# Galileo Wins



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

http://www.collectormodel.com/

I won't be buying but congrats to those who will.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Yes!!!!!!


----------



## jaws62666 (Mar 25, 2009)

Woohoo go Galileo Go , and it also sounds like The 1701 Club members will definately be getting the premier kits next month. Heaven at last lol


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I'll be buying a freakin' CASE of 'em! W00t!!!


----------



## Mr. Wabac (Nov 9, 2002)

A large-scale ACCURATE TOS shuttlecraft is definitely most welcome !
Decades after the fact I still am disappointed with AMTs original version; this should be a great kit. I guess there will be some discussion, as there has been over the years on-line, about what will constitute a 1/32nd kit as the interior set and exterior mockup never did match.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

A new Galileo shuttle...I can hardly wait!


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

This will be a nice addition and it will be interesting to see if they include figures as was a mentioned possibility in the video. Other than accurizing it, I wonder what other little things they can add. I plan to but a couple of these.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

jaws62666 said:


> Woohoo go Galileo Go , and it also sounds like The 1701 Club members will definately be getting the premier kits next month. Heaven at last lol


I wouldn't take the video as law on that since it was a couple of months ago, but the video did indicate they were ahead of schedule. We should get confirmation on the release of the 1:350 E in the next club newsletter due out anytime now.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Hey, I saw myself. 

Very happy to finally get an accurate TOS shuttle. And it was fun reliving the presentation. So, if the real shuttle is 24', this kit should be about 9"?


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

Thanks for posting the winner, I can't get to Youtube here at work. I recall being disappointed in the scale during voting, but can't recall it.

I'll be hitting the tube once things settle down when I get home. With all the pics of the reliant on the page, I was pretty sure that was the winner.

Thanks again, go Galileo!!

Tib


----------



## Scorpitat (Oct 7, 2004)

Galileo........Bah!
How come Copernicus or Isacc Newton were never put in the running??

It's rigged I tell you........RIGGED! :wave:


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

I am hoping this leads to a retool or additional sprue for the Bridge and if the Bridge is 1/32, then hopefully if they do figures, that is an indicator that R2 will commit to a line of 1/32 such as Sickbay, Engineering, a Transporter Room, etc.

Now, who's going for the hangar bay diorama's out there?


----------



## phicks (Nov 5, 2002)

Will this be bigger or smaller than the old AMT Galileo kit?


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

phicks said:


> Will this be bigger or smaller than the old AMT Galileo kit?


Bigger by a dash.


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

I'm already thinking about a figure set or three for this one... I will check with the powers that be to see if they plan to do figures already... if not... I'll go to town on this one! I know Paulbo must already be working on a photo etched upgrade! Whose going to do the giant 32 scale Galileo 7 monster? I will certainly include a few of those giant spears in my figure set!

Drew


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

For those of you interested in ALL the results...

1/32 Galileo 37.1%
1/1000 Reliant 24.9%
1/2500 Akira 16.6%
1/1000 K'Tinga 14.4%
1/72 Iron Giant 7.0%


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

phicks said:


> Will this be bigger or smaller than the old AMT Galileo kit?


Roughly the same.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

I was looking forward to the 1/1000 scale K'Tinga because after all we already have TOS E, the Refit, the Excelsior and the E-B/Lakota and just ONE adversary kit, the PL D-7.
On a side note, does this mean we can look forward to more new shuttle kits in a scale of 1/32 or will the Galileo be the only new shuttle kit we can expect to see?????


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

That's great. Another home run for an original series craft!


----------



## hal9001 (May 28, 2008)

:woohoo:
:woohoo:
:woohoo:
:woohoo:
:woohoo:
:woohoo:
:woohoo:

hal9001-


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

A little bird told me this was pending, and I couldn't be happier.

I don't normally go in for "alternate" interpretations of classic TOS designs, but if and when this kit ships I _will_ be building one of these...


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Model Man said:


> I am hoping this leads to a retool or additional sprue for the Bridge and if the Bridge is 1/32, then hopefully if they do figures, that is an indicator that R2 will commit to a line of 1/32 such as Sickbay, Engineering, a Transporter Room, etc.


At this point I'll settle for an accurate 1/32 Galileo kit with or without figures. If Round 2 were to produce an all new Bridge kit and a Transporter Room kit in the same scale, so much the better!

And yes, I realize your post was wishful thinking and not something that was mentioned by Round 2; I'm just hopping onto your cloud.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Oooo, yeah, a couple more shuttles in scale would be wonderful.


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

All the choices are worthy and I'd get them all. As far as the K'tinga goes, I'm happy that I've got one of the Jupiter Station kits. 

An accurate Galileo shuttle... years ago, I would have rolled my eyes at that because I would have focused on the big ships, but _now_.... I'm very excited!


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

Meh, I voted for the Iron Giant. For those that wanted this kit, congrats! Many people there were cheesing for it. It just never did anything for me. Hopefully, they will still do some of the other kits on the list.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

I actually hope they release all that were on the list. There were others I wanted too, but I voted Galileo because it was what I wanted the most.


----------



## armymedic80 (Aug 11, 2010)

A new Galileo Shuttlecraft, WOW!!. That's like music to my ears.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Oh, the diorama possibilities!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

The _Galileo!_ Awesome! :thumbsup:

I'm also glad to hear about the 1/144 scale C57D. I've long been interested in this ship, but I felt the 1/72 kit was just too big for me. I can only make room for one monster kit and that's the 1/350 TOS _E._


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Very glad that the Galileo is finally going to get some respect... 

That said, I'm more than a little bit surprised to see that the TOS Romulan didn't make the "contest cut" at all. There's never been a styrene Romulan which was remotely accurate... and most of the cast resin versions have been lacking in one way or another.

There are so few TOS subjects... the Enterprise, the shuttlecraft, the Klingon battlecruiser, the Tholian webspinner, the Botany Bay, the Romulan Bird of Prey, and Deep Space Station K-7. We've had a good webspinner (in the glow-kit), the Enterprise has gotten two good treatments now, the Klingon is covered. And now the Galileo.

So, the only remaining subjects from TOS are the Romulan, the Botany Bay, and K-7. I really, really want a quality, STYRENE Romulan. But I seem to be in a minority, huh?


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

Clip...


CLBrown said:


> ...That said, I'm more than a little bit surprised to see that the TOS Romulan didn't make the "contest cut" at all. There's never been a styrene Romulan which was remotely accurate...


That really surprised me too. While presenting the possibilities, the second or third-most positive reaction noises from the crowd went to the RBoP, then seemingly it was just as quickly forgotten and didn't even place. If there had been a single graphic or summation list on the screen, maybe attendees would have given it more weight. Hey-ho.

Kirk v Gorn would have been a cool one too. Spock and the Snakes will have to remain alone, marooned on a dead planet in 1/8th scale for all eternity... Buried alive! Buried alive... oops. Sorry, wrong character.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

No, I'd also like a good Romulan BoP. As for the _Galileo_ I'm eager to how this is developed. Again, after seeing what they've done with the TOS _E_ I banking on the notion they'll aim for the shuttlecraft _Galileo_ rather than studio mockup.

It also raises an interesting question: that of scale or size. We know that a shuttlecraft only 24ft. L.O.A. at most ain't gonna give you any sort of reasonable interior even remotely resembling what we saw onscreen. And if they go for a 31-32ft. vehicle to have a full-size interior than the exterior is way oversized. 

A 24ft. L.O.A. at 1/32 scale = 9in.
A 32ft. L.O.A. at 1/32 scale = 12in.

Now if they went with my notion of a 24ft. main hull (and about 26ft. L.O.A.) then your model would be 9.75in.

Food for thought?


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Ductapeforever said:


> Roughly the same.


Or probably somewhat larger, depending upon how large the "real" Galileo is supposed to be. 20 years ago I was inside the original mock-up, and there are barely 5 ft of headroom inside. It's more like being inside an extra-wide minivan than what they showed on TV, and only a crew of Hobbitts could stand upright inside. Btw, the mock-up was only a bit over 22 ft long, despite Kirk's line of dialog that says 24 ft.

Gary


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Gary K said:


> Or probably somewhat larger, depending upon how large the "real" Galileo is supposed to be. 20 years ago I was inside the original mock-up, and there are barely 5 ft of headroom inside. It's more like being inside an extra-wide minivan than what they showed on TV, and only a crew of Hobbitts could stand upright inside. Btw, the mock-up was only a bit over 22 ft long, despite Kirk's line of dialog that says 24 ft.
> 
> Gary


*Gary*, I think it's pretty much accepted that the mockup and the miniature were both production compromises. The mockup is too small and the miniature is lacking in detail. Even watching the onscreen footage one can interpret that they were trying to suggest something other than what we were seeing.

Why are the chairs and consoles set so low when they obviously had plenty of headroom? Why were the characters often walking about stooped within the craft when it was obvious they didn't have to? To me it says they're trying to suggest a slightly smaller interior than what we were actually seeing.

That's why I settled on a compromise of a 26ft. craft (approximately) that allows for someone about 5'-7" to stand upright, but anyone taller would have to stoop (like they did onscreen). The happy coincidence is that you end up with a main hull near exactly 24ft.

Cool, ain't it? :lol:


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Gary K said:


> Or probably somewhat larger, depending upon how large the "real" Galileo is supposed to be. 20 years ago I was inside the original mock-up, and there are barely 5 ft of headroom inside. It's more like being inside an extra-wide minivan than what they showed on TV, and only a crew of Hobbitts could stand upright inside. Btw, the mock-up was only a bit over 22 ft long, despite Kirk's line of dialog that says 24 ft.
> 
> Gary


Gary, I don't envy you trying to reconcile the Exterior Prop and the Interior set pieces. You don't have to be struck by a passing truck to realise that some pretty major liberties will need to be taken,.....or , God forbid, ignore the interior all together and just reproduce the 
exterior Prop. But,......if anyone is up to the challenge, I know the Galileo is in VERY capable hands!

Needless to say, ignore 'Most' of the folks here on HT, use your talents and 'do what you do' sir. Fair winds,..and following seas my friend. The model Gods are smiling down on you !


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Can I be on the "Do Not Ignore" list?


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

jheilman said:


> Can I be on the "Do Not Ignore" list?


Nothing personnel guys, I just know we have a bad habit of 'over engineering things from our easy chairs' . Gary has proven he is more than capable in 'design mode' , I trust his judgement. I know he will design us the 'BEST' Galileo possible.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Ductapeforever said:


> Gary, I don't envy you trying to reconcile the Exterior Prop and the Interior set pieces.!


Not only that, but the hulls of the mock-up and the studio miniature are rather different - and I don't mean just in the details.



Ductapeforever said:


> You don't have to be struck by a passing truck to realise that some pretty major liberties will need to be taken,.....or , God forbid, ignore the interior all together and just reproduce the exterior Prop. But,......if anyone is up to the challenge, I know the Galileo is in VERY capable hands!


Thanks. I suppose if I can fit the studio set of the Jupiter 2's flight deck inside the lines of the 4 ft miniature's saucer, then how hard could the Galileo be? (famous last words) I just have to leave room in the Galileo's lower level for the Power Core. Wait - wrong spaceship! 

Gary


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

jheilman said:


> Can I be on the "Do Not Ignore" list?


We'll see....


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

There's always the possibility that Kirk's 24" referred only to the main hull of the shuttlecraft, not sure how much that'd help in revising the interior space upward and of course it won't help the set/mock-up discrepency, but it's a loophole of sorts.

The shuttle can be a lot of fun for diorama builds.....though personally I'd have wished for 1/24" for a bit more room to play with.

I'm with the gang here, Gary....you've earned your stripes no doubt. I think we're all on board with the direction you go!

Tib


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

C.L. Brown, 

You're not alone in wanting an accurate Romulan Bird-of-Prey in styrene.

I am also surprised by the poll, in that it didn't even make the final list. So far, I believe the very best version of the original Romulan ship to be the Johnny Lightning release of several years back. It's about as close to a 1/1000 styrene representation as were likely to get in the next few years.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Some comparisons.

The shuttlecraft as it's drawn in _The Making Of Star Trek._ Right off you can see this as cramped and nothing resembling the interior we saw will fit in there. Certainly you couldn't fit the aft cabin into it.











The shuttlecraft as the full-size mockup was built. Essentially the same, but with some changes in detail and evidently a bit larger in scale than the above shown drawing. The mockup also has a discernible "nose down" aspect to it---deliberate or happenstance?











The shuttlecraft miniature (when it appeared on TNG). The markings are off and the access hatch is missing as well as the aft nacelle cowls. It's also been repainted, but what physical detail still present is obviously not very detailed, notably the grilles on the side of the nacelles towards the aft end. The miniature also doesn't have that "nose down" aspect.











The different versions reconciled. Trying to integrate the differing versions into a coherent whole.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Ductapeforever said:


> Nothing personnel guys, I just know we have a bad habit of 'over engineering things from our easy chairs' . Gary has proven he is more than capable in 'design mode' , I trust his judgement. I know he will design us the 'BEST' Galileo possible.


Nevertheless... IMHO, getting an "assist" from Warped9 on this... who has accomplished the only "reconciliation" of the disparate issues I've ever seen which actually WORKED from a plausible, practical standpoint... would be a very, very wise choice.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

^

What he said !


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Top Ten things we can expect from the New Galileo kit !

10.....the appearance of the 'Mysterious Mr Y'.

09. ...what scale is it again ?

08. ...wooden spears !

07.....it's a re-pop!

06.....are we going to get Aztec decals?

05....OH NO!.....GRID LINES!

04....Aye Sir ,....it's green !

03....it looks white on my TV screen !

02....we're making it as fast as we can sir, ...I'm not a miracle worker!

and the number one thing we can expect from the New Galileo kit.....

01. ..Why couldn't they make it in 1/6th scale,.......with figures?


......hope you guys got a chuckle out of that !


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

My goals were simple. Firstly, the vehicle had to look near identical to what I saw onscreen, exterior and interior. I say "near identical" because I knew there would be inevitable compromises. Secondly, the vehicle had to be a credible, manageable size to be accommodated within the _Enterprise's_ flight deck and hangar facilities also taking into account the ship has to accommodate four shuttlecraft.

The 24ft. main hull was a happy accident because I wasn't trying for that. I was focusing on overall dimensions of the craft as a whole. The double hull structure was also a happy result simply because the interior cabin isn't as wide proportionately as the exterior hull. And so now there's space for a lot of mechanical guts and stuff.

The only real major compromise was the inability to line up the three forward "windows" with the three exterior panels on the forward hull. You cannot line them up without radically altering the shape of the interior cabin and/or exterior hull. So I opted to treat the three exterior panels as sensor arrays and the three interior "windows" as monitor displays or viewscreens. Not a perfect solution, but the only one I felt worked to preserve the look of the craft.

I originally had a 31ft. shuttlecraft. Then I got it down to about 28ft. Finally I got it down to about 26ft. L.O.A. And by chance I ended up with a near exactly 24ft. main hull with a 5'-7" ceiling... Okay the 5'-7" ceiling was a deliberate choice because it was something I felt was a fair compromise. That said it still entailed compressing the length of the main cabin (because onscreen they had _a lot_ of legroom) which allowed me to have an aft cabin and mechanical guts as well as the aft impulse engine.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Someone cut this man a check so Gary can get to work.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Ditto.

But a stylistic intent question. Was there intent on Jeffries part that the rear landing leg to retract and it just didn't manage to have anything show up on the 'full size' prop? Given how much effort was made to get something that at least LOOKED aerodynamic, that seems a glaring omission and not something Jeffries would overlook. 

I assume there's a specific reason that the shuttle doesn't just land on the pods by themselves and that's why they have pads. We need not get into TNG technobabble about how aerodynamics don't matter force fields blah gravimetric pulse drive blah. That may all be there but in the context of the show, streamlining mattered. 

I hope that the Tech Manual isn't used as a citation because, ya know, not Primary Source.

OK, the usual thing is "there isn't room!" but that's true of much of the shuttlecraft. Being in aviation Jeffries had seen plenty of complex ways for aircraft landing gear to tuck away, I'm sure he had something in mind. Leaving that leg sticking out the back just lacks....elegance. Thoughts?


----------



## Carl_G (Jun 30, 2012)

I was originally a little sulky that the Akira didn't win, til I saw it was 2500 scale. Now I'm getting hyped for some Galileo goodness! 

Please let there be an interior, please let there be an interior...


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

My resources were limited. I don't recall reading anything about the aft landing strut. Such a strut and pads were there even on MJ's initial design concept, the one they couldn't build because the shape was too complex.

What we don't know is how fast the vehicle was meant to fly in atmosphere. I suspect it isn't meant to fly that fast in atmosphere, but rather behave more like a helicopter with vertical take-off and landing. It kicks to spatial speeds and FTL once it clears the atmosphere. I doubt MJ or anyone else on staff gave it that much thought in that regard. A lot of helicopters have landing struts or rails or whatever hangin' out there while in flight.

In some shots we can see the vehicle isn't supposed to have just a plywood thin hull because we see some hull thickness when the access hatch opens. Unfortunately when you really start trying to put this together you realize that the space between hulls would be greater than what the onscreen shots suggest. Unless you want to widen the interior and thus radically alter how it looks onscreen. And also if you widen the cabin and lessen the hull thickness then where is the fold-out phaser cabinet supposed to recess to?


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Gary K said:


> We'll see....


I'm the eternal optimist.:thumbsup:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Warped9 said:


> My resources were limited. I don't recall reading anything about the aft landing strut. Such a strut and pads were there even on his initial design concept, the one they couldn't build because the shape was too complex.
> 
> What we don't know is how fast the vehicle was meant to fly in atmosphere. I suspect it isn't meant to fly that fast in atmosphere, but rather behave more like a helicopter with vertical take-off and landing. It kicks to spatial speeds and FTL once it clears the atmosphere. I doubt MJ or anyone else on staff gave it that much thought in that regard. A lot of helicopters have landing struts or rails or whatever hangin' out there while in flight.
> 
> In some shots we can see the vehicle isn't supposed to have just a plywood thin hull because we see some hull thickness when the access hatch opens. Unfortunately when you really start trying to put this together you realize that the space between hulls would be greater than what the onscreen shots suggest. Unless you want to widen the interior and thus radically alter how it looks onscreen. And also if you widen the cabin and lessen the hull thickness then where is the fold-out phaser cabinet supposed to recess to?


I can't recall, in the original show (before CG alteration) did we see the aft of the shuttle other than when it was launching from the Enterprise? I want to say there was a shot in 'Doomsday Weapon' but I'm not at all sure. Was the rear strut in place then? It wouldn't be unusual for the effects crew to just unplug it (assuming it was built to do that) for the shot. After all, that's how most of the landing gear was handed on the various aircraft in different Gerry Anderson shows. 

And mind, I fully approve of your dual hull solution. it makes sense for there to be a 'pressure hull' and an aerodynamic shell. 

I assume the landing pads look the way they do because that was easier for the stage hands to jack the prop on and off from dollies to wheel it onto the stage.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

There are more aft, flying shots than there are from any other orientation...

Maybe the best ones are near the end of "The Galileo Seven" though.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

All the aft shots I'm aware of show the landing strut in place. And so from an in-universe perspective the aft strut is always meant to be there. I'm not bothered by it.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

From a pure aerospace design standpoint, having the strut there isn't necessarily a problem. You'd want to tip it up (so it points directly aft) and you could use the pad itself as a control surface... almost like a rudder... for atmospheric operations.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

...or a speed brake.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

John P said:


> ...or a speed brake.


Air brake, man. Don't you watch Looney Toons? :lol:


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

Warped 9, 
I really hope Jamie and or Gary contact you because your work really is rather definitive in every way possible. The research and execution are first rate and deserving of full admiration by all.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

An interior would be nice. A couple of figures would be nice, too, but figures could also be done aftermarket. Certainly some alternate decals to make at least the _Galileo,_ the _Columbus_ and the _Copernicus._

You know, for the interior I just had a thought. Rather than making a removable upper hull (which could certainly be done) why not something of a cutaway effect with the upper hull? An alternate piece or pieces of the upper port or starboard side, and perhaps part of the roof, could be moulded in clear allowing you to see right into the craft? Mind you it would expose the double hull structure which a modeller could fill with "guts" as to their liking, or perhaps a few 'tween hulls parts could be included. Depends on how realistic R2 would like to be. It might also allow a modeller to add interior lights if wanted.

If R2 wants to offer the option of having the access hatch open or closed then that raises another issue that I had to be mindful of. Onscreen they show the access hatch as something of one assembly where the sliding panels and the swinging panel/gangway are the only thing separating the ship's interior from the outside. Firstly, in a "real" spacecraft that would be bad design---God forbid _something_ managed to open that door when least desired...like when in flight. Secondly, if you have a double hull structure, even a tightly spaced one, then there's no way that door could work as seen onscreen, at least not the inner door. That's why I chose to leave the exterior hatch as seen, but the interior door is simply two sliding panels with no swing-down lower panel/gangway, and there's simply a mini airlock or mini tunnel between the inner and external hulls. Hmm, that also kinda explains why those two small rectanglular viewports or windows seen on the exterior hatch are shown dark---when all the doors are closed and sealed there'd be no light from the inside shining out through those windows...unless, of course, they're one-way viewports. Cute.


A suggestion for alternate decals.











Speaking of figures...how big would a 1/32 scale TOS bridge be? You know that's a kit that could have some appeal down the road along with the 1/1000 Romulan BoP.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Some shuttlecraft inspired photoshopping showing something closer to a 26ft. vehicle.

A Pike era landing party.









A live-action version of TAS' "The Slaver Weapon."









Harry Mudd picked a bad place to land in TAS' "Mudd's Passion."









How did we miss her on the series?









I like this shot, but my scale is off because the craft would be larger in relation to the flight deck.


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

CLBrown said:


> Very glad that the Galileo is finally going to get some respect...
> 
> That said, I'm more than a little bit surprised to see that the TOS Romulan didn't make the "contest cut" at all. There's never been a styrene Romulan which was remotely accurate... and most of the cast resin versions have been lacking in one way or another.
> 
> ...


I was also surprised that the Romulan BoP didn't make the cut. Strange, had I been there that would have been a no-brainer for me. I do want a good shuttle kit, just not over a RBoP kit. Hopefully they will get around to it some day.
JW


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Warped9 said:


> Speaking of figures...how big would a 1/32 scale TOS bridge be? You know that's a kit that could have some appeal down the road along with the 1/1000 Romulan BoP.


Wasn't the original bridge kit supposed to be 1/35?


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Captain April said:


> Wasn't the original bridge kit supposed to be 1/35?


Yes, The original TOS Bridge kit was closest to 1/35 scale, so a 1/32 scale Bridge would only be a tad bit larger. Nearly indestinguishable from the original.


----------



## hal9001 (May 28, 2008)

I think the answer lies in the fact that this was a somewhat low budget science fiction show in the late 60's and no one, _in their wildest dreams_, including Mr. Jefferies, would have ever thought that 30 to 40 years later ageing modelers would have been trying to figure out the form and function of a fictitious vehicle. 

Therefore they took liberties in their desings that, at the time, would not have been broken down to it's engineering vs function vs desing by the viewer and or modeler.

Problem solved. Go with what you get!

hal9001-


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Television production has never been a cheap affair and SF shows tend to suffer on two fronts. Firstly, they're usually not given the same consideration as regular prime time program. A police/lawyer procedural series will often get a better budget than a SF series. A SF series also often cannot simply reuse per-existing sets, props and costumes because so much if not everything has to be made from scratch. It was true then and it's still true.

TOS's average budget per episode was about $185,000 per episode. In today's money that's a bit more than $1.3 million. TNG's budget per episode in it's first season was also about $1.3 million. That kinda blows the notion of TOS being made on the cheap. The key difference is the cost and difficulty of f/x in the 1960's compared with twenty years later and today. It's never been cheap, but resources have improved and you can get more for your buck today. 

Everything had to be done by hand back in the day---there were no such things as cgi---and this stayed true for television until the late 1980s and into the '90s. A show like TOS needed the resources of a feature film, but that was simply impossible (and it's still impossible now) but the difference is that f/x have simply gotten more sophisticated over time.

TOS' design and production and f/x might look simple by today's standards, but the imagination was certainly there and it wasn't cheap. And you can be sure that more contemporary sci-fi also continue to deal with production compromises. Witness the ever stupid looking TNG shuttlepod, something that should never have seen the light of day. And yet TOS managed to give us a pretty damned sophisticated looking full-size shuttlecraft mockup that pretty much blows away a lot of full-size props we've seen since.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

A lot of wonderful deisgns are influenced by the requirements of filming. Today we can stick a camera just about anywhere, but back then there were limitations of equipment which had to be worked around. 
The Hallways and Corridors of the origianl Enterprise seem unusually wide for a space craft, even with a large crew, but that was the minimum space necessary to move an entire camera crew down the length for a tracking shot.
A good representation of the Shuttlecraft is something I have been wanting for a long time. Personally I do not care if they have a complete interior even- jsut as long as you can see something inside if you build it with the doors open.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Steve H said:


> Ditto.
> 
> But a stylistic intent question. Was there intent on Jeffries part that the rear landing leg to retract and it just didn't manage to have anything show up on the 'full size' prop? Given how much effort was made to get something that at least LOOKED aerodynamic, that seems a glaring omission and not something Jeffries would overlook.
> 
> ...


The most familiar and iconic views of the shuttlecraft miniature particularly in flight. The aft strut is always there. Note, though, the orientation of the landing plate or pad. On the miniature it's oriented longitudinally or lengthwise which is how I drew it (because I liked the look of that better). On the full-size mockup the pad is oriented crossways or 90 degrees to that. Which one is right because the full-size strut assembly doesn't allow for the pad to swivel in that way. This could be an issue like the offset bridge debate: attach it the way you prefer.










The one shot where the strut is missing. Maybe it fell off because it's in every other shot. There certainly isn't enough room for it to be towed anywhere within the craft. Note, too, that the forward pads are also missing which makes sense since they're shown in drawings to be retractable. On the other hand the strut does look like having something of a telescoping nature so possibly the landing pad could be drawn up closer to the hull by a couple of feet...but ould that make enough difference in flight?











In a broader sense the landing pads shouldn't be needed. Perhaps MJ included them to make the design more interesting visually. Certainly I don't recall any subsequent shuttlecraft designs (after TAS) having anything like landing struts and/or pad assemblies. Mind you that aft strut does add something visually---it rather accentuates the ship's sense of motion, almost like a physical zoom line you see drawn in comics to convey a sense of motion or speed.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

This shows the aft landing strut with the pad oriented crossways, ninety degrees from how it's shown on the miniature.











Here we can see how (relatively) cavernous the interior set was. Nimoy is over six feet tall and he's got headroom to spare. Meanwhile the consoles and chairs are set low to the deck. Why??? My approach was to maintain the size of the chairs and consoles as well as _width, shape and angles_ of the interior while lowering the ceiling and shortening the overall length of the cabin (as a result while the angle of the walls and the curvatures where they meet the ceiling stay the same the actual width of the ceiling increased as it was lowered).











Another approximate look at what a 26ft. shuttlecraft (with a 24ft. main hull) would look like. In this pic I also "fixed" details on the shuttlecraft to convey more what I had in mind. It doesn't have such an obvious "nose down" attitude and the stabilizer rim tapers cleanly from bow to stern.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Those 'behind the scenes' shots of the shuttle are GOLD. F'ing gold. Just look at those curves, that 'lip' that OMG it's on the bottom too?! 

Did the model vanish or is it still around somewhere? Ah, I see earlier it seemed to make an appearance in TNG. Man, that's sad, I don't remember that. Oh, wait, is it possible they actually used an AMT kit for that and not the original model? Note what looks like the warp sled from the 'Vulcan' shuttle over on the left.

I dunno. I know it's going to become a personal preference thing but see, those forward landing pads...well, wait. I know the AMT kit had large disc-shaped pads, Jeffries design called for more streamlined skid-like pads, what actually got built and does the film model mirror the prop? Because if the AMT kit is correct those things ain't retracting into the nacelle pods either. 

I know, dead horse, flogging thereof, it just doesn't seem to be elegant to have that strut sticking out back there. Look at those lines and curves. 

I wonder how they got into the model to work on the lights? Panel on the belly?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

The prop used on TNG (check the 1st season episode "Lonely Among Us") is the actual TOS prop. It's quite large, much larger than the AMT kit.

No, the pads on the full-size mockup were rectangular and designed to recess into the nacelles or at least appear to be able to. It's possible the TOS miniature had small round pads put in place for the hangar deck shots and AMT followed that, but I can't say because I can't really tell from screen caps. I do think the forward pads on the miniature look too large compared to what the forward pads look like on the full-size mockup.

Note, too, the underside of the mockup and the underside of the miniature were also quite different. I went with the miniature's underside because it looked more visually interesting. Also it's safe to assume no one ever expected to see the underside of the full-size mockup onscreen. There is a shot of Boma in "The _Galileo_ Seven" scrambling out from under the shuttlecraft as if he were working under there (access panel perhaps?) or maybe he was just checking the underside for damage.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

What I never could figure out is why the windshields (er - viewports) are too high for a seated pilot to see out of. That's just dumb.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Steve H said:


> I dunno. I know it's going to become a personal preference thing but see, those forward landing pads...well, wait. I know the AMT kit had large disc-shaped pads, Jeffries design called for more streamlined skid-like pads, what actually got built and does the film model mirror the prop? Because if the AMT kit is correct those things ain't retracting into the nacelle pods either.


On the "full-sized" shuttlecraft prop, they used as much "found material" as possible. The front "pads" are actually the sort of items used on hydraulic jacks, or even screw-type jacks (if you grew up in a house with a basement, you might have had some similar, if slightly smaller, metal posts with this type of circular pad down there)

So... since it was built this way purely to save $$$... I have no problem going back to the Jefferies concept that the lower surface of the subspace field nacelle drops down to form a pad, and just leave the "disk" out entirely.

Your mileage may vary.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

John P said:


> What I never could figure out is why the windshields (er - viewports) are too high for a seated pilot to see out of. That's just dumb.


Either they were, as Warped9 indicates, actually not windows at all... or they're there mainly for those in the "back rows" (while pilot and copilot use their instruments and scanners nearly exclusively).

OR... we can just relocate/resize the windows to be more reasonable.

OR... maybe the pilot's chair is like an office chair, and elevates?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Warped9 said:


> TOS's average budget per episode was about $185,000 per episode. In today's money that's a bit more than $1.3 million. TNG's budget per episode in it's first season was also about $1.3 million. That kinda blows the notion of TOS being made on the cheap. The key difference is the cost and difficulty of f/x in the 1960's compared with twenty years later and today. It's never been cheap, but resources have improved and you can get more for your buck today.


It can be rightly said that every effects-heavy show since that time has built upon what Star Trek built almost from scratch.



> Everything had to be done by hand back in the day---there were no such things as cgi---and this stayed true for television until the late 1980s and into the '90s. A show like TOS needed the resources of a feature film, but that was simply impossible (and it's still impossible now) but the difference is that f/x have simply gotten more sophisticated over time.


It's amazing how the impossible can be accomplished on a regular basis if you put enough effort into it. Like you said, the visual effects used for Star Trek, with extensive use of bluescreen, motion control cameras, and optical printers, had previously only been done for feature films, and the various effects houses had to do this to meet the schedule of a weekly series. Lost In Space, by comparison, got by with techniques that dated back to Georges Méliès, hang the ship by wires in front of a moving starfield, throw wads of aluminum foil at the model to simulate an asteroid shower, etc. All done in camera, no processing, close enough for government work, and above all, cheap. Star Trek changed all that.



> TOS' design and production and f/x might look simple by today's standards, but the imagination was certainly there and it wasn't cheap. And you can be sure that more contemporary sci-fi also continue to deal with production compromises. Witness the ever stupid looking TNG shuttlepod, something that should never have seen the light of day. And yet TOS managed to give us a pretty damned sophisticated looking full-size shuttlecraft mockup that pretty much blows away a lot of full-size props we've seen since.


Also note how even with the comparatively lavish budgets of TNG through Enterprise, they still resorted to using household items with a new paintjob and a couple of lights to simulate some uber high tech device.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

CLBrown said:


> On the "full-sized" shuttlecraft prop, they used as much "found material" as possible. The front "pads" are actually the sort of items used on hydraulic jacks, or even screw-type jacks (if you grew up in a house with a basement, you might have had some similar, if slightly smaller, metal posts with this type of circular pad down there)
> 
> So... since it was built this way purely to save $$$... I have no problem going back to the Jefferies concept that the lower surface of the subspace field nacelle drops down to form a pad, and just leave the "disk" out entirely.
> 
> Your mileage may vary.


The strut for the rear landing pad was originally part of a aircraft landing gear.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Captain April said:


> The strut for the rear landing pad was originally part of a aircraft landing gear.


Yep, a Cessna, but I forget the model.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Looking at these pics I find it hard to accept the forward viewports as actual windows. If they're windows the forward bulkhead is awfully thin and that's all there is between me and vacuum? No thanks. The alternative is to significantly deform the interior cabin width wise, and as has been said they are pretty useless as windows particularly to the pilot and navigator. If you don't change the cabin width then you'll have three tiny panels on the forward hull and that will also look really weird. The other problem is that the angle of the forward bulkhead isn't as raked as the exterior hull. You surely aren't going to steepen the forward hull or you'll have a rather blunt looking nose section. If you rake the interior bulkhead more than that also pushes the forward console forward and the "windows" will be angled more over the pilot and navigator's heads and still be useless as viewports.

Just my take on it.











For the forthcoming model kit it might be considered that the interior set evolved over time. In the beginning (re: "The _Galileo_ Seven") the interior walls were spare, but in the second season we saw bits of hardware attached to them. Also in "The Immunity Syndrome" we see a different interior configuration, either a different shuttlecraft (in universe) or the same one refitted, where we get only the pilot and navigator's chair and the rest of the cabin filled with equipment to study the giant amoeba. Is this a case for alternate parts?

As far as measurements and dimensions (even if you're scaling up that doesn't much matter) the full-size mockup still exists and a lot can be learned from it even as *Gary* got measurements for the 11 footer _Enterprise_. It would be nice if *Gary* could also get access to the original construction drawings, not only for the exterior mockup but for the interior set as well. I'm assuming the interior set is long since gone, but having drawings would be very nice even if you're scaling down to fit into a smaller exterior. You can still learn exact angles of the walls and forward bulkhead, exact cabin width, exact size of the overhead lighting panel and exact details of the consoles. The size of the chairs would be nice to know too. The only thing that would be changed in scaling down would be ceiling height and tightening cabin length. 

If there aren't any interior drawings available, well, I guess there'll be a lot of studying screen shots and rare photos to guesstimate dimensions---pretty much what I had to resort to with my interior. I went so far as to set up a group of chairs and tables to approximate the cabin's arrangement and used that as a minimum baseline to work from. I also used a set of stairs to help gauge a workable step-up height for the fold-out step pads on the nacelle for ease of entry/exit. I'm 5'-7" and I reasoned that a step-up height any higher than my knee wouldn't be suitable or convenient considering there are no grab handles to help get into the vehicle.


...Man, thinking about this again really makes me want to see an actual _full size_ shuttlecraft with interior built. Of course, how the hell could you transport such a monster? :lol: Gotta admit, though, it would be a helluva hit at conventions.


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

Another well thought out perspective Warped9. Makes a lot of sense.

I feel that they made it pretty clear that those were, in fact, windows...even if they made little to no sense. As for hull thickness, the hull material is pretty strong (presumably), not sure it needs to be thicker than it shows to be durable. 

As for the kit itself, my personal preferance, would be to up-size the exterior scale to make the interior a better fit..."thickening" the hull/creating space where necessary to account for proportion differences. To me the exterior MUST be accurate or we're back to the AMT debacle, none of us wants that. Fudging the interior is the only way to please MOST of us, as you suggest. My hope is that the whole 24" shuttlecraft line and size of the mock up is taken with a huge chunk of salt and we press on with what works rather than focus on the limitations of budget, bulk, and construction of the TV show itself.

Thanks for all the hard work you're putting into this. I think we stand a really good chance of getting an exceptional kit!

Oh, and as to it being a different shuttle, dead on. The Galileo was destroyed in "The Galileo Seven" and what we had afterward was the Galileo II, which might give us an 'in-universe' justification for some sweeping changes.....not that it's really needed.

Tib


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I didn't originate the idea, but I've always liked the notion that the shuttlecraft interiors could be refitted reasonably quickly for specific missions. It gives them great flexibility particularly if you lose one or two and need something specific before you can get the lost unit replaced. Considering that R2 will initially offer alternate parts in the premiere edition of the TOS _E_ and PL continues to offer the 1/1000 _E_ with alternate parts and decals then it shouldn't be a problem to include a few alternate parts and decals with the _Galileo_ kit.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

_"Why are the chairs so low?"
_ 
Here's my take on that question. It also answers the questions:

_"Why is the forward interior bulkhead the wrong angle?"
_ 
and

_"Why are the proportions of the interior so different from the exterior?"
_ 
Here goes:

They originally had in mind the small, cramped concept we see in the TMOST drawings, including the one showing a man hunched over as he walks up the aisle. After the interior set construction was started, they decided they wanted the actors to be able to stand erect. So, they just "raised the roof." In essence, they left everthing from the center seam down alone, and stretched the top half of the set. The chairs are still unnaturally low, as they would have been if the ceiling was lower. The front bulk head was rotated up, giving a steeper angle and moving the view ports out of the sight line.

This is just guess work, but it would explain a lot...

My idea of the "real" interior would make all the chairs standard height, and the pilot and co pilot area would be on an elevated platform with the consoles and chairs in line for seeing out the windows.

Your mileage will not doubt vary.

M.

P.S.: We did see a shuttle landing depicted in the remastered series where you can see the pilots properly framed through the windows. I guess at least one of the shuttles had proper sight lines


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

MGagen said:


> _"Why are the chairs so low?"
> _
> Here's my take on that question. It also answers the questions:
> 
> ...


Probably close to the truth although we can only go by what we see onscreen.



MGagen said:


> P.S.: We did see a shuttle landing depicted in the remastered series where you can see the pilots properly framed through the windows. I guess at least one of the shuttles had proper sight lines


Suffice to say I don't give much weight to TOS-R.

It's like the offset bridge issue. It boils down to what you're willing to accept: a forward facing bridge that can't possibly fit as shown or an offset one that does fit where it's supposed to be even if it mightn't be in line with original intent.


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

> _ Fudging the interior is the only way to please MOST of us, as you suggest._


I'm loving this discussion. As Spock would say, "Fascinating" 

I'm cool with the idea of super-strong hull material making it thin. Seems like other Star Trek shows alluded to this premise. I'm also cool with a "filming miniature"- accurate exterior, with fudged interior. I'm looking forward to this pup!


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

The thickness of the skin does not bother me. The LEM skin was very thin, I think only .020 in. 

I agree with kdarcal. Filming model exterior and fudge as needed for the interior.

At least there are no gridlines! :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

mach7 said:


> At least there are no gridlines! :thumbsup:


Working on it. 

Regarding the interior. There is fudging and tweaking and then there's all out drastic change. If you widen the interior to facilitate matching the inside and outside windows you will have next to no 'tween hull space for mechanicals. You'll also have an usually wide cabin with extra useless space. You can mitigate that some by trying to fudge (narrow) the exterior and consequently have to fudge all detail connected to the width of the exterior. You'll also have to position the windows on the forward hull lower to match up with the interior openings. Now you've not only significantly altered the appearance of the interior but the exterior as well. It still bears a semblance of the TOS shuttlecraft, but it distinctly doesn't look like what we saw onscreen.

And this has been done before. A few others here will recognize what I'm talking about when I refer to the 3D shuttlecraft worked up by *FouMadMen* some years ago in this very forum. *FMM's* 3D model is really well done, but it does look off a bit. And note he elected to start with a full-size interior and scale up the exterior to fit it. The result was a 31ft. shuttlecraft, a sizeable vehicle that would be a snug fit in the _Enterprise's_ hangar area.


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

Warped9 said:


> Working on it.
> 
> Regarding the interior. There is fudging and tweaking and then there's all out drastic change. If you widen the interior to facilitate matching the inside and outside windows you will have next to no 'tween hull space for mechanicals. You'll also have an usually wide cabin with extra useless space. You can mitigate that some by trying to fudge (narrow) the exterior and consequently have to fudge all detail connected to the width of the exterior. You'll also have to position the windows on the forward hull lower to match up with the interior openings. Now you've not only significantly altered the appearance of the interior but the exterior as well. It still bears a semblance of the TOS shuttlecraft, but it distinctly doesn't look what we saw onscreen.
> 
> And this has been done before. A few others here will recognize what I'm talking about when I refer to the 3D shuttlecraft worked up by *FouMadMen* some years ago in this very forum. FMM's 3D model is really well done, but it does look off a bit. And note he elected to start with a full-size interior and scale up the exterior to fit it. The result was a 31ft. shuttlecraft, a sizeable vehicle that would be a snug fit in the _Enterprise's_ hangar area.


Doesn't take much exterior tweaking to "see" the error. Our human minds are wired to recognize certain things like that. 

_Conversely_ to that thought, my brain sees the old Aurora/Polar Lights B-9 robot as correct, because I looked at that thing as a kiddy-model builder for years on my night stand. When I see a real show, which is rare, I think that's not right!

I Built the old shuttlecraft, but it did not stick, because my friend and I blew it up with up with firecrackers and paint thinner. So I never looked at that every night before bed. But I _did_ watch Star Trek religiously.

_Bring on the filming mini!_

:wave:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

The underside of the TOS miniature.











*FourMadMen's* 3D model of the TOS shuttlecraft. Note, I designed the script for the shuttlecraft names at his request.




















You can see more of *FourMadMen's* shuttlecraft project here.


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

> _The underside of the TOS miniature._


That's a heck of a photo! Wow. I hope we see that detail on the new kit..........


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

OK! I'm excited about this!


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

kdaracal said:


> That's a heck of a photo! Wow. I hope we see that detail on the new kit..........


Those details are already on the Galileo that'll come with the 1/350 TOS Enterprise. The only hitch is that the shuttle is only 3/4" long. 

Gary


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Gary K said:


> Those details are already on the Galileo that'll come with the 1/350 TOS Enterprise. The only hitch is that the shuttle is only 3/4" long.
> 
> Gary


Interesting. At 1/350 scale that means the little shuttlecraft is only about 22ft. or the size of the full-size exterior mockup and not even a 24ft. overall (which would be a tick under 7/8 of an inch).


I must say I really appreciate this model finally coming to light yet I still would have liked a 1/24 scale kit. Gives you a bit more room to work with.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Warped9 said:


> Interesting. At 1/350 scale that means the little shuttlecraft is only about 22ft. or the size of the full-size exterior mockup and not even a 24ft. overall (which would be a tick under 7/8 of an inch).


As I explain in Pt 2 of the Sci-Fi & Fantasy Modeller article, the hangar bay in the TOS E is so cramped that I wanted to keep the shuttle as small as possible. The big Galileo model will be a much more realistic size.

Gary


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Gary K said:


> As I explain in Pt 2 of the Sci-Fi & Fantasy Modeller article, the hangar bay in the TOS E is so cramped that I wanted to keep the shuttle as small as possible. The big Galileo model will be a much more realistic size.
> 
> Gary


Makes sense. Besides at 1/350 scale we're talking about fractions of an inch difference. The difference in scale between a 22ft. and 24ft. would be only a shade over 1/16 of an inch.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Add a few thick coats of paint and you've upped the scale considerably. 

And yes... kidding.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Gary K said:


> As I explain in Pt 2 of the Sci-Fi & Fantasy Modeller article, the hangar bay in the TOS E is so cramped that I wanted to keep the shuttle as small as possible. The big Galileo model will be a much more realistic size.


Well, that's good news for ME... since for my 1067' length Enterprise, that works out to about 25' for the craft overall length. Perfect... or nearly so, anyway!


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

Warped9, 


Where were you when I was begging for help trying to get a shuttle script for my Camaro? I got there but man what a pain!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Warped9 said:


> Interesting. At 1/350 scale that means the little shuttlecraft is only about 22ft. or the size of the full-size exterior mockup and not even a 24ft. overall (which would be a tick under 7/8 of an inch).
> 
> 
> I must say I really appreciate this model finally coming to light yet I still would have liked a 1/24 scale kit. Gives you a bit more room to work with.


Don't you have Randy Cooper's resin kit? Pricey and not for beginners, but it's 1/24!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

John P said:


> Don't you have Randy Cooper's resin kit? Pricey and not for beginners, but it's 1/24!


For what it is it's pricey and I'm not crazy about some of the details. I'm sure Gary and R2 will make a much nicer and more accurate kit for a much more affordable price.

Note also the interior of Randy Cooper's model is way off. He basically jettisoned the aft compartment to fit the main cabin into it. On the outside it resembles the TOS shuttlecraft, but on the inside it resembles the FJ version.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

An interesting reveal in the recent _Sci-Fi & Fantasy Modeller Vol. 26_ issue. There's a pic showing the inside of the 22ft. shuttlecraft mock-up. It shows that if the mock-up was indeed the full-size shuttlecraft then those windows on the hull could have been somewhat usefull to the pilot and navigator. On the flip side such a small craft would leave next to no room for a double hull and 'tween hull mechanicals. It would have been very much like FJ's tech manual drawings. 

However, as you begin to scale the mock-up the windows begin to lose their usefulness simply because they rise higher off the deck in proportion to the rest of the increasing size. On a 26-29ft. shuttlecraft the windows become wholly useless.

Another little nugget gleaned from the magazine is a comment from Lynne Miller (then owner of the mock-up) from several years back when Gary Kerr had an opportunity to take some measurements and photographs of the mock-up during restoration. Apparently Lynne stated that Matt Jefferies had told her the 22ft. mock-up was built to 3/4 scale. If taken literally then that would mean the "real" shuttlecraft was supposed to be 29-1/3ft. long. 

Hmm, that surprises me and seems awfully large for the room allowed for the _Enterprise's_ hangar facilities. It isn't just length but correspondingly height and width as well---everything gets bigger, including a more inconvenient step-up height into the ship.

Now this is a recollection of a remark made many years ago. It could be hard to know how accurate this statement is in terms of what MJ really meant. Did he mean it literally or approximately or something along the lines of "seems about right, but it's been a very long time and I don't recall exactly" type of statement?

Yeah, it's all fictional, but a lot of us do try to make all this fictional (and often conflicting) information fit together into a coherent whole.


Because we're nuts... :lol:


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> For what it is it's pricey and I'm not crazy about some of the details. .


What it _was_, 40 years after TOS, was the first commercially available model kit to bear a passing resemblance to the studio mockup/ miniature. 

Pricy? Perhaps, but I doubt Randy got rich off the proceeds. 

Will Gary's version be more accurate? No doubt, assuming PL sees fit to actually bring it to market. 

I'm all for theory, speculation and imaginative conjecture, but let's give credit where credit is due. Randy's model may not be perfect, but it's far and away the best commercially produced version anyone has managed to release since TOS hit the airwaves. At 1/24, that's a record it's likely to hold for some time.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> What it _was_, 40 years after TOS, was the first commercially available model kit to bear a passing resemblance to the studio mockup/ miniature.
> 
> Pricy? Perhaps, but I doubt Randy got rich off the proceeds.
> 
> ...


For about a year or so anyway.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Anybody got pics of the "Randy Cooper" shuttle, or a link to someplace I can check it out?


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

CLBrown said:


> Anybody got pics of the "Randy Cooper" shuttle, or a link to someplace I can check it out?





Here's a link to Randy's blog, it has some nice pics.:wave:


http://randycooper.blogspot.com/2008/06/galileo-shuttle-craft.html


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Something I dug up while Googling some images, from one of my Hobbytalk threads from some years back.

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


Warped9 said:


> And here's to give you another perspective.


The main internal differences in the lower comparison image: overall length and height of the main cabin and aft compartment. The cabin and compartment widths and shapes remain the same. Even in the larger version it's still not as large as the interior set seen onscreen---for that you need a 31-32ft. ship.

Note also the difference between cabin height and head clearance. That's because of the overhead lighting panel.


Some other stuff from that time. The Class H was my initial attempt at a conjectural version of a more TOS like version of the TAS scout ship seen in "The Slaver Weapon." The image of the Class H variant on the flight deck has been adjusted for (approximate) size to show what a slightly larger craft might look like in a familiar scene. Note while the Class H was only about 2ft. longer than the Class F the main hull was exactly the same.



Warped9 said:


>


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

One thing we all have to remember is, we are trying to reconcile a number of items built for a TV show, to represent something that does not exist. These various props, set pieces and models all had to do things specific to the script requirements at the time of construction, which don't make sense when looked at as a whole. 

Two things I see that people leave out of all their redesigns and rescalings are the rear exit on the shuttle and the equipment bay below the floor panels. It is shown clearly, including sound effects, that people enter and exit the shuttle craft through the rear in "The Galileo 7". Scotty is also shown to be more than elbow deep below the floor panels while working on the fuel lines, (Why they were under the floor when the engines were in the back, I have no idea!), which meant that from every cross section I have seen, he should have been touching the gound below.

Gary did a wonderful job designing the Jupiter 2 and getting that fantasy ship to fit based of all the different sets and models, I have no doubt he will do the same with this fantasy craft as well.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

RSN said:


> One thing we all have to remember is, we are trying to reconcile a number of items built for a TV show, to represent something that does not exist. These various props, set pieces and models all had to do things specific to the script requirements at the time of construction, which don't make sense when looked at as a whole.


AMEN!

Gary


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

RSN said:


> One thing we all have to remember is, we are trying to reconcile a number of items built for a TV show, to represent something that does not exist. These various props, set pieces and models all had to do things specific to the script requirements at the time of construction, which don't make sense when looked at as a whole.
> 
> Two things I see that people leave out of all their redesigns and rescalings are the rear exit on the shuttle and the equipment bay below the floor panels. It is shown clearly, including sound effects, that people enter and exit the shuttle craft through the rear in "The Galileo 7". Scotty is also shown to be more than elbow deep below the floor panels while working on the fuel lines, (Why they were under the floor when the engines were in the back, I have no idea!), which meant that from every cross section I have seen, he should have been touching the gound below.)


The supposed exit hatch in the rear is non-existent and a mistake of the director making it look that way. Also, we all know it's fictional, but that doesn't preclude the fun of trying to make it work. And I did take the floor panel into account, but even with a 32ft. shuttlecraft there still wouldn't be enough room for Scotty to be elbow deep under the floor.

And if all of this is so meaningless then why all the excitement over Gary and R2 going to such incredible lengths to make a superlatively detailed model of a flawed television prop?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Warped9 said:


> The supposed exit hatch in the rear is non-existent and a mistake of the director making it look that way. Also, we all know it's fictional, but that doesn't preclude the fun of trying to make it work. And I did take the floor panel into account, but even with a 32ft. shuttlecraft there still wouldn't be enough room for Scotty to be elbow deep under the floor.
> 
> And if all of this is so meaningless then why all the excitement over Gary and R2 going to such incredible lengths to make a superlatively detailed model of a flawed television prop?


I don't think it is meaningless, this is why I have loved these shows all these year, the design work! What I am saying is, you will always reach a point where not everyone will get what they want from the model, or one of your well thought out rescalings. You have to eventually say, "Close enough" and live with the discrepancies.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

CLBrown said:


> Anybody got pics of the "Randy Cooper" shuttle, or a link to someplace I can check it out?


From an ill-fated build I did a few years back...

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=229854


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

RSN said:


> I don't think it is meaningless, this is why I have loved these shows all these year, the design work! What I am saying is, you will always reach a point where not everyone will get what they want from the model, or one of your well thought out rescalings. You have to eventually say, "Close enough" and live with the discrepancies.


True, no one will ever get it definitively because it's all an approximation no matter how close you get.

All SF television and film have production compromises, even the most vaunted as being the most credible such as _2001: A Space Odyssey._ The forward sphere section of the _Discovery_ simply looks too small to house the control centre as well as the apparently spacious pod bay. _Star Trek_ gave itself something of an out by having such a large space vehicle wherein it was quite believable for it to hold its spacious interiors and with little compromise.

The shuttlecraft was the one major exception. An even larger exterior mock-up would have been too costly to build and too unwieldy to handle and transport, while a suitably smaller interior set would have been much too difficult to film as dramatically with the production resources of the time. Today at least a smaller interior set wouldn't be an issue.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Here's my Randy Cooper shuttlecraft, which I eagerly look forward to replacing with the R2 version:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lazymodeler/sets/72157625889653813/


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

The Cooper interior scales much more like a "car"--no standing room and especially with the thick ceiling designed to slip a lighting panel into, very little headroom for the seated crew--but they do seem to look through the forward windows without difficulty. It builds up into a beautiful replica but it is HEAVY and has some very challenging building problems. Can't wait for Gary's version...


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

RSN said:


> One thing we all have to remember is, we are trying to reconcile a number of items built for a TV show, to represent something that does not exist. These various props, set pieces and models all had to do things specific to the script requirements at the time of construction, which don't make sense when looked at as a whole.





Gary K said:


> AMEN!
> 
> Gary


Can we apply this sentiment to the bridge?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Captain April said:


> Can we apply this sentiment to the bridge?


They already have. You'll be able to install the bridge on the model set either straight ahead or offset.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

jbond said:


> Here's my Randy Cooper shuttlecraft, which I eagerly look forward to replacing with the R2 version:
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/lazymodeler/sets/72157625889653813/


Did those figures come with the kit? If not, where did you get them?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

For me in the end what really matters is the shuttlecraft exterior. As long as that's right--the shapes and proportions--then you can scale it to whatever size you like. The interior matters if you want to show it, either through an open hatch or removable panels or transparent alternate parts.

Of course, it's nice to have that option.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> For about a year or so anyway.


You're assuming PL will proceed with a 1/24 scale model. Having spoken to Gary I know this would suit him just fine, but it remains to be seen if so large a kit will make economic sense for PL. Here's hoping, but I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

Warped9 said:


> For me in the end what really matters is the shuttlecraft exterior. As long as that's right--the shapes and proportions--then you can scale it to whatever size you like. The interior matters if you want to show it, either through an open hatch or removable panels or transparent alternate parts.
> 
> Of course, it's nice to have that option.


I agree. Having an accurate exterior display model would be my primary concern. Having a better interior than the original AMT kit would be frosting on the cake.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Carson Dyle said:


> From an ill-fated build I did a few years back...
> 
> http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=229854


So, did you ever do your second build-up? That was some nice work, though I agree with your choice to leave out the interior. I really do hope R2 makes use of Warped9's efforts here. Not that he's smarter or better informed than some other folks, but he's done all the hard "legwork" already.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

CLBrown said:


> So, did you ever do your second build-up?


No, but it's perched near the top of my "to build" pile.

Of course, depending on how the PL version shapes up (and at what scale), I may not need to bother with a Cooper re-build.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> You're assuming PL will proceed with a 1/24 scale model. Having spoken to Gary I know this would suit him just fine, but it remains to be seen if so large a kit will make economic sense for PL. Here's hoping, but I'll believe it when I see it.


Unless they change their minds they've already said it would be 1/32 scale.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> Unless they change their minds they've already said it would be 1/32 scale.


I guess I’m confused (what else is new).

I originally posted this:



Carson Dyle said:


> Randy's model may not be perfect, but it's far and away the best commercially produced version anyone has managed to release since TOS hit the airwaves. At 1/24, that's a record it's likely to hold for some time.


In response, you posted this:



Warped9 said:


> For about a year or so anyway.


I took that to mean you knew the proposed PL kit would be 1/24.

If the PL scale turns out to be 1/32 I may need to re-build that Cooper kit after all.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I'd like a 1/24 scale kit. It would mean the new kit would be between 12 to about 14-1/2 inches in length (depending on final "real" size)---a good sized model. But a 1/32 scale shuttleraft of 9 to just under 11 inches would be quite acceptable as well.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Warped9 said:


> I'd like a 1/24 scale kit. It would mean the new kit would be between 12 to about 14-1/2 inches in length (depending on final "real" size)---a good sized model. But a 1/32 scale shuttleraft of 9 to just under 11 inches would be quite acceptable as well.


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

If the overall "real" length is 26'... in 1/32 scale, that would be 9.75" long. At 1/24 scale, that would be 13" long. (I'm using the 26' length that W9 came up with, with the main body being 24' and an additional 2' worth of nacelle extending back from that point.

I think that a 13" model is pretty much ideal for this subject matter. I think that a 9.75 model... while better from a "building a whole hangar full of shuttles" standpoint... is less effective for what we want.

Remember... in 1/24 scale, a six-foot figure will be 3" tall. In 1/32, the same figure is 2 1/4" tall.


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

I've always rooted for 1/24th for this kit and still prefer it. But I'd buy either.

Tib


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Watching the R2's Wonderfest video I was a bit surprised everyone was talking about a 1/32 kit rather than a 1/24. 

Hmm, maybe if we plead enough and really nicely?


----------



## ffejG (Aug 27, 2008)

Does anyone recall the R2 survey from Wonderfest a couple of years ago? I could swear they had the Galileo on that one at 1/24 though that may just be my aging, rationalizing memory. 

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

Perhaps a little lobbying is in order?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

ffejG said:


> Perhaps a little lobbying is in order?


Could be. It took fans more than forty years to get the _Enterprise_ model we've always wanted. Hopefully the _Galileo_ won't take nearly that long particularly since, a) R2 already seems intent on producing a shuttlecraft kit and, b) they've established themselves as makers of quality products.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

CLBrown said:


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

Warped9 said:


> Could be. It took fans more than forty years to get the _Enterprise_ model we've always wanted. Hopefully the _Galileo_ won't take nearly that long particularly since, a) R2 already seems intent on producing a shuttlecraft kit and, b) they've established themselves as makers of quality products.


I'd be game to do a little cheerleading for a 1/24 Shuttlecraft.

Someone have a better way to hit up Jamie than the blog?

Tib


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Tiberious said:


> I'd be game to do a little cheerleading for a 1/24 Shuttlecraft.
> 
> Someone have a better way to hit up Jamie than the blog?
> 
> Tib


Well, I guess it's too late to include a poll in this three...


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I really wanted a 1/24 also, but I think their sales will be better with the smaller 1/32 kit.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

I'd love 1/24, but 1/32 is going to be more likely for the cost benefit analysis, imo. The good thing is, whatever plans they generate can be scaled to 1/24 or 1/32. 

And if they keep it 1/32, that will be a good scale for the Bridge which means they might do figures, and I am hoping they do other sections of the ship or other ships and their shuttles throughout the franchise.

I did some further work on the WF video and cut it into parts, here's just the poll and Galileo "winner's circle".


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

I'll reiterate for the sake of lobbying that I'd far prefer a 1/24 scale kit.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Just a thought, but 1/72 might be good for a diorama, or a companion piece with a repopped DS9 Runabout.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

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

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

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


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

1/72 is unacceptable. It'd be like those little Moebius 1/288 Flying Sub and Spindrift kits. Novelties. Candy instead of a meal.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

As a stand-alone, agreed, you'd almost be better tracking down a Jonny Lightning one, which is why I said it might be nifty as an add-on for a repopped runabout kit.


----------



## hal9001 (May 28, 2008)

I'll put my trust in a man that gave all Trekkie modelers their Grail kit...a 1/350 TOS *Enterprise*, Lord of the styrene, Jamie. All hail Jamie!

But that's just me.

hal9001-


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Pretty sure there are 1/72 resin shuttles out there. Check Federation Models. No need to waste styrene on one. 

Now, if R2 was to make a multi-kit cadet series with, say, 1/72 kits of the Galileo, the movie shuttle, the TNG soapbar, and the Voyager speedboat all in one box, I'd kvell.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

John P said:


> Pretty sure there are 1/72 resin shuttles out there. Check Federation Models. No need to waste styrene on one.


Yep... cast resin made by Alliance. Not 100% accurate but, in scale, perfectly serviceable for a "comparative shuttle fleet." The TOS shuttle is the least impressive entry in the series, though.


----------

