecraft and nothing else. Worse, the structural carry-throughs (large bulkheads) which support the Enterprise Warp Nacelle pylon attach points are located in the area immediately forward of the Hangar Deck as well. You would not want too many holes cut through them to allow for the pass-through of small craft or equiment. This area is also occupied by equipment running up from main Engineering through the pylons into the Warp Nacelles. It is a very busy part of the ship which leaves Shuttlecraft storage space at a premium. Furthermore, the Shuttlecraft storage bays would need to include sufficient room for maintenance functions. How far can they be broken down while onboard the Starship? If we think of un-shipping the Warp Nacelles or the Impulse Engines then we need quite a bit of additional space. These are a few of the problems faced by anyone who trys to work out logical interior configurations for the "E".
> 
> Lets face it, the "E" is just too darn small, that's all there is to it.


Have you seen *aridas'* _Enterprise_ cross section on the TBBS? It's very nice and offers some intriguing ideas and solutions for a 947' ship. I've no problem with a 1080' ship if need be (and it just may need be). There's also the little nugget that in _TMoST_ it says the _E_ has seven shuttlecraft while in "The Omega Glory" it states that all four of the _Exeter's_ shuttlecraft are still present aboard ship. The latter onscreen reference does seem to establish that the Starship Class cruisers have a complement of four shuttlecraft. So I'd say we're stuck with it.


When I'm finished I'm thinking of offering them on CD for something like maybe 10 bucks. And since the Canadian loomie and the U.S. greenback are so close now I'd likely offer it on par in either currency. If you think about it I'd be covering little more than the shipping since it's dirt cheap to buy CD's and I can burn them myself. And I think it goes without saying that you couldn't buy such a set of plans and pics in hardcopy for near that, particularly if it came from Pocket or even Ballentine. I remember buying the FJ blueprints and tech manual when they came out in the mid '70s and that was near $15 Canadian then. You can believe it would easily be at least three times that today.

The set will be comprised of about twenty sheets of plans in 1/24 scale and a handful of photomanips _a la_ Never Seen TOS Scenes style and sized for printing on 11x17 sheets.

Note, though, that there are a handful of kindred like minded souls about here that will be getting a set _gratis_ for their greatly appreciated help. You'll know who you are when you get a little surprise package via email.


----------



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

X15-A2 said:


> Lets face it, the "E" is just too darn small, that's all there is to it.


Agreed.

About how big do you expect it would have to be to store four 31'ft long shuttlecraft(per the comment that the Exeter had "all four" of it's shuttlecraft still on board) in a reasonable manner.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

For everything to fit comfortably, from four shuttlecraft to 430 crewmembers having their own cabins plus guest quarters to the bridge up at the tippytop of the saucer and facing forward, I think we'd be looking at a 1,200' long ship.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Getting 430 people onto the ship I don't think is a huge problem. Don't they get about that many onto naval ships today that are actually smaller than the _E?_ And aren't there something like a couple of thousand personnel aboard an aircraft carrier that is somewhat comparable in size to the _E/_ And although I never counted the bunks out didn't FJ allow for enough berths in his blueprints?


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

I no longer have a copy of the Franz Joseph _Enterprise_ plans, but, IIRC, they did indeed show enough berths for a crew complement of 430 (mostly in double-berth cabins, with single cabins for the senior officers), plus a few dozen guests! And those quarters are WAY roomier than anything you'll find on a modern naval vessel. FJ's blueprints also show the Main Engineering section at the back of the saucer, adjacent to the impulse engines (highly impractical), and the hangar (flight) deck extending all the way forward to the _leading_ edges of the warp pylons, which allows for a longer hanger deck but creates some MAJOR structural issues.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

He also left out a lot of stuff that we know was on board. Put back in all those science labs, photon torpedo storage, deuterium slush tanks, matter/antimatter reactor, etc., and you lose a lot of room for quarters.

Now, anyone who's served on a carrier can correct me, but don't they generally have something like twelve men to a berth?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^Yep! Berthing areas are quite dense with bunks--more like what you saw in ST:VI.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

And probably what I'm gonna have to resort to in my deck plans.

Besides crew quarters, I also have to allow for guest quarters, escape pods, rec rooms, etc., etc.

As far as the shuttlecraft goes, I'm going with the 26' version (Goldilocks formula: not too big, not too small, it's juuuuuuuuuuuust right).


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Captain April said:


> He also left out a lot of stuff that we know was on board. Put back in all those science labs, photon torpedo storage, deuterium slush tanks, matter/antimatter reactor, etc., and you lose a lot of room for quarters.


We don't "know" any of this was on board in the form it was depicted in later shows. During TOS it wasn't established that photon torpedos were physical "coffin" cases that needed as much storage as your average big city mausoleum. And don't get me started on the whole "deuterium-slush-tanks/how-the-warp-drive-really-works" riff. 

I tire of hearing folks wringing their hands over how the ship that MJ designed is just "too small." Too small to retrofit it with all the crap that the "Hilton in Space" supposedly had in it, _maybe_. They their own Sea World style cetacean tanks for heaven's sake! But too small to "go where no man has gone before"? *Bah!*

M.


----------



## Nosirrag (Apr 26, 2005)

Hey, don't you know that science fiction spacecraft in movies and TV are larger on the inside than the outside? I learned this when they depicted the Jupiter II on LIS as being 3 stories deep.

But seriously, it has been my experience that aircraft carriers and submarines manage to cram a lot of stuff into very small spaces. Keep in mind that in real life you are dealing with a three dimensional object -- something that is easy to lose track of with blueprints, etc. Just looking at the measurements of the object does not always give a good feel for the volumn of the thing.

That is why the PL Enterprise at 3 feet seems so much bigger than the ERTL E at 2 feet. There is only a 33% difference in their size, but what a difference it is!


----------



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

MGagen said:


> We don't "know" any of this was on board in the form it was depicted in later shows. During TOS it wasn't established that photon torpedos were physical "coffin" cases that needed as much storage as your average big city mausoleum. And don't get me started on the whole "deuterium-slush-tanks/how-the-warp-drive-really-works" riff.
> 
> I tire of hearing folks wringing their hands over how the ship that MJ designed is just "too small." Too small to retrofit it with all the crap that the "Hilton in Space" supposedly had in it, _maybe_. They their own Sea World style cetacean tanks for heaven's sake! But too small to "go where no man has gone before"? *Bah!*
> 
> M.


Somebody's skipping his Metamucil!!! 

You know you get cranky when you aren't regular, MGagen! :lol:


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Somebody's skipping his Metamucil!!!


"Does it mix well with scotch? -- I'll let ye know!"



> You know you get cranky when you aren't regular, MGagen! :lol:


At my age, I don't need an excuse to get into a curmudgeonly dudgeon...  

M.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

A few thoughts to throw out and share.

I've recently revised my planned drawings. In particular I'm thinking of not doing a ceiling Plan since there really isn't much to see in that view and you already get a good sense of the craft's interior with the cutaway views and deck plan already in the making.

Anyway, here it is:
Sheet O: Cover Page
Sheet 1: Class F Port Elevation
Sheet 2: Class F Starboard Elevation
Sheet 3: Class F Bow Elevation
Sheet 4: Class F Aft Elevation
Sheet 5: Class F Top Plan
Sheet 6: Class F Bottom Plan
Sheet 7: Class F Port Cutaway
Sheet 8: Class F Starboard Cutaway
Sheet 9: Class F Bow Cutaway
Sheet 10: Class F Aft Cutaway A (forward compartment)
Sheet 11: Class F Aft Cutaway B (aft compartment)
Sheet 12: Class F Deck Plan
(sheets 1-12 drawn in 1/24 scale)
Sheet 13: Class F Mission Variant Cutaways
Sheet 14: Class F History & Specifications
Sheet 15: Class H 3-view A (top, port & bow)
Sheet 16: Class H 3-view B (bottom, starboard & aft)
Sheet 17: Class H 3-view Cutaway A (deck, port & bow)
Sheet 18: Class H 3-view Cutaway B (starboard and aft[2])
Sheet 19: USS Enterprise Shuttlecraft Complement
(sheets 13-19 drawn in 1/48 scale)
Sheets 20-25: Photoart images of various shuttlecraft in action.

How's that sound?

Some other musings. It goes without saying that my shuttlecraft will not be exactly as we saw onscreen simply because it is a compromise to reconcile two and perhaps even three disparate depictions of the vehicle on TOS. The proportions of the fullsize interior are grossly inconsistent with those of the fullsize exterior mock-up which itself is significantly smaller than the famous 24ft. mentioned by Kirk in "The Galileo Seven." That said what I've tried to due is maintain the integrity of the design so that it still looks near exactly as what we see onscreen while being integrated as more like a "real" vehicle. I tried to do this by adapting real world considerations in regards to such a vehicle actually existing.

Now, when I finish this little project I intend to apply myself to rendering the three TAS shuttlecraft. Right off I must say that my versions will depart from what is seen onscreen far, far more than I ever contemplated doing with the TOS ship. I think it simply has to be so because the TAS ships don't reflect near the level of thought and insight the TOS shuttlecraft does. The TAS ships were done seemingly more for the sake of variety and doing something different and with little regard to how they could possible fit and function in a practical manner within the _Enterprise_ hangar facilities. (Indeed my Class H variant is essentially a more "real" TOS version of the TAS shuttlecraft from "The Slaver Weapon.")

Still the TAS shuttles do have a measure of charm and appeeal to them so I'm gonna give it a try. By necessity they will be scaled down and their lines and portions tweaked and massaged to make them more credible as "real" ships. My backstory for them will basically be that they are specialized craft usually assigned to a starbase and periodically loaned out to starships for specific missions.

Here's a general breakdown:

The Scoutship: This is the shuttlecraft seen in "The Slaver Weapon" and the ship many fans assumed Alan Dean Foster was refering to in his adaptation of "Mudd's Passion." ADF gave us a fascinating little narrative on the ship's hangar and the vehicles housed within it in that story. Very cool then and I still kinda think so since it's stuck with me after all these years. The "high speed, long range scoutship" will have to be somewhat shorter in length than how it was drawn onscreen and I will endeavour to make it look somewhat more integrated as a whole. For instance the vehicle isn't shown with any form of sublight drive. The interior will need some serious thought since what was shown was mostly a large empty cabin. Maybe they meant it as a "delivery truck" version of a shuttlecraft? My take is that it's essentially a 23rd century equivalent of a runabout.

The Lander: I think of this as the HLV or the "heavily armored landing vehicle" ADF has Harry Mudd hijack in "Mudd's Passion." This may be the funkiest looking of the TAS craft with a weird nose and jacked up aft end. I will maintain the overall integrity of the design while needing to scale it down. My rationalization for this ship is that over the years Starfleet learned that periodically it must go into environments that would be hell for a standard shuttlecraft--these environments could be planets with higher than average tectonic activity (boy, they sure could have used this vehicle on the mad planet seen in "The Jihad") or heavy atmospheric pressure. Because sometimes an unmanned probe just can't get the job done and you have to go down there yourself. However the one thing the HLV seems sorrily vulnerable to are oversized reptillian carnivores with a bad attitude and indiscrimiate appetites.

The Aquashuttle: The AQV as drawn onscreen has zero credibility as a flying submersible at least in my eyes. Far more convincing is ADF's description of the craft in his adaptaion of "The Ambergris Element." He described it as generally ovoid in shape with a bubble on top from where the pilot flies the ship. This ship will diverge far mare than either of the other two shuttles and my approach will lean more towards ADF's concept while adapting elements of the TAS onscreen version. A thumbnail sketch of my concept will look something more like the submersible _Proteus_ from the 1966 sf film _Fantastic Voyage,_ but my ship will look more Trek like. Wait until you see it before you pass judgment.

That's it for now.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

With luck this week I'll begin posting some finished sheets. And I will share a bit of a surprise with you. By cleaning up my drawings with more precise linework and also redesigning the aft landing pad I've arrived at a final ship that is not only a tad shorter than I originally expected yet also a tad roomier inside. My final length came out as--get this--_25.88 ft_ (25'-9.56") with a 5.8 ft. interior ceiling (a smidgen over 5'-9") and a _slightly_ longer interior as well. Not bad I must say. 25.88 ft. puts the main hull length pretty damn close to the mythical 24 ft. figure referenced by Kirk, close enough that one could rationalize that he may well have misremembered the rounded off figure when he made his reference to it.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^Sounds great, Warped!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

While you are all waiting for tastes of the main course here is a little sampling of what's coming down the road from your's truly.



What this _early_ concept doesn't show are some of the changes I've in mind for parts of the ship not immediately visible. My aft and top views will be rather different than what we saw onscreen as will my interior. The interior will look more TOS like and the aft view reveals the impulse engines located on either side of the hull yet totally absent on the onscreen ship.

Also my backstory explains the ship's overall design more because the ship is meant to be a vehicle not designed by Starfleet, but rather it being an existing design adapted for Starfleet's purposes--a practice certainly not unknown in today's military forces. In fact that is pretty much my rationale for all three of the TAS designs.

My analogy is the Class F shuttle is somewhat analogous to the Bell UH1 Huey helicopter so familiarly connected to the Vietnam war. While the TAS scoutship is somewhat like a business jet (like a Challenger or a Learjet) or the Bell Jetranger helicopter (originally rejected by the military around 1961), a civilian aircraft later adapted for military and government use.

Essentially during the 2250s and '60s Starfleet faced a new challenge brought about by the significant advancements in starship propulsion. Their new generation of ships were ranging farther than ever imagined and subsequently new bases and outposts were established further and further out. The challenge was that newer and faster ships weren't always available for simple personnel, VIP or small cargo transport. Thus Starfleet desired a small, fast transport (effectively a 23rd century version of a runabout) for routine transport duty. Rather than invest time and funds in developing a clean sheet vehicle specifically for their needs they first shopped around to see if there were any civilian vehicles available somewhere in the Federation that could be more quickly and cheaply adapted to their needs. Several civilian ships were considered before they contracted TGir Space of Vulcan to adapt one of their civilian duty designs for Starfleet use. Hence the Tgir RLT (Rapid Longrange Transport) more commonly known as the Scoutship.

Just a thought.


----------



## CaptCBoard (Aug 3, 2002)

I just came across this thread today, so I've arrived late to the party. But, I've read the entire thread and would like to voice my own conclusions, if no one minds. These opinions are not meant to whack anyone's knuckles, but I have to say something that I didn't see anyone voice in the entire thread.

Question: At what point in the admiration of all that is sacred in the Star Trek universe did it become acceptable for the fans to make changes?

I know that seems to be a harsh question, but if God specified the measurements for the Ark, was it really up to Noah to fudge them if they didn't make sense to him? Of course this is a ridiculous comparision, but then again the only interior meant to fit into the exterior of the shuttle is the one we see when the doors are open. What you guys are worrying about is similar to what will happen if something like a Phaser is actually invented, but when someone tries to make one look like the one on Star Trek and the components won't quite fit, he changes the design and says "this is the way it should have been".

The best test of this is to simply look at the shot of Kirk and company standing outside the shuttle, posted earlier, and compare it to the composite showing the different sizes of the shuttle-- only the small, as-built one looks correct in relation to the human figure (if you adjust the drawing-- the shuttle in the photo is raised a tad off the ground). I'm as much as a completist as the next guy, but I don't understand why it is so important to fix what was never intended to be fixed. It is as if you guys are accusing MJ of making a bad decision and fixing it for him. And since I know you will disagree, look at it from another point of view...

If you were to build the shuttle to any other dimensions than the original, exactly where in the show would you find that version? It would not exist. This is akin to someone who is 6 foot 6 and has created captain's uniform to fit himself and then claiming it is exactly like the one Shatner wore. True, the details are there, its the same shape and made of the same material; but if Shatner put it on, it would not fit. Could Shatner wear it in a scene? No.

For me, the only way to really portray the great designs of Star Trek is to just get the best reference and start building. As to the relatively minor descripancies between the model and the full-size shuttle, I'd go with the lines of the model and the dimensions of the full-size. They were both done from the same blueprints, so they have to be very close to identical. 

As far as the downward slant to the exterior shuttle set, none of the 'feet' on the set actually held the weight of the set. It was designed so the nacelles could be attached after the main body was placed in front of camera, so it supported itself whether the nacelles were in place or not. Nothing sagged, warped or changed shape. Over time the supports that actually contacted the floor were probably bent or broken and rebuilt. I suspect they just moved it onto stage one day and something went wrong and they didn't have the time to fix it. They either did nothing, or not enough, and got the shots-- which were much more important at the time than getting the shuttle to sit pretty for the camera. I worked in the business for 18 years and saw things like that happen plenty of times!

Scott


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

CaptCBoard said:


> Question: At what point in the admiration of all that is sacred in the Star Trek universe did it become acceptable for the fans to make changes?
> 
> I know that seems to be a harsh question, but if God specified the measurements for the Ark, was it really up to Noah to fudge them if they didn't make sense to him?


Well, yes, I believe it _would_ have been up to Noah to change the measurements of the Ark if he couldn't fit all the animals in!

I suppose it's a matter of philosophy. Are you trying to build a precise scale replica of a full-size set (or a studio miniature used to represent it in FX shots)? Practical sets, miniatures and vehicle mockups made for movies and TV are designed and built to fit the needs of production. For most modelers, the fun (and the challenge) of duplicating a SF vehicle in miniature is to think, "What would this thing be like if it really existed?" As regards the ST:TOS shuttlecraft, fitting the actual interior set into the exterior mockup is clearly imposible. The only alternative to "fudging" the dimensions is to eliminate the interior altogether. If you do that, where's the fun?


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Hi Scott,

First, everyone is open to their opinion on this... it is a TV show, try to have some fun with it. 



CaptCBoard said:


> Question: At what point in the admiration of all that is sacred in the Star Trek universe did it become acceptable for the fans to make changes?


I can't give you an exact date, but some where around 1969/1970 would be a pretty good starting point.



> I know that seems to be a harsh question, but if God specified the measurements for the Ark, was it really up to Noah to fudge them if they didn't make sense to him? Of course this is a ridiculous comparision, but then again the only interior meant to fit into the exterior of the shuttle is the one we see when the doors are open.


This is why I'm not a Christian... I'm sure that within the Christian faith it would be okay for the interior of the ark to be physically larger than the exterior (God would fix that with a miracle).

Star Trek, while enjoyed by millions of devoted fans, has become a very technical hobby for many. In fact many of the scientists and researchers of today were inspired by Star Trek. Star Trek isn't a faith, and fans tend to revolt these days when technical discrepancies pop up.

Of course this has happen far less on later shows than TOS as the people making those shows were former fans of the shows... another example of when fans started shaping the Star Trek Universe.



> What you guys are worrying about is similar to what will happen if something like a Phaser is actually invented, but when someone tries to make one look like the one on Star Trek and the components won't quite fit, he changes the design and says "this is the way it should have been".


What we are doing is a mental exercise... which I can tell you is never a waste of time. The technical skills needed in this exercise are quite valuable. The brain is very much like a muscle, if it is not taxed and challenged, it becomes weak and unable to grasp difficult concepts.

I would point out that it was the process of trying to fit the components of a communicator into the case of a communicator that led directly to our mobile phones of today (which are smaller than the original communicator).

The same thing happened with the PADDs from TNG where people at places like Apple started asking _why can't we have something like that today?_ And so they tried. The early Newton prototypes looked a lot like the TNG PADDs.









Newton Prototype by Apple Computer​



> The best test of this is to simply look at the shot of Kirk and company standing outside the shuttle...


And yet that one clearly shows that the shuttle interior as filmed wouldn't fit.

There are two things you can do... ignore this and go about your business or attempt to reconcile the live interior with the live exterior and the miniature. This thread is for people interested in attempting to reconcile.



> If you were to build the shuttle to any other dimensions than the original, exactly where in the show would you find that version? It would not exist.


None of the show's stuff exists, so why worry about it?

This is a technical exercise for technical people. Warped9 has set up what he thinks are good parameters to work around and we are going to see what he comes up with.



> For me, the only way to really portray the great designs of Star Trek is to just get the best reference and start building. As to the relatively minor descripancies between the model and the full-size shuttle, I'd go with the lines of the model and the dimensions of the full-size. They were both done from the same blueprints, so they have to be very close to identical.


Well, more screen time was devoted to the interior set of the shuttlecraft than the miniature or exterior set... wouldn't that be a good place to start looking for references? 



> Nothing sagged, warped or changed shape.


Sadly, we covered this area and there is evidence that the shuttlecraft changed position when it was relieved of almost 500 lb of weight... but that has nothing to do with this project.

Honestly, if this isn't what you are into... then this is not the thread for you. I don't think that any of us completely agrees on anything to do with the shuttlecraft, but we all share the same interest in how to reconcile what was on screen. And in the case of this thread, Warped9 is presenting us with his views and we are enjoying his efforts.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

CaptCBoard said:


> I just came across this thread today, so I've arrived late to the party. But, I've read the entire thread and would like to voice my own conclusions, if no one minds. These opinions are not meant to whack anyone's knuckles, but I have to say something that I didn't see anyone voice in the entire thread.
> 
> Question: At what point in the admiration of all that is sacred in the Star Trek universe did it become acceptable for the fans to make changes?
> 
> ...


Much of this has already been responded to well enough. I can only say that what we saw onscreen was inconsistent, and the fullsize exterior mock-up itself was inconsistent with Kirk's reference of the shuttlecraft being 24ft. in size because the exterior mock-up isn't even 21ft. long. TV and film production is very much the art of illusion that at least sometimes doesn't always come across convincingly.

Here's another case in point: is the left and unseen side of the _Enterprise_ symetrically identical to the usually seen right side? Some say "yes" and others disagree. I think it was essentially meant to be as the 33in. filming miniature seems to attest and also that they used reversible decals to simulate seeing the left side of the ship. Yet I've seen numerous physical and cgi models as well as drawings from enthusiastic fans that have done it both ways. So who is right?

My shuttlecraft cannot lay claim to being the definitive version of what we saw onscreen. Like others before me and likely others that may follow I'm simply trying to make things fit together as best as I can. It's a hobby that actually forces me to use skills I learned long ago in technical drawing and math that I once thought I'd never use. It also stimulates my mind in a way my day job rarely if ever does. And I enjoy it as a hobby with other like minded folks. It doesn't hurt anyone and it's at least as interesting as other things people pursue so what's the beef?


----------



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

CaptCBoard said:


> I just came across this thread today, so I've arrived late to the party. But, I've read the entire thread and would like to voice my own conclusions, if no one minds. These opinions are not meant to whack anyone's knuckles, but I have to say something that I didn't see anyone voice in the entire thread.
> 
> Question: At what point in the admiration of all that is sacred in the Star Trek universe did it become acceptable for the fans to make changes?
> 
> I know that seems to be a harsh question, but if God specified the measurements for the Ark, was it really up to Noah to fudge them if they didn't make sense to him?


Question: At what point did it become acceptable for people old enough to know the meaning of the word "sacred" to apply it to a television show?




CaptCBoard said:


> I just came across this thread today, so I've arrived late to the party. But, I've read the entire thread and would like to voice my own conclusions, if no one minds. These opinions are not meant to whack anyone's knuckles, but I have to say something that I didn't see anyone voice in the entire thread.
> 
> Question: At what point in the admiration of all that is sacred in the Star Trek universe did it become acceptable for the fans to make changes?
> 
> I know that seems to be a harsh question, but if God specified the measurements for the Ark, was it really up to Noah to fudge them if they didn't make sense to him?


I can't speak to Warped's thread here. But in my Galileo thread that Phil also contributed tons of time to, I spent hundreds of hours drawing 2D plans(about 100MB's of them and photo analysis/measurement) and conferring with FourMadMen to help him get his 3D model to the place where it is now.

I have to say our efforts had nothing to do with changing anything other then trying to create a shuttle as it would have existed had the stage prop been built to match the size of the more often seen interior.


Warped's thread is a bit different. The only thing I've seen Warped draw so far that isn't basically re-massaged versions of Phil's drawings(nothing wrong with that as long as Phil doesn't mind and he obviously doesn't based on his statements here) is his redesigned landing pads.

I don't really understand Warped's contention that the original landing pads don't seem shaped right...

... except perhaps it might be a subconscious thing based around the fact that the AMT and Franz Joseph pads were built rounded rather then the rectangular patterns used on the stage prop.

That's the only part of Warped's posts that don't make sense to me. If the aim is to make something more believable I'd start from the axiom of keeping everything that you can keep original original.

But in the upscaling of the exterior there are a couple of different ways that can be taken on key points like the door and windows.

I don't think any of them amount to "sacriledge" though.

This is just a pleasant, enjoyable exercise. I'm enjoying it, and hope Warped continues.:thumbsup:



CaptCBoard said:


> I just came across this thread today, so I've arrived late to the party. But, I've read the entire thread and would like to voice my own conclusions, if no one minds. These opinions are not meant to whack anyone's knuckles, but I have to say something that I didn't see anyone voice in the entire thread.
> 
> Question: At what point in the admiration of all that is sacred in the Star Trek universe did it become acceptable for the fans to make changes?
> 
> I know that seems to be a harsh question, but if God specified the measurements for the Ark, was it really up to Noah to fudge them if they didn't make sense to him?


While I like the character of Kirk, God he aint! :lol:

And since he's not, we should assume that unlike God, the character of Kirk isn't perfect and may occassionally misspeak, say one thing while picturing another, or otherwise make a mistake or two.

Your argument sounds a lot like the one of a guy who was divorced by a wife had to use the DNA off of their sheets to prove his infidelity.

She had walked in on him having sex with another woman. 

Her husband said nothing. The woman took off after quickly dressing.
He quietly made the bed, showered and dressed while she sobbed and yelled for an explaination.

He sat down at the table and asked her why dinner wasn't started.

After once again demanding a sobbing explaination, he demanded of her:

"You didn't see any of what you think you saw. Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"

Who are we to believe, an offhanded comment from the stressed out character of Kirk who thought his friends were possibly lost forever, 

or own own eyes that clearly tell us that a 24 foot interior is not going to go into a 21 foot exterior? A 24 foot shuttlecraft exists nowhere but on the lips of a distraught character who was obviously wrong.

Are we to believe that in the 24th Century no one ever ever simply misspeaks? That he couldn't possibly have been thinking about long trips spent in the relatively crampt 24 foot interior of the two cabins? 

Strangely enough the two cabins are almost exactly 24 feet from the front inside of the windows to the back of the rear cabin cylinders.





CaptCBoard said:


> What you guys are worrying about is similar to what will happen if something like a Phaser is actually invented, but when someone tries to make one look like the one on Star Trek and the components won't quite fit, he changes the design and says "this is the way it should have been".
> 
> The best test of this is to simply look at the shot of Kirk and company standing outside the shuttle, posted earlier, and compare it to the composite showing the different sizes of the shuttle-- only the small, as-built one looks correct in relation to the human figure (if you adjust the drawing-- the shuttle in the photo is raised a tad off the ground). I'm as much as a completist as the next guy, but I don't understand why it is so important to fix what was never intended to be fixed. It is as if you guys are accusing MJ of making a bad decision and fixing it for him. And since I know you will disagree, look at it from another point of view...
> 
> If you were to build the shuttle to any other dimensions than the original, exactly where in the show would you find that version? It would not exist.


*Where in the show does the 24 foot version exist?*

*It doesn't! *

*No where is a 24 foot shuttlecraft shown onscreen. Kirk simply spoke about a 24 foot long shuttle.*
*It is obvious that neither the exterior nor a ship capable of holding the interior set are 24 feet long!*

*Yes, if you go by the interior the exterior has to be waaay longer then 24 feet, if you go by what is seen of the exterior it is less then 22 feet, the two don't agree.*

*But still I must ask you again:* 

*Where in the show does the 24 foot version exist?*

*It doesn't!*

*Aha!!*

*Gotcha, Mr. Canonite!* :lol:

Go remove the plank from thy own eye!!!!



CaptCBoard said:


> What you guys are worrying about is similar to what will happen if something like a Phaser is actually invented, but when someone tries to make one look like the one on Star Trek and the components won't quite fit, he changes the design and says "this is the way it should have been".


And???

Who is to say that someone will not build a properly sized shuttle?

AMT built the exterior prop under what MJ described as severe budgetary constraints. Because they paid for the exterior and the miniature in exchange for the rights to do the model kit doesn't mean they agreed to build anything of any design or size MJ wanted.

Actually there is solid evidence from MJ that they refused to do so.
MJ's original design was very rounded and much larger even on paper.
Even though AMT was paying for it in exchange for the rights to the model kit, MJ himself has said he was forced to change the design due to budgetary constraints.

That constraint was quite simply defined by what AMT was willing to build.
They also may have had some technical constraints as to what they could build(that's a guess), but they unquestionably told MJ that the first design was too expensive. There may have been other problems not mentioned about the first design, but MJ was definitely told that the shuttle had to be redesigned because of cost if for no other reason.

MJ already had to redesign the shuttle due to cost, *is it more believable that the shuttle was too small because it would likewise have been too expensive to build a shuttle long enough to hold the interior set MJ built and designed,*

*or is it more believable that MJ intentionally designed the exterior stage prop to be too small to hold the interior stage set?*

Personally I think its 999 times more likely that the exterior stage prop was built too small because of budget contraints then because MJ didn't know what he was doing.


I doubt MJ wanted wanted an interior and exterior that did not agree onscreen. He was a talented artist and quite intelligent.

Give the guy a little more credit then assuming he could not count and measure properly. Jefferies deserves more respect then that! 






The stage mockup was about 21 feet, give or take six inches.

I've received an email from someone who was involved in the last known restoration of the Galileo. According to him it was a little bit under 22 feet, but more importantly, having helped get it off a large size boat trailer, the reason for the size seemed to be obvious to him:

if they had scaled it any bigger it would not have fit securely on a standard trailer and would have been tremendously more expensive for AMT to transport across country to Hollywood from their assembly facility.

Use of 3/4 and smaller size sets due to budget constraints are very common.
With the exception of one or two shots, the vast majority of the angles used to shoot the shuttle also suggest that attempts were made to mask the true scale of the shuttle.

The interior of the shuttle saw *waaaaaay* more air time then the exterior of the shuttle.

So it's dimensions are no less valid then the exterior.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ *Chuck*, it's only the aft landing pad I've redone and you haven't yet seen my revised version of that which is a little more like the original. The forward landing pads will remain as they were in Phil's drawings.

The vehicle (or the three versions we saw of it) was a compromise due to constraints imposed upon them. And so there is room to speculate on what we might have gotten if they'd been totally free to do hat they wished.

I do have one question: does anyone know what scale the exterior miniature was built to? 

And finally, if they referenced a measurement of 24ft. onscreen then they had to have known that their fullsize interior set was grossly inconsistent with a small craft.

Like the tv version my shuttlecraft is a compromise to arrive at an integrated whole with the added consideration of accepting it as a "real" vehicle or as close as I can get to it. By that I mean applying real world considerations to make it all seem just a little more credible.

Despite their occasional missteps _Star Treek_ cast a powerful spell that left many of us fervently wanting to believe what it showed us could be real under the right circumstances. I think that is still true for many of us as best evidenced by our still debating and analyzing these things after all these years.


----------



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

I meant to use the singular when referring to your more rounded rear pad and the plural when talking about the AMT pads. My mistake.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ No probs.


----------



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

Warped9 said:


> ^^ *Chuck*, it's only the aft landing pad I've redone and you haven't yet seen my revised version of that which is a little more like the original. The forward landing pads will remain as they were in Phil's drawings.
> 
> The vehicle (or the three versions we saw of it) was a compromise due to constraints imposed upon them. And so there is room to speculate on what we might have gotten if they'd been totally free to do hat they wished.
> 
> ...


You are making another assumption and talking about two different groups of people as if they are the same.

The writers for the Galileo Seven probably didn't have all the shuttlecraft size and scale issues explained to them, considering the stage prop barely arrived in time to shoot the episode.

In one scene the writers had the actors apparently enter the craft from the rear cabin, which certainly proves that the same writers who put the 24 foot length in Kirk's mouth certainly didn't understand the craft when writing the first episode it appeared in.

Chances are the writers wrote the line where Kirk mentions the length and didn't know it. They probably simply had someone attempt to measure it with a tape measure.

If someone were the measure the centerline of a 21.xx foot long shuttlecraft, due to the fact that the ship gets wider as you go further aft they could easily come up with a couple of extra feet.

Because of course, the slanted outer walls are longer then the distance from bow to stern. This is most easily seen and understood by looking at an overhead view. 

Also the rear of the nacelles extend past the side walls by a few inches. That added to the flaring width of the sides would easily explain the screwed up length the writers used.

So it is quite possible that the writers had someone do a quick and dirty tape measurement of the 21.xx foot craft and end up being off do to the fact that the sides flair out and are longer then the fore to aft length of the craft.

That is not to say that MJ and his crew didn't know about the discrepancy.

I have no doubt that MJ and the design crew knew about the inconsistency and planned to use camera angles to help disguise the disparity.

I believe they probably intended to use camera angles to help obscure the true size of the shuttle, they probably would have gone into more detail about the craft with the writers.

However, since it barely made it in time for shooting they never got the time. 

Even so, if it weren't for the invention of videotape and DVD's and the subsequent dissection of the episodes fans have participated in over the years the difference between the two would probably remained mostly unnoticed. The difference didn't leap out at me until after seeing FJ's version in the Tech Manual and then while comparing it in reruns realized why he redesigned his interior so radically.

In my case, though I probably had seen a half dozen reruns of the episode, until I came across Trekkist's groundbreaking blueprinting work to upscale the exterior, the approximate size needed to contain the interior didn't occur to me.

Furthermore, until Phil's attempts to do literal plans of the Exterior stage prop and closely studing his photos myself, I would have never guessed the original length was a tad under 22 feet and that the stage prop was probably 8-10 feet too small.

Though not the brightest guy in the world, I'm sure I'm not the only one who may have noticed a difference, but never appreciated the extent of the difference before seeing Trekkist's work and seriously studying quite a lot of stills.



Warped9 said:


> I do have one question: does anyone know what scale the exterior miniature was built to?


There is no way of knowing for sure. 3/4 scale was a very common downsizing scale at the time and even today.

But since the shuttle with the wings off was just a few inches narrow enough to be fit on a large boat trailer and toed around without taking up two lanes of traffic...

... there is even the possibility that AMT made it as large as they could without having to make special shipping arrangements and it was an oddball scale.

No way of knowing for sure.

Using Phil's measurement of 20'11.747" (and adding a couple of inches to it that the rear landing pad extends from the rear of the nacelle in his version) and adding 33% to that length it would be a little bit longer then 28 feet long if the stage prop was intended to be a 3/4th scale ship.

Still that would not have been enough room to fit the entire interior set as built by two to three feet. But considering that they had to start constructing the interior set before the exterior ship arrived it's an understandable discrepency.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I don't blame MJ or the people who built the sets and mock-up for the incorrect reference in the script. I suspect as things came together everyone came to realize that things didn't gel yet there was nothing they could do about it.

It now remains for the individual to decide which take on the shuttlecraft is more "real" to them. And it will never be resolved until or even if a TOS era film or show is again mounted and another Class F shuttlecraft is constructed and how they might decide to do it.

Ideally for me I'd love the fullsize standing interior as seen onscreen, but when i try to put that into the exterior we're familiar with the result is a vehicle that is too unwieldy in size to be practical as it's designed. And hence begin the compromises to get the craft within a scale that is at least workable without sacrificing too much of how it was depicted onscreen.

Now a few more exterior details to finish up and then I'll move on to finalizing my interior.


----------



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

Warped9 said:


> I don't blame MJ or the people who built the sets and mock-up for the incorrect reference in the script. I suspect as things came together everyone came to realize that things didn't gel yet there was nothing they could do about it.
> 
> It now remains for the individual to decide which take on the shuttlecraft is more "real" to them. And it will never be resolved until or even if a TOS era film or show is again mounted and another Class F shuttlecraft is constructed and how they might decide to do it.
> 
> Ideally for me I'd love the fullsize standing interior as seen onscreen, but when i try to put that into the exterior we're familiar with the result is a vehicle that is too unwieldy in size to be practical as it's designed.


 
Perhaps literally as seen on screen.

However, based on the latest rescaled cross section FourMadMen and I came up with, I believe a shuttlecraft can be built with an interior that is indistinguishable(unnoticably smaller) and the craft be totally believable.

In the case of the image below the ship is 30'11.586514625" long.
N.B. the computer consoles need to be made a very small amount larger but everything else is to scale with a real world craft of 30'11.586".

The ship has had two feet length removed from the interior by taking exactly six inches off of the first cabin sections that are delineated by the vertical panel lines. Like Phil's, the distance between what was standard 48 inch wide wall sections was reduced to 42 inches.










Personally I think slightly under 31 feet isn't too long, IMHOpinion. It would be a tight fit in a 947 foot Enterprise shuttlebay, as Phil has said, but it would still work.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> I do have one question: does anyone know what scale the exterior miniature was built to?





Chuck_P.R. said:


> There is no way of knowing for sure. 3/4 scale was a very common downsizing scale at the time and even today. . . Using Phil's measurement of 20'11.747" (and adding a couple of inches to it that the rear landing pad extends from the rear of the nacelle in his version) and adding 33% to that length it would be a little bit longer then 28 feet long if the stage prop was intended to be a 3/4th scale ship.


Exqueeze me, but I believe Warped9 was asking about the scale of the exterior _miniature_, which, as I recall, was built at a scale of one inch to the foot or 1/12 (making it about 21 inches long). I assume the miniature was scaled directly from the full-size mockup, not from any putative "real" shuttlecraft dimensions.


----------



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

scotpens said:


> Exqueeze me, but I believe Warped9 was asking about the scale of the exterior _miniature_, which, as I recall, was built at a scale of one inch to the foot or 1/12 (making it about 21 inches long). I assume the miniature was scaled directly from the full-size mockup, not from any putative "real" shuttlecraft dimensions.


You know what happens when you assume!!!

The exterior mockup was/is(if it still exists) under 22 feet long.

So either your 1/12th scale or 21 inch long assumption would have to be incorrect. Actually for more then one reason.

I have some very exact measurements of the filming miniature that I'll look up.
But no one can say it's true scale as we have no idea what scale the exterior mock up is. It's not 24 feet long, regardless of the line the writers inserted in Kirks mouth.

Remember these are the same writers who wrote a line in the Galileo script that had McCoy and another actor enter the front cabin from a second exterior door that they thought existed but didn't.

I personally think it make more sense to assume the *external* mockup(it literally cannot be termed full scale), was supposed to represent a craft capable of holding the interior - which was seen onscreen much longer then the full-scale mockup, then to assume the sub 22 foot mockup was built in a 1:1 scale.

That doesn't fit either anything seen *nor* said onscreen.



But thanks for pointing out that he was talking about the miniature and not the mockup. Stupid me totally missed that.


----------



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

Filming miniature was right at 21.5" long if you measure to where the original nacelle endcaps should have terminated(slightly aft of main hull's endpoint of about 21.375").

Credit for info goes to Phil Broad's photos of the filming miniature next to photographer's scale.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I'm sure most of you know about Phil's page on the Shuttlecraft but just in case here is the URL. I'm not sure if you can judge the dimensions from the photos there of the full size mockup going to waste in the studio parking lot!

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


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Yep. That is what I was asking. Things get murky because the miniature of the hangar deck appears to have been built with forced perspective in mind which also clouds the issue of how big the miniature was supposed to appear.

*Chuck*, my concern in terms of size and practicality has little to do with length (I could comfortably live with a 28-31ft. vehicle), but rather with height because as the craft's height goes up the matter of ease of entry/exit to and from the craft becomes problematical. I may or may not have mentioned it before but if the vehicle were consigned strictly to operating between mothership and spaceport then you could have some step support or small gantry system in place to facilitate entry and exit. But since you're using the craft to land places where more likely than not there is no support system then I think you have to consider relative ease of entry/exit.

Or in the immortal words of Tweety: "That first step (or two) is a woo-woo."


----------



## CaptCBoard (Aug 3, 2002)

I was just razzing you guys. I understand what you are discussing and why. My problem is I am always up against the accuracy wall in the models I make for my clients and speculation as to what may or should have been has no place there. I put in the interior that fits, accurate or not, because the emphasis is on how the exterior appeared on screen.

I plan on doing the Galileo in the future, at the same size as the 1:12 scale model but with the detail of the exterior set. 

Of course, none of you guys will be interested in that!

Scott


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

CaptCBoard said:


> I plan on doing the Galileo in the future, at the same size as the 1:12 scale model but with the detail of the exterior set.
> 
> Of course, none of you guys will be interested in that!


Sure we would.

My last shuttlecraft project was to help design and construct an exact replica of the interior set... which (as we all know) has almost no relation to the exterior set or models.

Being interested in someone's project to reconcile the interior and exterior versions of the shuttlecraft does not exclude them from being interested in exact replicas of either the interior or exterior versions. All of these can be very interesting to fans of TOS.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ True.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

CaptCBoard said:


> I was just razzing you guys.


LOL, and I thought the controversy of opinions was bad during the TOS Enterprise offset angle bridge discussions about if the elevator was on the centerline or not!

It gets the blood pumping though and gets people thinking so that is good


----------



## beeblebrox (Jul 30, 2003)

Found some old pics on my computer of my scratchbuild. You can tell from the interior pic that it is less than a 6ft ceiling. One way to compromise, anyway.
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/beeblebrox424242/album?.dir=5c86scd&.src=ph


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Great looking build, Beeble!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

God willing I hope to post the first batch of my exterior view sheets within the next day or so. It's maddening how I keep coming across little nitpicking details that I almost overlooked--kinda fun though. Although I've used Phil Broad's excellent drawings of the fullsize exterior mock-up as the initial template my "massaging" of the ship and trying to add extra detail ends up being a lot of work. I'm effectively redrawing everything. Plus there is the matter of integrating some elements of the filming miniature to achieve an integrated whole. I'm rather pleased with the result (that I hope to soon share with you all) even though what I have is _not_ an exact reproduction of the fullsize mock-up or the miniature but a ship that still looks near exactly like the ship we see onscreen. I have had to mofify and even change _some_ things to achieve the end result and it remains with the individual whether they agree with my changes.

By the end of the week I want to be focused solely on finishing off the interior sheets.

Please stay tuned.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Here we go.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Beautiful!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Although the scale is stated in Imperial measurement on the sheets I may substitute add or even substitute a metric scale bar. Just a thought.

I also tried printing out a couple of sample sheets and I'm rather pleased with how they came out.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Looks awesome!
Don't forget the stiffeners under the pylons.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

KUROK said:


> Looks awesome!
> Don't forget the stiffeners under the pylons.


No. This is 23rd century tech and science that has materiels lighter and far stronger than anything we have--note the slender pylons of the _E_ herself connecting massive warp nacelles to the support hull. I'm drawing a _23rd century_ vehicle and not a 20th century tv mock-up.


----------



## Richard Compton (Nov 21, 2000)

Warped9 said:


> Sheet O: Cover Page
> Sheet 1: Class F Port Elevation
> Sheet 2: Class F Starboard Elevation
> Sheet 3: Class F Bow Elevation
> ...


 Great drawings. Interesting idea in eliminating the trusses.

I would suggest you include a bonus sheet explaining your changes and reasoning. It's a little difficult to tell exactly what all you changed from the various interior/exterior/model versions (without reading this entire thread and assembling different plans). Perhaps you could put yours along side drawings of the others and call out points of interest like scaling and alterations. I realize that you're probably preparing this group of plans to be as if the shuttle were real, that's why I suggest it be done as a bonus sheet so it won't get mixed up with the others.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

There really wouldn't be a list of changes in an actual set of general plans for a "real" ship.

Still, changes?

I altered the aft landing pad. This isn't actually a rendering of the tv fullsize mock-up or interior set because I've integrated aspects of the filming miniature while adapting the fullsize interior and the undersized exterior into a whole vehicle. So the nose of the ship isn't as flat as the fullsize mock-up, My ship also isn't as obviously "nose down" either although that aspect is subtly still there. The underbelly of my ship is more like the filming miature as opposed to the fullsize mock-up.

Changes you'll see when I post the interior views: Inside there's less proprotional space between the rear set of seats and the bulkhead before the aft compartment. There will be a toilet and food system in the aft compartment opposite the battery access seen in "The Galileo Seven" (this can be argued as a change because we never saw that part of the shuttlecraft--it's more filling the blanks).

There will be some more obvious changes when I post images of my Class H shuttlecraft since it is meant to be a modified or "tuner" version of the Class F. The Class H is my take on what a "rea'l" long range shuttlecraft would look like as opposed to the much too large vehicle seen in TAS' "The Slaver Weapon."


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I've since added a metric scale bar to the drawings as opposed to just stating the scale. And I've used the TOS hull font found on The IDIC Page for more accurate markings.

Now here's a question.

At some point I'll be doing my specifications page. The one thing I'm at a loss for is deadweight tonnage. Keeping in mind that this vehicle is a product of 23rd century science and tech with materiels lighter and stronger than anything we have then what could a Class F shuttlecraft weigh?


----------



## Dogman_D (Apr 14, 2006)

just keep this in mind the f117a stealth bomber is made from composits but still ways a deal over a ton I think.


----------



## portland182 (Jul 19, 2003)

Dogman_D said:


> just keep this in mind the f117a stealth bomber is made from composits but still ways a deal over a ton I think.


Weight of a F117A = 52,500 pounds (23,625 kilograms)

from
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/mf22.htm

As a US ton = 2000lbs
Then an F117A = 26.25 tons.

So yes it was a deal over a ton

Jim


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> The one thing I'm at a loss for is deadweight tonnage. Keeping in mind that this vehicle is a product of 23rd century science and tech with materiels lighter and stronger than anything we have then what could a Class F shuttlecraft weigh?


With all the inconsistencies in Treknology over the decades, it's really more a matter of imagination and guesswork than hard science. Consider that, even 70-something years _after_ TOS, they have warp drive, transporters, beam weapons, food replicators and holodecks, but they still can't cure baldness!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

We could try this another way.

The _E_ has been referenced (in print anyway) at 190,000 tonnes and compared size wise to contemporary aircraft carrriers. To the best of my knowledge few aircraft carriers have ever edged over the 100,000 tonnes. Indeed the only one that comes to my is perhaps the _Nimitz_-class.

Now what today could be comparable to a 25.88ft. shuttlecraft? A Learjet? A fighter jet? A transit bus? An RV motorhome? What?

Just trying to get the creative gears goin' here.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

When considering weight, keep in mind that like all Hollywood "hero" ships, this one is built to be crash-proof. So it must be heavily built.


----------



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

Dogman_D said:


> just keep this in mind the f117a stealth bomber is made from composits but still ways a deal over a ton I think.


Due to the size of the bomber, I think a better comparison would be Boeing's prototype ATF that lost to skunkworks' ATF. It too had composite skin but was much smaller.

But again, we're still only talking about saving a few pounds from composite skins. Modern aircrafts' frameworks still use pretty heavy alloys.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> When considering weight, keep in mind that like all Hollywood "hero" ships, this one is built to be crash-proof. So it must be heavily built.


Well, using "The Galileo Seven" as an example we saw a vehicle after a "forced" landing. True we have no real idea how severe the landing was, but while some of the innards were jarred loose it seems the vehicle suffered little if any structural damage or at least nothing significant enough to prevent the ship from flying again. We must also consider that the craft's inertial system was certainly up to snuff because despite not having any form of physical restraint systems in regards to seats or anything else the crew and passengers suffered practically no notable injuries whatsoever during the forced landing. What all this speaks to me of is evidence of the sophisticated technology and engineering at work. Also mind that this vehicle did not land in any form similar to a small aircraft and appeared to have landed within a small clearing of rocky ground that would have precluded landing like a conventional airplane. The closest analogy may be more like the forced landing of a helicopter. Now how hard can some helicopters land before suffering significant structural damage?

Just thinking out loud.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> The closest analogy may be more like the forced landing of a helicopter.


That's the way I always figured it to be. I think you've hit the nail on the head. :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Now a little musing here on what I'm thinking on putting into my history of the vehicle. Even as more of Starfleet's new generation of starships were coming into service in the 2250s Starfleet realized they had a problem. As the new ships were capable of crossing distances never before imagined and new starbases and outposts were established ever farther out the then contemporary auxiliary craft carried aboard ships were quickly becoming obsolete and inadequate. When Starfleet made its interest and requirements known for new auxiliary support craft several proposals were submitted and subsequently evaluated. Eventually Starfleet favoured a proposal then known simply as the Mark 12 shuttlecraft. A Mark 12B prototype was extensively studied and tested and while Starfleet was still interested they also required extensive modifications. Most notably the vehicle had to be larger, have greater mission flexibility, greater range and in extent greater speed. The ensuing result was the Mark 12C prototype which eventually became the familiar Class F shuttlecraft. And a few years later the Class H variant was introduced into service.

The Class F and H have proven themselves remarkably reliable and sturdy work horses. Beyond an admirable service recard one of their great strengths is their mission adaptability. The interior of the vehicle can be quickly refitted for mission specific needs. Although extensive variations are possible the basic mission variants are standard survey and personnel transport (the familiar 7 person configuration), extended survey and investigation (similar to what was seen in "The Immunity Syndrome"), medical support (my idea for when the transporter is unavailable or cannot be used) and extended range (essentially a 3-man set-up). _(Note: thse variants will be shown in my drawings)_

I'm also musing on how the shuttlecraft's power systems actually work...in a sort of nebulous way anyway.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Finally something new.










You may notice I've made Sheet 19 a little more artistic than before. The Class H shuttlecraft differs a little in its external appearance since it is my take on a "real" version of the _Copernicus_ seen in TAS' "The Slaver Weapon." On that note I wanted some exterior features that might seem a little more like the TAS ship. The impulse engine detail was inspired by something I recalled from _TMoST._ In the book there is a drawing of the hangar deck where we see the shuttlecraft from the aft view and the detail is different from what we got onscreen. Not truly meaningful, but I did fancy the difference and built on it to detail that aft view of my Class H. The interior will differ a little more.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Aw man that's sweet! Sadly I've not been around during the discussions but I'll catch up. I can't stress enough how nice this works is!

During the creation of the CG shuttle I did some nacelle innards, mostly crude blocking out work. One idea that Perfesser Coffee came up with was M/A batteries (that I dubbed "Coffee Cans"). They we're mounted (4 as I recall per nacelle) on a carousel like housing at the back of the nacelle. My vision was that the inner assemply would slide out from the back (much like a modern day jet engine). I'm not offering this in an attempt to infulence you on your design but the idea of a M/A battery was in my mind a stroke of genius and I thought I'd share it here.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ I like the idea. I'm giving a lot of thought on what I can show of the innards between the exterior and interior hulls when I flesh out my interior views. I'dd like to show something of the stractural framework, the inertial system and shields, the sensors and drive guts. We'll see.

My niggling dilemma now is to somehow reconcile "ion engine power" with warp capability. Argh!

That said I will be ignoring most everything from TNG onward in terms of science and tech having been given little reason over the years to allow them any measure of credibility in such things.

Although it won't be part of this set of plans I'm mulling over the idea of tackling the hangar deck and related facilities. I've seen a couple of small photos of the original miniature hangar deck set and it has got me thinking.

After I'm finished with this current set of plans and related photoart I'm not sure whether I'll be tackling the TAS shuttles right off. I may try my hand at something different for a change and then come back to the TAS ships afterwards. We'll see. I've got a sizable collection of drawings I've done by hand over the years and some of which I wish to update in more polished form like these shuttlecraft schematics.

I've also a somewhat nebulous idea floating. Way back several years ago I toyed with the idea of collecting as many ship and tech drawings as possible and compiling a <i>Starflight Catalog</i> of Federation and alien ships. I got quite a good start, but then the prospects of getting something like that out without having to go through the agonies of dealing with Pocket Books and Paramount overwhelmed me. But technology has gotten to the point where I could do something like that affordably now. I'm rethinking my whole idea and considering something I call the <i>Starfleet Command Library.</i> It would be something like the original Franz Jospeh <i>Star Fleet Technical Manual</i> but more specific in certain areas and extrapolating from the wealth of "official" and fan generated materiel built up over the years. Suffice to say it would focus primarily upon the TOS-TMP era with some materiel on the pre-TOS 22nd century era. That said there would be absolutely no ackowledgement of the *f'd up* ENT continuity or materiel.

I would endeavour to include material seen onscreen as well as select "unofficial" materiel I've found over the years that I feel conveys a certain measure of authenticity almost as if it had been created by the actual TOS-TMP production staff themselves. Some of that includes the work of some individuals on this site as well as others I've met online from other sites.

What would make this idea workable in my view is that not only could this materiel be shared easily online (and hopefully on a website I eventually hope to get started), but it could also be easily put out on CD rather than the expense of printed hardcopy.

Anyway for now back to more mundane matters.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Please be kind. This is my first attempt at doing the "guts" of a ship.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Well done!
These will be a great reference for building a model.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Looks great! What size shuttle is that one?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

This shuttlecraft is 25.88ft. length overall. This cutaway is not yet completed as I've a few details I wish to add and I've also just noticed a typo to be corrected.

I also want to line up my antimatter bottle with a small square panel that can be seen near the centre of the ship in the aft view. My thinking is that this could be the external panel through which the antimatter bottle could be jettisoned if necessary. I'm theorizing that this is what could have happened in "The Galileo Seven" and consequently left them with needing an alternative fuel source. Scitty's line "one of the lines gave, probably the stress of coming through the atmosphere" amongst other things not mentioned could mean a situation ensued that necessitated them jettisoning their main fuel source.

Just thinking out loud.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Hurrah! Last night I was experimenting with Automator (part of my OS X Tiger on my eMac) and successfully and effortlessly created a PDF document out of my drawings (or what I have so far). Now when I'm finished the set I know I'll be able to share it out easily.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Great to hear! I'll be using your diagrams for scaling my model, for sure!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

The drawings I've worked on in Illustrator and Photoshop are layered drawings, but I then make a flattened finished copy in JPEG when finished. That 2D JPEG image is what I convert into a PDF file and then the collection of images into a PDF document. Automator allows me to save evrything that's required for a printer to make copies of the images.

Now there is one small catch here: The images are 11x17 in size and as far as I know most personal home printers cannot print that size. If someone wants the fullsize hardcopy then they'll have to copy the PDF document onto a CD or flash drive and take it to their local copy/print shop to print out the 11x17 sheets. I did it this way so that the drawings would be in actual 1/24 scale for the convenience of would-be modelers. They can take measurements right from the drawings rather than trying to scale up from something smaller. The larger sheets are also nicer to look at and harken bark to the large sheets of FJ's _Booklet Of General Plans._

I could make a separate PDF document with sheets that are 8.5x11, but then the image doesn't fill the page, and while it still looks nice (I've printed samples to see for myself) it doesn't make the same impression as the 11x17 versions.

And now here is something else to consider. I've decided to charge little for these plans, little more than the cost of materiels (blank CDs and shipping) and so the real expense would be for anyone taking their electronic copy to a copy/printing shop for printing. Even so I daresay the cost of printing out twenty-five 11x17 sheets will still be less than if you were paying for something like this from Pocket Books say. Put another way I recall paying something like about $12-$15 CAN for my original FJ plans back in the mid '70s. Those things would cost easily three or four times or more than that today. I know the last Pocket Books Trek reference books were easily in the $40-$60 CAN or so range over the past few years.

Beyond a few contributor's copies I still want to keep the expense of these things as low as possible. Fortunately contemporary home computer technology helps to do that. I know first hand how disappointing it is for devoted fans to feel they're being left out of the loop when they see desireable Trek merchandise at crazy prices. When I was doing fanzines for the Toronto Trek convention my friends and I set a target of $5 while others were routinely charging $15-$20 or more for their zines. We essentially covered our costs and each walked away with about $20 in our pockets for the weekend, about enough to cover our drinks and snacks over the weekend. So in the end it was a draw.

In a way I'm losing money because my time is not being charged for because this is still essentially a hobby and I'm not greedy, certainly not at the expense of fellow fans.


----------



## p3orion (Jun 30, 2006)

I just spent the last couple of hours reading over the whole thread. I love the thought process that went into deciding the final size. Any design process is a inevitably a matter of compromise, finding the right balance between competing elements. In this case two of the competing elements (arguably minor elements, depending on how much canon matters to you) include a set piece and a filming miniature that were made by people making not a spacecraft, but a set piece and a filming miniature. A third element was a throw-away statement ("24-foot shuttlecraft") in a script 40 years ago.

What some may deride as akin to counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, you have made an intellectual exercise. I would argue that what is "true" might be determined not by what came first, 40 years ago, but where the most thought has been expended. In the case of the shuttlecraft, that would probably be here. If that doesn't fit someone else's view of what's right, fine, that's their problem; you have nothing to apologize for.

Congratulations on the fine blueprints. I look forward to hearing how I can buy a set.

By the way, I think it could be well-argued that the landing pad, side fairings, and engine nacelles might well be ignored in stating the length of a shuttlecraft (just as you might ignore the breadth of the side mirrors, the height of the radio antenna, and the length of the trailer hitch to describe the size of my pickup.) Your sheet 14 gives an overall length of 7.888 meters, which equals 26.03 feet. On my computer screen, the top view measures 6.8 inches overall. In the same view, the distance from the nose of the shuttle to the back bulhead shown is 6.25 inches, which gives a length of 23.925 feet... awfully darn close to the holy grail 24 feet.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Something new while I'm working on the interior detrails.


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

^ Very nice.
Very nice, indeed.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

In some of the illustrations I hoped to evoke the sense of some of the drawings found in _The Making Of Star Trek._


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I'd say you've succeeded.


----------



## Sarvek (Jun 10, 2005)

I completely agree. Your artwork is truly fantastic and highly detailed. Keep up the great work and I am definately looking forward to more of your work. :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Regrettably what you can't really see here except as a vertical line just ahead of the atmospheric recycling tanks is the craft's basic food and beverage processor. This will be more visible in the forthcoming deck plan as well as the second aft cutaway view. It's my notion that this and the waste management system were primarily what was jettisoned to lighten the _Galileo's_ load in "The Galileo Seven."


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 1, 2001)

*Awesome Work!*

Please *do* tackle the hangar deck! I'd love to see how your resized shuttlecraft fits the deck and elevator, and how you see the hangar deck itself fitting into the Enterprise. I imagine you'll scale up the E a bit, like you did the shuttlecraft.

Great work!

Tom


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ I _might_ tackle the hangar deck at some point. I'm certainly curious to see what I could come up with. Sometimes these things can take a surprising turn. When I initially started my TOS shuttlecraft plans I fully expected to end up with a larger vehicle then what ended up with. My objective changed when I focused more on drawing up a more "real" vehicle with some real world considerations rather than draw an integrated studio filming mock-up. It became a larger issue than just scaling up the _Enterprise_ to fit a larger shuttlecraft into it. Looking at my plans now I could still prefer a vehicle a smidgen larger than what I have, but I'm so far along the project now that I wouldn't even consider going back to the beginning to rescale everything. And so a shuttlecraft 25.88ft. in length is it.

Certainly visiting the hangar deck in blueprint form would likely be in order for my _Starfleet Command Library_ project.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Something to look at just for the hell of it. I've since tried fitting my 25.88ft. shuttlecraft into both *aridas'* and *CRA's* cross-section drawings and it seems to fit comfortably in both. And so unless some unforseen and compelling issue arises I see no reason at present to not stay with a 947ft. _Enterprise._


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Slight clarification on the above.

It fits fine in the hangar deck of my version of the ship, not so much in the maintenance area one level down.

Since I rather like this take on the shuttlecraft, I'm thinking of lowering the deck level of the maintenance area by a foot or so, to accomodate this shuttle.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

It's been awhile but I'm still working on it. I'll have an update likely later today.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Here's a work in progress where the major components are all there yet detail work between the hulls remains to be done. Doing cross sections are a bitch, er, a lot of work.  The thing is just when you think you've accomplished something you discover some other overlooked aspect or detail. To some extent it's a lot of trial-and-error work. On top of which I'm certainly no aeronautical or aerospace engineer and so I lack that perspective and knowledge to build on and extrapolate from. Essentially I'm wingin' it here.

The exterior work is comparatively easy.









And here's a quick-and-dirty work-up of my idea for a live-action version of a TAS scene: the _Copernicus_ passing near Beta Lyra.


----------



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

Just for info sake, according to new info that MGagen was able to obtain from the AMT guy who built the interior set for the Galileo, if the Galileo were built to completely fit the as-seen onscreen interior set inside her, she would be almost exactly 33 feet long.

If one were to trim about 6 inches out of each of the sections seen in the first cabin, as done in Phil Broad and FourMadMen and I's versions of the Galileo, she would be a tad under 31 feet long.

I know that making blueprints of an as-seen-onscreen Galileo is not your key aim, but I thought you might like to know since you've been away for a awhile and might have missed MGagen's posts.

Have fun and looking forward to seeing more stuff, especially seeing you resurrect your "Never Seen TOS scenes" thread.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Well, that does tie in with my earlier versions of the vehicle at around 31ft. long, which I subsequently discarded because that size doesn't fit well in the _E's_ hangar deck even if it is scaled to 1080ft.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Taking another crack at it. The shuttlecraft is one of *FourMadMen's* cgi renders but tweaked by me to look a little more like my Class H shuttlecraft variant.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

> *dru said:*
> Possible bad news? I have no other information.


_*Sigh*_ You know it really is sad to see something like this.


----------



## Richard Compton (Nov 21, 2000)

Where was that posted originally Warped? I can't find it on this board.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

_*deleted*_


----------



## Richard Compton (Nov 21, 2000)

They got to him! Er, what happened?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I absentmindedly posted an image here that was meant for my Never seen TOS scenes thread.


----------



## Richard Compton (Nov 21, 2000)

Oh, well I'm still interested on where that photo came from.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Slow but steady progress.


----------



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

I can't see the above pic, Warped.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Really? I can see it clearly and on more than one computer. Send me your email and I can forward it to you if you can't resolve the issue. It's an image of the updated deck plan and beginnings of the ceiling plan (which I initially wasn't going to bother with, but I guess I'm just nuts and nitpicky :lol: )


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

He prolly can't see it for the same reasons I can't - the local COMM Nazis have blocked all free-photo sharing sites. I have to go over to the glacially slow Cyber Cafe to get to see pics from much of anywhere that aren't posted directly to Hobby Talk.


----------



## FishDS9 (Jan 3, 2006)

I can see it fine on my IP.


----------



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

You're probably right, Griff. I'm at work right now and we've got tons of restrictions that don't let lots of sources and sites load.

I'll probably be able to see it when I get home later tonight though.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

It can also be seen on the TBBS in the Arts forum under a thread of the same name as here.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

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


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> Slow but steady progress.


I should have put off posting these a day or so ago because just yesterday evening I've already got the interior lines of the exterior hull added in as well as the hatchway between hulls passage. Of interesting note of how things have seemed to magically line up: the port side service panel see under the stabilizer just happens to line up near perfectly with my waste management system (the toilet) and the service panel on the starboard side lines up just right with what I designated the ship's electrical system. Neato.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Looking good Warped. I hat to introduce any monkey wrenches but I believe it to be a small one. Shouldn't there be just 3 tanks in the back?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ From all the screencaps I've been able to study I could swear I could make out four. It isn't a huge difference, but if it really is only three than that would allow me a bit more space for my food & beverage processing system in the aft cabin. No biggee, but all views of the aft cabin through the doorway as seen onscreen never show us what is on the port side of the aft cabin.

I'm going to leave it as is for now, unless and until someone comes up with irrefutable proof otherwise. (-:


----------



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

It's definitely 3.

Check out some Galileo Screen captures I sent to FourMadMen that he posted on his website...


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> Of interesting note of how things have seemed to magically line up: the port side service panel see under the stabilizer just happens to line up near perfectly with my waste management system (the toilet) . . .


That brings up the intriguing question of how they dispose of lavatory waste on a 23rd century shuttlecraft. Is it jettisoned into space, or does it go to a holding tank to be pumped out when the craft is aboard the _Enterprise_, like today's airline and RV toilets? Both methods seem rather primitive. Or do they just disintegrate the stuff with a phaser beam? Have you given this more than a passing thought?


----------



## ilbasso (Jun 7, 2006)

I think I heard in one NextGen episode one time that all waste material on a star ship is broken down into molecules and recycled.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

That's how I figured it to be, too. I want to say it's even mentioned as such in the TNG Tech Manual, but don't have mine handy to reference.


----------



## portland182 (Jul 19, 2003)

ilbasso said:


> I think I heard in one NextGen episode one time that all waste material on a star ship is broken down into molecules and recycled.


Recycled as what?
I'm hoping that it's not as bad as I imagine...

Jim


----------



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

portland182 said:


> Recycled as what?
> I'm hoping that it's not as bad as I imagine...
> 
> Jim


What do you think the *Tang* that real astronauts drink is made out of? :lol:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Welllll... The "waste management system" happens be next to the shuttlecraft's own onboard food/beverage processor, which for all intents and purposes is a nanotech engine device (and to hell with TNG's nanites episode which was waaay behind the curve in introducing that idea as something "new" in the Trek universe). No doubt some of the crew's "waste" or even just plain garbage can be "reprocessed" into usable matter such as, ahem, drinking water if necessary. With such technology at hand it's likely the _Galileo's_ group wouldn't have died of thirst or starvation anytime soon if they could avoid being killed by Tarsus II's native inhabitants.

I was also able to include something I glimsped in TG7 episode. When McCoy and Yeoman Mears are jettisoning equipment one of the things they dispose of is a larger cylindrical object from the aft cabin which is never identified. My notion is that they had dismantled the aft port inside bulkead and subsequently jettisoned the onboard WMS and its sump tank, the food & beverage processor and the adjecent cylindrical shaped raw matter/filter tank for the f/b processor. That cylindrical object has already been added to my updated (yet to be posted) deck plan and can be seen between the inner and outer hulls connected to the f/b processor. The WMS has a pipe connection to the port service access panel (under the stabilizer) for routine flushing when necessary. Alongside that the raw matter tank also has a pipe connection to the port service access panel for periodic flushing and replensihment for the f/b processor. Incidentally the crew's actions support my notion of futuristic lightweight material because they're dumping all this equipment and it's still not meeting Scotty's requirement of losing 500 pounds. Hmm.

On the starboard side the service access panel provides access to the ship's electrical system (something like an RV's or camp trailer's external electrical outlet) for powering any extravehicular equipment. Between the hulls on the starboard side is the ship's central electrical system, from whithin the ship Scotty accessed the ship's batteries.

Although I hadn't planned for it the craft's interior could possibly allow for a small temporary airlock setup. The space between the hulls is too small, but an airlock setup could be erected after removing the port side aft seats. This occasionally could be usefull for a mission requiring extravehicular activity in space. Or the crew could just as easily bring along EVA suits and depressurize the entire cabin.

I'm also looking at including storage bunkers overhead on each side to hold EVA gear as there may well be enough space between the hulls.

On another note I'm still considering how best to share the finished plans with folks. Although I admittedly could use the money I've leaning not to make them available for sale in hardcopy or electronic. Instead I'll make them freely available in downloadable pdf file form. It could be in two sizes: one size for easy printing on 8x11 paper for home printers and a larger original 11x17. Most folks would likely have to transfer the larger size file to a USB drive or CD and have them printed at pretty well any local copying shop to have their own fullsize hardopy plans. Doing this kind of work as related to _Star Trek_ is a hobby and labour of love for me and I don't see myself driven for monetary gain for it. I enjoy sharing it with other like minded folks.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> It's definitely 3.
> 
> Check out some Galileo Screen captures I sent to FourMadMen that he posted on his website...


Something like this is easily fixed on the drawings.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

One of the things I'm very interested in trying my hand at when I'm finished all my views is rendering the ship's structural spaceframe as I call it. This will be the basic skeletal framework that the inner and outer hulls are fastened to. I have a reasonably clear picture of it in my head so the trick will be for me to get it right on paper. My cutaway views are showing only parts of that spaceframe, but I think it would be interesting to see the assembly on its own and bare of any fittings.

Think it's worth doing?


----------



## Richard Compton (Nov 21, 2000)

Here's a link on Star Trek and poop.

http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Waste_extraction

There's also a link on that page to a topic called Biomatter Resequencing.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

A little more slow and steady progress.









Suffice to say that I seriously doubt I'll ever apply this level of effort again to any other Trek project. Can you imagine trying to do this sort of thing with the _E_ herself? :lol: And, of course, there's a level of detail I'm not getting into such as wiring details and what all the controls and instrumentation actually do.

*From my disclaimer:* "This set of general plans is not meant as exhaustive and is intended primarily for familiarization reference only. It is primarily intended for Acadeny cadets, interested applicants and enthusiasts within the general public."


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

This project has just been expanded. I started out with an ambitious enough goal: to reconcile the inconsistencies between the full-size exterior and interior mockups of the shuttlecraft shown onscreen and create a credible integrated whole vehicle that still looked near exactly like what we saw onscreen. If I may say so I think for the most part I’ve been successful so far. The interior of my shuttlecraft is really only modestly smaller in overall length and height than the full-size interior onscreen and the exterior of my ship is only about 15-20% bigger than the onscreen full-size mockup. Yes, it’s a compromise, but to have stayed totally true to either the onscreen exterior mockup or interior set would have created huge problems. An exterior consistent with the full-size interior set would have resulted in a ship about 31ft. or so long and just too big to be handled practically within the hangar deck of a 947Ft. starship, and maybe a 1080ft. starship as well. And staying true to the exterior mock-up would have resulted in a ship with an interior far too cramped to be consistent with the events and actions we saw depicted within the craft onscreen.

Now in regards to the expansion of this project. I started out initially simply to render the exterior views as well as a few chosen cross sections. Problem is that as I progressed I discovered that other elements seemed to be begging me to elaborate upon them. And even as I tried to resist the impulse (and consequent extra work) I find myself unable to ignore the urge. I can only accept that this is the obsessive/perfectionist aspect of my character coming into play. So the completion of this project is going to take a little longer.

And so here is my current project outline and status:

Sheet 0 – Cover Page
Sheet 1 – Class F Port Elevation (completed)
Sheet 2 – Class F Starboard Elevation (completed)
Sheet 3 – Class F Bow Elevation (completed)
Sheet 4 – Class F Aft Elevation (completed)
Sheet 5 – Class F Top Plan (completed)
Sheet 6 – Class F Bottom Plan (completed)
Sheet 7 – Class F Port Cutaway (completed)
Sheet 8 – Class F Starboard Cutaway (completed)
Sheet 9 – Class F Main Cabin Bow Cutaway
Sheet 10 – Class F Main Cabin Aft Cutaway
Sheet 11 – Class F Aft Cabin Aft Cutaway
Sheet 12 – Class F Deck Plan (near completion)
Sheet 13 – Class F Ceiling Plan (near completion)
Sheet 14 – Class F Inner Hull: port, bow and top
Sheet 15 – Class F Inner Hull: starboard, aft and bottom
Sheet 16 – Class F Structural Spaceframe: port, bow and top
Sheet 17 – Class F Structural Spaceframe: starboard, aft and bottom.
Sheet 18 – Class F Shuttlecraft History (completed)
Sheet 19 – Class F Medical Support Variant Interior Configuration
Sheet 20 – Class F Extended Survey Variant Interior Configuration
Sheet 21 – Class H Exterior: port, bow and top (completed)
Sheet 22 – Class H Exterior: starboard, aft and bottom (completed)
Sheet 23 – Class H Interior: port, bow and deck
Sheet 24 – Class H Interior: starboard, aft and ceiling
Sheet 25 – _U.S.S. Enterprise_ Shuttlecraft Complement (completed)
Sheet 26 – Afterward and Notes.
Sheet 27 – “Forced Landing” (the _Galileo_ plummets towards the surface of Taurus II)
Sheet 28 – “The Hangar Deck” (a group of shuttlecraft within the _Enterprise_ hangar)
Sheet 29 – “Beta Lyra” 1 (the shuttlecraft _Copernicus_ passes near Beta Lyra)
Sheet 30 – “Sightseeing” (the interior of _Copernicus_ as it approaches Beta Lyra)
Sheet 31 – “On-Site Survey” _(Copernicus_ and its crew on the surface of an icy planetoid)
Sheet 32 – “Planetfall” (the shuttle crew fans out after landing)


A few remarks regarding the above outline. Sheets 14 and 15 will lay out the ship’s inner hull. While drawing the deck and ceiling plans I couldn’t help but notice that there were some aspects I would be challenged to detail and show properly. And so I decided to render the inner hull exterior shell as a separate element with all the adjacent components attached. Essentially my reasoning is that the inner hull component is relegated mostly to sustaining the crew while the exterior shell is devoted primarily to the craft’s mobility (propulsion and antigrav capability) and survivability (shielding). Attached to the inner hull shell will be the life support systems such as the waste management, food and beverage processor and environmental control systems. Also shown will be much of the ship’s control systems linkages.

Sheets 27-32 may be flexible. A number of those images have already been posted on my Never seen TOS scenes thread, but I want to do them again from scratch and preferably in larger size. I may also add or substitute one or two of them with something else.

In extent from this project my mind is spinning with other shuttlecraft related ideas. Of course there’s the _Enterprise’s_ hangar deck and shuttlecraft maintenance facility situated below. There’s also my adaptations of the TAS shuttles. And finally there’s another shuttlecraft variation of my own design that I initially did way back in the mid ‘70s. In concept it’s my take on a TOS era runabout. It’s essentially the Class F body stretched out some with somewhat _Enterprise_ like warp nacelles slung aftwards and below. My intent was a more credible live-action version of the TAS scoutship seen in “The Slaver Weapon.” Still, this vehicle would be too large to be part of the regular complement of shuttlecraft housed aboard ship.

And finally there are the shuttlecraft from TMP (of which there are at least two versions to my knowledge) and TFF. Suffice to say that none of the other shuttles are likely to get the same measure of attention to detail that I’m devoting to the Class F. I’ll be content to leave that to someone else… Mind you no one knows anything of the interior layout of the TMP shuttlecraft. Hmm… (-:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

This was raised on the TBBS:


> *Cary L. Brown said:*
> And again, I wanna re-emphasize... I'm willing to shell out a few bucks for a really nice shipping tube... with these drawings included as a free bonus of course.


^^ The concern I have with hardcopy is the cost of printing. For it to be viable and to get the cost down would mean a large run for bulk savings. I can't afford that unless I knew in advance what the demand would likely be. And I don't think it would be worth approaching someone like Pocket Books because they've made it plain that they're not into doing reference material anymore, and in the event they did no doubt it would have to be from "official" sources.

Having said that I will look into the cost of printing a limited number of sets and may be willing to do them on order for a select few. After all we're talking about thirty 11x17 in. pages here and that can't be cheap to get printed in limited number of sets. And, of course, there's also the packaging.

Another cheaper alternative would be to make the set available on CD. That certainly gets around the cost factor to a large extent and I can do everything at home, and that would include a hard case or nice envelope as well as a nicely done cd label. Of course that would still mean the customer would have to get the hardcopies printed themselves. Another advantage of this is that the originals, so to speak, wouldn't yellow and wear with age.

This remains one of favourite photomanips and something like it will be included in the set of plans. Interesting that when I enlarged the craft in this image I was almost bang on with the size my shuttlecraft ended up being in my drawings.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Take my word for it, there is not enough room onboard the TOS Enterprise to get the Shuttlecraft below decks (particularly a Shuttlecraft which has been scaled up beyond the size of the studio prop). This only leaves the area forward on the same deck for stowage space. That limitation means that there can really only be two Shuttlecraft stored onboard, that is unless one wants to dedicate the entire center section of the Engineering Hull to small craft ops and hangers. The hangers must be taller than the standard deck height to fit the craft, plus there should be additional space to allow them to be disassembled (at least to some degree) for heavy maintenance/repairs. This means more floor space than that needed to simply "park" the shuttles and more ceiling height as well. Of course, the above comments are based upon a Hanger Deck which is located according to Mr Jefferies original placement. If one were to make the deck longer, extending beyond the aft edge of the Warp Nacelle pylons, some of these restrictions would be removed, however one will quickly find themselves with an Engineering Hull mostly full of Hanger Deck operations and not much else. Then try adding frames and structure to the inside of the hull! That REALLY makes the interior volume shrink! Oh well...

Unfortunately the TOS E is really just too small to fit everything that needs to be onboard. Once again, it just needs to be bigger, by about half. A 1200 foot length would probably be more realistic.

Warped, great work so far on the integrated Shuttlecraft. Looking forward to seeing more.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> If one were to make the deck longer, extending beyond the aft edge of the Warp Nacelle pylons, some of these restrictions would be removed, however one will quickly find themselves with an Engineering Hull mostly full of Hanger Deck operations and not much else.


The old Franz Joseph plans do, in fact, show the hangar deck extending all the way to the leading edge of the warp pylons — with shuttlecraft maintenance bays below the flight deck level and room for a bowling alley under that!


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Now that I can see the pics...! 

Great work, Warped9! You've got the photomanip thing down to a science. :thumbsup:


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

The main problem with having a lower level hangar and maintenance area is that the turn-table/elevator is located too far aft to lower far enough. You run into the underside of the fan tail. Perhaps there is another elevator forward of the turntable...

M.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Well, I don't know when I'll get around to doing the hangar deck and related facilities, but I do have some early ideas. And, yes, like the shuttlecraft it may well involve adapting things a bit to make it work somewhat like they seem to be suggesting onscreen. My shuttlecraft came out to a shade under 26ft. in length overall and that's not bad given that the fullsize mockup was itself about 22ft. and not far off the off-the-cuff reference of 24ft stated onscreen. I will try to work it all into a 947ft. _E,_ but I don't have a problem with upping the size to a neater 1/96 scale for a 1080ft. starship.



X15-A2 said:


> Warped, great work so far on the integrated Shuttlecraft. Looking forward to seeing more.


Thanks. And when I get around to doing my final notes sheet I'll have to get a list of names of those who inspired, influenced and helped me with this project, and certainly yours included for proper acknowledgement.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Warped9 said:


> The concern I have with hardcopy is the cost of printing. For it to be viable and to get the cost down would mean a large run for bulk savings. I can't afford that unless I knew in advance what the demand would likely be. And I don't think it would be worth approaching someone like Pocket Books because they've made it plain that they're not into doing reference material anymore, and in the event they did no doubt it would have to be from "official" sources.
> 
> Having said that I will look into the cost of printing a limited number of sets and may be willing to do them on order for a select few. After all we're talking about thirty 11x17 in. pages here and that can't be cheap to get printed in limited number of sets. And, of course, there's also the packaging.
> 
> Another cheaper alternative would be to make the set available on CD. That certainly gets around the cost factor to a large extent and I can do everything at home, and that would include a hard case or nice envelope as well as a nicely done cd label. Of course that would still mean the customer would have to get the hardcopies printed themselves. Another advantage of this is that the originals, so to speak, wouldn't yellow and wear with age.


Back when I sold blueprints I had drawn back around 1990/91 (which was how I paid for a couple quarters of school back then) I had drawn up everything on 36"x24" vellum. I did runs of about 100 copies for about $25 at a blueprint copy place when I first started out. I quickly found that it was easier to just sell the vellum copy to the comic book store and let them deal with printing (I sold my Excelsior one-sheet vellum for about $500 as I recall, I later saw copies being sold at conventions for around $5 a piece).

With the size you've chosen (17"x11") you could 4 up the sheets and make 36"x24" vellums (8 of them) to have them printed up as actual blueprints.

This would keep the cost of printing down and you'd get the "real" blueprint feel.

I would suggest this in _addition_ to the idea of using CDs. For obvious reasons 36"x24" sheets can be a little bit of a pain to make copies of for those who would want to use them as plans for models... being able to print off 17"x11" sheets that could be used while building a Shuttlecraft (and not worrying about damaging those sheets in the process) is a great resource.

As long as you are not "profiting" from this, and it is small in scope, you'll avoid any issues with the Trek Franchise. The way I saw it back when I had drawn up the plans I sold back 15 years ago was that I was getting paid for just my time and effort... and nothing more. That was also why I ended up selling the vellums, as I didn't want to be involved in charging $5 for a 25¢ copy.

Also, if you are doing these in Illustrator, I'd suggest creating PDFs strait out of Illustrator (with embedded fonts). PDF is a native Illustrator format and with everything as vectors, not only will the plans scale nicely, they should be smaller (file size wise) than any rasterized version. There are lots of utilities to combine single PDFs if you wanted to have them as a single file (if you don't have Acrobat), and the final product should fit nicely on a CD.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Downloadable versions would be just as cool.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Shaw said:


> Back when I sold blueprints I had drawn back around 1990/91 (which was how I paid for a couple quarters of school back then) I had drawn up everything on 36"x24" vellum. I did runs of about 100 copies for about $25 at a blueprint copy place when I first started out. I quickly found that it was easier to just sell the vellum copy to the comic book store and let them deal with printing (I sold my Excelsior one-sheet vellum for about $500 as I recall, I later saw copies being sold at conventions for around $5 a piece).
> 
> With the size you've chosen (17"x11") you could 4 up the sheets and make 36"x24" vellums (8 of them) to have them printed up as actual blueprints.
> 
> ...


Personally I'm not fond of 22x17 or larger sheets because they're too unweildy. With the 17x11 sheets I'm drawing a ship that is a nice 1/24 scale so anyone who wishes can take measurements right off the sheets for their own scratchbuild model.

I am drawing them in Adobe Illustrator CS and Photoshop CS and will eventually be saving them in a PDF file. From there I can make them available for download or easily put them onto CD. I have Acrobat but My OS X Tiger also has Automator which can put things into PDF very easily.

Profit? I wish. Considering how much time I'm putting into this I can't imagine how much I'd have to charge to make up for it. At this point I'll be happy to clear my expenses. Presently I'm more concerned with acheiving a final work that I can be proud of and others can be pleased with. I've seen other fan generated work such as the _Ships Of The Star Fleet,_ Shane Johnson's _Mr. Scott's Guide to The Enterprise_ and FJ's _Booklet Of General Plans_ and _Starfleet Technical Manual_ as well as Jackill's books. And, of course, there's also David Kimble's _ST-TMP Blueprints,_ the _Avenger-_class frigate blueprints, the Geoffrey Mandel freighter blueprints, Masao's _Starfleet Museum_ site and a host of other stuff online. And finally there's Alan Sinclair's and Charles Casimiro's _Enterprise_ drawings as well as Phil Broad's _Galileo_ fullsixe mockup drawings. I think I can fairly say that my work might stand amongst some of those better works, or at least that's what I'm striving for.

I know there are some that would love their work to be adopted by Paramount and Pocket and thus get that sense of legitimacy such a nod would grant, but I'm not concerned with that. This and my other work is my interpretation of stuff in the TOS, TAS and TMP Trek universe while striving to remain as true as possible with the source material (or at least its apparent intent and/or inference), and others are free to agree, accept or reject as to their liking without me feeling slighted in the least.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

_*Sigh*_

Y-, you guys! Now you've gotten me thinking about the damned hangar deck just when I was trying to focus on getting this project done.

There's one idea that came to me while lying awake in bed this morning in the early a.m. I won't know how well it pans out until I sit down and start doing some serious measurements, drawings and scaling. Essentially, though, my idea relates to the turntable elevator and how shuttlecraft are handled aboard ship.

We already know that Federation science has mastered (or at least become reasonably proficient) with manipulating gravity and antigravity. This is demonstrated by the _Enterprise_ artificial gravity that is localized and tightly restricted to the decks holding people and objects down onto the floor. Outside of that the artificial gravity effect does not appear to extend beyond the ship's hull to affect anything that could be nearby. And so their AG hasn't little to nothing to do with actual physical mass as a planet's or star's natural gravity does. This idea is also reinforced by the use of modestly sized hand held "antigrav" units we've seen in "The Changeling" and "Obsesson."

Note that unlike contemporary aircraft and the shuttle orbitor the shuttlecraft don't have wheels but rather landing pads. And so some mechanism must be utilized to move the vehicles about the hangar deck area. I can also envision some manner of magnetic and/or mechanical clamping device used to secure the vehicles into place once parked to prevent unwanted shifting whenever the ship experiences serious attitude changes than even affect the ship's otherwise very effective artificial gravity and inertial systems.

But the turtable/elevator, it's location and how it's utilized, that needs to be addressed.

Imagine for a moment: A shuttlecraft enters the hangar guided by a shipboard tractor beam guidance system which lands the craft automatically and moves it into an exact postion on the T/E. Magnetic clamps steadfastly hold the craft in an exact position on the T/E. The T/E may now rotate 90 degrees to allow for passengers to disembark as seen in "Journey To Babel." Now, after debarkation, one of two things happen: either the craft is moved to a parking place to one side and aft of the T/E or the craft needs to be brought down into the lower level maintenance area for service and/or storage. For the latter to happen how can it work?

We already know that the cut of the fantail precludes a full deck height under the flight deck to allow for the shuttlecraft to fit properly there. But maybe the T/E doesn't operate exactly like a conventional lift. Witness the ship's turbolift cars which move sideways as well as up-and-down. Perhaps the T/E doesn't have to lower full shuttlecraft height.

And so again imagine: after debarkation the craft is rotated again 90 degrees to face the craft's distinctly slanted bow directly forward. Our T/E doesn't have a conventional centrally located hydraulic (or whatever) lift system. Rather the T/E may be supported by three points about its outer rim that run in tandem on tracks. With the shuttlecraft facing bow wards the T/E lowers as far as it can straight down, but when it can descend no further it begins to slide on its tracks on a forward downwards angle until it is clear of the opening above and has descended fully into the lower level. At this point another tractor beam or antigrav system moves the shuttlecraft into a berthing postion and the T/E returns upwards to its place on the flight deck.

Like I said I have to do some drawings and measurements to see how this can work. Also remember that all we've really seen of the hangar deck is a forced perspective minature set that like the shuttlecraft may not properly reflect exact sizes and positions of objects. There can be some leeway for adaptation and still look near exactly like what we're familiar with onscreen.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Scotpens,

Well, Mr Joseph showed a lot of things in his plans that won't work in real life. For one thing, his decks were only 6 feet high. When one begings to look at realistic dimensions, then the ship starts getting really tight for space.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Seeing FJ's take on the shuttlecraft in his _Technical Manual_ is now rather quaint. Overall it bears only superficial resemblance to what we saw onscreen in shape, detail and scale.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Even as I creep towards eventual completion of this project I'm already considering what I'll be tackling next. I've already mentioned that at some point I'll be adapting the TAS shuttle designs into something more credible within TOS' "reality." I also intend to render the TMP era shuttlecraft and this is where things could get interesting.

The detachable part of the Vulcan shuttlecraft seen in TMP can't be the standard Starfleet shipboard carried shuttlecraft--it's simply too damned big. Mind you in a shot of the hangar and cargo area facilities of the TMP refit _E_ we do se a glimpse of the tail end of what appears to be this shuttlecraft on the level under the main flight deck. I'm thinking that this may be a smaller variant of the Vulcan shuttlecraft, which will, of course, entail adapting the design into a more manageable package.

The other movie era shuttlecraft is the TFF _Galileo_ 5. In size it's comparable to my 26ft. shuttlecraft and so no real size problems there. But the interior may have to be redressed to make the vehicle more analogous to the TOS shuttlecraft concept and in the the process lose the really stupid aft end door.

And finally there's a pre TOS shuttlecraft idea I'm sketching out as well as TOS era workbees of which the _Enterprise_ may carry two or three of them below the hangar facilities in the fantail area. Indeed that rectangle seen under the fantail could well be a hatch that opens for the workpods when needed.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

> *Mariner Class said:*
> 
> 
> > *Warped9 said:*
> ...


I had heard of a smaller version yet have never seen drawings of it otrher than the "accessories" image of which I have a copy already. Do you have a larger version of that first schematic like image I could study more? And if so could you please email it to me?

Actually as I study this image more I'm still skeptical. That smaller version is still forty feet long and about half that wide and that's big considering that the TMP refit _E_ isn't that much bigger than the TOS _E._ This shuttle is _14 feet _ longer than my 26ft. shuttlecraft and nearly twice as wide.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Thinking ahead...








Everything is not exactly to scale and in proportion in these sketches, but they do give a fair idea of the direction I'm leaning towards. This is still a sizable craft and certainly not meant to be carried regularly aboard ship, but it is suitable for ship-to-ship rendezvous. The scoutship is meant for starbases and outposts that may require longrange rapid tranport on short notice. It is somewhat of a TOS era runabout and a precursor to the TMP era Vulcan longrange shuttlecraft.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Looking ahead a little more...


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

There are further details to be worked out on the TAS adaptations yet they'll have to stay as basic sketches for awhile until I complete my Class F shuttlecraft plans.

When I think of it I could just about do an entire book or volume on just the pre TOS to TMP era shuttlecraft.

Hmmm... _Starfleet Shuttlecraft Reference Manual: 2250-2290._ Sounds kinda cool.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

I like the third design — the smooth one with the faired-in engines. Looks like a cross between the _Proteus_ and the B-2 stealth bomber.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Here's a little something that I've referred to throughout the thread:









Way back when TAS bowed in 1973 I was initially fascinated with the new shuttlecraft designs. Yet even then at age 14 I knew the scoutship in "The Slaver Weapon" could never work in the live-action TOS hangar deck. And so I set out to design a TOS equivalent to the TAS scoutship, and I was intent on minimizing the size as much as possible.

The above image is a current sketch of my idea and my initial concept for a live-action _Copernicus._ Even now as I look at it I'm still inspired to try and make it work. Initially my Class F shuttlecraft came out around 31ft. before I managed to rescale it down to 26ft. If I could keep my _Copernicus_ concept to about 31ft. as well the height and width being near exactly the same as my Class F then it just might still work.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

I like that one, too. Looks like a logical development from the Class F. It's interesting to note that the shuttle designers have finally adopted the "nosewheel" (or "nosepad") as opposed to "taildragger" landing-gear arrangement — more than two centuries after most of the aviation industry did!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Well in fairness shuttlecraft don't land like airplanes but rather more like helicopters as true VTOLs (vertical take off and landings).

I'm going to do a slight reclassification in my drawings as Class F and Class F2 rather than H. If I can make my 33 year old adaptation work then I'll make it the Class G or H.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I've done some more accurate measurements and this version can be done at about 29ft. Cool. That's only a tad over 3ft. longer than my Class F shuttlecraft of just under 26ft. And this new version would be near exactly the same height and width as the Class F.

Love it when things come together. Down the road if the drawings come out looking right than this new Class G will replace my earlier Class H although I will carry over some design elements of the H.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

> *Cary L. Brown said:*
> Now that's interesting... I DO like it... I just have to wonder what the justification for the changes would be in-universe... hmmm....


When I was scaling my Class F I was trying to take real world considerations into account. And one of those considerations was ease of entry/exit. The larger the vehicle meant everything was scaled up, and even though it gave me more interior space it consequently increased the diameter of the nacelles and thus the step-up height of the fold-out access step plate set into it. My final size for the vehicle at just under 26ft. L.O.A. was the best compromise I could find between maximizing interior space and facilitating ease of entry/exit.

Now If I wanted a faster version of the craft that was a TOS equivalent of the TAS scoutship then I'd have larger nacelles for greater warp power. And larger nacelles would again mean a greater step-up height for entry/exit if the nacelles were setup as the Class F's are. And so by moving the larger nacelles further aft and slung beneath midship stabilizers and slightly redisgning the access hatch and gangway (particularly the lower gangway panel) then I can maintain a reasonable entry/exit height as well as keep pretty much the same vehicle overall height. The result is a vehicle that not only look likes a credible TOS shuttlecraft variant, but also retains a measure of the Class F's credibility.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

> *Bernard Guignard said:*
> 
> 
> > *Warped9 said:*
> ...


I've been giving this some thought and it could be done in a 8x11 stapled form that could cover the variety of shuttlecraft I've described earlier upthread as well as the hangar deck layouts of the TOS _Enterprise_ and the TMP refit. It would run about 75-100 pages.

I've also been rethinking my _Starfleet Command Library_ project. Perhaps it would be best if it were comprised of a number of smaller individual volumes (the shuttlecraft project being the first) rather than a very large single volume. At the end all the volumes could be compiled into one collection in electronic media.

I'm sorry for not posting updates so much lately, but my recent scheduling and workload at work has left me drained for much of anything else until after the holiday season. Hopefully I'll get back on track come early January.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I skimmed back a few pages in this good old thread and didn't find a link to where the final plans can be found. Are they online somewhere?
I really like your interpretation of the shuttle, Warped9! (It being close enough to 24' to vindicate the dialog while being large enough to make sense)


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> I skimmed back a few pages in this good old thread and didn't find a link to where the final plans can be found. Are they online somewhere?
> I really like your interpretation of the shuttle, Warped9! (It being close enough to 24' to vindicate the dialog while being large enough to make sense)


You may have missed a post elsewhere. This project is temporarily on hold while I finish off something else, something that might, just might help me further a personal ambition.

But rest assured that I will return to complete the TOS shuttlecraft project.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

That's cool. Good luck with your other project!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

If you'd like to see what the other project is then go here.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I checked it out. Cool concept! Can't wait to see more. (I posed a question over there (where I'm uss_griffin).)


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Great looking ship! Nice to see a different design. Keep up the good work.


----------



## Bernard Guignar (Sep 9, 2006)

I like every thing that you've done so far and I'm looking forward to seeing more.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Part of the challenge for me with my original work is focusing more on ideas I've gotten fron SF literature, SF art and non-fiction sources on speculative and theoretical science and technology as well as trying to stay away from the familiar often seen in film and tv sci-fi.

In a way it's somewhat similar to my approach to the TOS shuttlecraft. With the shuttlecraft I've tried to focus on the original source materiel (TOS) and what I've been able to glean from real world non-Trek sources beyond that.


----------



## lunadude (Oct 21, 2006)

Warped9 said:


>


Your Aquashuttle reminds me of the Proteus from Fantastic Voyage.

Neat sketches, thanks for sharing.


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

Also looks surprisingly like the "V" shuttles


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

lunadude said:


> Your Aquashuttle reminds me of the Proteus from Fantastic Voyage.


Actually the _Proteus_ was an influence. Even "as is" the _Proteus_ looks more convincing as a TOS like aquashuttle than what we actually saw in TAS.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

In case anyone is curious about more of the thinking that is going into my own original work a lot of answers can be found in these pdf files here and here. But beware that the first file is 24 pages while the second one is only 2 pages. Mind you they're not large because they're only text.

Any feedback is welcome.


----------



## Sarvek (Jun 10, 2005)

Warped9 said:


> In case anyone is curious about more of the thinking that is going into my own original work a lot of answers can be found in these pdf files here and here. But beware that the first file is 24 pages while the second one is only 2 pages. Mind you they're not large because they're only text.
> 
> Any feedback is welcome.


I tried both links and neither one is a pdf file. All that I get is the quicksharing website??


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Well you do have to download the files from there. Just click where it says DOWNLOAD.


----------



## Sarvek (Jun 10, 2005)

Warped9 said:


> ^^ Well you do have to download the files from there. Just click where it says DOWNLOAD.


I click on *Download File * and there is no file to download?? I have tried this with both links on the previous page.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I downloaded the larger file a few days back (when it was the only file). I found the download site a little confusing, and it was offering to find my true love for me , but it worked.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

uss_columbia said:


> ... it was offering to find my true love for me , but it worked.


Wait a second... are you saying that you found your true love via a link posted in a modeling forum?


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

:lol: :lol: It only worked for downloading warped's file. I didn't try the "find true love now" link; so I can't say whether it works.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Sarvek said:


> I tried both links and neither one is a pdf file. All that I get is the quicksharing website??


This is very odd. I've tried the links from another website (the TBBS) and they work, but they're not working from here. Strange.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Finally a little something new to show this projecr is still alive.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

When I originally drew this idea up thirty years ago I had based it on Franz Joseph's drawings of the shuttlecraft in his _Star Fleet Technical Manual._ But basing the idea on my more faithful recent shuttlecraft drawings some differences became apparent and so the final outcome will look somewhat different than what I had originally envisioned. In particular is the stabilizer details. In my original concept the warp nacelles were affixed to the outside edge of the stabilizers that angled downward. In the newer version the stabilzers appear much as they do on the Class F shuttlecraft but with shortened support pylons.

When you really look at it you'd think there would be little logic for this design. But it makes more sense if you need larger warp nacelles because nacelles with a greater diameter on the standard configuration would mean an increase in vehicle access height--the access step plate would be set higher because of the larger diameter of the nacelle. And thats a problem I was trying to minimize when I scaled my Class F shuttlecraft down to 26ft from the initial projection of 29-30ft. length overall.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I like the nacelles jutting out to the rear and the landing gear--perfect! :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

A slow progression as I iron out design details. As noted I've shortened the nacelles and I may shorten them a smidgen more but only as much as I can still retain the overall look I want--I don't want the overall length to exceed 29ft. Appearances are deceiving, though, for while the new nacelles are larger in diameter than the originals Class F ones the new are actually shorter even though it may not look that way.

Despite what I've marked on my notes I'm reconsidering my vehicle classifications. If I can accomodate this design into the hangar deck then it will become the Class H and my previous "class h" will be a Class G shuttlecraft (simply because overall it isn't really that far removed from the Class F design).

Conceptually it would be so much easier to just accept my earlier Class H as the live-action version of the TAS shuttlecraft, but I admit I'd like to try to get something that is somewhat closer to a distinctly different looking vehicle as seen in TAS if I can.

I also want to try photomanipping a large view live-action image of this design as opposed to a small scale long view such as I've already done.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

There are things wrong with this pic, but it gets the idea across. The turntable/elevator on the deck recedes too far into the background and the overhead control towers are too far back. But then I was trying to merge basically two or three different images into one--note the fuzziness and lack off sharpness of the background control towers in relation to the shuttlecraft in the foreground.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I like! :thumbsup:

Perfect sizing of the original shuttlecraft and your new design variant is incredibly cool!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Thanks.

I initially wanted to show the new design with the gangway/steps lowered down, but that would have meant a whole other level of photo manipulation to actually build the new gangway/steps arrangement as well as showing the interior through the open hatch at just the right angel.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)




----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Fascinating!

Excellent work--they all look like actual screen grabs!

:thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Fascinating!
> 
> Excellent work--they all look like actual screen grabs!
> 
> :thumbsup:


Thanks! I couldn't hope for a better compliment.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

This little project began rather simply. The objective was to fashion a believable “realistic” _Star Trek_ TOS shuttlecraft that integrated the three differing versions of the vehicle seen onscreen: the full-size filming mockup, the full-size filming interior set and the “flying” filming miniature. This type of project has been attempted before with varying results primarily because different individuals bring different mindsets and talents to the effort.

To some extent I felt the full-size exterior mockup was closest to the final form of the exterior design although I felt the mockup looked somewhat worn or damaged with its blatant “nose down” attitude. Of course that merely reflected what could be clearly seen on the mockup’s construction drawings as shown by Phil Broad on his cloudster.com website. Meanwhile the filming miniature showed no such “nose down” attitude and so I chose to retain the full-size mockup’s look although modified to be less extreme. My objective was an integrated design that looked very close to the full-size and miniature mockups. Now the craft does retain something of a pitched forward look yet without looking extreme or damaged.

Integrating the full-size exterior and interior set was more challenging. If you opt for scaling up the exterior to accommodate the interior set as seen onscreen then you end up with a very sizable craft of about 31ft. long. The design of the TOS shuttlecraft doesn’t really lend itself to that size for two basic reasons: the step height to enter or exit the craft becomes very awkward and the vehicle itself becomes too large to be properly accommodated within the _Enterprise’s_ hangar deck, never mind four such craft. If you opt to retain the apparent size (about 22ft.) of the exterior mockup seen onscreen than you soon realize it’s impossible to have an interior even remotely resembling what was seen onscreen—it’s simply much too small.

Initially I tried to retain the interior as seen onscreen, but soon appreciated that the corresponding sizeable exterior was simply too unwieldy to fit properly into the _Enterprise’s_ hangar. And so I went back and studied the episodes again as well as whatever other reference material I could review. I realized that the exterior and interior mockups seen onscreen were actually production compromises to facilitate filming rather than what Matt Jefferies may well have intended for his design. The exterior mockup, out of necessity, was scaled to be moved around and even transported without too much difficulty while the interior set was given a standing height ceiling to facilitate lighting and filming interior scenes. But there are clues right onscreen that suggest what Matt Jefferies might really have had in mind.

Firstly the exterior mockup’s pitched forward look. It might be that Matt Jefferies had the idea of filming the mockup mostly from side and rear angles and so the pitched forward look would create some illusion of extra length and height. This is an old trick in film and television production to create the illusion of size and so why couldn’t MJ have used it here? This notion is bolstered by the fact that all other drawings of the vehicle other than the construction plans do not show a pitched forward design. Secondly there are inconsistencies in the interior set: why are the chairs and controls apparently set lower than usual or necessary and why are the actors crouching slightly when the standing height ceiling allows them not to? Is it possible that they were trying to suggest the interior was smaller than it actually was?

This was the thinking I followed and consequently I elected to scale down the craft as much as possible to hopefully reach an accepted compromise—an exterior that could be more easily accommodated within the starship’s hangar deck and an interior that allowed for the events depicted and still look near exactly like that onscreen and supporting the idea of a smaller interior the actors and set dressing seem to be trying to convey. In the end I arrived at a vehicle a smidgen under 26ft. in length overall. And then a rather curious realization arose when I measured the main hull without the added length of the nacelles and aft landing gear—the main hull just happened to be near exactly 24ft. By pure chance I might have hit upon an obscure measurement that could rationalize a spoken reference to “a twenty-four foot shuttlecraft” as spoken by Kirk onscreen.

My design is by no means definitive. The results I arrived at were based on my particular reasoning and aided by the sharp insights of many other people. But I will say that my design does integrate all three versions of the TOS shuttlecraft as seen onscreen into a integrated “realistic” whole while in most respects still looks near exactly like what was seen onscreen both inside and out. The distinction is that I am trying to depict an integrated whole vehicle as opposed to strictly duplicating filming mockups and sets.

During this exercise I was also thinking about tackling the shuttlecraft seen in _Star Trek’s_ animated series. Specifically the three disparate vehicles seen in the episodes “The Slaver Weapon,” “Mudd’s Passion” and “The Ambergris Element.” Way back in the mid ‘70s when I was first watching TAS I soon realized the new shuttlecraft designs, while intriguing, were shown much too large to be accommodated within the _Enterprise’s_ hangar. Of course the question arises: why didn’t the animators simply use the existing TOS shuttlecraft design? I believe the answer lies in the very nature of the series being animated and thus allowing anything imaginable to be depicted without any budgetary concerns in actually building it—you just draw whatever you want. While commendably ambitious I feel that in some respects the animators and writers might have been a little too quick to ignore what TOS had already established. (It must be said that if you scrutinize the panning shot of the ship’s hangar area in TAS you can see a vehicle that does bear some resemblance to the familiar TOS shuttlecraft)

Mind you, though, there was some precedence for what they did. In first season TOS we saw a rather simple Main Engineering interior set. This set was greatly expanded for the second season. But now we had two rather different looking Engineering sets. How is that explained? A simple explanation is to accept that the expanded set we saw in 2nd and 3rd season is how the set was supposed to be all along. However, some have suggested a more elegant explanation that we are actually seeing two different locations: the set seen in 1st season is the Engineering facility located at the aft end of the main hull (purportedly for the event the main saucer hull must separate from the rest of the ship) and the set seen in the latter seasons was Main Engineering located down in the secondary support hull. A little creative thinking made sense of an apparent onscreen contradiction.

Of course this isn’t the end of the Main Engineering issue because in TAS they expanded and redressed the set yet again. Now how could that be rationalized? You can either gloss over it and accept that that was what Main Engineering was always supposed to look like or you can assume additional changes were fitted to it at some point. There is, however, a third option and one that I’ve elected to follow as general practice where applicable. I try to look at what we see in TAS through a TOS “live-action” perspective. If what I’m seeing can be accommodated with that already established in TOS then fine. But if not then I resort to the notion that TAS is essentially _a storyboard of live-action episodes._ What that means is that some of the things seen in TAS cannot work as shown “realistically” and so they are just storyboard concepts that must be adapted for the more realistic TOS universe. Of course this brings us back to the three disparate shuttlecraft in TAS and how can they be rationalized within the context of “realistic” TOS. 

Firstly I must say that I like the idea of variant shuttlecraft designs. It makes the _Star Trek_ universe more complex and more interesting. That said I feel I must still apply my perspective of TOS “realism” to the issue to rationalize what we see onscreen. In “The Slaver Weapon” and “Mudd’s Passion,” we see vehicles that differ greatly from the familiar TOS shuttlecraft for no truly justifiable reason. In both instances the TOS shuttlecraft would serve perfectly well for the events depicted. However, are there any clues as to why these vehicles should be different from the TOS craft? 

In “The Slaver Weapon” the vehicle shown appears to be a rather rakish looking craft with starship like warp nacelles. This could suggest a craft meant to be a fast long-range vehicle. This seems supported by the fact the _Enterprise_ is nowhere nearby to aid the shuttlecraft’s crew in their encounter with the Kzinti. The markings on the craft clearly identify it as originating from the _Enterprise_ and not borrowed from Starbase 25. And finally there is the spoken reference by Spock in his mission log stating the _Copernicus_ being an _“Enterprise_ shuttlecraft.” Acknowledging those clues we’re now faced with the fact that the large vehicle shown cannot be properly accommodated within the starship’s hangar facility. We must also ignore the fact that TAS depicted an _Enterprise_ hangar facility that was oversized and impossibly larger than previously seen in TOS.

If you ignore the vehicle’s markings you could rationalize that for whatever reason Spock, Sulu and Uhura have borrowed it from Starbase 25. However, it’s harder to ignore Spock’s spoken reference and as we’ve already noted there’s no reason a standard TOS shuttlecraft couldn’t have served for what we saw onscreen. And so could the TOS _Enterprise_ have had variant shuttlecraft for different purposes and we just never saw them before? Why not? Of course now we hit the real problem of accommodating a fast long-range craft within the starship’s hangar as well as the remaining standard shuttlecraft.

In years past I’ve tried repeatedly to scale down the shuttle seen in “The Slaver Weapon” to be more consistent in size with the TOS shuttlecraft and failed repeatedly. It isn’t just a matter of size, but also trying to retain the overall look of the design—it’s too long in relation to height. The only recourse was to alter the proportions and end up with a rather stubby looking design that bears little resemblance to the ship seen onscreen. The results were rather disappointing overall. And so my recourse was to approach the issue differently: given time and money how could TOS have depicted such a vehicle and still fit it in the _Enterprise’s_ hangar deck? I admit a bias here, but I felt strongly that to be aesthetically consistent with what had already been established a new shuttlecraft would be a variation of the already familiar TOS design. What we saw in TAS simply must be a storyboard concept that would had to have been adapted to be done live-action. However, wherever possible I hoped to include features that could be conceptual bridges between the TAS ship and a new and previously unseen TOS design.

The most readily recognizable feature that could be adapted into the new design would be the starship like and distinctively tapered warp nacelles. This approach, however, necessitates setting the nacelles further aft and rethinking the hatchway setup to maintain a reasonable entry/exit step height. Fitting these nacelles to the familiar shuttlecraft isn’t really a problem aesthetically, but it unavoidably results in added length to the overall size of the craft. The new design is 29ft, three feet more than the Class F design. The new design admittedly looks nothing like the TAS ship--that was unavoidable—but it does look credibly consistent with everything else in TOS. For me, though, the real issue is if that extra three feet in length is a deal breaker or not. I devoted a lot of time and effort to get the Class F design down to a manageable size yet here we are trying to accommodate a larger vehicle again.

Although it might be possible to accommodate a 29ft shuttlecraft an even simpler solution would be to assume the new design differs primarily in its systems rather than in overall appearance. This is little different from having two near identical looking cars only one has a performance tuned powerplant and suspension, and leaving us with a ship of manageable size within the _Enterprise’s_ hangar facility. As much as I like my design with larger warp nacelles I find this latter approach a more elegant solution. I could still accept my other design as a sort of 23rd century runabout designed for remotely located starbases and one that can be temporarily taken within a starship hangar. In counterpoint, though, that extra three feet in length and perhaps no more than a foot extra width might well not be an insurmountable problem. And if so then it would be quite feasible to have a shuttlecraft variant stored aboard ship that looks distinctly different than the familiar Class F.

The shuttle seen in “Mudd’s Passion” is perhaps the most intriguing of the three new designs. While somewhat sleek it also seems to suggest a sturdily built craft perhaps intended for unusually hostile environments. It also has _Enterprise_ markings on the hull although once again you could ignore this and assume the craft is “on loan” for an unspecified mission. Still there is nothing in this episode that argues a familiar TOS shuttlecraft couldn’t have served for the events depicted. This design is also much too large to be properly accommodated in the _Enterprise_ hangar and I’ve also failed in scaling it down satisfactorily. In the end I simply accept that if done live-action then we would simply have seen a familiar TOS shuttlecraft used here.

Now in both cases of “The Slaver Weapon” and “Mudd’s Passion” I’ve rationalized what we see through a TOS perspective. However, those new designs are still intriguing enough that I’d like to reconcile them within the TOS universe. My solution is to adapt the designs into something a bit more “realistic” while still retaining their general appearance and as specialized starbase based vehicles.

Finally we come to the design seen in “The Ambergris Element.” The vehicle seen there is not only different looking, but it operates in a manner different than anything seen before. This is an _aquashuttle,_ a vehicle intended to operate within an aquatic environment as well as the vacuum of space. Suffice to say that there is obviously no way a TOS type shuttlecraft could be used in this manner. Furthermore this vehicle is once again too large to be reasonably accommodated within the _Enterprise’s_ hangar area.

If we also recall that the _Enterprise’s_ mission is to explore predominantly Earth like planets we can accept that periodically they may well also explore aquatic environments on some of those planets. But since exploration of aquatic environments is an occasional rather than routine practice then we could assume that an aquashuttle could be loaned out to a starship for specialized missions. With that assumption then the usual restrictions of vehicle size needn’t be so rigid. The aquashuttle need only be sufficiently scaled to fit temporarily within a starship’s flight deck area until it can be returned to its base of origin. Its eventual size can also take into account that this vehicle likely isn’t designed for prolonged flights in space. It is strictly a short-range orbit-to-surface and return craft.

The apparent design of the aquashuttle actually doesn’t look particularly aqua-dynamic. The TAS animators and writers would have done better to mimic something akin to the _Proteus_ submarine seen previously in the 1966 feature film _Fantastic Voyage._ That said I believe it’s possible to adapt the aquashuttle into something a little more TOS “realistic” while still retaining the general look of the animated design.

There are some who sidestep the whole issue of reconciling TAS with TOS by simply ignoring the animated episodes as not “real” _Star Trek._ But in many respects TAS has for a long time been accepted by many as just as authentic if not more so than any Trek spin-off that has followed since. Furthermore various elements of TAS have been referenced or even adapted into live-action Trek over the years. Admittedly I don’t like the idea of wholly ignoring TAS since I do feel it is more consistent and more authentic than the live-action Treks that have since followed. For that reason I try to accept TAS and elements of it as is unless it badly contradicts what TOS has already established. And in those cases than I simply reason that TAS is showing us an animated storyboard representation in place of what we would have actually seen in live-action _Star Trek._

This has been a rather protracted bit of exposition, but in a roundabout way I am soliciting opinions particularly from those of you whose insight I’ve greatly appreciated along the way and during this project.

And so the options are:
(A) A Class H variant that differs only in its systems upgrades but otherwise is sized exactly like the earlier Class F. (this is the simplest alternative)
(B) A Class H variant that is adapted from the existing Class F design yet looks distinct and is slightly larger. (if it can be accommodated within the Enterprise’s hangar facilities then this is my preferred alternative)
(C) An adaptation of the scoutship seen in TAS’ “The Slaver Weapon” and based on the assumption that this vehicle was on loan from a starbase (and consequently ignoring that the craft had Enterprise markings on its hull and Spock’s spoken reference).
(D) None of the above and ignoring TAS altogether.

Thoughts anyone?


----------



## Darth Humorous (Dec 6, 2001)

My 2 cents here…

Would you consider it possible for (C), that the vehicle is not on loan, but rather, is in a disassembled and compactly stored state onboard the Enterprise? Since it is a not often used vehicle, then disassembled storage onboard might be reasonable, and would lend more credibility to the markings.

Mark


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ That sounds rather over complicated for something as large sized as the vehicle we saw in "The Slaver Weapon."


----------



## Darth Humorous (Dec 6, 2001)

Perhaps, but maybe not for the technology of that future. Just a thought.

Mark


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

What about the bowling alley?


----------



## edwhitefire (Jan 23, 2004)

You guys left out the BOWLING ALLEY!?!?! AAARRGGHHH!


----------



## newbie dooby (Nov 1, 2006)

I hope this is all sorted out by the time they finish building the ship....


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

These are early concepts so there is still time to find room for the bowling alley. And what has the bowling alley got to do with this topic?



Darth Humorous said:


> Perhaps, but maybe not for the technology of that future. Just a thought.
> 
> Mark


Then why not keep all the shuttlecraft as kit vehicles to save space? If you have the ability to do something like you're proposing then it's unlikely the application would be limited to just one vehicle. And since we have never seen that concept applied to the TOS shuttlecraft then it's not likely it would be applicable to a shuttlecraft variant.


----------



## Darth Humorous (Dec 6, 2001)

Warped9 said:


> Then why not keep all the shuttlecraft as kit vehicles to save space?


 From my first post


Darth Humorous said:


> …Since it is a not often used vehicle…





Warped9 said:


> If you have the ability to do something like you're proposing then it's unlikely the application would be limited to just one vehicle.


 Hey, and maybe it isn't.



Warped9 said:


> And since we have never seen that concept applied to the TOS shuttlecraft then it's not likely it would be applicable to a shuttlecraft variant.


 Have we ever seen the concept purposefully NOT applied to the TOS shuttlecraft (i.e., avoided)?

Mark


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

I should really do a transverse cross section at the point where the pylons end and the bay begins. I see that area as being complicated somewhat by the terminus of the core structure of the secondary hull, and its joint to the pylon structure. I tried to indicate that in the drawing you linked to above, but it isn't clear.

The point being that, you can have the ship be supported by its external hull -- a monocoque structure -- or an internal "keel". or you can use a blending of the two, which is what I did, to give it a blend of the naval and aircraft sensibilities. Decisions like that will definitely have impact on how much room you have for hangar and support space in that fantail area.

BTW, it's good to see that your "little guys" would fit in my "little spacesuits".


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

aridas sofia said:


> BTW, it's good to see that your "little guys" would fit in my "little spacesuits".


I tried really hard to scale my ships with your cross-section drawing, *aridas*. While some of my ideas in regards to the hangar and flight deck area may differ from yours when I eventually tackle it I do think you did such a superb job that it served as an ideal basis to see if my ships would fit as sized at 26ft and 29ft respectively. The little crewman included are supposed to be 5'-10" in height.

Your work encourages me that I just may accomplish what I want within a 947ft ship as opposed to having to scale the _E_ at 1080ft.

This from another forum:


Cary L. Brown said:


> I have to wonder... move the nacelles up top, reconfigure the nose... put the "skids" on there and put a deflector on the nose...replace the aft end with a swing-down ramp-hatch (ala TNG)... the only issue then is where do the impulse exhausts go (I'd assume, in runabout fashion, under the side "wings").
> 
> In other words, sure, stick with the "starting from TOS" concept, but modify it to match the TAS...


Yes, I've already posted sketches of my adaptations of the TAS shuttlecraft earlier upthread to show that these vehicles do exist in the TOS universe only they're not as they were in TAS. The _Copernicus_ is a little different issue in my opinion and it is made so by Spock's spoken reference in the episode that it is an "_"Enterprise_ shuttlecraft." With that spoken reference we're faced with a staggering contradiction because there is just no way in hell the TAS craft would fit in the TOS hangar area. It can exist as an actual vehicle in the TOS universe but definitely _not_ as a starship based shuttlecraft.

Many years ago I tried drawing my design with the nacelles set on top and extended landing skids. The thing just looked so fanboyish, needlessly complicated and just absurd that I quickly scrapped it.

As I was infering with my lengthy post above, there are a lot of things I like about TAS and what it brought to the _Star Trek_ universe, but there are some things that I don't think we're well thought out. The TAS shuttlecraft is a good case in point.

Anyone know if Matt Jefferies was ever consulted in regards to aspects of TAS? From my perspective it doesn't look like it. But TOS did set a precedent that what we see onscreen can often be a production compromise from what is really intended. So why should TAS be any different?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)




----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^Your interpolations are much nicer than the original TAS renderings! :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ The SCE registry prefix as well as the Starfleet Corps of Engineers add-on were a spur-of-the-moment thought.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

This is a long and drawn out project and I apologize to everyone for not getting material posted faster. But real life often intrudes and sometimes you're just a little too tired to get as much done as you'd like.

The final complete drawings are really the tip of the iceberg in a project like this. Before hand there is lots of thinking and sketching and even researching towwards getting as close as possible to the final desired result. There's, of course, also my wish to have something of a professional look to the final product.

In some cases I've had to reconsider my approach towards balancing what I'd like to do and what is reasonable to accomplish within a reasonable time frame. To that end I've sometimes chosen to drop certain things I initially planned to do.

This specific project has always been, and continues to be, part of a larger overall project I think of as the Starfleet Command Library. After a lot of thought what I've chosen to do is cmpartmentalize the work so that I can acheive things in stages that can stand complete on their own while being part of a greater whole that can be compiled all into a whole at he end.

And so this project will be:

*STARFLEET SHUTTLECRAFT
Set Of General Plans
Class F & Class H Shuttlecraft
Starfleet Command Library Vol. 1*

Contents:

Sheet 0 – Starfleet Shuttlecraft Cover Page
Sheet 1 – Class F Shuttlecraft Port Elevation
Sheet 2 – Class F Shuttlecraft Starboard Elevation
Sheet 3 – Class F Shuttlecraft Bow Elevation
Sheet 4 – Class F Shuttlecraft Aft Elevation
Sheet 5 – Class F Shuttlecraft Top Plan
Sheet 6 – Class F Shuttlecraft Bottom Plan
Sheet 7 – Class F Shuttlecraft Port Cutaway
Sheet 8 – Class F Shuttlecraft Starboard Cutaway
Sheet 9 – Class F Shuttlecraft Bow Cutaway
Sheet 10 – Class F Shuttlecraft Aft Cutaway
Sheet 11 – Class F Shuttlecraft Deck Plan
Sheet 12 – Class F Shuttlecraft Ceiling Plan
Sheet 13 – Class F Shuttlecraft History & Specifications
Sheet 14 – Class H Shuttlecraft Port Elevation
Sheet 15 – Class H Shuttlecraft Starboard Elevation
Sheet 16 – Class H Shuttlecraft Bow Elevation
Sheet 17 – Class H Shuttlecraft Aft Elevation
Sheet 18 – Class H Shuttlecraft Top Plan
Sheet 19 – Class H Shuttlecraft Bottom Plan
Sheet 20 – Class H Shuttlecraft Port Cutaway
Sheet 21 – Class H Shuttlecraft Starboard Cutaway
Sheet 22 – Class H Shuttlecraft Bow Cutaway
Sheet 23 – Class H Shuttlecraft Aft Cutaway
Sheet 24 – Class H Shuttlecraft Deck Plan
Sheet 25 – Class H Shuttlecraft Ceiling Plan
Sheet 26 – Class H Shuttlecraft History & Specifications
Sheet 27 – Shuttlecraft Complement: U.S.S. _Enterprise_
Sheet 28 – Starship Hangar Port Cutaway
Sheet 29 – Starship Hangar Bow Cutaway
Sheet 30 – Starship Hangar Aft Cutaway
Sheet 31 – Starship Hangar Flight Deck Plan
Sheet 32 – Starship Hangar Maintenance Deck Plan
Sheet 33 – Starship Hangar Service Deck Plan
Sheet 34 – Class B Workpod Exterior Views (Port, Bow and Top)
Sheet 35 – Class B Workpod Exterior Views (Starboard, Aft and Bottom)

The plans will be available in two formats first and then a final third version. The first will be as pdf files: one will be of the original 11x17" sheets and a second 8x11" size for binding if desired. The third form will be when all completed volumes will be on a CD medium in one collection. How many volumes there will be I can't say at this time. It will ultimately depend on how much work I can accomplish and I deem worth doing.

However at this point I can say that there will be other volumes forthcoming. Presently as planned they are:

*STARFLEET SHUTTLECRAFT:
Class J, Class L & Class M Shuttlecraft
Starfleet Command Library Vol. 2*
(these are my adaptations of the TAS shuttlecraft)

*STARFLEET SHUTTLECRAFT:
Class E & Class G Shuttlecraft
Starfleet Command Library Vol. 3*
(these are shuttlecraft from TMP-TFF)

*STARFLEET STARSHIPS:
Constitution  & Enterprise  Class Cruisers
Starfleet Command Library Vol. 4*
("The Cage," TOS and TMP)

Other _SCL_ volumes will be dictated by which material I choose to tackle at that time such as Starfleet Uniforms, various other classes of ships, equipment, Klingon and Romulan ships, etc.


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

> ...these are shuttlecraft from TMP-_TFF_...


Lurch moan starts now. UUUUHHhhhhhhhhhhhhh ...


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I finally have a hard number for the Class H’s length overall: 8.839 meters or 28.999ft. Talk about getting it in just under the wire! (-: The vehicle’s height is planned to be near exactly the same as the Class H’s and the width overall should be no more than about a foot wider and hopefully a bit less. These dimensions should make the Class H reasonably as manageable as the Class F within the ship’s hangar facilities. It should be noted that a 29ft. length for the Class H isn’t the same as it would have been for the Class F. A 29ft. Class F shuttlecraft would also have meant substantially greater vehicle height and width overall as well as the problems in regards to ease-of-access I’ve often mentioned before.

Externally you’ve already seen the general outline of the Class H. The final design will vary little from the elevations posted earlier upthread save for the nacelles being moderately shorter than previously shown (although that will be nearly indistinguishable at first glance). I will retain the 5-port impulse engine arrangement I drew up for my initial version of the design (as adapted from a drawing in _TMoST),_ however I will revert to using the three “window” panels on the Class F’s forward hull (representing the main space and navigational sensor arrays) as opposed to the single wide panel I had initially conceived. I simply think the original three panels look better and more finished. The access hatch/gangway will also be modified by necessity since it is must open further downward for ease of entry and exit. No, this ship will not look like the TAS shuttlecraft seen in “The Slaver Weapon,” but as I have stated before I believe this is a more believable “real” TOS version of what the _Enterprise_ based _Copernicus_ would look like (and assuming they had magically had the resources to build a full-size mockup of it). This is all based on my perspective of what if “The Slaver Weapon” had been filmed as a live-action TOS episode under the best of circumstances.

Internally the Class H will diverge a bit more than the exterior. The forward bulkhead will have one large viewing monitor as opposed to the three smaller screens of the Class F—a nod to the large transparent viewport of the TAS shuttlecraft. There will be some minor variations to the control consoles. There will be three seats set forward rather than seven. I hope to include at least one of the cabinet/consoles glimpsed in “The Immunity Syndrome” as well as a desk/table work space, an equipment locker and two fold-away sleeping berths. This will represent the standard configuration suitable for the craft’s maximum range and speed. Of course, like the Class F, the interior can be refitted for other mission profiles if required with the possible sacrifice of projected range. The chairs will also be moderately different in having a higher backrest similar to those of the standard chairs seen throughout the _Enterprise_ sets. The seats in the TAS shuttlecraft did look little different than the standard _Enterprise_ chairs so those will be another nod to that while still being rooted in TOS’ “realism.” The aft cabin area will remain the same as the Class F’s. Of course, it should be noted that the interior of the TAS _Copernicus_ was rather bare—we only saw two seats, a table and what looked like interior structural members. There really should have been more detail. When I eventually draw up my TOS adaptation of the TAS scoutship it will also have a more detailed interior although it’s unlikely I will detail the between hulls tech to the same extent as the Class F and H shuttlecraft. I’ve found planning out and drawing the “guts” of the ships the most challenging and daunting aspect of this prospect.

A final minor change: I’ve changed the _Columbus’_ registry to *NCC-1701/2*. I’m just assuming that *1701/1* was lost sometime along the way since these craft were first introduced. The numbering of the shuttlecraft really is left up to interpretation since the _Enterprise_ is supposed to have only four shuttlecraft and yet the _Galileo_ was numbered *1701/7*. In TAS the shuttlecraft were numbered up to *11* and *12*! One could assume that at least three of the craft were lost over the years and that the _Columbus_ is now the oldest of the remaining ships. However, after the initial loss of the _Galileo_ in “The Galileo Seven” for some obscure reason they chose to number the _Galileo II_ number *1701/7* as well rather than *1701/8*. Go figure. Of course in real terms we know this was a production compromise, but I haven’t yet heard of or figured out any sort of rationale for how it works in TOS’ universe. In that light I chose to number my _Copernicus_ *1701/3* rather than *1701/12* as seen in TAS, as well as being partly influenced by the very flimsy reasoning that the _Copernicus_ seen in TFF was also numbered *3*. I suppose more logically I could have numbered it *1701/8*, but there it is. Of course the Class H _Copernicus_ could have been aboard ship for quite some time and we just never saw it—which is my basic reasoning. It could also be that Starfleet just assigns a replacement for a lost shuttlecraft and it’s left to the ship’s crew to name it if they so wish. But that still leaves Starfleet’s registry practice a mystery.

I’m rationalizing that the Class F shuttlecraft were introduced sometime during Pike’s tenure while the Class H was introduced around the time the _Enterprise_ was refit for its 5-year mission. And so the shuttlecraft complement I’m illustrating represents how things stood around the beginning of TOS’ production episodes.

This does raise the interesting question as to what did Starfleet have before the Class F was introduced. I’m rejecting the dorky looking shuttlepod seen in ENT and not only because I’m not looking that far back. Whatever it was it most likely had to have been accommodated within a _Constitution_-class hangar area, but possibly not since the Class F could have been developed with the then new starship designs in mind. I’m assuming the earlier shuttles were more cramped and without warp capability. At some point I may try sketching out some concepts trying to work backwards from the Class F as well as considering some of MJ’s early sketches. I’m intrigued with one of *aridas’* concepts (based on a MJ concept) although I don’t feel it looks quite convincingly pre TOS Starfleet…but who really knows? I’m also mindful of a drawing of a shuttlecraft in one of Gold Key Comics’ early issues of their TOS comic which looked nothing like the TOS shuttlecraft, but was interesting nonetheless.


----------



## moogybaby (Jun 7, 2006)

For what it's worth, I happen to like the idea that the shuttles can be broken down into component parts and stored, an idea akin to foldable wings on carrier-based aircraft.

This idea is the only viable canon-consistent reason for not using the shuttles to rescue the trapped crewmen on the surface of Alfa 177 in "The Enemy Within".

Obviously, we know why they didn't use the shuttles, but if we have to reconcile, there aren't many other good reasons other than the time to prep the shuttles to "flight-ready" status.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

The image posted below shows the _completed_ sheets of this project. It doesn’t seem like much, but it does represent a lot of work. It also doesn’t show all the stuff I have going that are in varying degrees of completion such as the Class F ceiling and deck plans which are nearly finished. The completed sheets and those nearly done will also serve as the basis for the set of drawings I will do for my Class H shuttlecraft variant, which will greatly facilitate that part of the project and allow me to complete it more quickly.










The next _serious_ hurdle will be when I tackle the hangar area and related facilities.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

THIS IS ALL *ARIDAS'* FAULT!

He got me thinking about a pre TOS shuttlecraft design when I've got enough stuff going as it is. :lol:

I sketched this up in the coffee shop last night.









My thinking behind this early concept is not only adapting some of MJ's early ideas, but also considering what they could have built as a fullsize mockup.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I like it!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

You can't have nacelles if there's no warp capability! 

EXCELLENT DESIGN!!!! Very practical and looking much more part of a logical lineage to the STOS shuttlecraft than most I've seen.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I'm even contemplating doing up perhaps two sheets of exterior views for this and including them in my Class F set.

Hmmm. On the other hand I could do another Starfleet Command Library volume called Early Starfleet.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)




----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

I'm just blown away by all this stuff!  :thumbsup: 

After seeing the comic book excerpt above, I'm curious;

are any Star Trek comics still being produced?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Actually I believe so, but I'm not at all sure who is doing it.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

The shuttle from the comic book is similar to Blofeld's minisub from _Diamonds Are Forever_, though it also resembles a lot of "futuristic" cars and such from 1970s movies and TV. Sort of a generic retro-future vehicle look, if that makes sense.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

A little more sketching for the Cage era shuttlecraft. The nacelles aren't quite right for my liking yet, but the rest overall is pretty much on target.


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

Yep. That'll work. That'll work _real good_.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Thanks. I feel the bat-like wingy upper stabilizers have to be tempered or it risks looking cliche, hokey or even a bit comical. I didn't want to sharpen the edges of the forward hull too much or it would look too derivative of the Class F. And including viewports on either side of the hull somehow looks a little more Cage era I think.

The tricky thing about designing a fictional vehicle is that although you can borrow and adapt elements from other things in the end it still has to look integrated and aethetically whole rather than an obvious mish-mash of borrowed parts. And then there's a matter of adding just the right telling details to finish it off. When I apply myself to coming up with something new I experiment and agonize over getting the overall shape and proportions just right and then begin trying to apply the right detail to bring it all together.

I've always disliked how the _Deadalus_-class ship has been done because the models and drawings I've seen of it are little more than straight copy of MJ's basic sketch. It just doesn't look finished. And then there's the unspoken rule of fictional vehicles: there should be something heroic or at least visually cohesive about the design. The _Deadalus_ as I've seen has none of those things. I think it could be done, but I haven't seen it yet, and I can see why MJ abandoned the general concept.


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

Wake me when it's over.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

pagni said:


> Wake me when it's over.


????

Anyway, something new.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

That is a nice variation on the shuttlecraft theme. The forward landing gear gives it a more dynamic look, IMHO. Your blueprints are superb.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Note that the forward landing strut will be shortened a bit. My intent is for the Class H to have the same height overall as the Class F. And I may redesign the forward strut to some extent.

Soon I will have some hard numbers for dimensions.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

The overall width and height dimensions will change a bit, but everything else is pretty much right.


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

looking good....Make sure you perform a spell check


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

pagni said:


> looking good....Make sure you perform a spell check


Yep, you're right. I can see one or two things I missed.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

This evening I'll be starting some preliminary sketching for my servipod vehicle of which two are stored at the lowest of the the three hangar decks. The servipod is meant to be the TOS era predecessor to the workpod seen in TMP and influenced by MJ's early sketches as he worked toward the eventual familiar shuttlecraft design.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

A little comparison between classes. Also the H's forward strut has been properly shortened and a spell check performed on the history notes.


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

This may be slightly OT, but do you happen to have a size comparison pic between your settled-on size of the Class F and the shuttlecraft we see in STV?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

justinleighty said:


> This may be slightly OT, but do you happen to have a size comparison pic between your settled-on size of the Class F and the shuttlecraft we see in STV?


No, it's not off-topic. However, although I intend to eventually tackle the shuttlecraft design in STV it's something that is still a bit down the road. When I'm done here with the TOS shuttlecraft I will next be tackling the TAS shuttlecraft designs and then the TMP and TFF shuttlecraft.

In the meantime here's the completed Class H exterior while I continue to struggle with the interior between-the-hulls details.









I'm gratified that the final hard dimensions for the Class ha are so close to the F's. The overall height is near exactly the same, the width is barely two inches wider and the length is just under 3ft. more. Neato.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

And something else new to ponder....


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Pleeease use upper and lower case in the body copy. All-upper-case is hard to read!

_"...long spans of text in all upper-case are harder to read because of the absence of the ascenders and descenders found in lower-case letters, which can aid recognition."_

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majuscule
http://www.tomontheweb2.ca/CMX/4D5E2/

Pleeeeease ....


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

And keep in mind that except when using the turntable/elevator the shuttlecraft would be stored two abreast whether on the flight deck or the maintenance/storage deck.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

As I mentioned earlier it will be sometime before I can tackle the hangar deck and related areas. Before I get to that I plan to tackle the TAS shuttlecraft and then the film shuttlecraft. The TAS shuttlecraft do have a bearing on my ideas for the hangar deck. Although the TAS designs, even adapted, cannot be accommodated as regular ship based shuttlecraft I believe the Flight Deck must still be large enough to accommodate them (when they are periodically loaned out for specific missions) even if it means the craft may or may not be able to be turned around while within the hangar. What this means to me is that the TAS designs can still have full standing room interiors, must bear some resemblance to their somewhat hastily and simplistically drawn appearances onscreen yet their exteriors must also be reasonably compact enough to be held temporarily on the ship’s Flight Deck.

*Professor Moriarty* (or was it *Tallguy*?) once mentioned he wanted his large hangar deck if possible. I feel much the same way, and so like I did with the Class F shuttlecraft I will tackle the Hangar Deck with the intent of depicting a “realistic” facility while trying to look as close as possible to what we saw onscreen (and taking into account that we were seeing a forced perspective, film production compromise view of the facility).

In regards to my Utility Pod—-what I’m seeing as the TOS version of the TMP Workbee-—its design is not yet finalized although I will be influenced somewhat by some of Matt Jefferies’ sketches of a “space tug” service craft as he worked towards the now familiar Class F shuttlecraft. How the Utility Pods (I envision at least two of the them as standard ship’s complement) are stored is still very much open for conjecture. In TMP we can glimpse Workbees sitting in alcoves on the main Flight Deck. I’m not sure we really get a clear look at the elongated alcoves on each side of the flight deck in TOS. Is it feasible the Utility Pods could be stored there? If so then it would free up a great deal of space below the Flight Deck that could be devoted more to maintenance and storage of the standard shuttlecraft.

In TOS we never saw more than the one shuttlecraft on the Flight Deck. Of course we know the real world production reason for that, but upon further consideration it might make some real world sense. If by chance a damaged shuttlecraft is coming in “hot” and somehow not perfectly controlled by landing beam (essentially a tractor beam) then the last thing you want are parked vehicles taking up potentially needed “landing” space and more obstacles for your errant incoming vehicle to possibly plow into and likely damage as well. Also if you must periodically accommodate a larger Starfleet (TAS?), Federation or even alien craft for docking purposes in lieu of using the transporter then you’d also appreciate more landing space. That’s why I feel the Flight Deck cannot be too small and should have some size to it. In following that line of thinking then I think it makes sense that the Maintenance Deck must be able to hold all four shuttlecraft.

As such, as much as I like this photomanip of mine I did quite sometime ago I now think it unlikely.









Here I must reiterate that except for the design of the shuttlecraft seen in TFF I discount everything else seen there in regards to the Flight Deck. The fact we see shuttlecraft stored there and that we see a facility that bears more resemblance to the TOS flight deck than the TMP one (and, of course, that that’s just the least of many things to discount about TFF). I believe we can also reasonably overlook the oversized and overcrowded Flight Deck seen in TAS if we wish to strive for a more realistic facility. I also discount everything I’ve glimpsed in TOS-R since I have little to no confidence in their sense of scale or their thinking in general.

I must also say that I’m gratified that at present it does look like this can all work within a 947ft. ship. If it had been necessary then I wouldn’t have had a problem with scaling up fourteen something percent for a 1080ft. starship, but it’s nice to see that the long accepted figure of 947ft. can work. And I think this is greatly helped by achieving 26 and 29ft shuttlecraft.

How are shuttlecraft moved about the Flight Deck and below? Well, we know Starfleet has antigrav technology. Is this utilized with the shuttlecraft in some fashion? Below in the Maintenance Deck I can also envision some sort of magnetic grappler that can hoist the craft and park them where desired. Perhaps something similar to what *Cary L. Brown* has proposed earlier. The maglift can affix itself to the vehicle’s roof where the curved in upper hull could conveniently serve as some manner of safety catch should the grappler fail. I believe there should also be some reasonable ceiling space above the shuttlecraft while in the Maintenance Deck should it ever be necessary to work on the upper hull of the vehicles. This would also mean that the turntable/elevator needn’t lower completely to be flush with the Maintenance Deck floor. It need only clear the Maintenance Deck ceiling wherein the maglift takes over and parks the vehicle where desired. And if the Utility Pods can be stored in the alcoves off the Flight Deck then we needn’t be concerned with suitable space for them below the Maintenance Deck. Something to think about?

In regards to the TMP shuttlecraft. The drawings I’ve seen of the smaller version of the vehicle as seen on the Flight Deck are scaled at something like _40ft. long!_ That’s more than a fair size and quite a bit larger than the TOS type shuttlecraft to be housed in a refit ship that really isn’t that much bigger than the TOS _E._ I suspect that when I eventually turn my attention to this vehicle there will be some rescaling to be considered. At this point I just cannot accept a 40ft. shuttlecraft even within the refit _E._ This may well be another case of adapting the design to be scaled more appropriately while striving to retain the look of the craft as seen onscreen. There is some added flexibility in the fact we have never seen the interior of this craft although there is a general description of it in Shane Johnson’s book _Mr. Scott’s Guide to the U.S.S. Enterprise._

And finally the shuttlecraft seen in TFF. The look and general scale of the craft as seen seem okay as is, but I do have some reservations. I absolutely *HATE* that stupid “tail gate” hatch seen at the aft end when you already have an access hatch on _both_ sides of the craft. And that tailgate really makes the vehicle look more like a movie mockup rather than a credible spacecraft. At least the TOS shuttlecraft looked to have some substance between the hulls when the access hatch was open. As far as I’m concerned that friggin’ tailgate was a figment of a deranged imagination and doesn’t exist or belong on the “real” shuttlecraft. Lastly, the interior of the TFF shuttlecraft looked rather bare bones to me, but then it was so poorly lit that it was hard to make out the inte-rior detail clearly. Of course, that may have been intentional as a production compromise. 



TAS Shuttlecraft Histories:

The Class J shuttlecraft was first introduced when advances in stardrive technologies and engi-neering during the mid 22nd century finally made it possible to incorporate space warp drives into rather compact spaceframes. It is sometimes referred to as a “scoutship” although it is much smaller than most scout class vehicles. Even so its rakish appearance does telegraph its intended function well enough. The Class J was developed by Vulcan aerospace industries partly to fulfill a demand for a ground based, fast and extended range transport as Federation outposts, facilities and member worlds were located ever farther outward. This design has been contracted by vari-ous Federation agencies as well as Starfleet, individual member world governments and even pri-vate interests. The design can also be modified in production to accommodate specific client requirements. The standard configuration accommodates a two or three person complement although it can be easily refit for up to six persons. In standard configuration it can sustain three persons for up to a month’s duration with sufficient supplies as well as adequate sleeping and support facilities. The vehicle is divided into two main sections: the larger forward main cabin and the smaller aft cabin comprised of an airlock and main systems access. The flexible and ro-bust design allowed for subsequent advances in stardrive technology to be easily incorporated into upgraded variants of the vehicle wherein this vehicle remains in service and in demand throughout the Federation.

The Class L shuttlecraft is often referred to as a lander or “heavy lander” since it is designed specifically for extreme environments ranging beyond general Class M parameters. The lander has been used mostly by various branches of Starfleet, particularly the Engineering Corps, as well as several private interests throughout the Federation concerned with planetary survey in terms of geology, mining, cosmology, archeology and even xenobiology. Within Starfleet the lander can be temporarily loaned out to deep space starships for specific missions since the vehicle is too large to be accommodated as part of a ship’s regular complement of auxiliary craft. The Class L is a sturdy design due to necessity, but it is also of low space warp capability and limited range. Its main function dictated incorporating powerful impulse engines (for its size) as well as robust antigrav components to manage severe environments and higher than standard gravities. The lander was designed and developed by Mars based aerospace industries with a long established reputation for developing rugged vehicles suited for hostile environments.

Starfleet’s exploratory functions are focused primarily on Class M type worlds. Periodically, though, it is necessary to investigate the aquatic environments of some of those worlds. There are numerous automated resources available for such exploration, but periodically manned onsite op-erations are demanded. The aquashuttle was developed for that very purpose. The aquashuttle’s primary function negates the need for any space warp drive—it is strictly a limited range orbit-to-surface vehicle with a standard complement of four to six persons. Designing such a vehicle was challenging since the environment of space is at odds with an aquatic one. A spacecraft’s hull is designed primarily to withstand internal atmospheric pressure from blowing the craft apart in the vacuum of space while a submersible is designed to withstand mounting external pressure from crushing the hull. Advanced materials helped solve this contradiction yet the inevitable compromise is that the aquashuttle is not a deep range submersible. Beyond depths within the aquashuttle’s range one must then resort to specifically designed true submersibles for further exploration, and those type of operations are usually outside Starfleet’s mandate.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> .How are shuttlecraft moved about the Flight Deck and below? Well, we know Starfleet has antigrav technology. Is this utilized with the shuttlecraft in some fashion? Below in the Maintenance Deck I can also envision some sort of magnetic grappler that can hoist the craft and park them where desired.


I always used to envision the shuttlecraft being manhandled around the flight and maintenance decks by crewmen using portable antigrav units slapped onto the craft's hull -- like the old college prank of having eight or ten husky young guys lift and move a VW Bug!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I must have been overtired or something last night when I made my last post. I don’t know what I was thinking.

What I meant to say in regards to it being sometime before I tackle the hangar deck was that I still have a fair amount to do in regards to the TOS shuttlecraft before I can approach the hangar deck plans. The TAS and film shuttlecraft will follow after that.

What I have left to _complete_ first:
Sheet 0 – Starfleet Shuttlecraft Cover Page
Sheet 7 – Class F Shuttlecraft Port Cutaway
Sheet 8 – Class F Shuttlecraft Starboard Cutaway
Sheet 9 – Class F Shuttlecraft Bow Cutaway
Sheet 10 – Class F Shuttlecraft Aft Cutaway
Sheet 11 – Class F Shuttlecraft Deck Plan
Sheet 12 – Class F Shuttlecraft Ceiling Plan
Sheet 20 – Class H Shuttlecraft Port Cutaway
Sheet 21 – Class H Shuttlecraft Starboard Cutaway
Sheet 22 – Class H Shuttlecraft Bow Cutaway
Sheet 23 – Class H Shuttlecraft Aft Cutaway
Sheet 24 – Class H Shuttlecraft Deck Plan
Sheet 33 – Class B Utility Pod Exterior Views (Port, Bow and Top)
Sheet 34 – Class B Utility Pod Exterior Views (Starboard, Aft and Bottom)
Sheet 35 – Class E Shuttlecraft Exterior Views (Port, Bow and Top) [this is “The Cage” era shuttlecraft included here mainly for some historical perspective]
Sheet 36 – Class E Shuttlecraft Exterior Views (Starboard, Aft and Bottom)
Sheet 37 – Class E Shuttlecraft Interior Views (Port, Bow and Deck Cutaways)

And finally then:
Sheet 27 – Starship Hangar Port Cutaway
Sheet 28 – Starship Hangar Bow Cutaway
Sheet 29 – Starship Hangar Aft Cutaway
Sheet 30 – Starship Hangar Flight Deck Plan
Sheet 31 – Starship Hangar Maintenance Deck Plan
Sheet 32 – Starship Hangar Service Deck Plan (actually remains in question whether this will need to be done)
Sheet 38 – Project Background & Notes

As *aridas* has mentioned earlier deck plans will have to be done to properly flesh this out. But I will add that I think it would be worthwhile doing cross sections looking both bow and aftwards to better ascertain how much room we have to play with.

I won’t be giving the pre TOS era Class E shuttlecraft quite the same in-depth treatment as my Class F and H shuttlecraft—it’s simply too much work for what is essentially a hobby. My intent is similar with the TAS and film shuttlecraft. I’m going to the limit with the TOS shuttlecraft simply because I find them the most interesting. I will still do the others with the same overall approach I’m using with the TOS vehicles, but I just can’t see myself agonizing over the between-the-hulls details to the same extent with the latter day craft.

My plans for the other shuttlecraft are essentially:
Sheet 1 – Shuttlecraft Port Elevation
Sheet 2 – Shuttlecraft Starboard Elevation
Sheet 3 – Shuttlecraft Bow Elevation
Sheet 4 – Shuttlecraft Aft Elevation
Sheet 5 – Shuttlecraft Top Plan
Sheet 6 – Shuttlecraft Bottom Plan
Sheet 7 – Shuttlecraft Port Cutaway
Sheet 8 – Shuttlecraft Deck Plan
Sheet 9 – Shuttlecraft History & Specifications

Even so all told I will still end up doing something between 90 and 100 pages of drawings to cover all the main TOS, TAS and film shuttlecraft compiled over three volumes of _Starfleet Shuttlecraft._ It should still be rather comprehensive even though I’m not going into every little detail and leaving s_omething_ to the imagination. (-:

I question whether anyone has ever gone into this level of detail before in regards to a fictional creation, but who really knows. :lol:


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

Really, I mean the following in all respect and admiration....
But....

04-02-2006, 05:59 PM
Warped9 Warped9 is offline
Elder Statesman
My Gallery
Trader Rating: (0)

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,389
Lightbulb My TOS Shuttlecraft...
Okay, I'm jumping the gun a bit here, but what the hell. Please bear with me.

Mmmmmokay..... And when will this oeuvre be completed, 2020 ?

We're still bearing..... what, a little over a year and half ?
And yet you keep on adding projects and posts ensuring that none of them will ever see the light of day. 
?????????


----------



## Sarvek (Jun 10, 2005)

Warped9, you are doing a fantastic job. :thumbsup: I have really loved how this project continues to move forward. I am really looking forward to more updates. Keep up the great work and Keep on Trekkin. :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

pagni said:


> Really, I mean the following in all respect and admiration....
> But....
> 
> 04-02-2006, 05:59 PM
> ...


This is a HOBBY after all and not a paying occupation.

Besides which although there are sidetracks the main project is still moving forward. And even most of those sidetracks are connected to the main project.


----------



## Sarvek (Jun 10, 2005)

You have a great hobby Warped9. I have always admired you attention to detail on all the craft that you have designed. I am really looking forward to the orthographics on the TAS shuttlecraft. Your designs on the TAS shuttlecraft make a great deal of sense and are quite logical in your thinking, but I still prefer the original design on the Aquashuttle. Keep up the great work and keep those updates coming.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

When I finally tackle the TAS shuttlecraft designs I will be looking for a way to make them look a bit closer to how they appeared onscreen. The aquashuttle is the one that will require the most effort in this regard. I can honestly say up front that the TAS designs will not exactly like they did onscreen, but they will be recognizable.

A small note of interest: Alan Dean Foster's description of the aquashuttle in his adaptation of "The Ambergris Element" sounds drastically different than what we saw onscreen and could even be interpreted to some extent as being a description of the _Proteus_ from the '66 film _Fantastic Voyage.._


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)




----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

It's come to my attention recently that someone has expressed interest in rendering my TOS shuttlecraft as a 3D model.

Sweet! :thumbsup:

However, at this point I'll refrain from saying who and leave it to them to reveal their intentions at their convenience.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I can't wait to see how your approach to the heavy shuttle compares to mine. I've got a similar design philosophy though I try to maintain the look of the TAS shuttlecraft as much as possible.

http://home.earthlink.net/~startrek-tas/id1.html


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

On the subject of the Enterprise size issue -- whereby is driven a less-than-31-ft-long Class F shuttle -- I think the following must be considered.

First -- as CaptCardboard has in effect said -- the "reconstruction" of a fictional vehicle must be driven by on-screen "data." 

So what of cases where data disagree? The issue then becomes, what is the _preponderance_ of data?

We "know" the shuttle to be 24 ft long, because Kirk said it. And it's fascinating to find that figure jibes with a cabin/body length not too much off accomodating the depicted interior.

We "know" the Enterprise to be 947 ft long, not merely because of off-screen data (Making of "Star Trek"), but due to the inclusion in "The Enterprise Incident" of Matt Jeffries' Connie/Klingon comparisons (with scale bar...unreadable on screen, but legible in Making).

But what do we SEE of Enterprise's size on screen?

We see a hangar deck whose width at the centerline of the turntable can be calculated in relation to the shuttlecraft's overall length (whatever we take that to be). This is NOT (is it?) a calculation subject to forced perspective, as it is at right angles to the angle of view. Now, where exactly this width-point falls relative to the secondary hull might be debated (though I'd say Matt Jeffries' centerline cutaway shows the shuttle lift belowdecks)...but its existence is obvious.

We see corridor deck heights of some ten feet (measurable as such in the actual set plans of "Trek" production stage nine).

We see, without exception, single-occupancy cabins (of which Roddenberry said, in re: contemporary military tradition "bunk rooms," that he wanted HIS crew to enjoy the dignity of such quarters).

Lastly, we see -- in the *first pilot* -- a bridge whose size in relation to the surrounding ship structure is in approximate keeping with the size [width at turntable] of the hangar as shown.

Given the ship's size (and crew complement) wasn't established at the time of the pilot's filming -- and given Making's citation in one memo of "the engines, thousands of feet long and hundreds of feet above our heads" (an indication of the sheer _degree_ to which the size was in flux), I think we are free -- if not "required" -- to size the ship *not* in accordance with a (loosely-adopted) 947-ft length, but as required to accomodate the above data (not to mention the housing of more than a hundred supercargo in "Journey to Babel").

Doing this requires that Jeffries' Connie/Klingon comparison scale bar be "rescaled," and [off-screen] 947-ft references ignored.

Doing otherwise requires shrinking the shuttle interior..."tweaking" the hangar width...and quite possibly doubling up on cabin occupancy and lowering corridor deck height. It requires ignoring, in effect, *most or all* on-screen evidence of set, plot, and special effects decisions made not on the basis of precise calculation (which was NEVER performed), but because the result(s) (as with Pike's bridge) "looked right" to those doing the show. 

Finally, as to a 31-ft shuttle being too damn big to board in the field, such a size makes the step up to the nacelle step a right-angle one...i.e., putting one's thigh and calf at right angles. Uncomfortable...but hardly impossible. A slightly lesser step puts one on the "stoop."

This isn't meant to criticize Warped9's draughtmanship, which is impeccable. I merely question the sizing rationale.


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

As to why the shuttle's chairs are mounted so low to the deck, two important reasons come to mind:

1)so that one can be placed inside the "full scale" exterior prop (visible through the open door) without revealing the prop's small[er] size

2)so that Yeoman Mears doesn't get bruised when falling out of one on liftoff from Tarsus II

A side issue, as to the aquashuttle's not having warp drive (due to its not "needing" it). This suggestion recapitulates literally decades of the Class F shuttle's (visibly obvious) warp nacelles being [mis-]labeled "main propulsion" (and the Class F herself being deemed sublight) in Franz Joseph's tech manual and the like. The aquashuttle has warp drive, being as how it has warp _pods...._just as did the Galileo.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

If one goes through this thread's earlier posts you'll find the answers to all these points being raised and the subsequent reasoning for the direction I've taken with my shuttlecraft adaptation.

Essentially it boils down to _how_ you interpret the data available and looking for additional information from offscreen sources. The project's _intent_ also matters. I never intended just to duplicate and reconcile a tv filming prop. I was trying to depict a credible and integrated vehicle as if it were _real._

Even if the _Enterprise_ were 1080ft. as opposed to 947ft. there still really wouldn't be sufficient room to properly accommodate at least four 31ft. shuttlecraft.


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

Actually, I did read the thread from the beginning, and I think you've done a great job on putting a so-near-as-to-miss-notice-to-depicted interior into a shuttle able to fit into a 947 ft ship. I merely think taking 947 as "fact" strains credulity in terms of what was seen of the ship overall (as cited above).

As to 1080 not being big enough either, my point isn't that the "real" (in terms of sets etc.) Enterprise length is readily derivable from some jiggling of 947 ft (Jeffries' drawings taken as being 1/96), but rather that sets (i.e., scenes featuring humans) should be taken as the primary data in terms of size derivation. 

This would of course drive up the size of the refit also...but I've personally always loathed the refit. 

I didn't mean to come off as snotty, though. The bottom line is that anyone tackling so involved a drafting job has to find the inspiration that works for them. Yours differs from mine, but the results are gorgeous. I also liked your animated concept sketches, and look forward to seeing them developed further.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

In the past I, too, have argued for a 1080ft. ship because nowhere onscreen is it ever established that the _E_ is 947ft. The sticking point is that the 947ft. figure is documented offscreen and is cemented in most people's minds over the past forty years.

There is also the issue that inevitable compromises and inconsistencies will arise when dealing with fictional subject matter of which much of it is hammered out on-the-fly. Too often errors or inconsistencies can pop up only after you've committed your work to film.

Even if one managed to get all the fictional tech nailed down long before shooting Murphy's Law would propbably intervene to give rise to production compromises to mess you up. 

Recall, also, that the interior set of the shuttlecraft had to be made large to accommodate filming with bulky cameras. Today it wouldn't be a problem filming with compact hand-held cameras. But there are sufficient clues onscreen and off to believe that MJ intended a smaller interior. Additionally the exterior mockup was made smaller than even the 24ft. figure referenced onscreen simply to facilitate moving it around and transporting it. Both the onscreen interior and exterior are production compromises that are wildly inconsistent with each other. If you give primacy to one or the other then you end up with a vehicle that is drastically incompatible with what is seen onscreen. I reasoned the only way to achieve a believable integrated shuttlecraft was to try to deduce something more compatible with what MJ may have originally intended.

- I retained the proportions of the exterior mockup as seen onscreen even though I had to enlarge the scale moderately from about 20 to 26ft.
- I retained the interior dimensions of the interior set (which my 26ft. exterior allows me to do) _except_ for ceiling height and overall cabin length.

Note one other detail. The TOS shuttlecraft mockups were built to suggest that there was space between the exterior and interior hulls to accommodate unseen hardware, and I extrapolated from that and built upon the idea with my adaptation. But in contemporary Trek, with all the supposed advantages of figuring things out ahead of time and better production standrads, too often I felt the shuttles looked like little more than plywood constructs with cardboard thick hulls--wholly unconvincing. And the TNG shuttlepod was one of the crappiest things I've ever seen. It always reminded me of a "shuttlecraft" a childhood friend and I fabricated out of a couple of oversized furniture boxes when we were about 15 years old.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

My 2 cents:

I tend to think that the 1080 foot length is good for BOTH refit and original ships, especially since it would make the refit process itself a bit more believable. The idea that bigger is better and more futuristic is backwards to my way of thinking. 

Size is dependent on engine technology and needs. Smaller warp engines on the refit--when both ships are kept at about 1080--make perfect sense to me.

If you experiment with drawings and the like keeping the saucer diameter the same, for example, you get a whole different take on the refit process and its lesser extent needed for such a scenario.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ I lean to the 947 figure out of habit and long acceptance, but I'm not hostile to the 1080 figure at all. *aridas* has done an exceptional job for supporting the 947 figure with his very nice _Enterprise_ cutaway schematic. There's a lot about it that I like that makes it very convincing.

That said at some point I will be attempting drawings of the ship's hangar facility consistent with my adapted shuttlecraft drawings and using the same kind of thinking I used there. What arises from that project will likely be the deciding factor for me in regards to whether 947 or 1080 is more realistic.

This project has been very helpful in other avenues. What I'm learning here is being applied to a work of my own making. I'm endeavoring to write a novel which I call _The Starkind_ which deals with the voyages of a fast relativistic starship set 900 years in the future. As part of the work I'm designing the starship in detail as well as the variant flyers (shuttlecraft) and the main interior facilities as if they were to be used for filming a film or series. 

What I've taken from MJ and TOS is the influence and inspiration in _how_ MJ approached his subject matter.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> ^^ I lean to the 947 figure out of habit and long acceptance, but I'm not hostile to the 1080 figure at all.


No problem, Warped. I've followed your discussions and work for several years now 

Your work has been very believable and if you can make 947' work, that's cool, too. I'm not all that hostile to that figure but don't consider it "canon" thus leaving us room for plenty of fun debates on the topic.


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

Again, I must reiterate (as a voice in the wilderness for what has been called the "King Kong Enterprise") that the _preponderance_ of evidence (corridor deck height, single cabins, "Cage" bridge size, hangar width vs. shuttle length) is for a ship larger than 947 OR 1080 feet. 

I, like others, grew up with the "canon" figures, many of which I can still cite from memory (as I can passages from "Making"). I, like others, pored over Joseph's deck plans, taking (at the time) more issue with his remaking auxiliary control into a duplicate bridge than I did his putting 2 crew into each cabin. But in the final analysis, I firmly believe "series reality" must dictate what the "real" Enterprise is. I don't think it's a matter of "interpretation" to posit a size capable of accomodating the aforementioned features, but rather an adherence to logic to disregard a SINGLE anomalous datum (the 947 figure, in fact "cited" on air, in a sense, in "Enterprise Incident's" inclusion of the scale-barred Connie/Klingon comparison views) in favor of the MANY visual "datums." 

As to the comparison views, their scale bar being in feet (not meters) might be considered another (somewhat weak) argument in favor of their scale bars being "rescaled."

On the other hand, "if you wonder how he eats and breathes and other science facts/tell yourself 'it's just a show, and I should just relax.'"


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Yes, it is "just a show," but part of the fun is trying to make sense of it as if it were real."

There's a good thread going on over at the TBBS in the Arts forum wherein they're discussing how much space is in the _Enterprise_ (as part of a larger thread dealing with drawing detailed deck plans of the TOS _E_). The issue was raised that there is a lot of available space depending on how you use it. And there's more than sufficient room for 430 crew especially when you consider how many people can be fit into U.S. naval ships and with less space. By U.S. Navy standards the TOS _E_ is a rather spacious cruise liner.

And there have been previous similar projects that do show that either a 947 or 1080ft. ship is sufficient to fit everything into. MJ had a good handle on what he was doing.


----------



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

trekkist said:


> Again, I must reiterate (as a voice in the wilderness for what has been called the "King Kong Enterprise") that the _preponderance_ of evidence (corridor deck height, single cabins, "Cage" bridge size, hangar width vs. shuttle length) is for a ship larger than 947 OR 1080 feet.
> 
> I, like others, grew up with the "canon" figures, many of which I can still cite from memory (as I can passages from "Making"). I, like others, pored over Joseph's deck plans, taking (at the time) more issue with his remaking auxiliary control into a duplicate bridge than I did his putting 2 crew into each cabin. But in the final analysis, I firmly believe "series reality" must dictate what the "real" Enterprise is. I don't think it's a matter of "interpretation" to posit a size capable of accomodating the aforementioned features, but rather an adherence to logic to disregard a SINGLE anomalous datum (the 947 figure, in fact "cited" on air, in a sense, in "Enterprise Incident's" inclusion of the scale-barred Connie/Klingon comparison views) in favor of the MANY visual "datums."
> 
> ...


 
The canon arguments aside as to whether or not everything could or could not fit in 947 feet(or even 1080 feet)...

If you could fit it all I would at least have to say that I don't think it could be done in a believable fashion.

Yep, I know, I've heard all the "supersteel of the 24th century" type arguments designed to have us believe somebody decided to build a warship capable of traveling at Warp 8 into...

... basically an eggshell!!!!! :freak:

Yeah, I know. It's a 24th Century supersteel eggshell!!! :woohoo:



That makes it believable to me... NOT!!!


But those age old arguments aside, if the bare glimpses of the pre-TOS E we end up with on screen are anything like what we've glimpsed in the previews we might actually have a believably scaled 1701 for the first time.

We can't really tell to much from those previews, and much might change before the final film is in the can - but it looks like they are at least trying to make something look more believable then B & B were ever able to.

If they can accomplish that much, they will have accomplished more then has been done for the Trek universe then since the early days of TNGeneration.

Here's wishing them luck!


ByTWay, trekkist, good to see you are still on the planet!

Drop me an email if you get a chance, haven't heard from you since two computers ago and I no longer have yours.

Glad to see you're still out there in the ether of cyberspace!:thumbsup:


----------



## darkwanderer (Mar 11, 2008)

Carson Dyle said:


> I blame the AMT model kit for this misconception.
> 
> I grew up a few blocks away from the suburban front yard where the full-scale shuttlecraft mockup sat for several years during mid 70's. I'll never forget how disappointed I was when the model came out. To this day I cannot understand how the company responsible for the studio mock-up could have gotten the model so wrong.


Actually it's quite simple to explain. Miscommunication. When the designs for the shuttlecraft were sent to AMT's model makers, someone omitted a top exterior view of the craft. The model makers only had a plan view of the interior. Based on that, they thought that the outside followed the "bent" shape of the interior.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

With Polar Lights being resurrected it would be nice to see a proper 1/24 or even 1/18 scale _Galileo_ shuttlecraft released.

And it could be fun kitbashing it into my _Copernicus_ version, too.


----------



## darkwanderer (Mar 11, 2008)

Warped9 said:


> With Polar Lights being resurrected it would be nice to see a proper 1/24 or even 1/18 scale _Galileo_ shuttlecraft released.


I'm hoping so too. With the new movie coming out next year, I'm betting on a lot of new stuff being released. 
Based on what I've seen so far in a few pics that have been leaked, the basic "Away Party" support equipment has been updated. New phasers, tricorders and communicators. 
I suspect that there might also be some changes with the Enterprise and the Galileo. Maybe they will finally answer some of the questions asked here on size and capacity.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

darkwanderer said:


> . . . Based on what I've seen so far in a few pics that have been leaked, the basic "Away Party" support equipment has been updated. New phasers, tricorders and communicators.


I hope the terminology hasn't been changed in the upcoming movie. In TOS, they beamed down "landing parties," a traditional naval term. TNG gave us the "Away Team," which makes me think of high school football.

Yes, an _accurate_ styrene TOS shuttlcraft kit would be VERY nice.


----------



## darkwanderer (Mar 11, 2008)

scotpens said:


> I hope the terminology hasn't been changed in the upcoming movie. In TOS, they beamed down "landing parties," a traditional naval term. TNG gave us the "Away Team," which makes me think of high school football.
> 
> Yes, an _accurate_ styrene TOS shuttlcraft kit would be VERY nice.


Your right, I was in error to say Away Team (it was late, I was tired and I'm going to stick with that!).

Based on what I've seen of the new props (still can't find that web site, but I'll keep looking), the new Phasers will be a cross between ST:E and ST:TOS. Since the movie predates TOS they might get away with it.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

darkwanderer said:


> Since the movie predates TOS they might get away with it.


No. We already know what pre TOS Starfleet stuff looks like through The Cage and WNMHGB. In my mind there's no question that Trek XI is nothing less than a reimagining and has nothing to do with TOS beyond familiar names and references. As such whatever is done tech wise in the movie has zero relevance to TOS' hardware.

They're being vague with intent, but it's so obviously a restart.


----------



## darkwanderer (Mar 11, 2008)

> No. We already know what pre TOS Starfleet stuff looks like through The Cage and WNMHGB. In my mind there's no question that Trek XI is nothing less than a reimagining and has nothing to do with TOS beyond familiar names and references. As such whatever is done tech wise in the movie has zero relevance to TOS' hardware.


Actually your right, for the generation that grew up with the Real McCoy. However I think whats happening here is, both Paramount and J J Abrams are trying to rewrite Trek lore for a new generation of Trekkers in an effort to revive a waining empire.

BTW, I think the stuff you've done on the Galileo shuttlecraft and the other shuttles is absolutely great. Can't wait to see more of it.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

It's waning primarily because of so much crap they've done over the past twenty years or so.

And I'm not interested in a rethink. They can have it, but if they can't get the essence of what made _Star Trek_ work in the first place then all they'll have is more crap. And the idea of a prequel of the familiar characters together in their younger days doesn't sound at all promising. It sounds more of a gimmick to cover a serious lack of imagination.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

darkwanderer said:


> Actually you're right, for the generation that grew up with the *Real McCoy*. . .



:roll:

:thumbsup: BEAUTIFUL PUN!


----------



## darkwanderer (Mar 11, 2008)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> :roll:
> 
> :thumbsup: BEAUTIFUL PUN!


I was kind of hoping someone would pick up on that. LOL

As for the movie, I'm not too sure if I like the plot (that's been leaked), but I do plan to see it next year. I'm going to try and reserve judgment till then.


----------



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

darkwanderer said:


> Actually your right, for the generation that grew up with the Real McCoy. However I think whats happening here is, both Paramount and J J Abrams are trying to rewrite Trek lore for a new generation of Trekkers in an effort to revive a waining empire.


I'm not so sure about that...

of course they want and need to revive Trek.

But I've seen a little evidence that they are giving some deference to older fans who grew up with Trek during the era of the Space Race.

We'll have to wait and see.

Heck, I can't imagine JJ Abrams doing a much worse job with the franchise then we've seen since about the fourth season of Voyager, when B & B's influence became so thoroughly pervasive and the writing on it, Deep Space Nine and that later series started to circle the drain faster and faster.

If only Many Cotto had been in charge years ago, I think we would have had an entirely different and thriving Star Trek universe. 




darkwanderer said:


> As for the movie, I'm not too sure if I like the plot (that's been leaked), but I do plan to see it next year. I'm going to try and reserve judgment till then.


That's about the way I'm looking at it too. After years of B & B, I'm willing to give the new guys a chance. Heck, after the years of B & B, maybe two or three chances... :thumbsup:


----------



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

Warped9 said:


> Okay, I'm jumping the gun a bit here, but what the hell. Please bear with me.
> 
> Hopefully within the next few days (maybe a week) I'll begin posting images of my take on the TOS shuttlecraft. I've been greatly inspired by the work of *FourMadMen* and Phil Broad in their efforts to reconcile the three different shuttlecraft we saw onscreen
> 
> ...


*Live!*

*Live* I say!!!


Warped9 at the genesis of his take on the TOS shuttlecraft . . .


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Well I did make those 2D drawings and now I'm working on a 3D version using Sketchup. It's on hold presently because of family health issues (my dad, now recovering nicely) and work (which should now start to settle down...except we're now into the holiday shopping season so busy times. 

Started with these.










Now I'm at this point.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

That really looks good, Warped9! I've always been impressed with your 2D work and now, even though you are admittedly in a "learning stage", you are impressing again with your 3D work. Thanks for sharing!


----------

