# My TOS shuttlecraft (cont.)....



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

It's been awhile, but I'm trying to get back on track here.

Firstly, a recap of where we left off:


----------



## CDR Tacket (Apr 2, 2007)

Here is a pic of one that I built for our episodes from Starship Farragut


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

The last image was where I was last, beginning to detail the between hulls mechanical guts of the vehicle.

Besides real life intervening the main problem I had with the work is that I wasn't satisfied with the detailing I was doing. I'm pretty satisfied with the mechanicals in the aft part of the ship but most everything forward of that left be cold.

I eventually reasoned that the best thing to do was to draw up the inner whole and structural spaceframe as seperate components, layer them together and then I'd have a much clearer idea of what should be visible in my various cross sections.

And that leads me to this new render.










I apologize for the slow pace, but as this proceeds I'm doing my best to figure out and consider where things should go.

Referring to "The Galileo Seven." When McCoy and Mears are throwing stuff overboard we see a large cylindrical object as well as a large and shiny cubed shaped object. It's anyone's guess what these things were, but we could assume that as they got between bulkheads in the aft cabin they were prying out equipment from there. To that end I'm trying to include objects that are roughly that size and shape to be seen between the hulls. My present assumption is that they may be related to the waste management system and/or raw materials reprocessing or even the food/beverage systems.

Another tidbit. When Scotty elects to drain the phasers as a supplemental fuel supply he's not accessing the systems from the aft access panels outside the ship but from a floor access panel in the main cabin. Although they're using the word "fuel" what they really must mean is energy. That tells me that there must be power conduits running under the cabin from aft to fore and one of which allows Scotty to drain the phasers into the craft's power system. It's possible that Scotty is doing it from inside because he can't access the power system from outside as it's either hard to get to and/or he doesn't have the appropriate equipment at hand to do it that way.

It's tidbits like those above that I try to use as clues to help me decide where to put things.


And in the interim here's a little something else to ponder for down the road.


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

They're great and gorgeous and you just really need to get to print.
It's been too long.


----------



## lunadude (Oct 21, 2006)

VERY NICE! :thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Wow! Thanks for sharing the fruits of your massive efforts!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

pagni said:


> They're great and gorgeous and you just really need to get to print.
> It's been too long.


There's a fellow who hosts a website featuring all manner of blueprints from fans and pros (like FJ) alike although there is some question as to whether he actually got permission from everyone to display their work. He contacted me about a year ago to ask about hosting this project. I politely declined and informed him that this is still a work in progress and that I have my own plans for my work and how I'll share it.

A little more specifically. When I'm done I'll be putting together something of a PowerPoint and Keynote presentation that will feature the drawings along with accompanying music and sound f/x. I wish to add that the drawings will be of sufficient resolution for computer monitor display yet not sufficient enough to produce acceptably sized prints from. This will be one form for the final product and available as a free download.

The other form will include the above as well as all the drawings in resolution suitable for printing as 8x11 or 11x17in. sheets. This set will be available only to those who contact me directly and express interest. Also, there are some on this forum who I'll be giving a set out of gratitude for their great help and insights during this project.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Those are really well thought out and put together!


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

I always wondered where McCoy and Boma came from in G7 to tell Spock they were ready to bury the dead dudes. I thought there must be some emergency hatch, now I know they crawled up thru the toilet! lol! 

Thanks for these! It's an exceptional amount of work. Congrats. I'm guessing you are referring to LCars site of blueprints?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Model Man said:


> I always wondered where McCoy and Boma came from in G7 to tell Spock they were ready to bury the dead dudes. I thought there must be some emergency hatch, now I know they crawled up thru the toilet! lol! :


This is a good example of the director not taking any of this seriously. The scene was shot in a way that did indeed suggest an alternative exit and/or that there was a helluva lot more room back there then there actually was supposed to be. Unless of course they had already cremated the remains by phaser and just had to bury the ashes. :freak:


I've had ideas about the spaceframe almost from the beginning when I decided to depict the guts between hulls. Indeed within the hour I'll probably start sketching out some of my ideas.

The spaceframe meeting the exterior hull should be relatively easy. But moving inward then gets tricky and that's why I chose to draw out the life shell to get a better sense of where the structural frame can attach to the inner hull.

I also have a couple of other ideas, one of which *Timo * on the TBBS gave me. I'd been trying to figure out where to put ventilation ducts and life support systems when he suggested the overhead lighting panel could also house life support vents. Then it hit me: In the 23rd century you certainly shouldn't need an oversized hanging structure for interior lighting such as we see onscreen, but what if much of the life support systems were housed in the box like frame that surrounds the overhead lighting panel? It's not only space effective but it's also readily accessible in terms of maintenance.

Secondly if you look at the interior you can see four wall panels on each side that look rather detachable. That could very well be if you need to swap out equipment for mission specific gear or to access the 'tween hulls mechanicals. It also saves me the trouble of trying to fashion some contrived overhead storage bins.

Just some thoughts.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Boma could also be checking for external hull damaged sustained from their forced landing.


----------



## Sarvek (Jun 10, 2005)

Great work as always. I am always amazed at all the thought that is put into your work and it always make a great deal of sense. Keep up the great work. :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Inching forward....










You can see Scotty's access hatch as well as a larger one in the aft cabin on the underside view. Also visible are the port and starboard field equipment storage bins, such as the one that holds the hand phasers on the port side.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I'm nearing the completion of the lifeshell inner hull. With luck and barring any interruptions I should have it done for tomorrow.

Then onto the structural spaceframe.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

To be clear the inner hull isn't completely finished as I have a few details I still want to add, but it's near enough to complete that you can see what it will look like. My initial intention had been to draw these up purely as reference for my cross sections, but I've put enough work into and it looks rather interesting that I may include them in the final set of plans as a supplement. Ditto with the spaceframe.

Note the two box like objects as well as the small rectangular object with the tapered top next to them at the aft end on the port side profile. In size and shape they're meant to resemble objects the _Galileo_ crew was jettisoning overboard in TG7. I cannot specify exactly what they are or what they're supposed to do, but I'm speculating they are connected to my waste management system. And I am trying for some authenticity. I must also add that this was a bit of a clue to my speculated gross vehicle weight for the shuttlecraft. If after ripping out the aft bulkhead and tossing out assorted equipment they hadn't yet shed 500 lbs. then I figure the vehicle really must be made of futuristic lightweight materials.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Timo said:


> But it does highlight the fact that Jeffries might not have been thinking everything through from Day One yet, and might have been forced to compromise a lot after the exterior layout was approved by his bosses.
> 
> Timo Saloniemi


This quote is from another thread, but it is on point in both projects.

When I digest the technical references in TG7 I find things I don't think make sense within the context of what is established in TOS throughout the series. Such as draining the phasers for fuel (energy) and yet later firing boosters as if that energy had actually been solid or liquid fuel--I find this very odd. 

Furthermore, I'm sure MJ was aware of the size inconsistencies between the fullsize interior and exterior shuttlecraft mockups, but it's still strange seeing things like what seems a bottomless space under the floor seen through Scotty's access panel.

Of course, I understand the practical realities (compromises) of the situation due to '60s era TV production with bulky cameras and no handycams to film in tight spaces, but it's still weird. And, of course, it leads to the inevitable disparities between drawing an integrated "real" shuttlecraft and what we saw onscreen.

I have but one detail left to add to my inner hull drawings then it's on to drawing the spaceframe beginning this weekend. I generally like how they came out and I've included some fun little detailing that trecknical fans will appreciate.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Done.

I've only got to come up with some notations for each sheet. The annotations will be regarding capabilities and construction.
My general idea is that the inner hull is composed of thin multiple layers. The innermost layer is the one we see inside, preformed molds of advanced polycarbonate or plastisteel (sounds more TOS). The next layer outward is thermal insulation. Then comes a semi fluid hull sealant that flows into a breach upon reacting to sudden changes in atmospheric pressure and then solidifies as a temporary plug. Finally is another layer of plastisteel. The spaceframe and outer hull are made of duranium alloys, of course.











In case someone doesn't know, GNDN stands for Goes Nowhere Does Nothing and LCBU means Looks Cool But Useless.

The two large boxes on the starboard side above the LCBU panels are storage for emergency life support suits. From the inside the upper wall looks it's made up of seperate panels. Two of these panels can pop outward and slide forward much like the side door of a minivan to allow access to the lifesuit storage bins. The control consoles on those panels can remain in place as the panels are slid open, or they can be easily removed and unplugged just as they can be when the ship is refit for a specific mission.

Of course the swing out bin on the port side holds phasers while the bin on the starboard side holds communicators and a couple of tricorders.


Coming accross this image in Randy Cooper's shuttlecraft thread has given me cause to consider tinkering with the detailing on the underside of my shuttlecraft drawings. It could give me a smidgen more room under the floor for mechanical bits.


Carson Dyle said:


>


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I hope this is de right place.

Try this.











And this is my last take on how this project will pan out. Emboldened items are completed.

Class F and H Shuttlecraft Plans:
*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 Cutawaay
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 F Shuttlecraft Artist’s Showcase
*Sheet 15 – Class H Shuttlecraft Port Elevation
Sheet 16 – Class H Shuttlecraft Starboard Elevation
Sheet 17 – Class H Shuttlecraft Bow Elevation
Sheet 18 – Class H Shuttlecraft Aft Elevation
Sheet 19 – Class H Shuttlecraft Top Plan
Sheet 20 – Class H Shuttlecraft Bottom Plan*
Sheet 21 – Class H Shuttlecraft Port Cutaway
Sheet 22 – Class H Shuttlecraft Starboard Cutaway
Sheet 23 – Class H Shuttlecraft Bow Cutawaay
Sheet 24 – Class H Shuttlecraft Aft Cutaway
Sheet 25 – Class H Shuttlecraft Deck Plan
Sheet 26 – Class H Shuttlecraft Ceiling Plan
*Sheet 27 – Class H Shuttlecraft History & Specifications*
Sheet 28 – Class H Shuttlecraft Artist’s Showcase
*Sheet 29 – U.S.S. Enterprise Shuttlecraft Complement
Sheet 30 – Starflight Regimes
Sheet 31 – Starfleet Shuttlecraft Project Notes*

*Supplemental Sheet 1 – Class F/H Shuttlecraft Inner Hull Primary Views #1
Supplemental Sheet 2 – Class F/H Shuttlecraft Inner Hull Primary Views #2*
Supplemental Sheet 3 – Class F/H Shuttlecraft Spaceframe Primary Views #1
Supplemental Sheet 4 – Class F/H Shuttlecraft Spaceframe Primary Views. #2
Supplemental Sheet 5 – Shuttlecraft Galileo Photo Enhanced Image*
Supplemental Sheet 6 – Shuttlecraft Copernicus Photo Enhanced Image*

Actually I have quite a bit of the other sheets done as well, but they're incomplete as I'm making revisions to them because I elected to draw out the inner hull and spaceframe for the sake of more credibility in the cross sections.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Love that last pic. And you can bet the shuttlecraft would be more reliable than the VW!


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

^^ nah, I'll bet you could never start a shuttle on compression!

-lifelong Beetle driver


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I've been following *RedSpar's* progress (on the TBBS) regarding his take on MJ' early concept for the TOS shuttlecraft. It's fascinating even though I might disagree with some of his interpretations.

But it's gotten me to thinking down the road when I've gotten the Class F and H and then the TAS ships done and out of the way.

I've extrapolated from some of MJ's early concepts and even basic sketches before and my approach is not to take them too literally. By that I mean is that an early concept is not a finished design. As you flesh it out you find better solutions to ideas and as it evolves a more realized form takes shape.

To that end down the road I'll be tackling two of MJ's early ideas on the shuttlecraft. I'll adapt his intial concepts without allowing myself to be constrained by early solutions and evolve the designs into something that should hopefully look at home in the TOS universe, or more particularly the pre TOS era.











But back to present day matters. I've been pondering the antideluvian looking support braces that the fullsize mockup has under the stabilizers. They were needed, no doubt, to help support and strengthen the structure of the mockup. Of course I rejected them based on the thought that they looked wholly out of place and created even more aerodynamic drag on a vehicle design with little in the way of aerodynamics to begin with. But within the TOS universe I also reasoned that if they can build a massive starship with huge engines affixed to the hull by seemingly too slender support pylons without any propblem whatsoever in terms of structural stress, than something like the shuttlecraft's thin stabilizer and pylons should be a snap.

That said I'm pondering an idea of beefing up the structure under the stabilizers anyway. I've an idea on how it could be done in such a way that it wouldn't be visible or apparent unless you looked right under the stablizers, much as the mockup's braces weren't very apparent except from certain angles from the front or rear. And my idea would be even less apparent.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

You know for about two years I've been rendering my drawings with Illustrator CS and Photoshop CS (I'd love CS4, but I can't afford it) and yet I've never exploited a portion of what these programs are capable of.

Last night while I was working I did a little casual exploring and came across some other tools and capabilities that I had never realized were so readily at hand and can make my life so much easier. I swung back and forth between excitement over being able to do certain things more effectively and thinking myself so stupid for not having found and used those tools for so long.

After a tiring, frustrating, bummer day yesterday it was nice to experience something positive.

One of the things it might help me with is in terms of scale. I might be able to stretch inches here and there to gain some added interior space without increasing the size of the exterior. I'm mostly concerned with cabin length and height rather than width. Every little bit helps.

And I'm pretty sure that I can add some extra substance under the stabilizers that will be unobtrusive and not look like an add-on.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

What this project has made really apparent to me is that all three versions of the shuttlecraft on TOS were production compromises and quite distinct from each other. I can understand the fullsize mockup being constructed the way it was, but why didn't the miniature "flying" model more closely resemble the 22ft. mockup?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

One of the biggest discrepencies between the flying miniature and the full size mockup is the underside detail. I wracked my brain trying to understand how they could get the small model's underside the way it is while it looks so different on the fullsize mockup. It's quite likely they just flattened out the shape of the small model's underside without considering the implications in regards to how it compared to the fullsize mockup.

I could replicate the small model, but it would mean distorting the shapes of the bottom and aft and possibly bow as well, and then it would mean losing under-the-deck space inside the craft. And so I'll just tick with what I have presently.

That said, though, I am going back and correcting some things I feel I could do better on the sheets I've already completed.

Now, I've a question for Phil Broad and all you other learned treknologists out there: were the braces under the stabilizers put there just to strengthen the fullsize mockup's structural support or were they intended as part of the vehicle's design all along? I ask because the small flying miniature wouldn't have needed such braces and yet it does have them anyway.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

http://cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/...craftConstruction/Galileo_Construction_04.jpg

Note the pic in the above link. Firstly we saw no sign of those stabilizer braces. They might not yet have been added, but at this point the construct doesn't seem to need them. Secondly we can see a longitudinal brace at the top of the aft landing strut assembly running across the back. I'm wondering if this is the same piece that's visible inside the rear access panel Scotty's working on at one point in "The Galileo Seven." If so then neat because I wanted to include that as part of my spaceframe. I may also make some effort to replicate some of what we see in that open access panel in regards to trying to depict the technical guts in that area. I find the above pic as well as others also interesting in regards to working out my spaceframe design.

Now it will be awhile before I post something else I've been tweaking: detailing corrections on my already completed sheets. I now have better looking, more correct hull font for the ship's markings. I've made nacelle detail corrections. On the Class F I've moved the nacelles a smidgen forward to be more correct with the fullsize mockup, resulting in the access step plate being more properly aligned with the centre of the access hatch. I've redesigned the aft landing plate to look something more like the original yet still somewhat more streamlined. On the Class F the most notable changes are in regards to the nacelles in that I've made them slightly less tapered and slightly smaller in length and diameter. The result is the Class H's warp engines now look better proportioned with the rest of the ship and along with the now slightly more raked front support pylons the ship looks more like my initial concept.

Finally regarding vehicle size. New calculations to get the interior I want to fit properly within the exterior as I've designed it means the ship may grow in overall size by perhaps six inches in length. I find that a minor compromise to get everything to fit together. And although the Class H will also get a smidgen bigger the new shorter nacelles should easily offset the marginal gain in overall size.

If this all sounds like nitpicking, well, it is. I'd rather correct these things now then when I've finished everything.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Okay, so it's not quite awhile...unless your _very_ impatient.

Here's a quick peek at my revised shuttlecraft. You may need a fine eye to spot what I've changed, but there are about seven or so changes on each design...so far.










One thing I've gone back to is reworking the original aft landing strut of the Class F as the forward landing strut of the Class H. Overall I just think it looks better than what I had done before.

There is an oddity to these designs that may not be immediately apparent even in cross sections: to get the interior to line up with the longitudinal centerline of the main hull it will have to be tilted forward at .326 degrees. This would hardly be noticeable in a real ship and particularly with an artificial gravity system at work during flight. Furthermore when the ships are landed they will be tilted back very slightly at... .326 degrees from the horizontal, so the forward angle of the interior cabin is effectively cancelled out.

And I just can't decide whether to keep the stabilizer braces. They just look so damned odd and out of place. It must be noted that my tweaking of the design has resulted in stabilizers that are about three times thicker where they meet the main hull than those on the fullsize mockup. I think it's safe to say that the attachment points there have already been beefed up.


----------



## CaptCBoard (Aug 3, 2002)

I would like to make a suggestion, which I think others are probably thinking about as well... It would be helpful if the drawings of the shuttle shown at its original length of 22 feet were noted as such. You've done a terrific amount of work, absolutely excellent work, but just providing a scale on the drawing doesn't really do the trick when viewing them online and trying to figure out exactly which version is which. I've read through all the posts in this thread and I am aware that the shuttle with the forward landing gear is the largest of your redesigns. But there is no notation on the drawings of the shuttle in its original configuration that indicate if it is the slightly enlarged version or the true-to-the-original version. 

Either that or I missed something!

Scott


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

The image below is when I was contemplating a 29ft. shuttlecraft.









And here's to give you another perspective.









When designing the H my concept was trying to imagine how far I could deviate from the F while trying to remain reasonably affordable in terms of fullsize mockup construction or alteration if TOS had had a fourth season and/or the budgetary resources to allow for a shuttlecraft variant.

In terms of designation I was originally going to call my design a Class F3 rather than H. Or perhaps Class G because it's really just a mofified/tuned up version of the F. At this point I'm still not settled on it.

I'm still wanting some insight into whether those stabilizer braces were intended as part of the design from the beginning or were there merely for necessity. Where's Phil Broad these days?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I've been using Phil Broad's construction drawings (cloudster.com) as a major reference source for my shuttlecraft project. But it's somewhat of a different situation from *Shaw's* TOS _E_ project in that I can see what I believe are clearly construction compromises that might have gone differently with more time and money allowed. In those cases I'm interpreting what I think it's supposed to look like rather than what they had to settle for. But as I've stated from the beginning I'm trying to render a "real" shuttlecraft as opposed to just replicating models, sets and mockups.

I also think I'm going to have to tackle the interior again almost from scratch to get it all just right and to arrive at a better and more accurate sense of size. The cabin will obviously be smaller (mostly length and height wise) than the onscreen set, but I want to try and maintain the actual size of chairs and control consoles. The chairs will be actual size although they will have to sit more credibly a bit higher off the deck and not as low slung as seen onscreen.

At best I expect (hope) the interior to gain an inch or so here and there and I don't want the F's length overall to exceed 26.5ft. or the H's to exceed 29ft.

That's why I'm redrawing the ships in 1/12 scale then reducing the renders to 1/24 to fit on 11x17 sheets. I also scale the line thickness so that detail remains clear when the images are reduced to 1/24.


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

The comparison is interesting, and brings one thing to light. The 30 looks more realistic in terms of an operational craft, at least in scale. But would be a constraint on handling it as a prop. Since the shuttle was built in Phoenix and trucked to LA. I-10 didn't reach Phoenix till the 70's. I figured they would have to limit the shuttle to something that would fit on a semi. 

W9 can you you put up the width and height of each shuttle?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I played with this some last night and my original figures weren't that far off. The ship will *not* exceed 26.5ft., but will be longer than 26ft. The Class F will be just under 29ft. at 28.8ft. and some. This is all based on an interior with a 5.833ft. (or 5'-10") ceiling.

So perhaps I don't have to do quite so much additional work after all.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

Nice size comparisons. And I love that cockpit interior you did!

-BolianAdmiral


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

My revisions of the exterior views are proceeding well enough and I'm much more pleased with the results. When I get more done I'll post them.

In the interim I've been doing more sketching. And I'm on to something I quite like and have been ruminating about for quite some time. I like the TMP shuttlecraft design, but candidly I've never been enthralled with them. I think the design works fine with the warp sled such as the Vulcan shuttle, but I've never found them as convincing as starship based vehicles. Likewise I've never been overly crazy about the TFF design either. And so I've long wished for a Class F redesign that looks more credible. Not a refit, of course, but a new design that still manages to evoke the original just as the refit E looks wholly new yet still evokes the original concept. And I think I've got it--when I have more defined sketches I'll post them. A Class F concept with a TMP aesthetic that I think looks rather cool.

My final size is very close. Presently I'm at 26.3335 ft. (26'-4"), but that might go up an inch or so because I'm playing around with the exact placement of the aft landing plate which is dependent on the craft's final landing ground clearance and whether the ship will be level with the deck when landed or tilted back slightly at .326 degrees.

Stay tuned.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

A 26'-4" or thereabouts shuttlecraft gives us a decently sized interior along with a manageably sized exterior.

I'm very glad to finally get the size narrowed to a final figure because it's been a long road to get here. Now I can focus on filling in the guts of the thing before moving on to one of the next projects:

- the TAS shuttlecraft
- the TMP era shuttlecraft (including my own design)
- pre TOS shuttlecraft (both adapted from MJ's early ideas)
- the Pike era _Enterprise_

I've pretty much decided that the TAS shuttlecraft will be next. My head is nesr exploding with ideas I want to explore there. The TMP era craft could be a bit tricky because we've never seen the interior of these things, although I will be focusing on the smaller version of the design intended to be accommodated aboard a staship as opposed to the Vulcan design. My own design could actually be a lot easier to render inside and out primarily because of my experience while fleshing out the TOS shuttlecraft and also I'll have a much better idea of what should be there and where it belongs. Another thought regarding the TMP design is that I don't recall actually seeing one of those craft with _Enterprise_ markings on one. Could we speculate that since the _Enterprise_ was really still in final stages of preparation before its hasty launch to intercept Vger that she hadn't yet received her normal complement of standard shuttlecraft and that the few we glimpsed in the hangar area were temporarily berthed there? I mention this because I've roughly scaled the smaller version of the TMP design at easily 30-40ft. LOA for the basic version without any warp bits added to it. Something to ponder and discuss down the road.

The pre TOS shuttlecraft will be adaptations of MJ's early ideas because they were never finalized. And so I feel that some modifications are needed to make them seem more consistent with a TOS/pre-TOS look.

Suffice to say that the forthcoming shuttlecraft plans will likely not be quite as detailed as my TOS shuttlecraft plans--it's just too involved. By "not quite as detailed" I'm referring mostly to the interior mechanical guts aspects. But I'll see how things pan out as the projects progress.

In regards to the Pike era _Enterprise._ The job will now be made much easier because of the stellar work already done by Alan Sinclair, Charles Casimiro and particularly *aridas*, *CRA* and *Shaw* for fleshing out (in?) the interior. My primary focus here is not to retrace ground they've already well covered but to depict the ship more generally, also because focus is mostly given to the Kirk era version of the _E_ (which I love) and I have a soft spot for Pike's version. The main interior view I might explore is a cutaway cross section as opposed to the detailed deck-by-deck layouts. Where I may get more detailed would be in regards to certain areas: bridge, transporter room, the hangar facilities and perhaps even uniforms and equipment.


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> =The TMP era craft could be a bit tricky because we've never seen the interior of these things, although I will be focusing on the smaller version of the design intended to be accommodated aboard a starship as opposed to the Vulcan design. ... Another thought regarding the TMP design is that I don't recall actually seeing one of those craft with _Enterprise_ markings on one. Could we speculate that since the _Enterprise_ was really still in final stages of preparation before its hasty launch to intercept Vger that she hadn't yet received her normal complement of standard shuttlecraft and that the few we glimpsed in the hangar area were temporarily berthed there?


Actually, we never saw the shuttles in the hangar, at least on screen. You're probably thinking of Andy Probert's pre-production matte painting, which featured the shuttles. The final matte didn't have anything in the hangar area. http://www.probertdesigns.com/Folder_DESIGN/LandingBay-3.html and http://www.probertdesigns.com/Folder_DESIGN/CargoBay-3.html

The only markings evident in the pre-production paintings appear to be nothing more than placeholders, and the final markings in the PL kit would, of course, be conjectural, so I think you're safe in devising a marking scheme, if you want to do so.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Regrettably I don't have a PL TMP _E_ kit. What are the markings there? Or could you (or someone) post a pic of the decals? I'd be very interested to see them.

It would be nice to know if those were planned during the production of TMP or if this is something just made up for the PL kit.


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

Actually, I can do you one better. I have a set of aftermarket decals for the kit that I sell over at SSM, and the markings are the same as the kit decals, mine just offer panel details. PM me your e-mail and I'll send you a jpeg of the decals for your perusal. As far as I know, they're just something made up for the kit. They tend to fall in line pretty well with the ST V shuttle markings and seem like a reasonable conjecture.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Here is a sample of a revised exterior sheet. Look closely and you should note the changes: finer line work and better detail. One example is the trailer edge of the aft nacelle cap that is now a corrugated edge rather than a clean curve. The radial centre of a curved surface is now denoted by a soft blurred line rather than a hard thin one.

I've also tweaked the page border although it mign't be noticeable at this resolution.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I'm rendering these in 1/12 scale. If printed out in this scale you'd need 34x17 in. sheets! Then I'm reducing them to 1/24 scale while keeping the line work scaled proportionately so to not lose clarity of detail because of lines staying the same thickness and closing the empty spaces between them.

Unless something unexpected comes up then my original figure for vehicle length will be (amazingly) as I initially projected: 26.427ft. (pretty much 26'-5 1/8"). The image in the previous post means the aft landing plate will have to be moved back a smidgen.

From what I've been able to dig up it does seem that the braces under the stabilizers of the fullsize filming mockup *were not* intended as part of the ship's design, and so therefore I'm not going to include them.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Creative types can be temperamental. So hold on to your hats, folks, because I’m seriously considering jettisoning my Class H design.

Why? Because I’m less than enamored with it. I first envisioned it way back in the mid ‘70s when I was in my mid teens and I’ve long held a fondness for it. But now the more I look at it the more dissatisfied I feel despite a measure of lingering sentiment. Evermore it just looks like something rather fanboyish that lacks distinctiveness and an overall design integrity. Okay, I may be overstating it some. I’m just wondering if I can do better and I think I can

Whatever one thinks of the Class F it has design integrity. All its elements work together and look like they’re exactly where they’re supposed to be—such as the access hatch works credibly as designed because the warp nacelles are positioned to support it. But by shifting the nacelles drastically rearward (as I did) then the access hatch really needs to be wholly redesigned to work properly. I’m also unsatisfied with the look of the stabilizer and support pylons in conjunction with the nacelles—it just doesn’t look right. I now feel that my design simply perpetuates the basic approach first seen when (and perhaps even before) FJ gave us new ship designs that were really just elements of the TOS _Enterprise_ rearranged in a different way—something many fans have been doing ever since in every incarnation of Trek.

But a truly credible and successful design would look like it is aesthetically consistent with everything else in TOS while still looking fresh and well integrated unto itself. I think my Class H design looks aesthetically consistent, but I think it’s lacking in overall design integrity. I’m skeptical MJ would have done it that way.

To that end I’m left with three options:

- Forget about the whole thing and just assume/accept that in the “real” live-action world of TOS the _Copernicus_ was simply a reused Class F. Of course, this is the simplest approach assuming TAS’ “The Slaver Weapon” had been filmed live-action. It would also make my project somewhat smaller in scope and much more near completion. Furthermore, there is no reference whatsoever in “The Slaver Weapon” that even suggests the _Copernicus_was anything other than a standard shuttlecraft, other than its appearance and the fact that TAS never showed us a familiar Class F. Not even Alan Dean Foster’s adaptation of the episode in his _Star Trek Log_ series says anything about the _Copernicus _being something unusual. The only reference to a scout type shuttle is in ADF’s adaptation of “Mudd’s Passion” and it is only a quick reference with no specifics. For all we know the scout idea was wholly ADF’s and all these years many fans (including myself) have simply _assumed_ the reference applied to the rakish looking craft seen in “The Slaver Weapon.” But there is nothing at all to support that assumption other than speculation. Likewise there’s nothing in the episode “Mudd’s Passion” that references the stolen shuttlecraft as anything special either. Only ADF refers to Mudd’s stolen vehicle as a heavy lander. For both “The Slaver Weapon” and “Mudd’s Passion” a Class F shuttlecraft would have fulfilled the story needs perfectly well. In fairness there’s a little more wiggle room regarding the shuttlecraft in “Mudd’s Passion” because ADF’s adaptation specifies that’s what Mudd hijacked and thus connects with what we saw onscreen. We’re then left to decide how much weight can be given to ADF’s printed reference. Only the aquashuttle from “The Ambergris Element” is truly inconsistent with what had already been established in TOS. The idea of the scoutship and the heavy lander fall into the category of fan acceptance or “fanon” much as the acceptance of James Blish’s references to the Earth/Romulan conflict in Trek history in his adaptation of “Balance Of Terror” regarding continuity. The printed references were largely consistent with what was established onscreen and so we eagerly accepted these extra worldbuilding details to flesh out the Star Trek universe. They became so entrenched in collective acceptance that it was no wonder ENT aroused so much heated debate—but I don’t want to get that debate started again here.

- Taking a step away from hard reality, imagine the TOS producers manage to tweak their shuttlecraft mockups to have a shuttlecraft variant. Budget wise, and if TOS had lasted another season, then this just _might_ have been feasible. And it’s something I can very easily do without violating the overall design integrity of the Class F. This was essentially my initial idea for the _Copernicus_ until I reached into the past of youthful enthusiasm, and it’s still my fall-back option failing my final alternative. The design would be consistent with the TOS aesthetic and the design would have its own overall integrity. And this option makes the most sense in terms of real world credibility. If Starfleet could wring more performance out of an existing and proven design with a little tuning to suit its requirements then that would be more cost effective than contracting for an entirely new vehicle. My view, though, is this wouldn’t be a whole new class of shuttlecraft but simply a variant. Perhaps a Class F3. I also have what could be one _tiny_ tenuous clue to support this idea. When Kirk and (the phantom) Mendez set off after Spock in “The Menagerie” you’d think Kirk would grab the fastest thing at hand even knowing nothing available would catch the _Enterprise_ if Spock made a race for it. Of course we know the real reason is the TOS producers could only use what they had at hand: the Class F model. But if you’re willing to stretch you could say that it just happened that not only were there not any starships at Starbase 11 but no scout (or runabout) type shuttlecraft were either. And so Kirk took the next best thing: an extended range type shuttlecraft, a Class F3… Okay, it’s flimsy, but it’s a morsel of rationalizing.

- Start with a clean sheet. Let’s assume TOS had had a fourth season and resources became available to build another shuttlecraft variant. This, of course, is the most fun option, but it involves a lot of thought and is really little more than assumption and fan speculation. If you’re going to envision a Starfleet shuttlecraft for TOS that has to exist alongside the familiar Class F within the confines of the _Enterprise’s_ hangar facilities then there will be design constraints, particularly if you want to incorporate elements of the TAS scoutship to evoke at least some visual kinship with it. And so the next step would be establishing design parameters. Not only must the design look like it belongs in the TOS universe (very important), but it _cannot_ exceed 29ft. in length (preferably less) and must be approximately the same overall size as the Class F design in width and height. This point is pretty much non-negotiable if you want the craft to be accommodated with the _Enterprise’s_ hangar facilities. It also dictates that the TAS design as is isn’t going to work. That’s okay because I’m going to adapt that later anyway into a Starbase based shuttlecraft.


Now I’ve been sketching out some ideas and it appears I just might be able to render something that bridges the Class F and the TAS concept, with some compromises, of course:

- The Class F will serve as a _basic_ template, but the new design will diverge overall while still retaining a recognizable TOS aesthetic. In conjunction with appearance this also means it must look like something that could have been reasonably feasible to construct as a fullsize mockup during series production, in much the same way the original shuttlecraft mockup was meant to represent a larger and more refined “real” spacecraft, which is what I’m trying to render.

- On the TAS ship the warp nacelles were fixed on the upper part of the craft and set aftward. In my sketches this might be doable and still end up looking credible. However, to some extent this might mean rethinking the access hatch arrangement as seen on the Class F.

- The TAS ship had its access hatch at the rear of the craft. This is also doable, but it means rethinking the impulse engine setup. Note that the TAS design didn’t appear to have impulse engines. In my forthcoming adaptation of the TAS scoutship I’ve addressed this by planning to have the impulse engines incorporated into the sides of the main hull, something I might also be able to do similarly in a new TOS design. Also, this arrangement consequently allows for more flexibility in interior space for crew.

- The TAS design had a pronounced bow section (indeed all the TAS shuttles did). This is an impossibility for a TOS design intended to be starship based because it severely compromises interior space and overall size constraints, except perhaps if you’re willing to accept a _severely_ cramped interior for a long range vehicle which isn’t my preference. By _severely_ I mean no more interior room than an average fullsize car or maybe a minivan—far too cramped for an extended range vehicle.

- The TAS ship had a large panoramic forward viewport. While it wouldn’t be impossible to incorporate this design element I don’t think it works within the context of TOS. Starfleet design in TOS shows that starships and shuttlecraft are flown primarily by instrumentation and that any views of the outside are easily addressed primarily with sophisticated monitor displays. I’m convinced a panoramic viewport would just look really out of place.

- The TAS craft had large stabilizer/landing supports. I think it’s quite possible to incorporate something of that look into a TOS design. This isn’t completely unprecedented since MJ’s original concept for the TOS shuttlecraft had something quite similar.

- A standing interior. With more flexibility regarding interior space then it might be possible to have a ceiling higher than the 5’-10” I have for my Class F design—it certainly wouldn’t be less. One possible option would be to have the pilot and navigator in a sort of cockpit with a lower ceiling. This would help to give the exterior a lower profile in the craft’s fore section and help in reaching a more rakish and streamlined look.

- A rakish look. After all is said and done a new design has to have some sort of coolness factor to it, in that it must have some measure of visual dynamic. This basically boils down to the craft not looking dorky or truly awkward in any way. Now fitting the warp engines to the upper part of the craft could really look odd if they’re set too far forward, and yet it might lengthen the design too much in size if set too far aft. A compromise could be that the nacelles could slide forward for shipboard storage much as aircraft have folding wings for storage aboard today’s aircraft carriers. For TOS this wouldn’t have been a serious issue because they never showed any shuttlecraft actually berthed below decks. We always saw the ships either launching, landing, in flight or landed on a planet surface. What this comes down to is creating an illusion—making a somewhat short and stubby vehicle look sleek and streamlined nonetheless, much like the Class F only perhaps more so.

One of the reasons this project has become rather protracted (besides the regular intrusion of real life) is my focus on detail. I’m referring not only to the inclusion of elements that often go unnoticed by the eye (and there can be plenty), but also aspects that many might not be conciously aware of, such as what things look like when you’re not seeing them straight on. If an object or detail is on a surface that curves or angles away from your point of view, even if just slightly, then it’s visible profile is changed. And to be accurate I’m trying to acknowledge those subtleties wherever possible. Visual shorthand can (and often is) employed in schematic type drawings (I’ve done it often myself), but if you really want to represent things properly then you have to patiently sweat the tedium of getting fine details as correct as you can.

I’m also trying to use line work in a creative way, by varying line thickness depending upon what surface or edge it denotes I’m endeavouring to convey some limited measure of 3D effect to a 2D rendering. I’m trying to impart a little more artistry beyond a straightforward schematic type of drawing. This is one step short of adding lighting effects and shadows or even colour to a purely orthographic view. Even 3D models can be presented without perspective to interesting effect.

Stay tuned.


----------



## Sarvek (Jun 10, 2005)

I have always liked your designs and they make a great deal of sense. Out of all the designs of ships that I have seen yours invokes the most thought. Some people just throw something together and call it a shuttle or starship. You take a design and make it work and make it realistic and that is what Star Trek is all about, plausibiliy and you do it. I will be looking forward to whatever design you decide to go with, but I know that it will be well thought out and make a great deal of sense. :thumbsup: :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

One of the challenges of any new design exercise is avoiding getting trapped with preconceived notions, particularly when you’re playing in someone else’s sandbox and trying to emulate their thinking.

In fashioning a new shuttlecraft for TOS we’re really trying to get into MJ’s head circa 1964-69. All we have as reference are some archival conceptual material as well as whatever appeared on TOS itself. Specifically, in regards to Starfleet hardware, the _Enterprise_ and its interior sets, the shuttlecraft and assorted equipment. That’s it. In fairness we can extrapolate all we like, but we really shouldn’t look too far beyond that decade for inspiration.

We can avoid the trap, though, of thinking we can only use things already seen exactly as they appeared onscreen. Like the real world we can use things we’ve seen and then extrapolate from that towards something conceptually similar yet still different. And like MJ we can adapt from other references beyond TOS for inspiration.

What else could there be? There are films and other TV shows as well as real world hardware to draw from in that era. _The Day The Earth Stood Still, War Of The Worlds, Forbidden Planet, Fantastic Voyage, Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea, Lost In Space, Land Of The Giants_ and _UFO_ to cite a few. All of them were also designing and constructing sci-fi hardware around that time. There are also the real world military aircraft and even automobile design of the period.

The essential point is that if MJ had to come up with something knew and fresh he hardly would have allowed himself to be overly constrained by what he’d already done. He’d build upon what he’d established and extrapolate further.

We might also make a few assumptions within the context of the TOS universe and without being overly swayed by “official” elements established long after the series had ended production in perhaps something of a retcon fashion.

From TOS alone we get the idea that the _Enterprise_ is easily about fifteen to twenty years old from “The Menagerie” to the end of the third season, and likely more. What that tells us is that’s how Starfleet’s frontline starships were designed _twenty years earlier._ The design of the Class F shuttlecraft could well date from the same time as well. TOS (regrettably) never showed us anything else. TAS did, but that amounts to two different types of transport as well as three different looking shuttlecraft and there isn’t anything truly drastic in any of that. However, TMP shows that things start to look rather different aesthetically within a few years. And from that we can see that tech and design is not standing still in the TOS universe. We’re still left to fashion something that looks like it readily belongs in TOS, but we can go beyond what we’ve already seen.

A final small consideration regards the idea of what could they have feasibly constructed in the ‘60s? In fairness they likely could have fashioned anything in terms of a comparatively small scale miniature (if you consider 11ft. small). Things get more complicated when you start building fullsize mockups for actors and camera and lighting crews to interact with. In fairness we don’t really have to consider the filming crew’s concerns, but we still should weigh what was possible to build at least passably. In studying Phil Broad’s construction drawings of the fullsize shuttlecraft mockup I could see where compromises were made for the sake of ease of construction as opposed to what they meant to suggest or really wanted to do. Of course, they were also partly constrained by the time and budgetary resources of a television series as opposed to a feature film. The only other fullsize spacecraft mockup on TOS (that I recall) was Lazarus’ timeship from “The Alternative Factor.” And Zefram Cochrane’s house in “Metamorphosis” wasn’t a spacecraft, but it was a fullsize structure. But other television shows and films of the time also managed to fabricate fullsize mockups so those are also indications of what was attainable.

- _Lost In Space:_ the _Jupiter 2,_ the Chariot, the Pod and who knows what other things throughout the series.
- _Land Of The Giants:_ the _Spindrift_
- _Fantastic Voyage:_ the _Proteus_ submarine
- _The Day The Earth Stood Still:_ Klaatu’s saucer

I’m sure I’m overlooking something so feel free to remind me if you know of other mockups built during the ‘50s and ‘60s. (-:

With all of the above in mind I’ve already got the essential concept and shape of a design in mind for the main bulk of the craft (sketches forthcoming). Presently I’m wrestling with smaller individual elements. A case in point are the warp engines: The only Starfleet warp nacelles we’ve ever seen are those of the _Enterprise_ and the Class F shuttlecraft. TAS used essentially the same things albeit simplified. But as I’ve stated above we have the creative latitude to go beyond that if we accept the idea that the Federation’s tech and design are not static in TOS’ universe and that our new shuttlecraft was designed and developed more recently than the _Enterprise_ and the Class F. To that end I’m close to a new warp nacelle that is still cylindrical, is aesthetically consistent and yet doesn’t look slavishly like the two examples of nacelles we’ve already seen.  The warp nacelles are a significant element because it allows me to design more easily within my earlier stated size constraint of 29ft. L.O.A. as well as allow flexibility for attaining more interior space within the ship. And if I play with the idea that the nacelles are fixed on the upper part of the craft, but not necessarily right at the top of the sides, then that gives me even more creative freedom for an overall look.

If it all falls into place then I’ll have something that has some visual kinship with the TAS design while looking like it actually belongs in TOS.

The only sketches I have at this moment are on scraps of paper and nothing of real substance to properly show where my head is at whith this.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Well, at any rate I've got a concept that I rather like and now I'm fleshing out details of the component elements. The more I've tweaked it the more I it seems to look TOS like and yet we haven't seen anything like it on TOS, although it does have an element or two that could evoke some things we've seen later. That said I find that while it doesn't look like the TAS design I feel it does evoke it conceptually. In a way it's also similar to executive aircraft where the engines a fixed to the tail of the plane (or kinda like a DC9).

One of the ideas I'm toying with is the aft hatchway is not centred but offset to one side. Also I'm tinkering with my nacelle design. It'll be shorter yet somewhat thicker than the familiar TOS nacelle design and it will have elements making it more its own thing.

For the interior there's a stepped arrangement where the main part of the cabin is standing height (or close to) yet you step a bit up into a cockpit like arrangement where the ceiling needn't be standing height. This setup allows me more flexibility to shape the exterior in a more raked and streamlined way while still allowing for a double hull structure like I have on the Class F.

I'm also considering incorporating some things we might see on contemporary aircraft, such as running lights, small warning signage and the like. Nothing obtrusive to make the design visually busy, but done on a somewhat subtle level to add some telling detail that mightn't register right away but is more noticeable as you study the design further.

My interior chairs will be a bit different (a clue taken from the TAS design), but they won't be aircraft or Recaro like as with contemporary Trek since that wouldn't look TOS like. More like the familiar chairs seen on the _Enterprise_ but with armrests. The consoles and instrumentation will look more streamlined similar to the computer terminal seen in the briefing room. Overhead lighting could be set to the sides rather than directly overhead to allow for more headroom. And the forward bulkhead will be a nod to "The Cage" bridge in a way by being almost all monitor with segments for separate displays, not much different from computer monitor display capabilities today.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

This is a general concept I exploring and the shape will evolve. Or more or less be fined to get the lines and feel I'm reaching for. I've a lot of detailing in my head that isn't represented here such as the nacelle design which will not be a reuse of the familiar look but something rather more distinctive.

The pink line represents the inner hull and at its tallest point in most of the aft part of the craft I'm aiming for a ceiling of 6ft. 

I want to tweak the design for a bit more streamlining and lower fore section profile, and this outline doesn't show some of the curves I have in mind. But the outline is scaled to my Class F and here the design is just under 29ft. And it just hit me now, but oddly the fore section evokes a bit of MJ's initial concept for the shuttlecraft although only in side profile.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

A snapshot of a work in progress. The side and bow profiles are established and will help shape the top plan to be followed by further detailing as it progresses. As it is a 5'-10" crewman could just clear walking under the nacelles protruding aft since the ship will sit just a bit higher than it is now because of the landing pads I've yet to add. The warp nacelles are established in form overall although I will be finessing the details.

It still looks a bit stubby, but it looks sleeker with shadowing and perspective. Actually so does the Class F. I could lengthen it a bit out to 29ft., but I'd rather keep it as short as possible as long as it doesn't look stupidly short.

And comparing this to the Class F construction drawings I don't think this would have been any more difficult to construct as a fullsize mockup even at reduced scale and perhaps a few small compromises here and there.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

A snapshot of incremental progress. All the major elements are in place (excepting the still to be drawn forward landing assembly and the nacelle support struts) and the overall design established. I still want to play with the leading edge of the stabilizer/supports as I'm not really satisfied with it as is. Beyond this it's mostly detailing, the final being the signage.

I rather like how it looks kinda TAS from the top, TOS from the front and back and an amalgam of both from the side. And the nacelles have a hint of TMP to them. Candidly I was somewhat skeptical initially that I could come up with something decent looking within such a tight size constraint.










I'm also considering integrating running lights into the stabilizers and a bow light on the leading edge of the bow. And rather than having the aft access hatch dead centre in the rear I'm thinking of offsetting it to one side.


----------



## StarCruiser (Sep 28, 1999)

Offsetting the hatch is a good idea, nice change of pace from symetrical designs. I would say, offset it opposite of any offsetting done with the interior seats...


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Good point. Although the craft can be fitted for a crew of four the rest of the interior aft of the forward section will be asymetrical out of necessity to get everything I feel needs to be in there.










I've since corrected the leading and trailing edges of the stabilizer/supports and now I'm satisfied with them. I've also added the impulse detailing under the stabilizers seen in the aft view.


----------



## StarCruiser (Sep 28, 1999)

Looks slick to me...


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

I really like where this is going! And it's looking better all the time!

So..... you gonna kit this?

LOL!! :wave:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

And so the *final* Class F exterior sheets are done.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Gorgeous job.
Can I order copies of these for model construction?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Don't you want to wait for the interiors? (-:

The sheets will be posted on a website and I'll let you folks know when and where they're up.


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

One thing I like about the new Class H concept is how the profile of the front end not only evokes the early MJ design concept, it ties nicely with the STV shuttle design. Your new concept helps the design lineage.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I've got two possible approaches to the Class H. One is the the one you've just seen above and the other is something of a hotrod version of the Class F that bears some resemblance yet there are no interchangeable elements or parts.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

It's a matter of having something that looks like it fits in the TOS universe. The other design looks cool, but it may stray too far afield in its overall look.

This approach goes back to some extent to my initial concept. But back then I merely swapped out the nacelles and landing gear arrangement without any other changes and so I effectively altered the integrity of the design. This newer approach bridges the original Class F and something new by being familiar yet subtly altering the lines and proportions to retain an overall design integrity.

The more I look at it the more I like it. I may begin tackling the front and rear views as well as top this evening or over the weekend.

Looking at what I have already I know small changes I will make right off. The leading edge of the support pylon will be just a tad less severe. And the grille work on the nacelle will be a bit smaller and angled back a bit. For the forward hull I'm currently thinking of detailing that could look a bit something like the detailing on the forward part of the bridge on the Pike era Enterprise--essentially an arrangement of linework to suggest a sophisticated sensor array. The aft hatch will be two pieces: a lower swing down gangway section and an upper panel that slides open. The upper panel will have one large viewport that could evoke the access hatch viewport seen on the TAS shuttlecraft.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

From this point onward I'm designating this design a Class F3 since it is a variant of an existing platform.

BTW, Phil Broad has been gracious enough to host this project on his site:
http://cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/...ans/Raymond_Lefebvre/RaymondLefebvrePlans.htm


Now that I've got this thing firmly established I'll get back to finessing the rest of the sheets to finish off this project and get them to Phil Broad for hosting.

My take on the shuttlecraft classification is that a Class F refers to a general type of vehicle, a general or multi purpose craft within a certain size that is also warp capable. A Class F2 or F3 would be a variant of that general purpose craft slated for something of a more specific purpose. My idea is that an F2 is probably near identical to a Mark 12B Class F, but fitted out for a more narrow purpose. An F3 is a variant of an pre existing Class F platform yet designed from the onset with more narrowly defined mission profiles (technically then, the familiar TOS shuttlecraft design would be a Class F1). I think this is an easier perspective to grasp than giving something that looks very similar in form and function a whole new classification. That said Starfleet personnel and even Federation civilians may just refer to any of these vehicles as a "Class F" without bothering to be any more specific.

Also, from the above standpoint you could have shuttlecraft that look rather different than the familiar TOS design and it, too, could also be a Class F type. From that perspective than my last previous design could also be a Class F3, although presently I have no plans to further flesh it out. And it would support the idea that more than one Federation (or UFP member world) contractor supplies Starfleet with these vehicles.

Presently I'm not thinking of trying to iron out the other classifications A to E. When I get around to rendering "real" versions of the TAS shuttlecraft I'll give them different classifications primarily because generally they are larger craft intended for more specific purposes and cannot be regularly berthed aboard a starship outside of specific and temporary circumstances.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Although not a technical issue one question still unanswered is regarding the rationale behind the registry numbering of the Enterprise’s shuttlecraft.

If we accepted the initial idea that is referenced in _The Making Of Star Trek _that the _Enterprise _is supposed to have seven such vehicles then the numbering makes sense with the _Galileo _being *NCC-1701/7*. However somewhere along the way someone reasoned that it was rather very unlikely that the _Enterprise _could actually accommodate seven such vehicles and subsequently we get a reference to how many shuttlecraft are carried aboard a _Constitution_-class starship—namely the _U.S.S. Exeter_ in “The Omega Glory”—stating that “all four shuttlecraft” are still aboard. If indeed the _Exeter _is pretty much exactly like the _Enterprise _than this is an appreciated and telling bit of information because it raises the question of how could the _Galileo _have the registry _NCC-1701/7_ when there are supposed to be only four shuttlecraft aboard.

Well here’s a thought. Perhaps the higher registry reflects the fact that shuttlecraft have been lost over the years (such as we’ve actually witnessed in TOS) and each one replaced with a vehicle having a numerically higher registry.

My thinking could go like this. When the Class F were introduced perhaps the _Enterprise _was first assigned maybe two such vehicles: *NCC-1701/1 *and *NCC-1701/2*. If we accept that *NCC-1701/2* is the _Columbus _then it may be the oldest surviving shuttlecraft aboard (and if we assume there is no shuttlecraft registered *NCC-1701/1* still existing aboard). If *1701/1* was lost it could have been replaced with a craft registered *1701/3*. Or perhaps both *1 *and *2 *survive until the Enterprise is assigned two more vehicles registered *1701/3* and *1701/4*. The practice of replacing lost vehicles with ones assigned a higher registry continues until we’re in the early part of the five-year voyage and we have the _Galileo _*NCC-1701/7*, which is subsequently lost in “The Galileo Seven.” Thus up until that point we could reason that over the years since the vehicles were first introduced the _Enterprise _has replaced perhaps three lost shuttlecraft. And we simply don’t know and can only speculate what numbers other than *7 *and perhaps *2 *still exist at this point.

Now a wrinkle arises because after the loss of the _Galileo _in “The Galileo Seven” we see the _Galileo II_ in “Metamorphosis” is still numbered *NCC-1701/7*. But by all rights it should have been numbered *1701/8*.

We see another shuttlecraft lost in “The Doomsday Machine” only we never learn which number it is (TOS-R notwithstanding). We can only know that it isn’t the _Galileo II_ because we see it later in “The Way To Eden.”

It’s also possible that Starfleet could replace individual shuttlecraft with a newer and/or more advanced unit for unspecified reasons and those new craft could be assigned the same registry as the vehicle replaced. The replaced craft could subsequently be reassigned and re-registered or even scrapped. This could explain why my Class F3 _Copernicus _is numbered *1701/3 *rather than *1701/8* or *1701/9*.

Regarding the _Galileo II_ I can only guess that for whatever reason—perhaps a clerical error?—Starfleet assigned the craft the same registry as the one that was lost. Perhaps someone chained to a desk got confused and thought the original _Galileo _had simply been replaced from the _Enterprise _rather than destroyed.

And with the thinking given above this is how I rationalize the following:
_Columbus _*NCC-1701/2*
_Copernicus _*NCC-1701/3*
_Magellan _*NCC-1701/5*
_Galileo _*NCC-1701/7*


It must also be noted that the _Copernicus _seen in TAS’ “The Slaver Weapon” was registered *NCC-1701/12*. But things are even more confusing there because in a panning shot of the hangar deck we can see _four _suttlecraft like the one seen in “Mudd’s Passion” and one of them is also numbered *1701/12* as well as *1701/4* and no sign of the _Copernicus _and yet another wholly different design. In that panning shot we also get to see at least _six _oversized shuttlecraft crammed into the hangar which we know is an impossibilty aboard the “real” _Enterprise_. What we see in TAS tells me that not only was there no consistency in shuttlecraft designs and their registries but also the implication that shuttlecraft are prone to being lost routinely. Because of the lack of consistency I’m inclined to ignore TAS’ take on shuttlecraft beyond later adapting the three or four distinct designs into something more “real world.”

Another possible explanation exists, however. What if the _Enterprise _carries service craft (similar to the workbees seen in TMP) and those also have registries? And what if those workpods were numbered *1701/1*, *1701/2* and *1702/3*, or even simply *1*, *2 *and *3*? Then you could have four shuttlecraft registered *1701/4*, *1701/5*, *1701/6* and *1701/7*. This supports the idea of seeing the Galileio II with the same registry as the previously destroyed Galileo.

I have a problem with this, though, for two reasons. Firstly, I can understand giving a shuttlecraft, a vehicle designed to operate independently at greatly extended range from the mothership (particularly with warp capability), its own registry because it is effectively a compact sized starship. But why would you give a flight registry to a workpod, a craft that is basically the equivalent of a flying forklift? And secondly if we accept the conjectured registry of *1701/2 *assigned to the _Columbus _and _1701/3_ assigned to the _Copernicus _(reflecting the _Copernicus _3 seen in TFF) then it thoroughly derails this approach.

From my perspective my former rationale seems more likely than the latter explanation. I also think it seems more “real world."

It would be nice if some archival Matt Jefferies’ document would surface that just happened to list proposed shuttlecraft names and registries he had had in mind, similar to the list of proposed starship names given in _The Making Of Star Trek_. Barring that we can only speculate.


----------

