# TOS Galileo Shuttlecraft, the Bob Villa version - Part 1



## Chuck_P.R.

Okay guys, how about a class project?

From the few construction pics I've seen of the 
full sized TOS Galileo mock-up I'm convinced that 
plans could be drawn up that could turn a full sized
shuttlecraft into a two or three weekend Bob Villa 
project...(sans the interior details just like the
original).

I'm not really interested in making an actual full
sized mock up. But I've got several pictures of 
different stages of the full size mockup. I thought
that it might be neat were we to try and reverse
engineer the construction framework and methods.
Then it would be simple to rescale and a framework
could easily be done at say a 16" size using either
balsa or aluminum and plastic strips instead of the 
the metal and 2"x3"'s used on the full size mock up.

David Winfrey once mentioned that a fan had built 
a mockup using his prints and had created a similar
skeleton. He supposedly set him lots of pics of the
mockup.

Any chance you have your ears on David?

Also, I have a pick that MGagen posted where he was able
to draw some interesting perspective conclusions via
photo analysis. Any chance others with such skills would
like to take a crack at some framework shots?

If we could put our heads together and design a framework
for this thing I'm confident we could together make 
constructing a scratchbuild a piece of cake.

Is anyone know if an accurate version of the Galileo has 
perhaps already been done as a 3-D Wireframe or that is
back-convertable to Wireframe that we could find a link for?

I've discussed the idea with Capt. Locknar and he's graciously
decided to host some reference pics for those who might be
interested. 

In deference to David Winfrey's wishes his plans
will not be among anything I upload. He's stated in the past
that he doesn't mind a few of us sharing plans on an offline
basis,(see http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=46313&page=4&pp=20&highlight=galileo post #75), 
however he plans to revise them and re-release them
later and doesn't want to see the unrevised ones appear or 
proliferate online. So please, if you have them, don't upload them to
the net and/or link to anyone else who might have already done so.

I'm very interested in the different approachs that could be taken
to this project. Someone could do 2-D pen and ink plans, 3-D plans,
2-D computerized plans. There are lots of ways for us to approach this.

Anybody out there who is interested please join in...


----------



## StarshipClass

Sounds great! This is a CGI project, then?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

I'd say we should approach it from multiple angles. From CGI to pen and ink. The final ultimate goal is to end up with the most accurate plans in order to assist scratchbuilding.


I'm hoping that once Capt. Locknar gets a chance to upload my files that others will add to the references shots as well.


----------



## Pygar

I can't find the thread in which we were discussing the size of the original, but think it worked out to 28 1/2 feet or so, fullsized, assuming the shuttle mini was 1/16 scale, the only standard scale that seemed likely (3/4" to the foot). This would make a 16" shuttlecraft 1/21.375 scale... A 1/24 shuttle would be 14.25" long. This is the one I hope PL makes!

And at least in my own case it would be more like "Tool TIme" than "Bob Villa"...

(And to purists who remember Kirk saying it was 24' long... he was probably talking about the all important (at that point) part that carries air!)


----------



## StarshipClass

Pygar said:


> (And to purists who remember Kirk saying it was 24' long... he was probably talking about the all important (at that point) part that carries air!)



Hey! That's a great point! Quite a dif between the interior and exterior in that respect. :thumbsup:


----------



## capt Locknar

Ok OK I'll have them uploaded in about 20 minutes lol

Been on the phone all day getting ready for the Closing on the house tomorrow at 3. WOOOOHOOOOOOOOOO.
Off to upload your files now


----------



## capt Locknar

Ok got the them hosted. Hope no one kills me over these, just doing a favor by hosting them so everyone can work on this project. If any of the pictures are offending or if the original owner doesn't want them hosted let me know and i'll pull it down. There are 34 pics and you just need to substitute the number in the URL from 01-34 (numbers 1-9 need the zero in front of the 1-9 for it to work)
http://www.starfurymodels.com/gallery/01.jpg
http://www.starfurymodels.com/gallery/02.jpg
http://www.starfurymodels.com/gallery/03.jpg
http://www.starfurymodels.com/gallery/04.jpg
http://www.starfurymodels.com/gallery/05.jpg

Etc..............


----------



## Pygar

Just finished getting 'em all, great pix and great work! #32 seems to have been flopped (no door on that side) and some pix of the mini inexplicably have no door where there should be one... but all in all the pix are just what any Galileo modeler would need to bet it just right.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

So who has the six page larger Winfrey shuttlecraft prints and who has the Everhart shuttle prints?

I've got just two pages of Winfrey's Galileo drawings from his "Modeler's Reference Series 1",
although I just ordered a set of Everhart's.

Here's a description of the stuff I'm talking about...
Please keep in mind that the following descriptions are written by Dave Winfrey from an overview of Trek prints he did in the Trek reading list...

>>>>>>>>>>>
Quote:

8100.00
Galileo Shuttlecraft Plans
L. Allen Everhart, Starcraft Productions, 1981 - 18 x 24 (2 pg), scale 2 in. = 1 meter -- $3.00

An impressive effort at documenting the original series shuttlecraft, far superior to that shown in the STARFLEET TECHNICAL MANUAL (whose artist had access to the "full scale" soundstage prop, as I suspect Everhart did not). The plans feature fore, aft, left exterior and left interior ("hatch walls" both, in other words) views with a pleasing amount of detail, capturing even the door button just to the "porch's" left (though if Everhart correctly labeled it "PUSH" it goes illegible on my set). The chairs seem a bit inaccurate, and Everhart's established size does not reflect that of the televised interior set - but he does show the nacelle pylons' inside bracing, and was far before his time in positing the shuttle as a warp-capable vessel, a canon-established fact (the nacelles left a trail of antimatter in "Metamorphosis") then overlooked by professionally-produced "tech" literature (e.g. FASA's). Everhart's least well-presented set, sold in an end-opening envelope whose exterior profile can barely be seen - but if you see these for sale, grab 'em. They're worth a look.

8700.00
Class F Shuttlecraft Blueprints
David Winfrey, Omega Prints, 1987 - 11 x 17 (6 pg. + 2 8.5 x 11 detail pages), 1/24 scale -- $6.95

Time to toot my own horn. I'm not as pleased with these as I'd like to be, nor are they in print (save in rip-off form; see Galaxy Class, below). A revision's long overdue. This, my own entry into the blues field, was meant to provide the most accurate possible drawings of the original series shuttlecraft. "Possible" is a joker here, since the interior set and "full scale" soundstage model didn't match (the former was larger by about 50%, and hollow; interiors were filmed separately). I took the interiors as canonical (the reverse to "Franz Joseph's" take on things), and enlarged the exterior to hold 'em. I rendered every panel, every button, showing changes by episode. I took one liberty, though, which a long-delayed revision will address - I widened the interior to fit the outer walls, rather than dropping it midline, leaving room on either side to spare. My plans include a forward-looking interior shot from "Metamorphosis," though, by which the discerning modeler could correct that error. Professionalism in both linework and printing (not done on an offset press) leave something to be desired, but scale data is without peer (an exterior photo of a model by Mark Nehmzow appeared in Finescale Modeler some years back). Shane Johnson phoned in his compliments, and Allen Everhart gave praise in person (end of plug, for now; but see "Star Trek" Modeler's Blueprints, below).

8900.02
"Star Trek" Modeler's Blueprints Set I
David Winfrey, Omega Prints, 1989 - 8.5 x 11 (16 pg.), scales 1/48, 1/92, 1/639, 1/1597 and 1.5 in. = 50 ft. -- $6.95

Yep, me again. First off, a note on scales. The Class F (original series Galileo) and (animated) armored shuttles appear in 1/48 and 1/192, the scales of the AMT/ERTL Galileo and Surak shuttles, respectively; the (animation's) robot cargo ship, K-7 station and Botany Bay are done to the scales of the small and large AMT Enterprises, with a "bonus" page of the Botany Bay to the scale of "Franz Joseph's" CONSTITUTION CLASS plans. Same note on errata applies to the Galileo as in my Class F review above. Armored shuttle includes off-the-screen "cel tracings" of the interior and Enterprise's jam-packed hangar deck , former color-keyed (as is the set entire). Robot cargo ship ("More Tribbles, More Troubles") includes cel tracings and an "alternate design" from an old fanzine; K-7 includes a scrap view of the real-world Douglas Aircraft Company space station design on which it was based. Botany Bay plans are likewise due revision by dint of since-acquired detail photos of studio miniature, but proved to be within a fraction of an inch of that miniature's dimensions, despite having their size derived from extremely limited reference (e.g., 2 wallet sized photos and episode videotapes). Font is that of an IBM Selectric II, my "word processor" of choice circa 1989. Not the most aesthetically attractive set of blues the world has seen, but good modeler's reference, if I do say so myself. And I do.
>>>>>>>>EndQuote


----------



## capt Locknar

Hey now IBM Selectrics are nice, Got one around here somewhere. Even have an Old English Ball for it. 

Harder than hell to find parts for it too now.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

capt Locknar said:


> Ok got the them hosted. Hope no one kills me over these, just doing a favor by hosting them so everyone can work on this project. If any of the pictures are offending or if the original owner doesn't want them hosted let me know and i'll pull it down. There are 34 pics and you just need to substitute the number in the URL from 01-34 (numbers 1-9 need the zero in front of the 1-9 for it to work)
> http://www.starfurymodels.com/gallery/01.jpg
> http://www.starfurymodels.com/gallery/02.jpg
> http://www.starfurymodels.com/gallery/03.jpg
> http://www.starfurymodels.com/gallery/04.jpg
> http://www.starfurymodels.com/gallery/05.jpg
> 
> Etc..............


Thanks, Capt! I don't think you'll get many complaints about the pics.
They are mainly screen grabs and captures that have mostly been posted all over the place. About the only stuff that is personal that I know of is the few pictures of the scratchbuilt model sitting on the lunar-looking base, and the owner of them posted them
for distribution himself.

The other shot that had personal input is the one in which MGagen did a perspective analysis of the shuttlecraft's angles, which he has freely posted himself as well. 

Good luck on the closing and thanks again!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Pygar said:


> I can't find the thread in which we were discussing the size of the original, but think it worked out to 28 1/2 feet or so, fullsized, assuming the shuttle mini was 1/16 scale, the only standard scale that seemed likely (3/4" to the foot). This would make a 16" shuttlecraft 1/21.375 scale... A 1/24 shuttle would be 14.25" long. This is the one I hope PL makes!


The length of the shuttlecraft that came out to about 29' feet that you are referring to is based on Dave Winfrey(Trekkist) plans in which he built a plausibly sized Galileo interior based on interior scenes and then enlarged the outside of the ship to fit the interior.

It's about the only solution to the interior/exterior shot descrepancies I have seen that makes 100% sense, that results in a craft that looks flight worthy. However, Dave has said he might want to make some minor changes, like making the hull to interior walls thicker, which could slightly increase the size.



Pygar said:


> (And to purists who remember Kirk saying it was 24' long... he was probably talking about the all important (at that point) part that carries air!)


That is a perfect point that solves the problem some people have had with Winfrey's rescaling. About the only thing that kind of throws me is the slightly disproportionate shuttle door. He has made the shuttle side door slightly smaller in proportion to the rest of the craft. The other proportions remain true to the original.

Personally I would have just made the door bigger and maybe lowered the windows a tad. I understand that some might point out that in certain scenes Spock and others visibly had to duck to exit the ship when viewed from the exterior.

However, there were other interior scenes in which actors walked out the door(viewed from the inside) with plenty of head room to spare.

So neither of these two will ever be totally reconciled. Winfrey's solution is just as valid as having the door grow larger as the outside of the ship is increased in scale. I just think that letting the door remain larger along with the rest of the exterior of the ship would still keep it consistent with the interior scene exits, while at the same time looking a little more natural.

While the shuttlecraft has been listed as 24'feet long in sanctioned publications, even some recent Paramount stuff, none of those publications showed a believable craft inside and out. Trekkist's solution is the closest I've seen so far.

By the way, for those of you who have seen the full Class F Winfrey prints and also the Modeler's Reference set, are the views that are in the Modeler's reference the same as those in the full set? Other then the fact that there are omitted top and bottom views in the Modeler's set?

I've only seen the incomplete views in the Modeler's set, but was wondering if what is in them is definitely the same.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

This website has some great pics of the 1991 restored full sized Galileo Shuttlecraft. No one
knows where it is now, or if they do they're not
telling anyone.

http://www.trekplace.com/


----------



## Pygar

Actually, my sizing was based on one of the pix posted above... knowing the size, what standard modeling scale is close enough to that to match the closest to what the shuttle should be in length? I haven't seen my copy of the W. plans in years to know what he worked out. But if the hull seems to be 28' 6" and the engines project a hair past that, and the Winfrey plans say the shuttle is like 29 feet, that has got to be close enough for government work... 

The one part of the shuttle they never really showed was the area to the right of the rear door. Straight back is the engines, to the left is the panel that Scotty uses to hotwire the hull... so this area has to be the never-seen bathroom and stowage area, maybe a tiny galley. Those fancy metal boxes had to come from somewhere, and there just isn't anywhere else for all this stuff to be.


----------



## Richard Compton

You're dealing with three variables here. The interior set, the exterior prop, and the scale model. It's rather confusing to me to smush these all together changing one dimension or detail here, and another there, all according to this or that version of the shuttle, so that you can come up with a hypothetical fourth version of the shuttle.

Is there a set of blueprints that only tries to represent the three shuttles as they existed individually? I'd like to see them if there are. If there isn't, that might be something to do. All three can be determined as far as shapes and proportions with CG overlays, the dimensions can be accurately speculated from that. You can also "tuck" the interior model inside one of the exterior models and scale each accordingly to find the best solution.

My personal opinion, is that the exterior should be scaled to fit the interior, disregarding most of the other concerns. The set is the only thing that was built to be absolutely what it was meant to be. The model is obviously a scale model. The exterior prop, I don't believe is meant to be full-size. They weren't stupid, they knew it was too small when they were making the show. They had the interior set right there to show them.

By the way, what exactly would Polar Lights do if they ever made a model? Would it match the scale model, or the prop? I don't have a clear opinion on this, but it might be cool if this project could reach a broad consensus and PL could look to it for any decisions they might make on it, should they want to make a model of the shuttlecraft.


----------



## MGagen

Thanks, Chuck PR, for the PM bringing this thread to my attention.

I am attaching the photo analysis mentioned earlier in the thread. It is savagely reduced and compressed to get it under the 30k limit, but here it is. I am not happy with some of the conclusions I found. For instance, I don't like the idea of converging nacelles. If I were blueprinting it, I'd make them parallel...

My own research has brought me to the conclusion that the miniature model is a 1:12 replica of the set piece, and that the set piece may have been intended to be a 3/4 scale replica of the "real" shuttle. This jibes quite well with David Winfrey's 29 foot figure.

Of course, we should keep in mind (as Richard Compton stated) that there are actually 4 versions of the Shuttle Craft. 

1) There is the original version sketched by Matt Jefferies as seen in TMOST:
This is much more curved than any of the other versions. The rear view presents a barrel like profile, the top view begins to curve about 3/4 of the way back to taper in at the rear. The roof is arched. This is a smaller craft that you cannot stand erect inside (witness his interior plan view and the sketch of a hunched over person walking up the aisle).

2) There is the set piece, as redesigned and built by AMT to secure rights to the model kit:
Simplified for ease and cheapness of construction, this version has very few curves. The back view presents straight sides. The top view just keeps getting wider as it goes aft. It is also too small to stand up in.

3) There is the miniature, apparently based on the set piece, but differing in some details.

4) There is the "real" Shuttle craft:
Some combination of the above, harmonized with the full scale interior. This is the most elusive version -- one that may well differ from person to person. 

As for available accurate plans or models: Phil Broad, of Model Builders Reference Vault, has made a very nice 3D model based mainly on the set piece. I'll drop him a line about this thread. Perhaps he'll take part in the discussion. He always has worthwhile things to say about the Trek miniatures.

Mark Gagen


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Richard Compton said:


> You're dealing with three variables here. The interior set, the exterior prop, and the scale model. ...
> 
> Is there a set of blueprints that only tries to represent the three shuttles as they existed individually?


Not that I've ever seen. However, we only really have to worry about two things, a really good exterior set and a really good interior set. I think we only need go to the studio model for some unobstructed details that are available for it that aren't really available for the exterior stage set piece. Like the underside view, etc.

On the interior Winfrey's work is peerless. Even based on having only two pages from an abridged set of his plans.

There are a few exterior views that seem a little off, such as the curvature of the bottom of the shuttle. Also, in the front view there is no indication of how the hulls taper inward towards the bottom.

I cannot fault the way that he makes the shuttlecraft door smaller, as it is one solution to upscaling the exterior. However, I think a simpler solution would have been to let the door get bigger. Then the plans would have matched the interior scenes where actors walk out of the set with headroom to spare, the exterior proportions of the door would also match not to mention the scale model. The only inconsistency would have been that we would have to pretend we never saw Spock having to duck to get out! However, since people walked out of the shuttlecraft with headroom to spare that inconsistency can never be fixed anyway.

I just ordered Everhart's plans but may not have them for over a week.
Still can't find a full set of David Winfrey's more detailed plans anywhere :freak:  .



Richard Compton said:


> My personal opinion, is that the exterior should be scaled to fit the interior, disregarding most of the other concerns.


Agreed. Kudos again to Trekkist(Dave Winfrey).



Richard Compton said:


> By the way, what exactly would Polar Lights do if they ever made a model? Would it match the scale model, or the prop? I don't have a clear opinion on this, but it might be cool if this project could reach a broad consensus and PL could look to it for any decisions they might make on it, should they want to make a model of the shuttlecraft.


I would hope that could happen. Since we will all be sharing the info we produce I for one would have no problems with PL or anyone using it to make a scratchbuild or master. They could get such a kit to market much faster then any other Trek subject I can imagine, thereby optimizing their profits. 

I just hope that anyone who decides to mass produce a Galileo kit does so at a size of about 16"inches, giving people at least decent interior walls for accuratizing, if not a full blown interior.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

MGagen said:


> Thanks, Chuck PR, for the PM bringing this thread to my attention.
> 
> I am attaching the photo analysis mentioned earlier in the thread. It is savagely reduced and compressed to get it under the 30k limit, but here it is. I am not happy with some of the conclusions I found. For instance, I don't like the idea of converging nacelles. If I were blueprinting it, I'd make them parallel...


Thanks for participating! I agree with not literally going by the set piece in coming up with a design. Eliminating any toe-in of the nacelles would be a given, in my opinion. In fact I've never seen a set of blueprints that didn't correct this. Toe-in just doesn't make sense from an engineering standpoint. The studio miniature does have a slight toe-in as well. Although the Capt has already uploaded them I'll post a couple of shots below I came across that I added a few measurements to. Don't anyone get hung up on the measurements, scale, etc. The proportions they create is what counts.

The studio miniature will be usefull to help as the reference piece in most areas of conflict since there are a lot of unobstructed views of it available now from close to dead-on straight angles. However wherever possible we'll probably take Richard Compton's advice and primarily use the full sized mockup, since there are so many detailed on screen shots of the full sized mock-up vs. the studio miniature.

Also, there are so many shots of it's metal and wood "skeleton" the shots could be very useful as a way of devising a construction strategy that could be applied to any size model.




MGagen said:


> My own research has brought me to the conclusion that the miniature model is a 1:12 replica of the set piece, and that the set piece may have been intended to be a 3/4 scale replica of the "real" shuttle. This jibes quite well with David Winfrey's 29 foot figure.


This seems to be very logical to me. Especially since I've read that it's very common for 3/4 size and other reduced sized sets to be constructed to save money. ClupTepes once mentioned the BGalactica Viper was built this way, they planed on just shootinging it at an angle. However, when the Revell guys apparently were never told this and built the model to look like the mock up, thereby overshortening it.



MGagen said:


> As for available accurate plans or models: Phil Broad, of Model Builders Reference Vault, has made a very nice 3D model based mainly on the set piece. I'll drop him a line about this thread. Perhaps he'll take part in the discussion. He always has worthwhile things to say about the Trek miniatures.
> Mark Gagen


Great! The more the merrier! Maybe he could provide some accurate outline views he'd allow us modify freely and build into.


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Everybody,

Mark Gagen alerted me to your discussion about the ST Shuttlecraft. I browsed through the postings and links here and found it all very interesting.

My web site has a section devoted to the Shuttlecraft which includes those images of the filming miniature with the lens cap for scale. Those are photos that I took myself at the last "Equicon" held in LA.

A note about this miniature: what we see in these photos is the "restored" miniature. Mike Minor told me (when they were ramping up to do Star Trek Phase II) that he had been shown this model in the effects loft at Paramount. He said that it was on the floor in a pile of debris, broken in half. He said that it looked like someone had stepped on it. In fact, he didn't think it was worth restoring (they were considering it as a display model in Kirk's quarters). Because of the massive reconstruction that must have been required to finally get it back to the condition we now see, we have no real way of telling what details or even proportions are original and which were changed during this process. For this reason I would say that the miniature should be used as the last source of information.

I have an image which shows that the engine pods on the full scale mockup do not "toe in". This was a question that I needed to answer for myself when I made the computer model of it. I would post it here now but I don't have it with me (I'm at work right now) so I'll post it tomorrow for your consideration.

I wasn't quite clear if what was being discussed here was the construction of a computer model or a full scale replica..? Full scale would be fun but anyone doing it would be looking at close to $10,000 for construction costs (my guess). Several people have contacted me about their desire to build full scale replicas of the capsule version of the ship from "Planet of the Apes" (classic) too. Interesting projects but certainly not cheap.

I have the advantage here too of having climbed all over the studio mockup of the Shuttlecraft (I knew the fellow who owned it). So fire away if there are any questions that you think I might be able to answer.

Phil Broad
Model Builders Reference Vault


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Thank immensely for joining us, X15-A2!

So you're the originator of the tabletop Galileo model pics? They have been through cyberspace so much I had forgotten(if I ever knew to begin with) where they came from. I studied them and used Photoshop to get as close to accurate as possible measurements of the miniature, which are among those Capt Locknar has uploaded on my behalf. I hope you don't mind. I get what you are saying about relying on the miniature as a last resort. Although a bottom shot of it I found elsewhere has yielded details I've never seen before, that I think should be included.

I guess what I primarily want to do here is have us create what you refer to as a computer model, or set of blueprints. 

I guess maybe I'm too oldschool, but I'd like for us to end up with a set of conventional view blueprints(perhaps just portion shots of a complete 3-D model if someone ends up constructing one).

I figured that considering the pics available of the Galileo under construction, we might be able to reconstruct a framework similar in proportion to the metal and wood 2x3" frames the original builders used. Then I and others could use such plans to help construct a 16" or so scratchbuilt model. Theoretically such a project could be used to build almost any size, from a one footer to full size.

Would you perhaps be willing to allow us to have some outline JPEG views(top, bottom, front, rear, left, right, hatch view-ie showing inside roof curves and hull bottom curviture) of your 3-D model to use as a starting point for our efforts? 

Capt. Locknar would probably be willing to host the files if you sent them to him, or I could distribute them amongst us if you could email them to me.


----------



## Richard Compton

Can I suggest that we do something? Since the shuttle is seen in relatively few episodes, can we list it's appearances in TOS? It'd be helpful if we could do this for all three versions; the 
interior and exterior sets and the model. A set list would really help if any of us wanted to make some observations or even vidcaps from the episodes.

My other question concerns the shuttlebay. If the minature is a 1:12 scale model of the 3/4 scale exterior set, what does this do to the shuttlebay? Is the shuttlebay 3/4 it's real size? Or 
absent a person to act as reference, the shuttlebay is fullsize? We know how big the shuttlebay is in relation to the ship, and we think we know how big the ship is...so, how does that all 
square?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Here ya' go!

Shuttles (TOS)


Columbus
* NCC-1701'2
TOS "The Galileo Seven"
Copernicus
TOS "The Galileo Seven"
Galileo
* NCC-1701'7
* Destroyed over Taurus II
TOS "The Galileo Seven"
Galileo II
* NCC-1701'7
TOS "The Way to Eden"
<Unnamed Shuttle>
* Stolen from Starbase 4
TOS "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield"
<Unnamed Shuttle>
* Owner: Zephram Cochrane
TOS "Metamorphosis"
<Unnamed Shuttle>
TOS "The Menagerie"
<Unnamed Shuttle> [ 4 ]
* Abandoned in shuttlebay of USS Exeter
TOS "The Omega Glory"
_________________________________________________________________


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

On the shuttle bay issues, lets not go there...

Three quarter stage props are used to save money, it should have no effect on how anyone perceives the shuttle bay, in my opinion.


----------



## StarshipClass

Chuck_P.R. said:


> On the shuttle bay issues, lets not go there...
> 
> Three quarter stage props are used to save money, it should have no effect on how anyone perceives the shuttle bay, in my opinion.


I concur!

Just from eyeballing the plans vs. the miniature set, I'd say everything squares except the storage area. They'd have to store the shuttles on deck somewhere.


----------



## Richard Compton

Thanks. But I sort of meant something like:

3/4 Shuttle prop appeared in...

Shuttle interior set appeared in...

Shuttle miniature appeared in...

I assume some combination of the above appeared in all those episodes you listed?


----------



## MGagen

Phil: Good to see you here! I'd love to see the evidence of parallel nacelles. I never liked where that photo analysis led me. I normally would have checked the results from the same technique used on other photos, but unfortunately, there aren't many others from angles that lend themselves to that kind of analysis.

The Hangar Deck is a whole 'nother ball of wax...

The blueprints in TMOST are almost surely drawings of the forced perspective miniature set. All the details converge toward the aft, apparently in order to open up the forward end to admit a mid-60s camera and leave enough room for lighting to be poured in around. As such, the drawings (and the set) have no single scale. It is one scale at the aft end and another at the forward end. 

It also doen't fit into the area indicated in Jefferies cross section of the ship unless this distortion is removed.

If you are trying to compare the scale of the shuttlecraft miniature to the set it was filmed in, I would guess the point of contact on the "turntable" would be the calibration point.

Mark Gagen


----------



## StarshipClass

MGagen said:


> . . . It also doen't fit into the area indicated in Jefferies cross section of the ship unless this distortion is removed.
> 
> If you are trying to compare the scale of the shuttlecraft miniature to the set it was filmed in, I would guess the point of contact on the "turntable" would be the calibration point.


I can see that there is a little distortion in the cross-section, however, I've managed to snuggle the cross section of Jefferies' into his 1701 cross-section and it matches fairly well. The undercut on his 1701 doesn't seem to match the physical model, however which seems to have a more severe undercut -- haven't compared to some of the more accurate studio model blues, however. Just seems that the 'elevator' doesn't have much room to go down. I may be wrong.

We're concentrating on the shuttlecraft in this thread so I'll shut up, now. :freak:


----------



## heiki

X15-A2 said:


> ...Several people have contacted me about their desire to build full scale replicas of the capsule version of the ship from "Planet of the Apes" (classic) too. Interesting projects but certainly not cheap.
> 
> Phil Broad
> Model Builders Reference Vault


I guess I am wondering how big such a replica would be! Are these people thinking of taking these to conventions or filming their own movies? Has anybody talked about making a Jupiter 2 space pod also? Awhile back on Cult's site was a dicussion about a company that makes saucer shaped homes and they quoted $100,000.00 for a full sized(40-60 foot) Jupiter 2!

Maybe the Planet of the Apes ship could built to double as a pleasure boat. One that doesn't sink of course!


----------



## MGagen

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I can see that there is a little distortion in the cross-section, however, I've managed to snuggle the cross section of Jefferies' into his 1701 cross-section and it matches fairly well.


If you pay heed to scale, there is no way to "snuggle" it in. You'll end up with a TINY shuttlecraft if you try.

The following image illustrates the point. Here is a detail of Jefferies' cross section with the hangar deck cross section sized to the same scale, based on the rulers in each drawing. 

And this doesn't quite show the problem at its most serious because the ruler on the cross section drawing makes the Enterprise out to be even larger than 947 feet. If scaled to 947, the available hangar area is even smaller.

The distortion built into the set (if the drawing reflects it accurately) is pretty major. Based on measurements of the exterior height of the corridor at the forward end and the control booth near the doors, the forward end of the set was about 40% larger in scale than the aft end. Clearly, we can't take the hangar deck drawing at face value. It isn't a drawing of the "real" hangar at all -- but of a miniature set built for the constraints of filming.

Mark Gagen


----------



## X15-A2

Here is the image that I mentioned yesterday from "The Galileo Seven". Although it does not technically "prove" that there is _NO _ toe-in to the engine pods, it does show that the pods do not toe in parallel with the outboard edge of the stub wing like the way it is drawn in the Writers Guide drawings. Personally, I believe that if there is any toe-in at all, it is due to assembly errors or badly fitting joints where the wing/engine pod assembly attaches to the body (they form a removable unit on each side of the mockup). I doubt that any real subtlety was designed into it, at least not to the extreme of having the pods toe in at a couple of degrees. They may in fact _BE _ slightly toed-in but I would attribute that to the way the mockup was pushed around on stage, not to design intent. Just my opinion.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Richard Compton said:


> Thanks. But I sort of meant something like:
> 
> 3/4 Shuttle prop appeared in...
> 
> Shuttle interior set appeared in...
> 
> Shuttle miniature appeared in...
> 
> I assume some combination of the above appeared in all those episodes you listed?


Yep. That is a list of all the episodes that shuttlecraft appeared in. Compiled by people who have way more spare time on their hands then I. To then go to each episode and list "The miniature appeared at 6:03 seconds into the DVD. The interior appeared 6:13 seconds into the DVD. The full size exterior prop appeared at 8:16" etc would take much more time then it would to actually watch the DVD's a couple of times. I doubt that anyone has ever bothered to do that. I suspect that one or two of the episodes listed above might only have a ship mentioned in the dialog and not onscreen. I was surprised that there was even a list detailing order of appearances of ships, muchless a more detailed one. 

If you are serious about doing screen caps I'd be very happy to see anything you decide to do. Since we are only talking about a few episodes, the way I would approach it would be to just sit down with a pen and pad as you watch the episodes and note the minutes and seconds that shuttlecraft appear as you watch them. You could also just do the captures as you go along in the episodes. I wouldn't worry about finding a more detailed list of appearances, since it's the images you are interested in, not the list. If in the process you do generate such a list please share it with us, but I doubt it's been published already anywhere.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

X15-A2 said:


> Here is the image that I mentioned yesterday from "The Galileo Seven". Although it does not technically "prove" that there is _NO _ toe-in to the engine pods, it does show that the pods do not toe in parallel with the outboard edge of the stub wing like the way it is drawn in the Writers Guide drawings. Personally, I believe that if there is any toe-in at all, it is due to assembly errors or badly fitting joints where the wing/engine pod assembly attaches to the body (they form a removable unit on each side of the mockup). I doubt that any real subtlety was designed into it, at least not to the extreme of having the pods toe in at a couple of degrees. They may in fact _BE _ slightly toed-in but I would attribute that to the way the mockup was pushed around on stage, not to design intent. Just my opinion.


I think you are both right. There is a slight toe-in even on the filming miniature, but it literally looks to be less then 1 percent, based on drawing a selection box around the nacelles and incrementally rotating the image in Photoshop. The stage prop might be slightly more bowed but I agree that neither of these were probably intentional.


----------



## StarshipClass

MGagen said:


> If you pay heed to scale, there is no way to "snuggle" it in. You'll end up with a TINY shuttlecraft if you try . . .


I guess I was just looking at proportions involved. It wasn't too far off, it seemed but, as you pointed out, if scaled properly it doesn't fit at all. I'll try to provide a link to a .jpg of what I did.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

X-15-A2, would you perhaps be willing to allow us to have some outline JPEG views(top, bottom, front, rear, left, right, hatch side view-ie showing inside roof curves and hull bottom curvature) of your 3-D model to use as a starting point for our efforts?


----------



## StarshipClass

http://home.earthlink.net/~centuryxix/perfessercoffeesphotoalbum/

This is my 'snuggle' :freak: of the shuttlebay.


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Everybody,

I'm going to take a second look at the geometry analysis provided by my friend Mark (what follows is just my POV and is only intended to further the discussion).

Attached below is my version of the same image (sorry it is so small). I believe that we cannot really draw a conclusion about the engine pod toe-in issue from photographic analysis, largely because of the poor quality of the images available to us (and because if they are toed-in, it is too slight to really be visible). So this is just my "take" on the issue. Unfortunately the fuzz-factor in the images permits a wide circular error factor when trying to determine such specifics as vanishing points (VP). The determination of vanishing points is the only way to tell if any given details, such as the pods, are parallel to the centerline of the ship or not. Also, I would not even bring the filming miniature into this discussion because of its poor condition and dubious levels of quality when originally constructed.

The full scale mockup however provides a solid basis for analysis, even if the images are less than perfect.

About the analysis so far:

Working assumptions:

A. The top edge of the hull side plates, the stub wings and the engine pods are all parallel when seen in a horizontal plane.

B. The hull side plates taper inwards from rear to the front (the front is narrower than the rear).

C. The stub wing outer and inner edge (where the stub wing-to-hull joint is) are parallel in the vertical plane (I disagree that they taper).

If the above is true then we should find the following proof in the given photo:

1. The engine pod vanishing point and the stub wing edges vanishing point should be on the same "horizion line" but _NOT _ intersecting at the same point because the stub wing is canted inwards towards the centerline of the ship.

2.The upper hull plate edges should converge along a centerline which runs to the same vanishing point as the engine pods (provided they are not toed-in as we have been discussing here) but at a point which falls short of the horizon line because of the overall hull taper.

The above is exactly what I find (keeping in mind the limits of the circular error problem).

Point one above is described by vanishing points "A" & "B" in my version of the image. Point two is described by vanishing point "C". VP "A" is the true centerline point of origin for the ship. The horizontal details on the side of the hull converge on VP "B" just as we would expect them too since those details are parallel in a horizontal plane to the stub wings.

Note: The red lines leading from the aft upper tip of the hull side plates to VP "A" in my version are showing what the alignment would be if there were no taper to the hull, thus "proving" (if we can use that word here) that the hull does in fact taper.

My conclusion: No toe-in to the engine pods (once again no real "conclusion" can be made here because of the poor quality of the data available to us but I'm convinced for now). Also, I disagree about the stub wings having any tapper, the edges appear parallel to my eye. Also, if they do taper they could not have a VP on the same horizon line as the engine pod.

One last note: No vanishing point can be determined based on the upper edge of the starboard hull plate and the lower edge of that hull plate. The lower edge line (only just visible in this image) is not only canted inwards but it also slopes upwards, making it what would be called a "double rotated" line. The lower edge is not in the same plane as the upper edge no matter how you view it (this point is identified as the green VP in Mark's figure).

Sorry for the long-winded note here, obviously these geometric discussions peak my interest (Mark is used to my long-winded replys on other boards).

Phil Broad


----------



## X15-A2

I will see if I can come up with orthographic views of my model for you over the weekend. Just keep in mind that my model is not the "last word" on this subject by any means. I scaled-up the Shuttlecraft to 125% to achieve a good compromise between interior and exterior dimensions. This means that the hatch and windows are adjusted for this new size too.


----------



## X15-A2

PerfesserCoffee,

I'm going to load the renderings and discussion slides about my CG Enterprise to my web site so everyone can have a look. Mark & I had a long talk about such things as the actual size of the ship, the deck spacing and the Hangar Deck fit which you and the others here might find interesting. I'll post a note when it has all been uploaded. There is room to store the Shuttlecraft below deck (it is a bit tight), even my 125% scale version fits there.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

X15-A2 said:


> I will see if I can come up with orthographic views of my model for you over the weekend. Just keep in mind that my model is not the "last word" on this subject by any means. I scaled-up the Shuttlecraft to 125% to achieve a good compromise between interior and exterior dimensions. This means that the hatch and windows are adjusted for this new size too.


Yes! 
Thank you!
That would be very much appreciated.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Here's a tracing of the welded metal understructure of the stage set piece. I did it in color to help preserve perspective.

Seeing it like this it reminds me of an old Chris Craft cruiser my father used to own...

Updated the file...


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Here's another frame view. This one is a filtered view of the more progressed wooden frame.


----------



## MGagen

See, guys -- I knew if I brought this thread to Phil's attention he would make extremely valuable contributions! He has made as thorough a study of the Shuttlecraft as anyone I know. Certainly more thorough than I have.

Phil, 
I haven't been able to go over your argument with the attention it deserves yet (due to new-baby duties) but I'll let you know what I think once I do. How large was the image you worked on for your perspective study? I was working from a full resolution DVD cap. Unfortunately I couldn't post it at anything near that resolution on this board. Could you email me your full size image?

Mark Gagen


----------



## Richard Compton

Chuck_P.R. said:


> To then go to each episode and list "The miniature appeared at 6:03 seconds into the DVD. The interior appeared 6:13 seconds into the DVD. The full size exterior prop appeared at 8:16" etc would take much more time then it would to actually watch the DVD's a couple of times.


I don't think it would be all that hard. If I had the DVDs, I might actually do this myself with all the appearances. But I think I can chop off a bit of that list. The interior set only appeared in a few episodes. Off the top of my head, Galileo Seven and Metamorphosis. What were it's other appearances? This may be one of the easiest of the recurring sets for us to get to the point where we can say, "we know all that we are capable of knowing".



> If you are serious about doing screen caps I'd be very happy to see anything you decide to do.


I don't have the DVDs, and while I can do screen caps off VHS, I'd have to set the VCR up and everything, so I'm not planning on it.



> If in the process you do generate such a list please share it with us, but I doubt it's been published already anywhere.


I might make a shot list with the episodes that have the interior set in it, if I have them all taped. My times may be off, as I taped them off TV.


----------



## StarshipClass

X15-A2 said:


> PerfesserCoffee,
> 
> I'm going to load the renderings and discussion slides about my CG Enterprise to my web site so everyone can have a look. Mark & I had a long talk about such things as the actual size of the ship, the deck spacing and the Hangar Deck fit which you and the others here might find interesting. I'll post a note when it has all been uploaded. There is room to store the Shuttlecraft below deck (it is a bit tight), even my 125% scale version fits there.


Great! :thumbsup: 

Can't wait to see it!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Thanks again for including Phil, Mark as well as for all your contributions.

I'm going to email you a couple of construction pics of the full size mockup that would be better and easier to do an angles photo analysis of. 

Although it may be a moot point as I think that the slight toe-in that is there in the stage piece and the miniature doesn't make sense and probably wasn't intentional. Especially considering how one would expect a much greater degree of toe-in considering how the back is wider then the front.. 

While I'm sure some slight toe-in exists, it would be a bad idea to design a ship that way.


----------



## X15-A2

Thanks Mark, I will email that image to you.

I have about 30 of the TOS episodes on DVD from which I've made frame grabs of everything in them that I thought was important. Not all the Shuttlecraft episodes are included (I was primarily looking for Bridge images to support my computer model of it) but I did do Metamophisis, Galileo 7, Doomsday Machine, and Immunity Syndrome. These images are the size of a 21 inch monitor (about 1200 pixels wide). I think what I'll do is go ahead and make up some new pages for my web site and add the Stuttlecraft images to the existing section on it (I was planning to do that anyway). Then anyone who wants to refer to them can do so at their leisure. I'll go out and see if I can buy the other Shuttlecraft episodes too and add them to the site also.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Great X15-A2!
Looking forward to seeing the new pics!

I'm especially looking forward to those 7(six sides and cutaway) orthographic framework views.

I'd like to then try to fit something resembling the original mockup's framework within them.

It'll be a fun weekend!


----------



## ClubTepes

Richard Compton said:


> You're dealing with three variables here. The interior set, the exterior prop, and the scale model. It's rather confusing to me to smush these all together changing one dimension or detail here, and another there, all according to this or that version of the shuttle, so that you can come up with a hypothetical fourth version of the shuttle.
> 
> Is there a set of blueprints that only tries to represent the three shuttles as they existed individually? I'd like to see them if there are. If there isn't, that might be something to do. All three can be determined as far as shapes and proportions with CG overlays, the dimensions can be accurately speculated from that. You can also "tuck" the interior model inside one of the exterior models and scale each accordingly to find the best solution.
> 
> My personal opinion, is that the exterior should be scaled to fit the interior, disregarding most of the other concerns. The set is the only thing that was built to be absolutely what it was meant to be. The model is obviously a scale model. The exterior prop, I don't believe is meant to be full-size. They weren't stupid, they knew it was too small when they were making the show. They had the interior set right there to show them.
> 
> By the way, what exactly would Polar Lights do if they ever made a model? Would it match the scale model, or the prop? I don't have a clear opinion on this, but it might be cool if this project could reach a broad consensus and PL could look to it for any decisions they might make on it, should they want to make a model of the shuttlecraft.


I've been working on a Lightwave model of the Galileo for about a year (off and on) now.
As everyone knows the Model dimensions don't match the full size set piece dimensions and there is no way the set will fit into the full size set piece.
So ALL dimensions are thrown out the window and there is no such thing as a "canon" dimension to the shuttle.

What I've been doing is to take blueprint references of the full size set piece and apply them to the models shape and come up with a happy medium.
(The set piece is really flat shapes, especially on the bottom, while the model offers more contours and in my mind is what the shuttle should look like. It would have been a lot harded to get the full size set piece to match the model so I believe short cuts were taken there).

The great thing about doing this all in the computer is that its very easy to up-scale or down-scale a CG model.
So now I am doing the interior. 
This is where I could use a hand.......does anyone have blueprints to the interior set????

Once I have finished the interior, then I can rescale the exterior so that the two will fit together.

I agree with richard that the interior is the most important aspect.
I came to this method based on determining a level of 'scale' importance.
Meaning what is more important based on how the actors interacted with their enviroment.

1st. is the interior set. I place this first because of things like the actors not having to stoop over and the apparent size of the interior. And this is where the most screen time is spent.

2nd. The exterior set piece. The actors do interact with the exterior, but less so than the interior. Also it is harder to establish the relative dimensions of the shuttle because a lot of shots only show portions of the shuttle.

3rd. The space shots of the model. Obviously there are no actors out in space to use as a referance for dimensions. The shuttle could be almost any size.

I'm very happy with my exterior CG model. Now I'll be curious to see how big it turns out to be when rescaled with the correct interior dimensions.

Again, if anyone has interior blueprints I would appreciate it, and credit them in regards to the model.

Thanks.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

ClubTepes said:


> I've been working on a Lightwave model of the Galileo for about a year (off and on) now....
> ...This is where I could use a hand.......does anyone have blueprints to the interior set????


Yes, as a matter of fact. I've been anxiously waiting to see X-15-A2's jpeg orthographic views(six sides and one side cutaway) but would also love to see a set of yours as well.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

BTWay ClubTepes and X-15-A2, by cutaway view above I didn't mean something that needs to show a complete interior, or even any interior at all for that matter. What I was refering to was a view that stripped away the side wall and nacelle so that the roofline, bottomline and rear outlines are visible. I can use Winfrey's interiors to figure out interior wall thicknesses(after unstretching his interiors) well enough to have properly sized interior room cavities. With those two sources (a great exterior and Winfrey's resized interior)enough info will be available to start devising a scratchbuilding strategy.


----------



## ClubTepes

Chuck,

Thanks.

Ok, everyone.
Who knows how tall Leonard Nimoy is??????
I'm not looking for a guesstiment but a hard figure.
Secondly, the boots that the cast wore, who knows the heel thickness??

After carefully viewing the Galileo 7 episode I gathered that Leonard Nimoy's head would rub the bottom of the BOARDER of the overhead light panel.

Thanks
Mike.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

I must correct the list I posted a few days ago and add the episode "The Immunity Syndrome"(with Spock taking the shuttle into the big Amoeba thing) to the list, which also has some interior shots.

By "thanks," ClubTepes I'm assuming you mean you received and found the info I sent helpful?


----------



## Four Mad Men

At Chuck's suggestion I just registered here. I'm currently reading through the thread, sounds interesting.

Just wanted to check in, I'm sure I'll have more when I've finished catching up.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Welcome to Hobbytalk, Four Mad Men!

Looking forward to your joining our endeavor. Email me via the email button below and I'll send you some files that may help, or at least interest you.


----------



## MGagen

I have finally had the time to go over Phil Broad's analysis of the shuttlecraft image and I am convinced that he has it right. :thumbsup: 

I am pleased to find that I was mistaken about the engine toe-in.

Mark Gagen


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Not to steal any of his thunder, but checkout Phil's incredible updates to his Galileo page at,

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


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Also from Phil's website, what's with the wall four feet behind Spock?

see, 
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/The_Immunity_Syndrome_248.jpg

and,
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/The_Immunity_Syndrome_266.jpg


----------



## X15-A2

Chuck_P.R.

That wall is part of a Shuttlecraft configured for scientific research (apparently). That makes it an official "variant" of the standard shuttle.

Glad to see that you found my site updates. I've also added my renderings of the TOS Enterprise and a Fleet Tender support ship for the Constitution Class starships (also found in the TOS Enterprise renderings sections). Some of you might get a kick out them if you haven't seen them before (I know that Mark has seen them). Also posted in that section are some charts comparing the size, proportion, deck alignment and window placement of the 11 foot filming miniature (Based on Gary Kerr's drawings) with the drawings from the Writers Guide. Tonight I hope to be able to post line drawings of my version of the Shuttlecraft but I have to warn you, I've aready found an important error in it. When I started loading the frame grab images from the DVDs I discovered (thanks to that great profile shot from "Immunity Syndrome") the top edge of the hull side plates slope downwards towards the front. This means that the roof is probably level instead of the way I built my model with the top edge level and the roof sloping downwards towards the rear. I'll prepare a study of this image and post it here later.

http://www.cloudster.com


----------



## X15-A2

ClubTepes,

You were noting a few features of the Shuttlecraft which I was curious about. You mentioned:

_As everyone knows the Model dimensions don't match the full size set piece dimensions and there is no way the set will fit into the full size set piece._

While I agree that the interior cannot fit into the exterior as built, I was curious about what made you think the model dimensions (proportions?)don't match the the full scale? I hadn't really noticed that.

Also, what "curves" do you see in the miniature that are not on the full scale?

Thanks


----------



## X15-A2

Eating my words...

OK, I have completed a preliminary look at the Shuttlecraft profile based on a photo trace of the image from "Immunity Syndrome" and the way it compares to the drawing found in the ST Writers Guide...

They don't match, to say the least! So my belief that the mockup was based on those drawings has gone right out the window. It also means that my computer model is way off too. Sorry guys.

When the two are scaled to match the lengths of the engine pods, from the vertical line at the front (where the dome mounts) to the vertical line at the rear (where the corrugated cylinder mounts), you find:

1. The "as built" fuselage is shorter but about the same height.

2. Almost none of the horizontal lines making up the side view are parallel, instead they converge towards the front end slightly, as if the mockup were built to be a forced-perspective item.

3. The engine pod diameters are a close match and both versions are parallel to the ground line. The as-built version sits a couple of inches lower however.

I will post images of these comparisons on my web site (they would have to be too small to be readable on this site) under a new section devoted to this discussion. I must admit, the Writers Guide version is better looking. The one they actually built looks even more like a "cheese box" than ever! Uuugh...


----------



## X15-A2

One more thing,

I stated in my previous post that "both versions are parallel to the ground line" when refering to the engine pods and this is wrong. The Writers Guide version of the shuttle sits nose-high, I had been using an electronic tracing of that drawing where I changed the ground line to be parallel in order to more closely match what was actually built. I had forgotten about that change. Old age sucks...


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Chuck_P.R.

Thanks for sending me those drawings, I will put them to good use. Because of my findings so far, it has become apparent to me that I will have to start from scratch when it comes the the Shuttlecraft. Here are a few observations from my first look at the drawings you sent;

The roof is straight front to back, whether it is level or slopes, it is straight with an arch in cross section. The curved roof seen on these sheets was probably a compromise to get more head room out of an already cramped design.

These drawings appear to be based on the Writer Guide version of the profile which we will all learn soon enough are wrong.

This is going to be more work than I thought...

Phil Broad
Model Builders Reference Vault
http://www.cloudster.com


----------



## Richard Compton

Phil,

Great update! I love your Perseus; it's a VERY cool design. especially towing that nacelle. Love it!

Your hanger is amazing as well. Really cool interpretation. I've not seen a lot of people who are as good at creating new areas, or new details that fit the mold, so to speak, so well. 
Although, about the entry to the hanger. I like your thoughts a lot on this, even though I had thought the door was on the starboard side of the hanger. I was watching the beginning to 
Journey to Babel rather closely and the shuttle is being turned to face aft before Sarek's party disembarks. Putting the shuttle's door parallel to the starboard wall. But you are right, that 
it doesn't make sense then that the corridor would shoot straight out like that. Then again, there's a perpendicular corridor to that one, running left and right of the hanger entrance....so, 
something has to give. 

All in all, a fascinating update with the deckplans and discussions of scale and all that. By the way, the scale of 1/96--I had taken this to be accepted from reading your site in the past, 
but I've been told it's actually 1/84 by Ziz. And Petri Blomqvist, who also has Kerr's plans says, "The scale is definitely 1/85 if you go by a 288.6 m (947 ft) length and accurate 
measurements of the model." And Mark Gagen, who you seem to have consulted with, also thinks it's 1/85 according to the same thread because he asked Rick Sternbach, who 
contacted Gary and said, "When I put all the pieces of the model together in AutoCAD, I arrived at an overall length of 134.08161" (to be Spock-like about it). Dividing that value into 
the theoretical length of 947ft gives you a scale of 1:84.75." 1/96 made a lot of sense to me, but I'm inclined to believe Petri on this. Why do you stick with the 1/96 figure? I suppose 
the 947ft figure could be wrong, and 1/96 scale would have the advantage of making the Enterprise bigger, and consequently more room to put shuttlebays and the like inside it.

Thanks also for the screencaps. I can't believe how clear they are! I'm going to have to pick up a couple of the DVDs after looking at those.

Does more than one person run the vault? Or do you talk in the third person sometimes.  I was just curious about that.

Did you get my email? If not, let me know and I can send you a private message at the board here.


----------



## Four Mad Men

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Welcome to Hobbytalk, Four Mad Men!
> 
> Looking forward to your joining our endeavor. Email me via the email button below and I'll send you some files that may help, or at least interest you.


Thanks. You can e-mail me at [email protected].

Well this certainly is an interesting discussion, I've long wanted to build a full size shuttlecraft in my back yard -- but I'd settle for 2 to 3 feet. I don't have anything to add to the analysis but I'll keep my brain open. I don't know if it's needed but I do some modeling in Blender and in balsa wood. It's been years since I've actually drawn a set of prints using pen and paper but someone might talk me into it. And lastly I have some webspace that is underutilized (at least not overutilitzed at this time) that I can donate if need be.

So I guess I'll sit back and keep up with things here (as often as real life will allow), if there is anything immediate that you need just say so and I'll do what I can.


----------



## Richard Compton

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/14_StarTrek_TOS_132.jpg

Check out the crew reflected in the impulse engine.

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/14_StarTrek_TOS_141.jpg

And is that someone's hand opening the bottom of the door? Heh.


----------



## MGagen

For the record, I DID once think the model to be 1:96. I had posted on one of the boards about my theory and someone pointed me to Phil's most excellent site where he had espoused the same opinion. I corresponded with him at length on the issue as I was interested to see how he had arrived at the same conclusion.

The main reason I suspected it was 1:96 was that, given what I had seen of Matt Jefferies' work (very methodical) and knowing the meager tools available at the time (pre-pocket calculator) I couldn't bring myself to believe he would have worked at anything but a logical scale. Adding to this was the seemingly bogus dimensions on the writers guide 3-view as reproduced in TMOST.

Since that time, however, I have acquired a good, undistorted scan of the Jefferies 3-view and the dimensions and proportions match each other precisely. Phil also pointed out to me the bridge readout that shows a ship with much fewer decks (and "one deck per hump"). He wondered it if was an earlier, smaller version, since there is talk in TMOST of an initially smaller ship.

A little checking on my part proved the readout was already on the bridge set when The Cage was filmed and that the set was constructed before the ship design was finalized. I began to wonder if the odd scale that the ship ended up with was an issue at all, since it may have been blueprinted as a smaller ship at a reasonable scale. 

Further checking made me suspect 1:48. At that size the primary hull works very well with "one deck per hump" and the rim of the saucer would be one deck thick. As originally constructed, there was only the upper windows on it anyway. The lower ones were added later and are, in fact, too close to the upper ones to work out properly.

Then came a double thunderbolt that, I think, proves the 1:48 initial scale:

First, I noticed that at 1:48, the station numbers on the secondary hull average out almost exactly to 1" units. This is consistent with standard engineering notation. Only at 1:48 do these markings make any sense. The slight variations in spacing can be put down to the difficulty of placing the markings exactly in the first place, or subsequent drifting during restoration.

Second, when I posted this to one of the boards, a thoughtful reader drew my attention to a fragment of the construction blueprint that ran in ST Communicator. It called out a dimension for the maximum diameter of the secondary hull. Even though it was an early draft featuring the "baby bottle" deflector, it is instructive that it matches exactly the diameter of the Jefferies 3-view when scaled to 1:48.
Since my initial objection was that I couldn't believe the model would have been designed in an oddball scale -- and I had found that it was designed in another scale entirely -- I now have no problem accepting the 947' length.

As a side note, one issue to keep in mind when discussing the scale of the E is that the model was blueprinted to be 135" long. The construction blues were prepared for the small model (33-3/4") and scaled up exactly 4x to build the large model. That the final model ended up being nearly an inch shorter is something that I doubt Matt Jefferies or any one else until Gary Kerr's survey ever knew. As a result, all calculations for the INTENDED scale should be based on 135 inches. How one reconciles the minor discrepancy is up for grabs. Either the "real" E is a little less than 947' or the "real" scale of the model is a little smaller than Jefferies intended.

Whew! :freak: 

Mark Gagen


----------



## X15-A2

This is way off-topic so I apologise in advance.

Hi Richard,

The scale of the Enterprise miniature is not 1/84 or 1/85th, period. Rick is mistaken if he believes that the studio art departments drew plans in odd scales like that, they don't. They draw plans in scales that they can measure with rulers, such as; 1/8, 1/12, 1/16, 1/32, 1/48, 1/96th, etc. If the model to be built is larger than they can comfortably draw on a given sheet of paper then it is drawn at a smaller scale and a note is placed on the face of the drawing such as "build twice size".

The obvious answer here is that the Enterprise is not 947 feet long. This is my belief; the Writers Guide plans have incorrect notations. The Enterprise is bigger, not a lot but somewhat (about 100 feet, more or less). Also, at 1/96th scale the dimension between the centerlines of the Warp Drive nacelles "hits" at 302 feet. This tells me that if the length does not hit but the centerlines do, then the Enterprise is not built to the proportions of the Writers Guide dimensions either, otherwise they would all "hit" or all "miss" but not a little of both. It is possible that the actual drawing or "cartoon" (engineers typically work according to dimensions only, the drawing is derisively called "the cartoon") is correct but the dimensions are off.

This opinion is based on my experience as a professional draftsmen and also the study of hundreds of sheets of studio blueprints in my collection. Of course this note won't change the minds of most people but those with my kind of experience will know what I'm saying is true. 

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course but I haven't heard any compelling reasons to change my position on this (yet, mind not nailed shut).

I am glad that you like the web site updates, I had hoped that people would find them interesting. OK, you busted me here. I'm the only one running the "Vault", I just like to give the impression that it is a bigger operation than it is... 

Last night I picked up "Way to Eden" and tonight I will see if I can locate a copy of "Metamorphosis". Then I will add the screen caps of the Shuttlecraft from them to the web site. BTW, I didn't notice that I missed an image of my CG Shuttlecraft model. There was a true ortho view of the section model which didn't get added for some reason. I loaded it this morning but of course my model is now shown to be inaccurate and so has become obsolete.

Phil Broad
Model Builders Reference Vault
http://www.cloudster.com


----------



## X15-A2

Off topic again...

Mark,

Thanks for weighing-in on the E scale issue, your note explains a lot that mine doesn't. Since 1/96th is twice 1/48th it is the logical scale to apply to the miniature and in fact works out fine for some given dimensions. It is obvious that the TMOST drawings have incorrect dimension on them (particullarly obvious when they cannot ALL be made to match the miniature at ANY scale). TMOST is wrong.


----------



## StarshipClass

Thanks for the enlightening discussion on the scale of the 1701. From what I've read and from my observations of the model, it has always been obvious that a major rescaling, essentially doubling of the ship, had occurred though I wasn't sure what scales were involved and what the figures involved were. TMOST figures didn't make sense.

1/48th to 1/96th makes perfect sense considering the arguments given above. :thumbsup:


----------



## Richard Compton

Mark, I'm confused. You say you "DID once think the model to be 1:96" as if you no longer do. But then you describe how the 1:48 scale was doubled....so, am I misunderstanding you here? Do you agree with Phil or is it that you're just basing it on the 947ft figure which Phil has abandoned?

Phil, thanks for the enlightening answers.

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is if this is just a matter of people using different criteria or if there really IS a difference here. It seems that one side is going on how big the ship is supposed to be within the reality of the fictional tv show, and inferring the scale of the model from that. The other side is taking what scale the model was intended to be built at and inferring what size the real ship was supposed to be. Is there one more correct?

If I was going to put a scale figure of a human standing in the hanger bay, would it be wrong to make that person 1:96 scale because that scale is premised on the model as a miniature. And 1:85 scale would be right because in Star Trek, the Enterprise IS 947 feet? I hope this makes sense.


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Guys,

I'm "on topic" for once today here. There was one suggestion that I wanted to make regarding ways of determining the dimensions of the Shuttlecraft interior. What I would do is layout the proportions of the seats first, then build the cabin around them.

The seats plus the isle width will dictate how wide the cabin must be at minimum and the distance between them fore & aft (called "seat pitch" in the commercial aircraft biz) will determine the minimum length of the cabin.

Those seats could be made narrower, if cabin width is an issue. I sat in one of the originals and they were "arm chair" size. A narrower version would do just as well and still be comfortable.

Phil Broad


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Richard,

My personal preference is to throw out the TMOST dimensions and figure out how big the ship "really is" based on measurements of the filming miniature calculated against a scale of 1/96th (1/8th inch to the foot). I don't believe that the exact size of the ship was ever stated in the show so this approach is perfectly reasonable. Maybe Mark knows if if the size was ever mentioned? Or anyone else?


----------



## StarshipClass

X15,

I don't believe the length was ever given in the program. 

Any length given is, at best, semi-canonical. _TMOST _ goes to some length explaining the rescaling but they mention the original length as being 200 feet which doesn't work at all. I don't think you can even make the tear drop the bridge and what was the bridge just the domed ceiling and make it work, though that may have been the original intent as evidenced by some early sketches.

IMHO, the model itself should be the final determination of scale and size whenever possible since the set pieces were so often compromises. 

An analogous argument would be pointing out that the engine room has a curved high ceiling clearly placing it by design and obvious intent in the engineering hull and a straight corridor led into it. Yet, intersecting this passageway was a circular corridor as found in the saucer. The compromise here was that in order to give a sense of largeness and complexity, the corridors doubled for different decks in differently shaped hulls. The overriding indicator of location in this case, IMHO, would be the high arched ceiling of the engineering room. (This is several times over confused due to FJ's interpretation showing the main engineering decks in the primary hull and due to _TMOST _ quoting the bible which included a statement possibly indicating the main engineering deck _was_ in the primary hull.)

_TMOST _ and some other sources can get general ideas and intents across (such as the increase in the theoretical size of the _1701 _ between pilots and the identification of the secondary hull as the 'engineering hull'), but I wouldn't hold such sources down as being absolutely accurate in their measurements since not as much thought may have gone into such intangibles as opposed to the very _tangible_ models that were used. 

I don't believe enough thought went into what was what on the production staff level while model-makers were forced into making at least arbitrary decisions concerning specifics based on what was given them as a goal. As we all know, the models were detailed interpretations of a general outline in most cases.

In other words, deduction from the more general (secondary hull is identified as 'engineering hull') to the specific (engineering section is in secondary hull) in an 'official' work such as _TMOST _ would logically work in most cases, but going from specific (947 feet) to general (scale therefore equals 1/85th) is a bit riskier in undertaking, IMHO.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

X15-A2 said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> I'm "on topic" for once today here. There was on suggestion that I wanted to make regarding ways of determining the dimensions of the Shuttlecraft interior. What I would do is layout the proportions of the seats first, then build the cabin around them.
> 
> The seats plus the isle width will dictate how wide the cabin must be at minimum and the distance between them fore & aft (called "seat pitch" in the commercial aircraft biz) will determine the minimum length of the cabin.
> 
> Those seats could be made narrower, if cabin width is an issue. I sat in one of the originals and they were "arm chair" size. A narrower version would do just as well and still be comfortable.
> 
> Phil Broad


Personally I would just get as close to an original interior as possible, even to chair width. But you are 100% right that chair center and aisle placement is probably the best place to start, regardless of chair width.

I also think it would perhaps make the craft more believable if the interior to exterior walls were a little thicker then the actual mockup. Considering the fold out phaser cabinets and other on-wall details the wall thickness just doesn't look believable. The exterior might then need a tad increasing, even by a foot or so over David Winfrey's very convincing approximately 29 foot long Galileo plans. But it might make the craft more believable.

Your thoughts?


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Chuck,

The Shuttlecraft will definitely have to be enlarged and wall thickness is one area that will have to be addressed. I agree that the walls should be thicker (at least the side walls should be) and doing that may help solve another little problem that I believe is in the offing, namely that the interior walls "as built" don't slope as much as the exterior walls. I haven't really had a chance to checked this detail out yet, its just my guess from looking at the pictures but if that is the case, then this difference will help to allow space for the Phaser rack because the walls will be thicker near the mid point.


----------



## X15-A2

Chuck,

Another thought just occured too, if the exterior side walls taper inwards towards the front (which I think we agree that they do), there may be thicker walls at the rear because I believe that the interior walls are parallel.


----------



## X15-A2

PerffesserCoffee,

I totally agree with your Enterprise scale arguement. Also, in my version of the interior the Engine Room is located at the top of the Engineering Hull, just forward of the Nacelle pylon mounting point.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

X15-A2 said:


> Chuck,
> 
> Another thought just occured too, if the exterior side walls taper inwards towards the front (which I think we agree that they do), there may be thicker walls at the rear because I believe that the interior walls are parallel.


I almost mentioned that in an email I just sent you. It may be the case that the rear walls are thicker, however I still think the walls in general should be thicker. Maybe the Galileo was the receipent of some 24th century super strong alloy in its construction, but a hull that thin just doesn't look right from an aesthetic standpoint. 

Also, Dave Winfrey once mentioned another thing you pointed out in your post previous to the one I'm responding to, that he thinks there is an approximate 15 degree difference in the inner/outer slopes of the walls.

Also I must apologize for probably just now filling up your yahoo box inadvertently. When sending you a message about a cavaet to some details of plans I sent you, I lazily chose to resend a previous message I had sent you and just type over the old message, instead of just manually typing in your email address. As a result I accidently resent the files I sent awhile back. 

Sorry about that.


----------



## MGagen

Richard Compton said:


> Mark, I'm confused. You say you "DID once think the model to be 1:96" as if you no longer do. But then you describe how the 1:48 scale was doubled....so, am I misunderstanding you here? Do you agree with Phil or is it that you're just basing it on the 947ft figure which Phil has abandoned?


I did once hold it to be 1:96 (1080' intended, 1072' as built) but I no longer do. I agree with Phil that NO professional tasked with designing and blueprinting a scale model would have worked in anything but a rational scale. That is why I was strongly in the 1:96 camp before I learned that it most likely was blueprinted to be an entirely different scale altogether. 

I believe it was blueprinted as a 540' ship in 1:192 scale, with intention of using the blueprints to build a 4x 1:48 model after the study model was built.

I then believe the directive came down from the powers that be to "make it bigger." Perhaps Jefferies was told to double the length, but objected because doing so would also double things like hull thickness and deck thickness which he had carefully planned out. For some reason they settled on 947' which is almost, but not exactly 1-3/4 times the original size. Since this was a purely theoretical rescale (with the only nuts and bolts calculations being the space between the new deck windows called for) it was little trouble. The model was already blueprinted (and perhaps constructed).

This is not to say that a 1:96 ship is also a viable position. I just don't happen to believe that was the intention.

Phil, I'll have to take another look at my "original artboard" 3 view to see if I agree with your assessment of it's deficiencies.

Mark Gagen


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Great thread going guys. With over 1000 views in just over a week apparently more then a few people are interested in the subject. 

Also, again, welcome to the two new Hobbytalk members who joined in order to join the Galileo discussion - X-15-A2 and Four Mad Men.

Looking forward to those additional computer views and other updates you mentioned X-15-A2...

Hope you got the files I sent you earlier, Four Mad Men.
Would you happen to have a high-rez version of the
pic of the TOS E surrounded by three Romulan ships that 
you use as an avatar on the TrekBBS?


----------



## Pygar

FWIW if it was actually 1080' then the 18" AMT model becomes 1/720 scale... a standard shipbuilding scale!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

X15-A2 said:


> Eating my words...
> 
> OK, I have completed a preliminary look at the Shuttlecraft profile based on a photo trace of the image from "Immunity Syndrome" and the way it compares to the drawing found in the ST Writers Guide...
> 
> They don't match, to say the least! So my belief that the mockup was based on those drawings has gone right out the window. It also means that my computer model is way off too. Sorry guys.
> 
> When the two are scaled to match the lengths of the engine pods, from the vertical line at the front (where the dome mounts) to the vertical line at the rear (where the corrugated cylinder mounts), you find:
> 
> 1. The "as built" fuselage is shorter but about the same height.
> 
> 2. Almost none of the horizontal lines making up the side view are parallel, instead they converge towards the front end slightly, as if the mockup were built to be a forced-perspective item.
> 
> 3. The engine pod diameters are a close match and both versions are parallel to the ground line. The as-built version sits a couple of inches lower however.
> 
> I will post images of these comparisons on my web site (they would have to be too small to be readable on this site) under a new section devoted to this discussion. I must admit, the Writers Guide version is better looking. The one they actually built looks even more like a "cheese box" than ever! Uuugh...


Maybe I need to see those comparisons to fully appreciate the differences you are talking about.

I have to agree with you that that profile shot from the Immunity Syndrome is the best pic I've ever seen of the shuttlecraft. Any with the door closed? Could you post your tracing?

However there seem to be only two major adjustments to your 3-D model that I can see are necessary: 
1) raising the top external roof line so it is slanted instead of parallel,
and,
2) tilting the interior roofline a little so it is either less slanted or nearly parallel.

Ignorant as I am of 3-D modeling though, I'm sure these two adjustments are way more complicated to do in a 3-D model then it would be on a standard set of 2D plans.

Do you forsee many other adjustments then these though, based on the profile shot?


----------



## StarshipClass

Pygar said:


> FWIW if it was actually 1080' then the 18" AMT model becomes 1/720 scale... a standard shipbuilding scale!


Looks like we're really on to something here! :thumbsup:


----------



## MGagen

I am going to start a new thread to address the Enterprise scale issue. 

I'll quote out and reply to Phil's latest posting on the subject there, so as not to pull this thread off topic.

If you are interested in the scale of the studio model, follow me there...

Mark Gagen


----------



## Richard Compton

Sounds good!

Could someone provide me a list of the various blueprints out there. Both commercial and private?

TMOST (Matt Jefferies)
David Winfrey
Franz Joseph (Technical manual?)
Others?

Phil Broad's model
Who else?


----------



## X15-A2

Chuck_P.R.

I will post my tracings and comparisons to my web site so everyone can see them. Last night I bought "The Menagerie" and "Metamorphosis". I had time go through them and make screen caps which will now be posted to the web, possibly by tomorrow night, along with those from the other Shuttlecraft appearances.

Does anyone know what aircraft the Shuttlecraft rear gear strut comes from? Judging by its length and overall size I'm guessing that it is from something like a twin-engined Cessna or other light twin, probably a main gear. If we could find one on a plane or at an aircraft junk yard that we could then photograph and measure, we could go a long ways towards determining the actual size of the mockup. Just a thought.

That is a cool note Pygar about the AMT model, thanks for passing that along.

Phil Broad


----------



## MGagen

X15-A2 said:


> Does anyone know what aircraft the Shuttlecraft rear gear strut comes from?


I believe I saw this somewhere. It was a small plane, as you suspect, but I don't recall which one. I'll try to find the reference for you.

Mark Gagen


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Richard Compton said:


> Sounds good!
> 
> Could someone provide me a list of the various blueprints out there. Both commercial and private?
> 
> TMOST (Matt Jefferies)
> David Winfrey
> Franz Joseph (Technical manual?)
> Others?
> 
> Phil Broad's model
> Who else?


Actually that's a project that I've been working on for awhile, in addition to trying to cull together an anecdotal history of Trek fan and professional blueprinters which saw it's heyday mostly in the period from the end of the series until about the time shortly after The Wrath of Khan, at which point Paramount started to lean on companies like New Eye Studio that carried fan prints. "Private" or fan blueprinting, has briefly reflourished occassionally. But it's not what it once was.

Here is some info that I was able to acquire myself from some notable blueprinters posting on the TrekBBS. In my next post I'll send a more comprehensive list, these are relatively new discriptions that few people have seen before:

From Aridas Sofia of the "Star Fleet Printing Office:"

Ask and ye shall receive:

Here is a list of what I authored. There were other Star Fleet Printing Office publications, such as Paul Newitt's "Star Fleet Assembly Manuals" volumes 3 and 4, and of course I did some things with Todd Guenther. But this list is limited to just the works I did:

1) GENERAL PLANS U.S.S. AVENGER CLASS 
1983, price was originally $6.95
by Aridas Sofia.
6 sheets, 13.25" X 17.25", plus a 12 page booklet, in an illustrated envelope.

Includes exterior views and cutaway of the Reliant type of heavy frigates, as seen in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan". Also includes views for the predecessor class, the Surya frigates, and information and an illustration of the "Killer Bee" assault pod, plust assault pilot pressure suit. (Actually, as it turned out this was much closer to a set of plans for the final conceptual model developed by the FX crew, and varies in a few ways that are noticeable once you have DVD and can study things closely from the Reliant in the movie. 

2) GENERAL PLANS S.S. KOBAYASHI MARU
1984. Price was originally $4.95.
by Aridas Sofia.

4 sheets, 13.25" X 17.25", in an illustrated envelope, showing all exterior views of this class III neutronic fuel carrier, as derived from information on viewscreens in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan". A salvaged Klingon ship, it was rehabilitated by merchant Kojiro Vance and used for smuggling people and goods across Klingon borderspace until the famous raid that later formed the basis of a notable Star Fleet Academy simulation. 

3) U.S.S. ENTERPRISE HEAVY CRUISER EVOLUTION BLUEPRINTS
1985. Price was originally $9.00.
by Aridas Sofia.

3 large sheets, 24" X 36" each, in an illustrated envelope, with complete data for ten starship classes that are part of the evolution of the original Enterprise design. The original price in 1985 was $9.00

4) FEDERATION STARSHIP RECOGNITION CHART
1985. Price was originally $3.50
by Aridas Sofia.

One large 24" X 36" sheet, showing silhouette profiles and nomenclature for active Star Fleet classes in 2290. A hard copy reproduction of the identification silhouettes used in bridge officer training to facilitate rapid visual recognition of friendly starship types. 

5) FEDERATION REFERENCE SERIES
1984-1987. Price was originally $5.00 per volume or $24.00 for the set. 
by Aridas Sofia.

Six volumes, 8 1/2" X 11" format, intended to form an updated and expanded Star Fleet Technical Manual-type publication using a revised, futuristic format. Includes illustrations and data files from the Trek pilot episodes, T.V. series, animated series, movies (through Trek III), novels and comics. Designed to simulate a Star Fleet Academy familiarization manual for new midshipmen, it includes plans and specifications for many Star Fleet uniforms, an assortment of Star Fleet spacecraft, drawings of many Star Fleet uniforms, an assortment of illustrations of weaponry, equipment, insignia, etc. and an exhaustive profile of the Klingon Empire (including several Klingon spacecraft). Also included are an array of production sketches from Star Trek: The Motion Picture. 132 data files in all, with the following in each volume:
volume 1 28 data files
volume 2 25 data files
volume 3 27 data files
volume 4 24 data files
volume 5 20 data files
volume 6 28 data files
----------------------------
Aridas Sofia



From Mark Wilson of "Federation Frontiers:"

Hello Chuck,

Finally had a chance to compile the data you asked about, though I need to confirm a couple of the publication dates. I'm typing this up at work from memory, and if I have changes or identify something incorrectly I'll post an update. And thanks again for asking about my work. My current products are all still available at http://members.aol.com/fdfrontier , and in publication order they are:

1) "Federation Shuttlecarrier Comparison Chart" 
1993, $6.00
by Mark Wilson.

24x36 inch poster depicting 4 TMP era shuttlecarriers. Note these would be "medium" carriers in the "Enterprise" tonnage range, as opposed to the much larger "supercarriers" of the "Ariel" & "Frederikstad" classes, though larger than the earlier "Coronado" class. It basically attempts to do for carriers what Star Station Aurora's "Federation Starship Comparison Chart" had accomplished for cruisers, frigate & dreadnoughts. It also contains 4 11x17 data sheets with lots of technical & historical data.

Portions of this packet were also featured in 2 Galactic Engineers Concordance (GEC) "Logbook" fanzine articles on the "Santee" class escort carrier and the "Chosin" class attack carrier.

2) "Federation Shuttlecraft Identification Chart" 
1997, $6.00
by Mark Wilson.

24x36 inch poster depicting 10 TMP era shuttlecraft, based on the "standard" size "docking" shuttle designed by Andrew Probert to at one time be the new "Enterprise" shuttle, and was included in some of his matte paintings and a magazine article . Essentially the natural follow-up project to my first packet above, and depicts various combat, research & support craft that I think would commonly be embarked aboard shuttlecarriers specifically, as well as an 11th shuttle...my interpretation of a TAS era aquashuttle. Also contains 4 11x17 data sheets with technical & historical data.

Again, portions were featured in 2 GEC "Logbook" articles on the search & rescue SAR shuttlecraft "Gaetano", and a comparison of the TMP era aquashuttle "Ballard" with my TAS aquashuttle, as it appears in the TMP ear stationed at "Sea Station Argo".

3) "Ships Of The Delta Triangle Volume 1: 
The "U.S.S. Skagerrak" Automated Fuel Transport" 
1998, $6.00
by Mark Wilson.

This packet & the next depict vessels seen on the "U.S.S. Enterprise" main viewscreen in the TAS episode "The Time Trap", after the "Enterprise" had entered the Delta Triangle time continuum. The purpose of this series is to speculate on the origin of these vessels and the backstory of how each disappeared into the Triangle.

"Volume 1" depicts the above named vessel at the time of her loss, as well as the class ship "U.S.S. Adriatic" as she appears in the TMP era. (Much in the way "Ships Of The Star Fleet, Volume 1" depicted various TOS era ships as they appeared years later in the TMP era.) It has also provided me with a chance to speculate on how drone & automated vessels would function in Star Fleet, the limits of their autonomy protocols, and so forth. This was originally developed as a GEC "Logbook" exclusive to gain experience drawing with a computer, and was later released by us for sale.

4) "Ships Of The Delta Triangle Volume 2: 
The "U.S.S. Aliquippa" Large Survey Ship": 1999, $6.00
by Mark Wilson.

"Volume 2" depicts the above named vessel at the time of her loss, and well as the class ship "U.S.S. Hopi" as she appears in the TMP era. It also depicts 2 of her long-range research shuttlecraft, one that disappeared ahead of her, and the other which survived as she now appears in the TMP era. These shuttles are based on the "Copernicus" seen in the TAS episode "The Slaver Weapon", though outfitted with various sensor pods & such. This ship also appeared in an article in the very last issue of the "Logbook".

By the way, "Volume 3" is currently in the works for those interested.

5) "Ships Of The Klingon Defense Force Volume 1: 
The "Nin'toq" Class Tactical Assault Ship"
2002, $6.00
by Mark Wilson.

My first foray into the TNG era. It's an original design based on the "Vor'cha" design style, though a much smaller ship. Includes numerous external views, and also my first publicly released cross-section drawings. Whether or not there will be future volumes depends on the reception of this one, as there are not that many Klingon plans out there & I'm not sure what the demand will be. It was fun to do though.

In addition, I also designed 2 of the ships featured in the book "Jackill's Reference Series, Volume 3". These were designs I wasn't planning on releasing myself, and gave to Eric for his book. One is the "Clemenceau" class shuttlecarrier, and was one of the many "Excelsior" based ships in the volume. The hullform of this ship was also the basis of his tactical cruiser & dreadnought I believe (can't remember the class names at the moment), so in a way I was involved with four designs in that book. The other was the "Huntington" class deuterium tanker, which he also later released in a separate blueprint packet.

I think that's everything. Like I said, I need to confirm those release dates when I get home, but I'm pretty sure they're close at least. Let me know if you'd like anything else or have further questions. And thanks again for asking.
-----------------------
Mark Wilson

END OF LIST


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Also Richard, John P of Hobbytalk has some excellent data sheets which he hasn't provided a dated list of but did send me a link to. I'll go back and find it for you as soon as I can. Many of John P's sheets are beautifully colored, almost artwork as much as blueprints.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Richard Compton said:


> Sounds good!
> 
> Could someone provide me a list of the various blueprints out there. Both commercial and private?
> 
> TMOST (Matt Jefferies)
> David Winfrey
> Franz Joseph (Technical manual?)
> Others?
> 
> Phil Broad's model
> Who else?


Okay, here's a master list I have, which however doesn't contain the descriptions from the previous works yet, even though some might have a simple one line notation.

This list is really a re-collated list from the Star Trek Reading List Blueprint section. The descriptions and commentary were actually done by David Winfrey. All I did was to re-organize them via a psuedo-stardate format. Not to be extra Trek-nerdyish, but because they weren't clearly in chronological order of publication. Some are accurate to the month released in their order. Others had no such info available and are therefore given a fictional late-in-the-year stardate. I love the psuedo stardate formula and often use it is spreadsheets as it's so convient for sorting through tons of info. I left in about four non-Trek references at the end which also might be of interest to some.

Here you go, please remember when reading that the comments are David Winfrey's and not my own. All credit properly goes to Dave and the newsgroup reading list

I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but it is all pertinent information. I'm going to have to break it up into multiple posts. Here is blueprints part 1:

7514.00
Star Trek Star Fleet Technical Manual
by Franz Joseph (Author) 
Hardcover
Publisher: Ballantine Books; (November, 1975) 
SBN: 345247302695

7515.00
Star Trek Blueprints
by Franz Joseph (Author)
Product Details 
Paperback: 12 sheets in plastic button-snap sleeve 
Publisher: Ballantine Books (Trd Pap); (1975) 
ASIN: 0345258215 
SBN 345-24471-0-500
Out of print. Cover price: US$5.00. Asking price: US$40 or more.

12 sheets, 9" x 30". A perfect companion to the Star Fleet Technical Manual, but a collectable on its own. The blueprints are actually of U.S.S. Constitution, NCC-1700, but that's a minor detail. Very detailed. These were endorsed by Paramount and actually featured as screen displays in Star Trek: The Motion Picture. However, Paramount later changed its collective mind regarding printed works in the Star Trek canon. Since these predate the "known" explanation of what dilithium is for, etc, the location of some ship components like engineering is questionable. But on the whole, these are still invaluable reference materials.

7516.00
Book of Klingon Plans
by Michael McMasters
with appreciation owed to
Jeff Maynard, Mary Kennedy, and Geoffrey Mandel
Paperback: Eight 13" x 29" Sheets
Publisher: Galactic Designs & Productions 
(Trd Pap); (1975) 

I mislaid my set of these original series plans years back (I'd gladly trade my spare Bridge set for a copy), but recall them as a multi (8) page set of "Franz Joseph" scale drawings, complete to every deck. I recall some fan comment (perhaps alluded to by McMaster) of the high levels of engine radiation suffered by the secondary hull crew, which danger the "command pod" left its occupants immune.


7602.12
S.S. Independence Class General Plans
by Geoffrey Mandel 
based on a concept by Howard Weinstein
Paperback: Twelve Legal Size Sheets 
Publisher: Geoffrey Mandel , (Trd Pap); 
1st Edition(limited) February 12, 1976
2nd Edition, 1st Regular Printing September 3, 1976
3rd Edition Starlog Printing August 15, 1977

7611.01
Space Station Class K General Plans
by Geoffrey Mandel and Kenneth Altman
Paperback: Four 17" x 22" Sheets 
Publisher: Geoffrey Mandel 
(Trd Pap); (November 1, 1976) 
scale 1.5 in. = 20 meters -- $3.00

A virtual one-man blueprint industry, Geoffrey Mandel produced a number of "General Plans" sets from the mid-'70s on, as well as a dozen or more volumes of his "Starfleet Handbook" fanzine (he did some "Space: 1999" work as well, and had Eagle blueprints in Starlog magazine). A workmanlike draftsman of the "Franz Joseph" school. His K Class blues were based not on K-7 as shown in "The Trouble With Tribbles," but on the sharply angled (and mercifully un-re-released) AMT model kit. The last page features an interesting centerline cutaway. Of late, Mandel produced signage (wall labels) for the short-lived series "Space: Above and Beyond." His "Trek" blues include nearly every original series and animated vessel, as well as a version of the aforementioned "Motion Picture" poster refit, but none are reflective of canon. He had semi-professional distribution of his STARFLEET MEDICAL REFERENCE, a likewise exhaustive effort, and achieved full professional standing with his work on Bantam's STAR TREK MAPS (that included ship plans). The Handbooks were distributed under the "Interstellar Associates" masthead.

7611.30
U.S.S. Enterprise Bridge Blueprints
by Michael McMasters, Project Chief
John Upton, Technological Consultant
Jeff Maynard, Systems Distribution Consultant
William McMaster, Proof Reader
Paperback: Ten 17" x 22" Sheets in Evelope
Publisher: Galactic Designs & Productions 
1st Printing November 30, 1976 
2nd Printing November 1, 1977
1/24 scale -- $6.95

Another departed master of the field, who delivered slideshow lectures at New York conventions of the late 1970s, McMaster undertook the most painstaking research into canonical design work to my knowledge ever performed. These plans are a comprehensive rendition (right down to 1/8 scale diagrams of the shapes of console buttons) of every element of the original series' bridge. Operational notes, including a well thought out list of keystrokes, are also featured. The plans reflect live canon save for inclusion of a "secondary exit" (not a turbolift) to the left of the main view screen. One emerges from a study of these plans convinced that did the Enterprise exist, one could learn to "fly" it, thanks to McMaster

7700.00
Enterprise Construction Profile Blueprints
L. Allen Everhart, Starcraft Productions, 1977 - 11 x 17 (4 pg), scale 1.5 in. = 20 meters -- $5.95

Everhart at his finest. Two sheets present the primary hull, two the secondary, both in five stages of construction, from the laying of keels to hull plating and component testing. By coincidence, the plans are a minute fraction smaller than AMT/ERTL's Enterprise cutaway model (whose details do not reflect theirs). Allen's work was not based on Franz Joseph (Schnaubelt)'s STARFLEET TECHNICAL MANUAL or CONSTITUTION CLASS plans, nor does it reflect Matt Jeffries' cross-section as featured in Stephen E. Whitfield's THE MAKING OF "STAR TREK" (his hangar deck, for example, extending to the front edge of the nacelle pylon, not the aft). Purists will note the primary's reflection of AMT's upward-sloping underside, a feature absent from the original series larger miniature (though present on the three-foot model, from which the AMT models were derived). The set also lacks rendition of the nacelles. Its interior profiles are interesting, however, as is its inclusion of the ship's electrical mains, complete as to volts and amps. One can only wish Everhart had undertaken "refit" plans as well.

7714.00
Romulan "Bird of Prey" Cruiser Blueprints
by Michael McMasters, Staff Project Chief
Jeff Maynard, Consultant
John Upton, Technological Consultant
Geoffrey Mandel, Additional Material
Proof Readers: Mark McMaster, Jacob Greenspon, Carl Dimsey and Steven Robinson
Paperback: Five 18" x 24" Sheets in Envelope
Publisher: Galactic Designs & Productions 
(Trd Pap); (1977) 
scale 1/157.5 -- $6.00

I don't know how McMaster derived this ship's size. According to him, the ship's only 68 meters long (223 feet, about half the diameter of the original Enterprise's primary hull, since denied by canon - e.g., the Okudas' and Rick Sternbach's "STAR TREK" ENCYCLOPEDIA). That said, these are the first (and for many years, the only) accurate plans of the original Romulan "warbird." Exterior plans and full deck layouts are featured, as well as many technical notes. The "bird" painting is well represented. I've long intended to modify AMT's abysmal model kit to match this one's lines, a project these plans - coincidentally twice the model's size - would make a breeze. Unfortunately, that kit's long out of production (as are indeed all original series kits, for the present anyway). Nor does the little MicroMachine replica (accurate though it is) satisfy my urge to breech the Neutral Zone. But McMaster set the course, and a well-flown course it was, though too short, alas, by far.


7715.00
Size Comparison Chart
Michael McMaster
Date Unknown(no later than 1978)

The original item of this name was a large (24 x 36?) one-sheet with three-views of the Enterprise, Klingon, Romulan and Tholian vessels, as well as the K-station, set against a "backdrop" of a section of Baylock's Fesarius ("The Corbomite Maneuver"), of which a full scrap view appeared also at reduced scale. A masterful piece of work, and the finest rendition of a K-station ever created.

END OF PART ONE


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Here is blueprints part 2:

7900.00
Assorted Ships Profiles - Valley Forge, U.S.S. Enterprise, Battlestar and Orion Shuttle
By L. Allen Everhart Jr., 
Starcraft Productions, 1979 
11 x 17 (2 pg.), scales unstated -- $3.00

The man I consider the best in his field, though not at his best by contemporary standards in this minimalist set. Included are side views of "2001's" Orion spaceplane, "Silent Running's" Valley Forge, the well-known Battlestar (presented here without its proper name) and the "interim" publicity-poster Enterprise refit for "Star Trek: The Motion Picture," which is essentially an original series "E" with dorsal torpedo bay and swept-back-pylon nacelles bearing a close resemblance to those of the subsequent film (the design originated with pre-production work for the unmade "Star Trek II" TV series, for which a model was at least begun, as seen on pp. 60-61 of Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens' THE ART OF "STAR TREK;" it also appears as the Constitution II class of SHIPS OF THE STAR FLEET VOL. 1, which rendering is dissimilar to Everhart's). Everhart also shows a "scrap view," one half of a forward profile and the inner half of the aft for hangar, deflector, impulse and torp bay positioning; no pylons or nacelles appear here. Those accustomed to high-resolution printing and computer-generated linework will be disappointed with the profiles, whose small size renders the Battlestar's surface a bit unclear; the Valley Forge is needless to say even more sketchy. I commend Everhart's work, however, on the basis of a remark he made to me at our sole meeting at a small convention in Atlanta (where larger blueline - i.e., actual blueprints - of the Battlestar and Valley Forge were offered). Asked why he chose to show only the right side of the former, he replied that he lacked reference photos of the ship's overall asymmetric detail! This, of course, was long before the Internet, where close-up photos of a lovingly-restored Battlestar may now be seen. Allen died in the turret explosion of the U.S. Navy battleship Iowa; his presence on the blueprint scene is sorely missed. 

8014.00
STAR TREK: 
THE MOTION PICTURE 
14 OFFICIAL BLUEPRINTS
Wallaby/Pocket Books, 1980. 
ISBN 0-671-79106-0
Asking prices: Blue pack, $25; Original, US$45.

There are actually two versions of these: the 1980 Wallaby Books version (blue plastic package) and the original (not quite sure what the difference is - presumably not blue!). According to the New Eye Studio catalog, these contain 32 views of the Enterprise and all the other ships in the film.

8100.00
Galileo Shuttlecraft Plans
L. Allen Everhart, Starcraft Productions, 1981 - 18 x 24 (2 pg), scale 2 in. = 1 meter -- $3.00

An impressive effort at documenting the original series shuttlecraft, far superior to that shown in the STARFLEET TECHNICAL MANUAL (whose artist had access to the "full scale" soundstage prop, as I suspect Everhart did not). The plans feature fore, aft, left exterior and left interior ("hatch walls" both, in other words) views with a pleasing amount of detail, capturing even the door button just to the "porch's" left (though if Everhart correctly labeled it "PUSH" it goes illegible on my set). The chairs seem a bit inaccurate, and Everhart's established size does not reflect that of the televised interior set - but he does show the nacelle pylons' inside bracing, and was far before his time in positing the shuttle as a warp-capable vessel, a canon-established fact (the nacelles left a trail of antimatter in "Metamorphosis") then overlooked by professionally-produced "tech" literature (e.g. FASA's). Everhart's least well-presented set, sold in an end-opening envelope whose exterior profile can barely be seen - but if you see these for sale, grab 'em. They're worth a look.

8500.00
Glenn Class Fleet Survey Vessel U.S.S. Grissom
L. Allen Everhart, Starcraft Reproductions, 1985 -- 18 x 24 (4 pg), scale 1.75 in. = 20 meters -- $5.95

Everhart's oddest product, in that the first page's overhead view and the second's interior profile show the trajectory and point of impact of the torpedo which destroyed the first-ever shown of the vessels since canonically dubbed the Oberth class. Nomenclature and idiosyncrasy aside, these plans are a delight to see. Top, fore, aft, side and bottom views (with sections removed for full views of the primary) are rendered in a variety of line weights, reflecting structural elements and hull gridwork. A nice series of "behind the scenes" photo cards were available about that time; these presumably gave Everhart the reference needed to produce this well-crafted set. The envelope bears a triangular logo for the "Star Fleet Corps of Engineers," a feature of Lawrence Miller's Regula 1 prints (which see), also.

8700.00
Class F Shuttlecraft Blueprints
David Winfrey, Omega Prints, 1987 - 11 x 17 (6 pg. + 2 8.5 x 11 detail pages), 1/24 scale -- $6.95

Time to toot my own horn. I'm not as pleased with these as I'd like to be, nor are they in print (save in rip-off form; see Galaxy Class, below). A revision's long overdue. This, my own entry into the blues field, was meant to provide the most accurate possible drawings of the original series shuttlecraft. "Possible" is a joker here, since the interior set and "full scale" soundstage model didn't match (the former was larger by about 50%, and hollow; interiors were filmed separately). I took the interiors as canonical (the reverse to "Franz Joseph's" take on things), and enlarged the exterior to hold 'em. I rendered every panel, every button, showing changes by episode. I took one liberty, though, which a long-delayed revision will address - I widened the interior to fit the outer walls, rather than dropping it midline, leaving room on either side to spare. My plans include a forward-looking interior shot from "Metamorphosis," though, by which the discerning modeler could correct that error. Professionalism in both linework and printing (not done on an offset press) leave something to be desired, but scale data is without peer (an exterior photo of a model by Mark Nehmzow appeared in Finescale Modeler some years back). Shane Johnson phoned in his compliments, and Allen Everhart gave praise in person (end of plug, for now; but see "Star Trek" Modeler's Blueprints, below).

8600.00
Merchantman 
(Federation Class J, Type 3)
L. Allen Everhart, 1986 - 17.5 x 22.5 (5 pg), scale approx. 2 5/8 in. = 20 ft. -- $6.95

Side, top, bottom, fore & aft views, a centerline cutaway and plans of the upper and lower of four decks (quarters and engine room/hold respectively, those between being duplicates of the latter), these plans present an impressively detailed study of the little ship that got blown away in "The Search for Spock" (to which incident Everhart makes allusion). Are the surface details accurate? My inclination is to say "who cares?" - but given the Battlestar comment (see Assorted Ships, above), I'd bet my first edition of THE MAKING OF "STAR TREK" on it.

8500.00
Regula 1 Space Laboratory
Lawrence Miller, 1985 - 17 x 22 (5 sheets + 6 pg. 8.5 x 11 text supplement), scale 1 in. = 40 ft. -- $8.95

A well-done "Star Fleet Corps of Engineers" rendering by Miller, a sort of warm-up for his "Starbase 79" (which see), beginning with "front," side and top views, proceeding to a cutaway profile, then an exploded side view with isometric details, and concluding with an exploded top view of the living area, including variant connector arm configurations (as used in the "Centroplex" of "Star Trek: The Motion Picture," which the effects crew of "The Wrath of Khan" inexplicably flipped upside-down to produce Regula). Good general data for modelers, but differs proportionally on close examination from a partial plan printed in an old issue of Starlog (see "Starbase 79" for further explication of this caveat).

8900.01
Robot Cargo Ship
David Winfrey, Omega Prints, 1989 - 11 x 17 (3 pg.), scale "Franz Joseph's" -- $ 4.95

A "beauty" set of plans of the grain ship from "More Tribbles, More Troubles," painstakingly researched if a bit roughly rendered, with off-the-screen "cel tracings" showing elements that appear and disappear from one angle to another. See Modeler's Blues for further notations on my work.

8900.02
"Star Trek" Modeler's Blueprints Set I
David Winfrey, Omega Prints, 1989 - 8.5 x 11 (16 pg.), scales 1/48, 1/92, 1/639, 1/1597 and 1.5 in. = 50 ft. -- $6.95

Yep, me again. First off, a note on scales. The Class F (original series Galileo) and (animated) armored shuttles appear in 1/48 and 1/192, the scales of the AMT/ERTL Galileo and Surak shuttles, respectively; the (animation's) robot cargo ship, K-7 station and Botany Bay are done to the scales of the small and large AMT Enterprises, with a "bonus" page of the Botany Bay to the scale of "Franz Joseph's" CONSTITUTION CLASS plans. Same note on errata applies to the Galileo as in my Class F review above. Armored shuttle includes off-the-screen "cel tracings" of the interior and Enterprise's jam-packed hangar deck , former color-keyed (as is the set entire). Robot cargo ship ("More Tribbles, More Troubles") includes cel tracings and an "alternate design" from an old fanzine; K-7 includes a scrap view of the real-world Douglas Aircraft Company space station design on which it was based. Botany Bay plans are likewise due revision by dint of since-acquired detail photos of studio miniature, but proved to be within a fraction of an inch of that miniature's dimensions, despite having their size derived from extremely limited reference (e.g., 2 wallet sized photos and episode videotapes). Font is that of an IBM Selectric II, my "word processor" of choice circa 1989. Not the most aesthetically attractive set of blues the world has seen, but good modeler's reference, if I do say so myself. And I do.

END OF PART TWO


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Here is Blueprints part 3:


9014.00
Starbase 79
[actually elongated Spacedock from "Search for Spock"]
Lawrence Miller, 1990 - 17 x 22 (6 pg + 5 8.5 x 11 supplemental pg., 4 text, 2 drawings) -- $12.95

I gave up on Miller after this. The cover lists him as having done (in addition to Regula) the U.S.S. Enterprise Bridge (series unstated), the Hornet and Lynx (both original designs, I think), all well-drawn, I'm sure - but "Starbase 79" is the weirdest set of plans I've ever seen. This is "Spacedock" from "The Search for Spock" - sort of. That is to say, Miller's "crushed" it, making all elements taller in relation to their diameter than shown on-screen. This cannot have been accidental; good reference shots of Spacedock appeared in Thomas G. Smith's INDUSTRIAL LIGHT AND MAGIC: THE ART OF SPECIAL EFFECTS (1986), a book which, while costly (for its time), should have been readily available to Miller through interlibrary loan if nothing else. I can only presume he altered the thing's shape (and name) to keep clear of potential legal action by "Trek's" copyright holder Viacom. I'd be the last to call this paranoia; a couple of years back, the franchise boys shut down some not-for-profit websites due to their inclusion of screen captures and the like, and put the fan community on notice that copyright could be applied against any and all derivative works (a practice not followed up as yet, thankfully). Too, I've heard that one of the two mail-order markets long given to selling fan tech materials have been warned off that tack by Viacom. All that said, however, "Starbase 79" is a dunsel. I suppose one could run a revision off on an X/Y axis altering laser copier, but the cost of that would equal or surpass that of the plans themselves. That said, this is a nice piece of work, replete with exterior and interior detail, and including the fanboy's delight of a STARFLEET TECHNICAL MANUAL scout/destroyer docked adjacent to a refitted Constitution class ship. Miller's tech details are fascinating, and he even shows a representative section of the station's quarters. But if you're looking to scratchbuild a Spacedock, don't invest your bucks in this.

9614.00
U.S.S. ENTERPRISE 
NCC-1701-D BLUEPRINTS
Rick Sternbach.

Pocket Books, 1996. ISBN 0-671-50093-7.
In print. US$24.00

From decks 1 through 42, from Stellar Cartography to the cetacean tanks, from the starboard power coupling to the captain's yacht, detailed blueprints from one of the authors of the Technical Manual. The blueprints are as detailed as one may wish, with a few caveats: they don't detail the interiors of the warp nacelles; they tend to be fairly repetitive (quarters for 1,016 after all); and they don't have any ducks, porches, signs, or other discernable in-jokes. At least, that I've noticed yet.


9999.99
Galaxy Class Cruiser Interior & Exterior Drawings
11 x 17 (11 pg.), scale unstated -- $9.95

This is nothing more than outright copies of work appearing in Rick Sternbach's and Michael Okuda's NEXT GENERATION TECHNICAL MANUAL. Now, I'm all for bending copyrights to some artistic purpose, whether it be rearrangements of canon starship modules or (when it was out of print, at least) reproducing designs from the STARFLEET TECHNICAL MANUAL in an otherwise original fanzine tech publication like "Starship Design." But this is theft outright, which I'm ashamed to have paid money for. Rather than giving heat to semi-canonical designers, Viacom ought to be taking on this kind of trash. It's also common to see convention dealers selling xerox copies of fan blueprints, often combining the work of several people, typically without attribution. I haven't seen such things offered through the mail - but if you're buying in person, look for the maker's mark. If you don't see one, ask for the dealer's business card. There's some kind of legal action possible here, maybe, given time and effort - and as for Viacom's lock on franchise stuff, Todd Guenther won, with his professionally-distributed SHIPS OF THE STAR FLEET books, the honor of involvement with Rick Sternbach's NEXT GENERATION BLUEPRINTS. If that doesn't beat a "cease and desist" letter like a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, I'm an Aldebaren shellmouth.

Other Publishers and Blueprint Series

ZANART
A company known as Zanart produces licensed "blueprints" for Star Trek and Star Wars - external pictures with interesting detail call-outs. Colin Wyers describes his copy of the Star Trek set: ... it has front, top, back and side views of the Enterprise-A and Enterprise-D, as well as top and side views of Deep Space Nine, and a mini-specs sheet (crew compliments, amount of shuttles, speeds, etc.) It has the Paramount logo on it, and each blueprint is 11" x 14".

JACKILL'S TECHNICAL READOUT DATA SHEETS
Eric Kristiansen, author of the Jackill's Series has been kind enough to supply this comprehensive list of what he's printed - including prices! (I've trimmed it down to the "data sheet" part of his listing; his books are listed elsewhere in this FAQ.) 

Klingon Ships 
B'rel Scout (Klingon Bird of Prey) ($6.00) 
K'T'Inga Battle Cruiser (Movie Klingon Cruiser) ($6.00) 
K'oloth Battle Cruiser (Early Klingon Cruiser) ($6.00) 
Vor'Cha Battle Cruiser (TNG Klingon Cruiser) ($6.00) 
K'vort Frigate (Big Klingon Bird) ($6.00) 
Federation Ships (Pre-TOS Era) 
Exploration Craft Daedalus Class (DS-9 Office Display) ($6.00) 
DY-100 Botany Bay (Sleeper Ship) ($6.00) 
Warp Drive Prototype PHOENIX Cochrane's Ship (First Contact) ($8.00) 
Federation Ships (TOS Era) 
Heavy Cruiser Constitution Class 1st Pilot (1701) ($6.00) 
Heavy Cruiser Constitution Class 2nd Pilot (1701) ($6.00) 
Heavy Cruiser Constitution Class (NCC-1701-Classic) ($6.00) 
Scout Hermes Class (Classic Scout) ($6.00) 
Destroyer Saladin Class (Classic Destroyer) ($6.00) 
Heavy Frigate Vindicator Class (Classic Heavy Frigate) ($6.00) 
Frigate Benning Class (Classic Frigate) ($6.00) 
Federation Ships (Movie Era) 
Heavy Cruiser Enterprise Class (NCC-1701-A) ($6.00) 
Star Cruiser Constellation Class (Stargazer Ship) ($6.00) 
Recon Cruiser Explorer Class (Recon Cruiser) ($6.00) 
PT Destroyer Abbe Class (ABBE Class) $6.00 
Destroyer Jenghiz Class (Movie Era Destroyer) ($6.00) 
Scout Anabus Class (Movie Era Scout) ($6.00) 
Deuterium Tanker Huntington Class (Movie Era Tanker) ($6.00) 
Warp Sled Tai/Atai Class (Vulcan Warp Sled) ($6.00) 
Research Vessel Oberth Class (Oberth Class) ($6.00) 
Federation Ships (Excelsior Era) 
Transwarp Prototype Excelsior Heavy Cruiser (Excelsior NX-2000) ($6.00) 
Enterprise Heavy Cruiser (NCC-1701-B) ($6.00) 
Heavy Cruiser Excelsior Class (Excelsior NCC-2000) ($6.00) 
Scout Michael Adam (Excelsior Scout) ($6.00) 
Destroyer Loki (Excelsior Destroyer) ($6.00) 
Command Joshua Class (Excelsior Command Cruiser)($6.00) 
Federation Ships (Enterprise-C Era) 
Heavy Cruiser Ambassador Class (NCC-1701-C) ($6.00) 
Scout Vanguard Class (Ambassador Scout) ($6.00) 
Destroyer Defender Class (Ambassador Destroyer) ($6.00) 
Interceptor Prowler Class (Ambassador Interceptor) ($6.00) 
Zurkov Heavy Cruiser (Ambassador Modification) ($6.00) 
Federation Ships (TNG) 
Enterprise Heavy Cruiser (NCC-1701-D) ($8.00) 
NCC-1701-D Refit Heavy Cruiser (Galaxy Class Refit) ($8.00) 
Runabout Danube Class (DS-9 Runabout) ($8.00) 
Exploration Cruiser Intrepid Class (Voyager) ($6.00) 
Defiant Escort Cruiser (Defiant) ($8.00) 
Tactical Cruiser Nebula Class (Nebula) ($8.00) 
U.S.S Phoenix Tactical Cruiser (Phoenix) ($8.00) 
Cruiser Sasser Class (Galaxy type Cruiser) ($8.00) 
Fast Tactical Cruiser Alexander Class (Galaxy type Cruiser) ($8.00) 
Space Stations 
Spacedock Ournal Class ($8.00) 
Trading Station (K-7) Kepler Class ($8.00) 
Spacelab Regula Class ($8.00) 
Communication Station Epsilon Class ($6.00) 
Borg Ships 
Assimilation Cube Borg ($6.00) 
Extra Data Sheets 
Silhouettes $10.00 

Benjamin Chee describes some of the earlier sheets thusly: Each contains 3-4 A3 sized data readouts of the ships, along with pertinent specs, including details such as surface area (good for enemy targeting calibrations ...), cutaway views, alternative configurations (no less than 4 different "heads" for the Vor'Cha cruiser !).

END OF PART 3


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Here is Blueprints part 4, last part:


FEDERATION FRONTIERS

Mike Rupprecht and Mark Wilson have joined forces to offer their deck plans for sale online (http://members.aol.com/FdFrontier).

Mark's plans include: 

Federation Shuttlecarrier Comparison Chart ($5.50) 
Federation Shuttlecraft Identification Chart ($5.50) 
Ships of The Delta Triangle, Vol. I - Automated Fuel Transport U.S.S. Skagerrak ($5.50) 
Ships of The Delta Triangle, Vol. II - Large Survey Vessel U.S.S. Aliquippa ($5.50) 

Mike has detailed blueprints of the Reliant-type ship (Miranda, Avenger, whatever) available for sale at http://members.aol.com/FH1860/ under the title "MIRANDA CLASS GENERAL PLANS". Interestingly, Mike started off with the plans titled "AVENGER CLASS BLUEPRINTS", before the term Miranda ever came into popular usage - and now offers the same plans with either name. Now everybody can be happy!

Mike was kind enough to send me a copy of the plans. They've highly detailed, elegantly rendered, and just generally nifty. A construction history and detailed ships directory are included, as is a legend explaining just what all those fiddly bits of machinery actually are. This is what the "official" TMP blueprints should have looked like.





THOMAS MODELS

Thomas Models has some pretty TOS-era "tech specs": the Constitution-class - for the pilot ("The Cage"), the second pilot ("Where No Man Has Gone Before") and the series (yes, there are subtle variations), and the "Scout/Destroyer" class from the Franz Joseph Technical Manual. These plans are intended for modelers who want to get the detailing on their creations perfect, but can be enjoyed by everyone. $4.95 each. 

(December 2001: No longer available on the Thomas Models web site, http://www.thomasmodels.com)



Other Blueprints
This is a partial list of other blueprints and similar technical diagrams taken from The Official Price Guide: Star Trek and Star Wars Collectibles, Third Edition, not already listed above. Any additions are welcome. 

Alaska 
Almeida Class Heavy Cruiser-Freighter (M. Morrissette) 
Animated Freighter Blueprint Set (Geoffrey Mandel) 
Aurora 
Avenger Class (1983, D. J.. Nielsen) 
Caracal Class Command Cruiser (T. Guenther) 
Decater (Starstation Aurora) 
Detroyat Class Heavy Destroyer (M. Morrissette) 
Dreadnought (Allie C. Peed III) 
Drone Blueprints 
Durance Cargo Tug Class Starship (T. Guenther) 
DY 500 (Starstation Aurora) 
Enterprise (various versions) 
Enterprise Blueprints (FASA) 
Enterprise Construction Plans (A. Everhart) 
Enterprise Evolution 
Enterprise Exterior Profiles (Starcraft Productions) 
Enterprise Legacy 
Excelsior (Starstation Aurora) 
Federation Reference Series, Vols. 1-6 (Star Fleet Printing Office) 
Federation Size Comparison Charts, Vols. I and II (Starstation Aurora) 
Federation Starship Profiles Chart 
Gorn Blueprints 
Hornet Class Starship 
Katanga Class Klingon Vessel (Starcraft Productions) 
Klingon D-7 Blueprints (FASA) 
Klingon K'torr Blueprints 
Klingon Scout Vessel 
Kobayashi Maru (Daniel Nielsen) 
Lynx Timeship (Lawrence Miller) 
Olympus Class Battle Dreadnought 
Paladin Class Scout/Destroyer 
Renner 
Romulan L-85 Battleship 
Saladin Class Destroyer Scout (Starcraft Productions) 
Vadenda Class Freighter Plans 
Warp Drive Blueprints (1984) 


Additional Unsorted Non-Trek Blueprint Reviews 
by David Winfrey
Last modified: 30 January 2000 
Bonus Blues Reviews by David Winfrey ([email protected])
For you non-Trekkers in the audience (I'm a Trekkist, myself), the non-Trek blueprints supplement!!! 

7900.00
Assorted Ships Profiles - Valley Forge, U.S.S. Enterprise, Battlestar and Orion Shuttle

L. Allen Everhart Jr., Starcraft Productions, 1979 -11 x 17 (2 pg.), scales unstated -- $3.00
I'm delighted to begin these capsule reviews with the man I consider the best in his field, though not at his best by contemporary standards in this minimalist set. Included are side views of "2001's" Orion spaceplane, "Silent Running's" Valley Forge, the well-known Battlestar (presented here without its proper name) and the "interim" publicity-poster Enterprise refit for "Star Trek: The Motion Picture," which is essentially an original series "E" with dorsal torpedo bay and swept-back-pylon nacelles bearing a close resemblance to those of the subsequent film (the design originated with pre-production work for the unmade "Star Trek II" TV series, for which a model was at least begun, as seen on pp. 60-61 of Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens' THE ART OF "STAR TREK;" it also appears as the Constitution II class of SHIPS OF THE STAR FLEET VOL. 1, which rendering is dissimilar to Everhart's). Everhart also shows a "scrap view," one half of a forward profile and the inner half of the aft for hangar, deflector, impulse and torp bay positioning; no pylons or nacelles appear here. Those accustomed to high-resolution printing and computer-generated linework will be disappointed with the profiles, whose small size renders the Battlestar's surface a bit unclear; the Valley Forge is needless to say even more sketchy. I commend Everhart's work, however, on the basis of a remark he made to me at our sole meeting at a small convention in Atlanta (where larger blueline - i.e., actual blueprints - of the Battlestar and Valley Forge were offered). Asked why he chose to show only the right side of the former, he replied that he lacked reference photos of the ship's overall asymmetric detail! This, of course, was long before the Internet, where close-up photos of a lovingly-restored Battlestar may now be seen. Allen died in the turret explosion of the U.S. Navy battleship Iowa; his presence on the blueprint scene is sorely missed. 



8314.00
Cruiser C-57D Ship's Information Booklet 

Shane Johnson (approved by Dave Merriman), The Noron Group, 1983 - 17 x 22 (5 pg.), scale 1/8 in. = 1 ft. -- $7.95 
A nice piece of work by the man responsible for MR. SCOTT'S GUIDE TO THE ENTERPRISE and THE WORLDS OF THE FEDERATION, who also did plans of TV's Jupiter II (which see) and (if memory serves), the Martian war machine of George Pal's film "War of the Worlds." The C-57D was the "flying saucer" by which United Planets crewmen came to Altair IV in Pal's "Forbidden Planet." I can't attest personally for the accuracy of these; rather, I take that on faith given Shane's Jupiter II and the "approval" of Dave Merriman, a professional modeler and long-time sf fan in his own right (a tiny image of his own "space ark" plans from "When Worlds Collide" appeared alongside his letter in an old Starlog). If you don't know this film, rush out and get it - it's an evocative 1950's presaging of "Trek," right down to ethical robots, things too terrible to know, and original series bridge sound effects. And buy the prints, too. 

Gerry Anderson Blueprints Set One: "Thunderbirds Are Go!" 

no artist's credits, date or scale data - 11 x 17 (15 pg.) -- $9.95 
Top and side views of Thunderbirds 1-6 (the latter a biplane), same of the Mole, elevator car, FAB-1, "crablogger," Firefly, recovery vehicle, Side Winder, Zero-X (a biplane manned Mars ship) and Fireflash SST. Nicely drawn in blue ink, with pen and ink cover sketches in same. Accurate? Who knows? They're well drawn, that's all I'll say. 

Gerry Anderson Blueprints Set Two: Stingray, Space: 1999, Joe 90, UFO, Captain Scarlet 

no data here either - 11 x 17 (15 pg.) -- $9.95 
This lot includes the usual 2 views of Stingray and its mechanical fish adversary; Moonbase Alpha's Eagle; Mac's car and the MSV (both from "Joe 90," I think); "UFO's" UFO, Skydiver, Luna Module, S.I.D. satellite, interceptor and SHADO mobile (somewhat different in shape and detail from the S.I.G. set, which see); the Angel interceptor, Spectrum Pursuit Vehicle (and bonus side view of the S.S.C., a rather dumpy sports car), Spectrum helicopter, and SST (called "S.P.C."). The helicopter appears off compared to model photos, as does the UFO; other vehicles look about right. Of dubious use to modelers, what with the lack of fore/aft angles, but pleasing to the eye. 

Nelson Institute of Marine Research - USS Seaview (original/revised) 
flying sub, diving bell, mini-sub 

Bob Gentry, 1973 (? -- date apply to the fictional timeline, not the blues' date of issue) - 18 x 24 (2 pg.), scales unstated (Seaview is approximately 14.75 in. long, flying sub 4 in. wide) -- $4.95 
Just what it says: top and side views of the eight-windowed movie version (labeled "1970-1971") and two-piece dual-windowed TV "refit" (labeled "1971 -"), and a second page with a side view of the mini-sub, a single angle on the diving bell, and fore, aft, top and side views of the flying sub, as well as a crude interior view of same. All in all, a rather roughly executed set - which is not to say inaccurate, though minute details (and the diving bell's overall shape) differ somewhat from Jim Key's 11 x 14 single sheet of same issued by Lunar Models some time ago (no date given). 

8114.01
S.I.G. Gerry Anderson Blueprints 
File One 

Philip D. Rae, 1981-82 - 11 x 17 (4 pg.), various scales - no cover price 
A nicely done set of plans of four vehicles from Gerry Anderson science fiction series, the first three featuring puppets, the last the puppet-like acting of the cast of "UFO." Featured are the (title vehicles) Supercar and Fireball XL-5 (both in fore, aft, top, bottom and side views), the Spectrum Pursuit Vehicle of "Captain Scarlet" and the SHADO Mobile of "UFO" (the latter omit bottom views). The envelope has nice "in action" renderings of all four vehicles. 

END OF BLUEPRINTS


----------



## Richard Compton

Oh geez wow. I'm a blueprint fan so this list is GREAT! But I feel kind of bad because I was actually asking for blueprints that specifically dealt with the TOS shuttlecraft. But I can go through that list and should be able to find most of them. I'm going to copy this to a file and use it as a master reference list. Again, thanks to you and the people who drafted those lists. Sorry that I wasn't more specific in my request.


----------



## Four Mad Men

Just thought I'd share the latest on my Shuttle re-build. I'm sure it doesn't help the technical side of the discussion but I'm also sure it give everyone tons of inspiration


----------



## Four Mad Men

And a look at the interior:


----------



## X15-A2

Four Mad Men,

Very cool images of your model so far, keep up the good work!

What software are you building it in?

Everybody,

Last night I got the remainder of the screen caps up on my web site so if you need further reference material, it is available. I think that I now have all the Shuttlecraft appearances sampled there.

Phil Broad
Model Builders Reference Vault
http://www.cloudster.com


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Great update X15-A2!

Four Mad Men, those are beautiful!
Don't denegrade the value of those pics, as the first and third views could be some of the most valuable I've seen in terms of helping someone do a scratchbuild. Any chance of you posting more that way, maybe at the six dead-on orthographic angles?(starboard, port, top, bottom, rear, front with exterior and without - nacelle on interior stripped away?) Those internal views in particular could be of tremendous use in a scratchbuild.

Thanks again for the great post!


----------



## Petri Blomqvist

Interesting discussion! For what it's worth, here's a wireframe of my shuttle model overlayed on a photo. Not quite there yet, but fairly close (actually, the viewpoint is a bit off too, which explains part of the discrepancy). I haven't updated this model for quite a while though as I'm currently working on CG recreations of the Stage 9 sets.










Great renderings, Four Mad Men!


----------



## Richard Compton

That turns me on.


----------



## MGagen

Petri's what I want to be when I grow up...

WAIT a minute...I'm OLDER than him!!!  

Mark Gagen


----------



## Petri Blomqvist

Richard, Mark, stop it - you're embarrassing me..! :tongue:


----------



## X15-A2

Here is part of the drawng I've started for this project. Sorry it is so small, I'll post a large version of it on my web site this weekend. For now I just wanted you guys to be able to look it over. I think it is still "kinda" readable.

There is something that I wanted to point out about a project such as this. When you create a drawing of a ship from a movie or TV show like this one the next thing you should do is examine your full scale dimensions to see if they make sense. We have to keep in mind that these items were designed to be built by carpenters (for the most part) and therefore will not have dimensions such as 7 inches and 239/500ths or something like that. Most dimensions will be to the nearest 1/2 or 1/4 inch (sometimes 1/8th) but usually no finer than that. Usually. There might be exceptions...

For my drawing I am following this procedure; draw up a plan which is as proportionally correct as I can make it, scale it to what I believe is full scale then start adjusting the dimensions into the above calibrations.

Is this a point that has been considered here before (I'm new to the board)?

Phil Broad
Model Builders Reference Vault
http://www.cloudster.com


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Petri Blomqvist said:


> Interesting discussion! For what it's worth, here's a wireframe of my shuttle model overlayed on a photo. Not quite there yet, but fairly close (actually, the viewpoint is a bit off too, which explains part of the discrepancy). I haven't updated this model for quite a while though as I'm currently working on CG recreations of the Stage 9 sets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great renderings, Four Mad Men!


Oh my god!!!!!!

Any way we can twist your arm to post or link out to wireframe orthographic views?(port, starboard, top, bottom, front, rear, even 3/4 from the four corners, hell - anything you'd like to post or give us a link to!)


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

X15-A2 said:


> Here is part of the drawng I've started for this project. Sorry it is so small, I'll post a large version of it on my web site this weekend. For now I just wanted you guys to be able to look it over. I think it is still "kinda" readable.
> 
> There is something that I wanted to point out about a project such as this. When you create a drawing of a ship from a movie or TV show like this one the next thing you should do is examine your full scale dimensions to see if they make sense. We have to keep in mind that these items were designed to be built by carpenters (for the most part) and therefore will not have dimensions such as 7 inches and 239/500ths or something like that. Most dimensions will be to the nearest 1/2 or 1/4 inch (sometimes 1/8th) but usually no finer than that. Usually. There might be exceptions...
> 
> For my drawing I am following this procedure; draw up a plan which is as proportionally correct as I can make it, scale it to what I believe is full scale then start adjusting the dimensions into the above calibrations.
> 
> Is this a point that has been considered here before (I'm new to the board)?
> 
> Phil Broad
> Model Builders Reference Vault
> http://www.cloudster.com


It's never been explicitly stated. But I expected those kinds of compromises, that's sort of why I used the "Bob Villa version"(home improvement carpenter guy) subtitle. I also figured that once we get a set worked out at that level we could then up and down scale the plans for miniature scratchbuilding.

But I don't think there will be a tremendous compromise necessary
in the overall look of the ship. Perhaps there are some details in
which it might different from the studio miniature, but that is only
a guess, personally my untrained eye can't detect any.

About the only detail that we might need to go to pictures
of the miniature for is the underside, which is seen as having a slight
indentation that goes forward. I posted a underside pic that documents
it earlier in the thread.


That's a damn impressive detail drawing Phil! 

Is the drawing based on a resized real world length of about 29.45 feet? Or on the real world measurements of the actual mockup?(not that we can't recalculate either way later, just curious).

I especially like the way you even incorporated the square tube metal frame originally used. It's exactly the kind of details I expected to be necessary for the project. But I never expected anyone to do them and even label them so precisely.


----------



## capt Locknar

Holy Cow Guys, This thread is getting wayyyyyy KEWL. Fantastic work going on out there. Once I get this move out the way I should be back more often.

Keep up the great work. And I love the BP list also, Now I know what I am missing (not much though)


----------



## Four Mad Men

X15-A2 said:


> Four Mad Men,
> 
> Very cool images of your model so far, keep up the good work!
> 
> What software are you building it in?


Thanks. I'm using a program called Blender.



Chuck_P.R. said:


> Great update X15-A2!
> Four Mad Men, those are beautiful!
> Don't denegrade the value of those pics, as the first and third views could be some of the most valuable I've seen in terms of helping someone do a scratchbuild. Any chance of you posting more that way, maybe at the six dead-on orthographic angles?(starboard, port, top, bottom, rear, front with exterior and without - nacelle on interior stripped away?) Those internal views in particular could be of tremendous use in a scratchbuild.
> 
> Thanks again for the great post!


Well just a little joke, my way of introducing the model. When the modeling gets just a little further along I'll be glad to. I'll probably just setup a page for it, I'll let everyone know when that's done. Unfortunately I don't have too much time to work on it today, hopefully that will change for tomorrow. But I did have time to run a test for some possible ways to render the inside and outside.

*Petri*,
Thanks, and I'm working up the courage to try that with my mesh.

*X15-A2*
Great Job! I was hoping something like that would come along for that pylon (just in time)

Everyone,
Thanks for all the comments, I never thought it would garner such a response. I should warn everyone that I started this project (prior to learning about this one) to build a shuttle (vs. a model of a shuttle) so I will probably depart ways from what we've seen on screen in terms of small details (addition of running lights is one such example). Nothing too radical and perhaps worthy on inclusion. We'll just have to see how it develops I guess.

And as promised my latest progress and a quick test render for interior details...


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Don't discount the significance of what you have already done, Four Mad Men! The wall thickness and breakdowns alone could be of valuable use to someone scratchbuilding a physical model, even if you haven't added any other details. Please don't feel like it has to be perfect before posting orthographic views of these. In fact, the simplicity of the surfaces might in fact help someone building from balsa, copper plating, etc...


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

X15-A2, it would be greatly appreciated if you could post a straight on bottom view of your 3D model when you post your tracings and other web updates. I remember you mentioning you had left a small hole in the bottom as it was never intended to be viewed other then as a shuttlebay decoration. However, I'm sure I could probably draw in the small missing section after tracing it in Photoshop. The bottom is such a difficult section to get good plans for.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

X15-A2, please empty your yahoo box. I'd like to send you some new files but you are bouncing mail.


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Guys,

This "Cheese Box" is turning out to be quite a headache!

Until I began a serious study of the photos, I just had no idea how complicated this stupid thing is. Holy Smolly!

My drawing will probably be done in about a week or so, if you guys want to wait for it. The scrap view that I posted of the engine support web is wrong too because it was not based on a fully plotted main hull. Please don't build your models to it! I will post a corrected version soon enough. My drawing will also feature some data that will be of no help to the physical model builders out there but will greatly help the computer modellers.

Also, my drawing will only be of the mockup exterior, this can then be used as a basis from which the "real" version could be created (i.e. larger, with an interior that has head room, etc).

I'm also thinking about a slightly enlarged variant for light cargo duty or special ops. Might be fun.

Phil


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Will wait as long as necessary X15-A2!
Your skill's worth the wait.

Also, I was thinking, the weird almost nose down orientation seen in the profile Immunity Sydrome pic(while the nacelles weren't skewed much from parallel) might have had something to do with a slight "twisting" of the fuselage.

It seems to me that perhaps the rear strut was extended further then in previous shots(or since in previous shots they were placed on supposedly uneven "real world" dirt terrains that may have not been level so maybe previously the rear strut was placed on lower ground then the nacelle landing pads).

It seems that everything looked more parallel and the nose more elevated in the original AMT shop construction pics BEFORE the rear strut was added.

While this still doesn't change the other new fact that the rear outer wings DO widen(centerline to top) as they extend back, pehaps because the attachment point of the nacelles as well as the nacelles themselves are metal they remained relatively parallel, while extending the rear strut more then usually in preping for that Immunity 
Syndrome shot may have caused the slight nose downward twisting of the craft. While the nacelles were connected to the main body with metal those connections were removable if I remember correctly. Maybe the main body was thrust downward more than usual while the nacelle pylons gave very little. I doubt an all metal craft would have had the same awkward down tilt.
So perhaps the only two changes that might be necessary is a slight upward widing of the outer top lengthwise hullpiece and a slightly less downward slope on the interior roofline. The rest of the differences could be attributed to a too "jacked up" rear strut slightly twisting the fuselage.

Your thoughts?


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Chuck,

The downward droop of the main hull appears pretty consistent, if you compare it with the similar side view from "Way to Eden".

One thing that needs to be pointed out here is that the front landing pads were mounted to a threaded shaft so the height of the front gear could be changed by simply screwing-in or out the pad shaft. In fact if you compare the "Immunity Syndrome" profile to the "Way to Eden" profile you will see a visible difference. The "Way to Eden" arrangement more closely resembles the original attitude found in the drawing from TMOST but I have no idea why it would ever change this height.

It is possible that the Grips removed the front pads when the mockup was moved around, thus permiting them to be replaced at different heights depending upon how long the given person felt like screwing the feet in.

I must point out however that the way the hull droops in relation to the line of the engine pods seems to be the same in both views. My opinion is that the structure was too ridgid to allow the kind torquing effect you were describing. It would have to be pretty ridgid to support its own weight on such a cantilevered structure. I will post a comparison of both profile views for everyone to study.

Phil


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Maybe it just looked more cockeyed to my untrained eye then I originally thought. Still, it's a stunning profile shot.

So then the result is still the same? Are about the only two things you think you'll need to extensively revist is the top exterior and interior roof lines?


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Chuck,

I now have some study images up on my web site. These are photos that have been traced to provide comparisons. You may find them a little surprising, particularlly the profile studies (I know I did).

My model is all wrong, front to back. Most of the specific details are correct (not all) but the proportions and angles are way off (see the study images I posted, my model is based on the TMOST drawings).

Can you send me the big versions of the "under construction" pictures that you've scanned? I will post them to my site too (if you don't mind) so everyone can study them. Does that sound okay? If so, try sending them to my other email address if they get bounced back from the one you've been using: [email protected]

Thanks,

Phil


----------



## Four Mad Men

X15-A2,

If you wish, please feel free to see how these stackup.



















Chuck,

I got your e-mail. Those are masterfully done. Beautiful! I've had just enough time today to tweak a couple of things: Added the "Immunity Syndrome slant" and re-built (from scratch) the interior and roof. The roof now has the port-to-starboard roll but is flat fore-to-aft (you'll never guess which blues that came from!). Makes much more sense to me that way so I hope it's within the realm of "accuracy" -- I'm begining to doubt that word will every apply given the number of sources/views/takes/etc.

I've decided on the look for the orthos so here are the first two official ones. The one you saw earlier is obsolete. Let me know what you think. I think it might be beneficial for us (you and I at least) to take a few pictures and label them with some form of standard nomenclature for the various pieces of this thing so we don't have to go back and forth with "by 'xyz' do you mean that 'abc' that '123s'?".


----------



## Four Mad Men

And one more to ask a question. The cut lines don't match between the upper and lower sections because I haven't decided exactly how to setup the cutaway for this sort of view. Any suggestions?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Four Mad Men said:


> And one more to ask a question. The cut lines don't match between the upper and lower sections because I haven't decided exactly how to setup the cutaway for this sort of view. Any suggestions?


I would suggest the side cut line outlined in orange in the pic below. I used the underside view just to make it easier to show you the contour lines I was following. Basically I would cut in the center of the curved underside line that extends towards the front.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

BTWay Four Mad Men, your side hull and roof changes look both beautiful and logical. I'll compare them to some other sources as soon as I can.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

X15-A2 said:


> Hi Chuck,
> 
> I now have some study images up on my web site. These are photos that have been traced to provide comparisons. You may find them a little surprising, particularlly the profile studies (I know I did).
> 
> My model is all wrong, front to back. Most of the specific details are correct (not all) but the proportions and angles are way off (see the study images I posted, my model is based on the TMOST drawings).
> 
> Can you send me the big versions of the "under construction" pictures that you've scanned? I will post them to my site too (if you don't mind) so everyone can study them. Does that sound okay? If so, try sending them to my other email address if they get bounced back from the one you've been using: [email protected]
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Phil


I'll happily email you everything I have. However, your pwbroad email address was the one that was bouncing. My juno account(which I like to use for batch email sends) won't let me email anymore files until sometime around 10AM Monday morning(this morning). I've been sending so many to forum guys for the project. However later this morning I'll try again to send to your pwbroad address.


----------



## Four Mad Men

OK, that makes perfect sense. Apart from a centerline cut (which will probably happen once the interior is populated) I guess there's not too many other ways to do it with a single cutline as you have in your photo.

Thanks. And one more just becuase I REALLY like this shot and hopefully help in you analysis (although I don't think it really gives anything not already in one of the other renders)...










Two known issues here are an extra bit of something sticking out of the underside and the curved ends of the lower port and starboard hull are not inplace yet so please ignore these in your checks.

Next up is the impulse deck. I've got what I think is an interesting idea about this one (from a modeling perspective), we'll see. After that I'll have enought to get you some good fore and aft views before I type up that index page.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Gorgeous Four Mad Men! So I guess the since the earlier pre-Immunity Syndrome screenshot renders didn't have the added upslope to the outer hull section I'll just put them in another folder and keep your renders from post 116 onward as new ones. On the "extra bit sticking out of the underside" issue, did you notice the slight bottom indentation on the previous pic? I realize of course we haven't gotten to the bottom of course.

Perfesser Coffee may soon be providing me with some even more detailed interior plans help soon. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. I think the interior will be an interesting challenge. So far I think primarily yourself and maybe ClubTepes are the primary guys interested in it.

I sure as heck wish Dave Winfrey would clear out his mailbox or at least log into the boards and join the discussion. His full set of plans was the most elaborate treatment of the interiors I've heard of so far, but I have yet to get my hands on anything other then the two sheets from his Modeler's Reference Series that pertained to the Galileo.

I may not even include a detailed interior in any mock up I end up building, but I'd love to get at least the cavities properly proportioned, plus help you and ClubTepes get as good and believable a 3D model as you two care to build.


----------



## StarshipClass

Well, Chuck, I have the goods with me here at work. I just need to run by the copy place which will depend on the weather which so far ain't lookin' too good. But I figure by tomorrow I'll get them copied and put in the mail by Wednesday barring anything unforeseen coming up.

:thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Great, that'll be a tremendous help to the project Perfesser!!! Can't wait to see them!!!!!!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Four Mad Men said:


> OK, that makes perfect sense. Apart from a centerline cut (which will probably happen once the interior is populated) I guess there's not too many other ways to do it with a single cutline as you have in your photo.
> 
> Thanks. And one more just becuase I REALLY like this shot and hopefully help in you analysis (although I don't think it really gives anything not already in one of the other renders)...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two known issues here are an extra bit of something sticking out of the underside and the curved ends of the lower port and starboard hull are not inplace yet so please ignore these in your checks.
> 
> Next up is the impulse deck. I've got what I think is an interesting idea about this one (from a modeling perspective), we'll see. After that I'll have enought to get you some good fore and aft views before I type up that index page.


One very slight change I would suggest. I believe the top rear curved roofline is correct, but it is also part of the engine as well(which you are probably now working on). The straight parallel lines are perhaps okay for holding the vertical wall that is to go quite a few inches inward and then hold the inverted, rounded corner triangular shafts, but they should be back several inches and the bottom of the engine that meets that protrudes out as far as the roofline should end up curved as well when you are finished.


----------



## Four Mad Men

Agreed. The flat panel below the roof is indeed destined to be cut back to make room for the impulse deck. Ditto for the engine having a lower curvature that mirrors the top.

Also check your juno account I sent you something (if you have a preferred account beyond that one just let me know and I'll send stuff there instead).


----------



## Four Mad Men

Also when I first planned on the impulse deck I was thinking of creating it so the deck slipped into a housing. I'm still leaning towards this but here are the options I'm considering:

1 - As viewed from above have the rear of the hull actually be part of the deck unit. If I do it this way I would probably have some sort of seam showing on the top. This way the enitre deck can be removed by lifting it up or back.

2 - As viewed from above the rear hull portion is part of the shuttle's structure with the deck inserted from the rear into a housing. The walls of the aft most portion of the housing (which you see) are very much thinner than what actually holds to housing on the inside (which you don't see).

I'm leaning towards 2 but I'd consider 1 (which is less work by the way) if there is evidence to support that it was done this way in the show -- or if somecan make a compelling argument. Anyone have any thoughts on this?


----------



## Richard Compton

Four Mad Men,

About the port-starboard loft of the roof. I was wondering if this might only be at the back end. Is this how you modeled it? In other words, the leading edge is flat, and the back edge 
is vaulted. One can demonstrate what I mean with a piece of paper laying on a flat surface and lifting the middle back edge up while all the other parts still touch the surface, more or less.


----------



## Four Mad Men

Richard Compton,

I actually modeled it all the way forward. My original shuttle model had a flat forward edge (sadly it was lost but I made it when I first started modeling so this new is a better product). Upon seeing the construction stills of the mockup used in the series as well as the images on cloudster.com of the mockup rotting in a parking lot (1st and 2nd images) leads me to believe that the forward roof line is curved as well. I'd be glad to flatten it or even lower the curvature in the front if my analysis (or vision) is faulty. I'm reasonably sure it's curved although I could not swear that the front is as prominent as the back.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Four Mad Men said:


> Also when I first planned on the impulse deck I was thinking of creating it so the deck slipped into a housing. I'm still leaning towards this but here are the options I'm considering:
> 
> 1 - As viewed from above have the rear of the hull actually be part of the deck unit. If I do it this way I would probably have some sort of seam showing on the top. This way the enitre deck can be removed by lifting it up or back.
> 
> 2 - As viewed from above the rear hull portion is part of the shuttle's structure with the deck inserted from the rear into a housing. The walls of the aft most portion of the housing (which you see) are very much thinner than what actually holds to housing on the inside (which you don't see).
> 
> I'm leaning towards 2 but I'd consider 1 (which is less work by the way) if there is evidence to support that it was done this way in the show -- or if somecan make a compelling argument. Anyone have any thoughts on this?


Thanks Four Mad Men. I'll check my juno email as soon as I get home. I like using the juno mail because all I have is dial up service at home, and I can right tons of emails and just then just hit "Get and send mail" and the program will dial up, up and download mail, and then log itself off, all without intervention from me. Since dial up takes so long compared to broadband it helps me maintain my lowband sanity as I can go get a sandwich or a cup of coffee etc while it downloads/uploads.
Just ran into the upload traffic restriction for the first time yesterday as I sent about 20megs of stuff in the same day. But I'm good to go as of this morning and will send out that stuff to X15-A2 later when I get home - haven't forgotten about you Phil.

On the issues you raise in the post I'm quoting above, you raise an interesting point. The full scale mockup I don't think had any such seam. However, the studio miniature was actually built as you suggest(either that or it was "repaired" as you suggest, Phil once mentioned on his site that it looked to the people who restored the studio filming miniature like it had been stepped on). If you go to Phil's website in one of the pics he has of the small restored filming miniature you will indeed notice a slight seam.

I don't think there was any seam in the full scale mockup. But if it makes it easier for you to model feel free to include one. Another way to approach it might be to make the entire roof and the outer engine shell(rooftop, top and bottom curved edges, and left and right side edges) removable by pulling back and then out, leaving a light-sealed impulse engine core and shafts designed intact. If you do it either way please include some sort of inner ledge or bracing structure for the roof to sit on top of. That will make it much easier to physically model.

Hope the weather is looking okay Perfesser Coffee! I've been hoping to lay eyes on those plans for months now(from another source of course) and have been going a little stir crazy trying to locate a set. Thanks again in advance!


----------



## Four Mad Men

Chuck,

Thanks for the comments. The seam I mentioned would actually be intentional to help accentuate the fact that the deck is one large unit that's removable from the top/back. Sorry if my statement was misleading.

So I guess it comes down to this: Do I go with an engineering example of today -- say the engines of an F-15 (or most any military jet) that are pulled out of the aircraft structure? Or do I go with a modular design philosophy -- life the replaceable bridge module of the Movie and TNG era?

It can go either way as far as I'm concerned unless there are some definitive pictures of top detail of the studio mockup. If there is a seam on it (in the right place) I can feel good about it being modular, otherwise I think I'll go the other route.


----------



## Richard Compton

Four Mad Men said:


> Richard Compton,
> 
> I actually modeled it all the way forward. My original shuttle model had a flat forward edge (sadly it was lost but I made it when I first started modeling so this new is a better product). Upon seeing the construction stills of the mockup used in the series as well as the images on cloudster.com of the mockup rotting in a parking lot (1st and 2nd images) leads me to believe that the forward roof line is curved as well. I'd be glad to flatten it or even lower the curvature in the front if my analysis (or vision) is faulty. I'm reasonably sure it's curved although I could not swear that the front is as prominent as the back.


Okay, that's cool. I don't have a competing analysis, so I'm definitely not challenging yours. I trust that your model matches the real thing as much as possible.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Four Mad Men said:


> Chuck,
> 
> Thanks for the comments. The seam I mentioned would actually be intentional to help accentuate the fact that the deck is one large unit that's removable from the top/back. Sorry if my statement was misleading.
> 
> So I guess it comes down to this: Do I go with an engineering example of today -- say the engines of an F-15 (or most any military jet) that are pulled out of the aircraft structure? Or do I go with a modular design philosophy -- life the replaceable bridge module of the Movie and TNG era?
> 
> It can go either way as far as I'm concerned unless there are some definitive pictures of top detail of the studio mockup. If there is a seam on it (in the right place) I can feel good about it being modular, otherwise I think I'll go the other route.


No apparent seam anywhere on the full size mock-up's roof.

To be clearer about the "one piece" type design I was referring to, that could be pulled back and up to reveal the entire interior I'm attaching a crude pic that I downloaded here and then just touched up real quick. The piece I was referring to is in lime green. With the internal engine mount it surrounds in blue(crudely dotted blue line represents where the engine mount protrudes into this structure). It's not necessary, of course, to model the lime green part as one piece. But I kind of like the idea of at least the interior of the impulse engine(blue part) being a piece that protrudes into the "sleeve" of the outer engine sides, and then further back in the model expands wider then the frames(thereby being designed lightproof from a real world scratchbuilding viewpoint). Then that small vertical cavity just before reaching the second room from the front could house a light source. What do you think?


----------



## Four Mad Men

Chuck_P.R. said:


> No apparent seam anywhere on the full size mock-up's roof.
> 
> To be clearer about the "one piece" type design I was referring to, that could be pulled back and up to reveal the entire interior I'm attaching a crude pic that I downloaded here and then just touched up real quick. The piece I was referring to is in lime green. With the internal engine mount it surrounds in blue(crudely dotted blue line represents where the engine mount protrudes into this structure). It's not necessary, of course, to model the lime green part as one piece. But I kind of like the idea of at least the interior of the impulse engine(blue part) being a piece that protrudes into the "sleeve" of the outer engine sides, and then further back in the model expands wider then the frames(thereby being designed lightproof from a real world scratchbuilding viewpoint). Then that small vertical cavity just before reaching the second room from the front could house a light source. What do you think?


Now that's an interesting idea! Here's the latest on the deck housing -- and you'll note that while I haven't as yet made that leap the upper detailing still allows for it. And until such time, the horizontal surfaces at the back of the housing need to be parallel to allow the deck to slide out.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Four Mad Men said:


> Now that's an interesting idea! Here's the latest on the deck housing -- and you'll note that while I haven't as yet made that leap the upper detailing still allows for it. And until such time the vertical surfaces of the back housing are horizontal allowing the deck to slide out.


"And until such time the vertical surfaces of the back housing are horizontal allowing the deck to slide out."

Maybe I need sleep and/or caffeine but I'm not quite sure what you mean...  

Arrows maybe?


----------



## Four Mad Men

I think I'm the one who needs either or both of those. Post corrected above and here is what I meant to say:

*And until such time, the horizontal surfaces at the back of the housing need to be parallel to allow the deck to slide out.*


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Okay, 4MadMen, understood now. I know how you feel. I can't tell you how many times I've typed stuff that made sense to me at the time because I was reading into it more info then I actually placed on the page. No way to avoid that happening occasionally.

Forgot to mention, Kicka$$ render!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

X15-A2 said:


> Hi Chuck,
> 
> The downward droop of the main hull appears pretty consistent, if you compare it with the similar side view from "Way to Eden".
> 
> One thing that needs to be pointed out here is that the front landing pads were mounted to a threaded shaft so the height of the front gear could be changed by simply screwing-in or out the pad shaft. In fact if you compare the "Immunity Syndrome" profile to the "Way to Eden" profile you will see a visible difference. The "Way to Eden" arrangement more closely resembles the original attitude found in the drawing from TMOST but I have no idea why it would ever change this height.
> 
> It is possible that the Grips removed the front pads when the mockup was moved around, thus permiting them to be replaced at different heights depending upon how long the given person felt like screwing the feet in.
> 
> I must point out however that the way the hull droops in relation to the line of the engine pods seems to be the same in both views. My opinion is that the structure was too ridgid to allow the kind torquing effect you were describing. It would have to be pretty ridgid to support its own weight on such a cantilevered structure. I will post a comparison of both profile views for everyone to study.
> 
> Phil


I was talking more about the centerline of the main chasis itself. The more pronounced downward slope might be one detail that ClubTepes might be right with between the miniature and mockup. The centerline(the one that bisects the side fins) angling that steeply down just doesn't look right(even if accurate), although I conceed that the rear of the side hulls should angle upwards.

I almost inclined to want to totally ignore the pronounced forward slope of the centerline(not the top of the side hulls however). The side profile shot you took of the filming miniature sitting flat on a table(sans the rear strut) has very little fin-centerline forward tilt. I understand that they rebuilt it, but it doesn't look like they messed around with the pylons or centerline of the ship radically if at all. Also, the pre-rear strut photos of the full size mockup also show little chasis centerline tilt.

I'm going to send you those bigger construction files I have within an hour or so, as soon as I finish downloading a couple of big files that have filed my inbox. I'll also send a few primitive attempts I've made of deconstructing the pics. Please be kind as I have zero 3D experience, these are simple tracings.

On that subject, great tracings in the page updates. One question though, I was under the impression that you had planed to revise your inner roofline(dotted green line) to angle it closer to parallel to the ground. However it seems more pronounced in the opposite direction. Is there a reason or was that just an old outline? I love your choice of red and green. In case anyone hasn't tried this, you can open the file in most editing programs, chose "adjust colors" or adjust hues and turn the red and greens down and up, and thus have individual drawings of both the Immunity Syndrome photo tracing and the TMOST tracing.

I agree with 4MadMen that there is a slight slope to the forward edge roof line, although it is tremendously less pronounced then the rear slope.

Do you have any thoughts on the roof of seam seen in your pics of the miniature Phil? It might just be a repair line, or perhaps the minature was just constructed slightly differently. I've never seen a seam on the full size shuttle's roof, have you?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

This is one of the construction pics I've just sent that you were asking for X15-A2. Sorry I couldn't get it to you before now. It's one before the rear strut was added. The pylons are sitting squarely on a cement floor. There is a slight slope to the main chasis centerline, however, there is tremendously less craft centerline slope then in the Immunity Syndrome screencap. The main hull centerline that bisects the fins and door; and the nacelles themselves all seem to be almost parallel, although there is some difference. Certainly though, not as much hull centerline slant as in the Immunity Syndrome capture. That's why I'm convinced that the rear strut is exaggerating the forward slope of the main hull centerline. When the full mockup was sitting on the construction floor, prior to the rear strut or the nacelle pads, there was only the slightest forward/downward slant to the centerline. Although of course the top roof line does indeed curve upward, as had not been caught by anyone before.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Okay, X15-A2. Apparently the first message I sent to you got through, but the second set of files bounced back. Once you download everything and clear out your mailbox, I'll try again to send the second set that includes a better resolution version of the file in my previous post.


----------



## Four Mad Men

Impulse light test. Lame or no? Is this the right path? Has anyone given any thought to what that light might actually look like?


----------



## Four Mad Men

Almost forgot...

Chuck,

I'm at the point where the proportions of this thing need to be sorted out (this too long, that the wrong angle, etc.) before proceeding with additional detail of the main body. I'm going to get cracking on those orthos you asked for so we can hammer those sorts of thing out. Expect something late Tuesday night/Wednesday morning. Same bat time, same bat channel.

And while your doing that I think I'll work on nacelle exterior/interior.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Freakin' Gorgeous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't think the page would hold enough exclamation points to do it justice so I'll stop.

I always pictured the rounded cornered inverted trapezoid thingies to be a little more evenly lit across their surfaces, that there was some sort of translucent panel about two or a few more inches(real world mockup size) further in then the black edges of the "shafts." But this rendering is nonetheless GORGEOUS!


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Guys,

I've posted three views of the drawing that I'm working on so you can see the general angles and proportions. This will be a drawing of the mockup "as built" so it will only form a basis for the "real" Shuttlecraft.

There are many odd angles in the mockup that should probably be dropped, as Chuck suggests. The drawing from TMOST is a much more attractive version but I feel that we need a solid rendition of the mockup to use as a starting point, so that is what I'm drawing.

The slopes, curves, proportions, etc are as close as I can get them working from the available photos. I think its pretty darned close. A fully dimensioned drawing with sections and projected views will be posted when the drawing is finished but the views that I've posted now are correct. The figure drawn with them for comparison is 6 feet high, approximately the height of Mr Nimoy.

The transmission in my car went out over the weekend and it is now in the shop.  This means that I will be sitting around the house tomorrow watching it rain outside so I should be able to make more progress on the drawings.

Thanks for sending the photos Chuck, I will empty out the account right away.

It is nearly midnight here now and my brain is ready to spend some time watching the inside of my eyelids... 

Phil Broad
Model Builders Reference Vault

Shuttlecraft Design Study page:
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DesignStudy/GalileoDesignStudy.htm


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Sorry to hear about your car. Haven't been there since I was three years old, but I hear it's more then a little difficult to get around without a car in Los Angeles. Bummer.

I think your tracings are dead on. Just based on a couple of photos that maybe something about the rear end makes that Immunity Sydrome profile a little out of whack. When I manage to send you the slightly higher res pics it may be more obvious.

Sleep tight!


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Chuck,

I posted a new chart showing the method I used to determine the relative heights of the elements at the rear of the Shuttlecraft (see the same link as in my previous post). Of course there is always room for error in this type of analysis but I think the results are very close to correct. Any variation in theses measurements results in a nearly invisible change to the overall look of the ship.

Thanks for sending the first batch of photos, they are very interesting. I'll look forward to seeing the rest of them.


----------



## MGagen

I would like to introduce a note of caution on the subject of comparing tracings from different photos. Several things must be born in mind:

First, lens distortion. All lenses magnify progressively as the image extends off axis. What I mean is, in order to render a scene with straight lines, rather than curved ones like a fish eye, a lens must distort what is seen from the viewpoint of the camera. This is a correction to achieve what is called a flat field and is a consequence of focussing the image through a single focal point onto a flat film plane. Unfortunately, for the person wanting to glean measurments from a photo, the further a subject extends in the frame, the more exagerated the measurments will be. (This effect can be seen in the famous side view of the Enterprise with the Botany Bay at her side. Careful tracings would suggest that the engine nacelles are longer than they in fact are -- and that the bridge dome and lower sensor array are not centered in respect to the primary hull.)

Second, perspective. This depends on the vantage point of the camera. Two side views of the same object can give entirely different impressions if one vantage point happens to be closer to the object and a little more to one side, than the other. Both are "side views", but both will exhibit completely different profiles.

I believe this is what is going on in Phil's comparison drawing. As an experiment, I downloaded it and isolated each profile. Then, using Photoshop to vary the perspective of one of the outlines, I looked to see if there was "viewpoint" where one outline matched the other. Now this is only an approximation (as it only partially corrects for one of the two issues), but it does point out the principle.

When looking at the attached images, keep the following things in mind:
The engine and wing/pylon structure are in a different plane from the side of the shuttle, and as such, must be eliminated from the comparison. Furthermore, even the side is not really a plane, but extends closer to the camera near it's horizontal centerline (this is probably why the door shifts between views). Also, the shuttle was repainted more than once, and the "Galileo" is obviously in a different position in each photo.

That said, I think it is instructive that the basic profile can be reconciled. I believe some of the "odd angles" that Phil is encountering are the result of the perpsective and lens distortion in the photos. It seems unlikely that the folks in charge of "adapting" Jefferies' design to make it easier to build would have opted for some of the odd angles that are emerging. The "truth" is somewhere between these two images -- and my money is on the point where the angles make sense from a real-world construction point of view.

Phil is very good at ferreting out details from things like this, and I have little doubt that he will arrive at the proper conclusions. I, for one, am happy he is letting us watch his progress and offer input along the way.

Mark Gagen


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Agreed, Phil is incredibly talented.
His "outrigging" plan view with real-world carpentry style measurement breakdowns impressed me tremendously. Hoping to see more stuff like that.


----------



## Richard Compton

Mark,

I know a lot of these distortion problems can be solved with a 3D model overlay, since the virtual camera will account for perspective issues. Do you know if it also mimics the lens distortion you were talking about? I'm sure there are programs for this, but are they incorporated into programs like Lightwave or 3D studio Max?


----------



## MGagen

Richard Compton said:


> Mark,
> 
> I know a lot of these distortion problems can be solved with a 3D model overlay, since the virtual camera will account for perspective issues. Do you know if it also mimics the lens distortion you were talking about? I'm sure there are programs for this, but are they incorporated into programs like Lightwave or 3D studio Max?


I believe they do take it into account. I have had pretty good success duplicating the distortion with my own models in Strata StudioPro. It is a problem of geometry to map what is a spherical concave image onto a flat viewing plain. Unless you make an adjustment, only straight lines that pass through the center of the photo will remain straight. Other lines will appear curved. It is the same problem in the virtual world as in the real one. The main difference is that in the real world, you have to rely on the shape and refractive properties of various types of glass, rather than pure math.

There are programs that perform the calculations based on scientific principles to extract measurements. Unfortunately, you have to know a lot about the focal length and type of lens used to make the photos (info that is inaccessable to us). You also need to work from full frame images in order to determine the true center of the image.

Mark


----------



## Nova Designs

Richard Compton said:


> Mark,
> 
> I know a lot of these distortion problems can be solved with a 3D model overlay, since the virtual camera will account for perspective issues. Do you know if it also mimics the lens distortion you were talking about? I'm sure there are programs for this, but are they incorporated into programs like Lightwave or 3D studio Max?



Yes, all professional 3D applications can accurately reproduce a wide range of lenses.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Richard Compton said:


> Mark,
> 
> I know a lot of these distortion problems can be solved with a 3D model overlay, since the virtual camera will account for perspective issues. Do you know if it also mimics the lens distortion you were talking about? I'm sure there are programs for this, but are they incorporated into programs like Lightwave or 3D studio Max?


I'm not convinced that the degree of tilt in the centerline of the craft, the line that bisects the fins and door, versus the centerline of the nacelles that looks so exaggerated in the side Immunity Syndrome profile shot is representative to the "natural" tilt of the vehicle. Lens distortion issues aside.

After downloading all of the other screengrabs X15-A2's so painstakingly done I'll agree with him that there is a slight downward tilt. But it every other shot it's angle looks tremendously less pronounced.

I'm especially convinced of it now that I've relooked at the original construction pics of the mockup while putting them together to email to X15-A2.

I know that you don't agree that the rear strut being extended further then usual could cause the craft to raise but the nacelles to stay much more parallel Phil. But I have to think it was probably a contributing factor.

It's totally true, as you pointed out, that the craft has an underlying steel structure. Also the "pontoons" have the same 2"x2" square metal tubing running through them that attach to the hull.

But I have to think that that attachment point might be a weak point, and that it's possible that raising the rear strut further then had been done in previous shots(or previous shots being done on dirt filled sound stages that may have been uneven) that when they set up for this shot they may have skewed the angle.

The clearest evidence I have for this theory is the pic which I posted a low-res copy of back in post #139, page 7 of this thread, which I think the higher quality copy of I was able to send earlier today.

In that shot the rear strut has yet to be added and the nacelles(without even landing pads on the nacelles) are just sitting squarely on the flat cement floor of the shop. While there still is a very slight upward slope to the mainhull's centerline(front to rear, based at least on the clearest descernable lines from tip to end of the door area, centerline get's shadier from there but wouldn'd depart from the angle of the forward line already establised) it is nowhere near as pronounced as in the shocking profile shot.

Plus, as was mentioned in a previous post above even if the incline didn't appear to be such a radical departure from other views (regardless of the cause) I can't see modeling such illogical line angles(real world or 3D). So the cause may be a moot issue anyway...

Did you get the other pics, Phil?


----------



## Pygar

Uh... here's a weird idea... whatever happened to AMT? The blueprints may still exist. One may dream, anyway...


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Not a weird idea at all.

But based on how their plastic Galileo model kit turned out, they obviously couldn't find a copy. Or pictures of the rear. Or pictures of the sides. Or any Jeffries sketches. Or...

It blows my mind that they built the full size prop, they built the filming miniature which at least to the naked eye seems to accurately mirror it.

Yet they ended up with that sad excuse for a model.
How could the very people who made the full size and filming miniature make such an inaccurate kit?

I guess we should just be happy that the only thing they got wrong on the Klingon D-7 was the intake grill... At least they got that one right.


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Chuck,

We will have to agree to disagree here about the angle of the hull in relation to the engine pod centerline. If that mockup was being twisted to that degree by the rear landing foot several things would happen. Most important to this discussion is that there would be visible twist to the wings or pylons or the tops of the engine pods would be flattened out because of the force of the pylons above twisting down into them or the wing mounting joint would have a large visible step in it where the hull and wing were misaligned, etc. The problem is that a fairly large amount of twist is required to get that much distortion. Some form of damage or misalignment would have to be visible in it. I just don't see any signs of that. Further, if the mockup was that delicate it never would have survived, either handling at the studio or mishandling afterwards. It went through some pretty rough times and came out looking the same, it terms of general configuration (if not condition...). The photo you are refering to is not really much help here because the midline on the hull not only angles downward, it is also angling away which tends to lessen the appearance of its downward slope from that view point. I would also point out here that it is difficult to tell from that photo if the engine pod was even attacted when the photo was taken. As an example, in the same photo the rear landing foot was was simply placed in position, it is not attached in that picture. I would argue that the pod is not in fact attached because there appears to be a piece of Masonite passing between it and the structure of the hull. It looks like the pod and wing structure are just leaning against the hull. It is very difficult to be certain in any case.

Mark, the points regarding perspective distortion are valid and I try to take that into account when working up the drawings but if you are going to try to tell me that this kind of spherical distortion is responsible for the differences between the the TMOST profile and what we see in "The Immunity Syndrome" then we will also have to agree to disagree. To me that photo appears to be a pretty good profile shot, the distortion appears to be minimal based on the way the ends of the engine pod tube appear as very flat elipses. This indicates that the camera was a good distance away and the angular field of view was fairly narrow. Some distortion is present of course but to me it appears minimal. The engine pod is somewhat larger than it should be because it is closer to the camera than the main body, etc. But in terms of its usefulness to a project like this, these distortions are minimal. If you can explain how the camera angle etc caused the profile to be so distorted from that of the TMOST drawing, perhaps via a plan view drawing showing the placement of the mockup in relation to the camera, I would be interested to learn more about that and very possibly change my mind.

The problem here is that we have no real "hard data" to work from so any such effort to create plans will ultimately be the result of one's "measuring eyeball". My method is to try to use as much information as I can find that "agrees" with each other but in the end, it is just my estimate. When a photo indicates that there is an ugly droop to the structure and this is backed up by other photos, I put the droop in.

The final proof of course will be in the 3D modeling and comparisons to photos. This is something I'm very interested to move on to. Let the best guess win! :thumbsup: 

I wish that we could all meet and talk these issues out in person, trying to type everything out is very restricting (I need to be able to wave my hands...).

Phil


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

"I wish that we could all meet and talk these issues out in person, trying to type everything out is very restricting (I need to be able to wave my hands...).

Phil"

I agree Phil, wish that could happen too. But look on the bright side. Back in the days of Trek and sci-fi fandom before faxes, computers, and the internet we'd be having this discussion via snail mail and it would have taken us five years to get this far!!!  

Let me know if the other files have gone through. There is more stuff I'd like to send you.

I guess I might have been just be wishfull thinking when it comes to trying to explain away those radical angles. You have the advantage of having seen the actual mockup so you're more qualified then any of the rest of us. I had imagined that the two thin 2 x 2 inch steel bars simply slipped under the wings and attached that way. I didn't know they were attached to the wings themselves. Actually I had thought that maybe those two, relatively thin bars may have "flexed" to a degree. Not that the fuselage or the nacelles or wings twisted.

But again, you've seen the thing and you have first hand knowledge of how it went together. Maybe I was hoping those two thin bars were the the only thing that would need to flex as a way of wishfull thinking.

I'd love to see you eventually do models both "as built" and perhaps with slightly more conventional lines. Although I would like to see the increased backward slope of the side exterior roofline on both.

On that issue, shouldn't the interior roofline perhaps be more parallel then conventionally thought from the most popular 3/4 views? Since we now know the exterior side pieces in fact angle upward more then originally believed?

Your thoughts on this?


----------



## Four Mad Men

Chuck,

Here is the link to the page I setup for you...

Shuttlecraft Galileo Construction Project


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Beautiful work!
Check your email for a couple of support pics and ideas...
Everybody should check them out though, not just me. 
I might regret staying up so late tommorrow, but I couldn't resist
studying all the renders.


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Chuck,

I've downloaded the last batch of photos. They are great, thank you for sending them. I'll go ahead and load the "under construction" images to my web site so everyone can study them.

I had a re-think about the structural distortion issue and there might be one way it could happen that would be relatively invisible (or at least fairly difficult to detect via the available photos) that is if the engine pods were splayed outward towards the front and the pylons bending outwards (more at the front, less at the rear). This would allow the the nose to drop and the only way to detect it would be by having a top view were the alignment of both pods could be checked at the same time or if there was a slight visible twist to the pylons. Still, I don't think this is happening because there is a heck of a lot of steel in that thing and the main body just isn't heavy enough to cause that to happen (in my opinion) but you never know. Until someone can find out where it is hiding these days we will just have to go on guessing.

On that note, I hope to check out one lead on the mockups current whereabouts in a couple of weeks. I was told that it was now at the aviation museum run by Bob Pond in Palm Springs. I will be going by there on my way to Phoenix and Tuscon so I will stop by and check it out. If it is there I will report the details and post photos.

Your point is well taken about snail-mail, etc...  

BTW, is anyone else out there preparing drawings?

Phil


----------



## X15-A2

Just a note to let everyone know that I posted the photos of the mockup under construction on my web site. They are here:

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehic...ecraftConstruction/GalileoConstructionTop.htm

Phil


----------



## Richard Compton

Why not pin down all the details on the nacelles and work from there? You can make a 3D model and get everything perfect, and work your way out to the rest of the craft. Just a suggestion.

Has anyone seen this image before? Do you know where I can find a larger one?

http://www.episodenguide.de/startrek/media/pic116.jpg


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Richard Compton said:


> Why not pin down all the details on the nacelles and work from there? You can make a 3D model and get everything perfect, and work your way out to the rest of the craft. Just a suggestion.
> 
> Has anyone seen this image before? Do you know where I can find a larger one?
> 
> http://www.episodenguide.de/startrek/media/pic116.jpg


I haven't seen that before, but if the Capt., John P, Trek Ace and others here haven't seen it as well I'd recommend you log on to the TrekBBS Art forum and include the link above there:

http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=UBB20

After you click on "Post" you'll need to take a few minutes to sign up if you aren't already a member.


----------



## StarshipClass

4Mad and X15: GREAT STUFF! 

I don't know how y'all do it, but it's incredibly well done! :thumbsup: 

This project looks as though it could come up with the definitive inside and out of the TOS shuttlecraft. I may only wind up modifying the old AMT kit but I'll definitely be using the info! I've already saved quite a few of the pics for reference.


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Guys,

Well, my car won't be done until Monday so I've got plenty of time and am pressing well ahead on the drawing. All the geometry is done, now I can start making the finished drawings and various scrap views with dimensions.

So far the most difficult thing to plot has been that curl on the lower edge of the hull side plates. That was a real MF'r, I probably spent about six or seven hours trying to figure it out last night. It still may not be quite correct but it should be close enough for our purposes. This "cheese box" has some surprisingly complex geometry in places!

Going back to the drawing now for another session.

Phil


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

X15-A2 said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> Well, my car won't be done until Monday so I've got plenty of time and am pressing well ahead on the drawing.



Wow! What an incredible stroke of luck!!! Ehr... umm... I mean... that is to say... BAD luck of course... I am truly sadened by the automotive news... 

On the bright side, maybe it was a sign from above that this was meant to be...  

Seriously though, I hope they get your car fixed right. It never took me less then a week to get my last car fixed. Then again, it was a Peugot. And there were maybe 5 guys at two shops in the entire metro area who knew how to fix them. So believe me I feel and understand your pain.



X15-A2 said:


> So far the most difficult thing to plot has been that curl on the lower edge of the hull side plates. That was a real MF'r, I probably spent about six or seven hours trying to figure it out last night. It still may not be quite correct but it should be close enough for our purposes. This "cheese box" has some surprisingly complex geometry in places!
> 
> Going back to the drawing now for another session.
> 
> Phil


When you post updates, could you please consider doing them two ways? One, as a well-lit solid with all edges clearly visible, and secondly, as black wireline on a white background?(eminently easier for my feeble eyes to register and do measurements of, plus I kind of 
like the "old school" look it evokes).


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Chuck,

I posted updated views of my drawing on the "Design Study" page of my web site. These are really only for general review, the final postings will be black line on white background with complete dimensions and at a much higher resolution for printing. What you've seen so far are just screen captured images of the open drawing window. As a little bonus I also posted a drawing of the "Galileo II" marking from the side of the ship on a 1-inch grid for scaling purposes. The more I see of this project the more I think that there will be a LOT of drawings so my "1 week or so" estimate may be a little off...

Last week I had nothing to do at work and since we use Microstation there, I began this drawing while at work. If, when I go back next week, there is still nothing to do, I'll work on finishing it up there as well. This will help speed things up.

Phil


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Beautiful work X15-A2!

Are you working with Microstation at home, or just doing them as 2D for now?

Love that measuring grill, and that Metamorphosis rear measurement analysis.

ClubTepes, I know you are primarily concerned with doing an interior first and working outward.
By this time tommorrow I should have a ton more
info for you thanks to Professer Coffee's help, if you are interested.

Your exceptional work 4MadMen and Phil, is colescing into something incredibly beautiful. I feel like we're on the cusp of something incredible in the way of Galileo accuracy and planning.

You guys' work is so incredible I find myself hitting the "Refresh" button a couple of dozen times a night on the off chance that someones posted something new.

You guys have something really special going here.
Thank you tremendously!


----------



## Nova Designs

Well, this thread is just chock full of great information. I built a pretty good Shuttlecraft a while ago, but considering the references I had its not as accurate as it could be. Maybe after this is all said and done and you guys have a definitive set of meaurements, drawings... what have you... I'll rebuild mine. And maybe even include whatever interior will realistically fit 

Great work people. I read on with interest


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

It's incredible isn't it, Nova?

Here's links to the most crucial
pages:

http://www.ksent.com/members/~fourmadmen/shuttle/index.html

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

Keep in mind that these pages contain working views that are in flux. I would recommend members posting recommendations and observations here so tons of people don't repeat the same observations over and over again in individual emails, thus slowing the guys down.


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Guys,

I keep forgetting to mention that the long box with the little box at either end underneath the port side profile drawing on my site is the turn table from the hangar deck as measured from the "Immunity Syndrome" photo. You probably figured that out already but in case anybody was wondering, that is what it represents. The little boxes represent the circular stripe width.

Cheers,

Phil


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Phil, if possible could you please post a few views/analysis on your site that details how you brought the rear craft wall(impulse engine deck and angled walls beneath) against the rear side top and bottom walls. 4MadMen is I think working on that already, but I'm curious to see your solution/analysis to the join as well(even though both will probably be close to one another). It seems one of the most awkward parts to model as the wings at that point neither are perfectly vertical nor do they form an
"< >" shape either. Also the curves further back at the end of the top and bottom wings look like they curve oddly as well.

Could you do a section, or a few views/analysis on that?


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Chuck,

Right now my drawing exists only as some 2D drafting, I haven't gotten to the modeling part yet. I can post a section view of the aft side plates if you want to see that. On my version the inner surface of the hull side plate is a uniform arc from top to bottom with the curls added at the top and bottom. I used to believe that it was a "vee" shape (and I couldn't remember that area exactly from my visits to see it) but after studying the photos I realized that it is a arc. It may not be a uniform arc but perhaps some kind of compound curve or elipsoid but for simplicity, I made mine a uniform arc.

I posted three more screen caps of my drawings. One shows how the Hangar Deck fits into the Engineering hull in my 3D model of the Enterprise (I was getting some questions about that). It shows the deck populated with Shuttlecraft based on the TMOST drawing but blown up 125%. The two sets of vertical purple lines in front of the Hangar area represent bulkheads that provide structural carry-through for the Warp Drive pylons. These have cutouts and passthroughs in them which allow for corridors and Shuttlecraft movement from one side to the other. The second new screen cap is a size comparison of the Shuttlecraft mockup with the Enterprise...

And the third image shows something that probably most of us have thought about from time to time and is strictly for laughs...

The images are found here:

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

Cheers,

Phil


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

A rear 3/4 view of your original 3D model lines looks good on this detail, Phil. Although the slanted part under the impulse engine looks somewhat curved where it meets the side walls rather then sharply angular. How did they get the original to look so sharply angular at that join point? Any section views or other views you're willing to post would be appreciated.

Here is a detail pic that kind of shows the original's join line...


----------



## Richard Compton

Phil, I really liked those two images with the shuttlebay and the nacelle. Can you post a shuttlebay image from the top or looking aft?


----------



## StarshipClass

Phil: Great looking stuff on your site! :thumbsup: 

I liked the backyard drawings!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

I loved the backyard thing myself. However I own what you non-New Orleanians would call half of a duplex(we call them double-shotguns[all the rooms are arranged one after another with a hall to one side except in the parlors]). I'd half to convince my Aunt to lend me a couple of feet of her yardspace!!!!


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Guys,

I'm glad you liked those drawings, I thought you might get a kick out of the backyard study...

Chuck,

Okay, I have to play stupid here. I'm not sure what feature you are refering to on the rear of the Shuttlecraft, can you find a higher resolution image, perhaps of the mockup (or even my model, if it is on that), that shows what you mean? I don't see the sharp angle you are refering to.

Richard,

Unfortunately I don't have the other views of the Hangar Deck, it was only drawn as a longitudinal section through the ship. That drawing was only really intended to establish deck heights so I could adjust the windows on the exterior to heights that were coordinated with the interior. It also served to fix the length of the Hangar Deck but the other aspects of that area were worked out in 3D on the model itself. I could post section views of the model but that would be a bit of work and will have to wait until later. I need to get this Shuttlecraft drawing out of the way first.

Phil


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. I've been working on a set of plans I just got in and will forward you shortly for project use.

What I'm talking about is the way the rear part of the primary hull meets so flatly against the side top and bottom "wings," where if the outer slants were present on the inside the way they were on the outside the rear hull would be meet the wings in like this 
/[____]\
/ ______\
\_______/ 

instead of like this
[_____]
 \____/
\___/
It's how the curve of the inner parts of the wings meet the sides of the rear impulse engine and the where the back wall also meets the inner wing wall, which is neither truly vertical nor a very simple curve. It looks complicated as heck to model...

Here's a portion of one of your study pics that nicely shows how close to flat the rear engine and engine wall lines are where they meet the inside of the outer primary hull walls.


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Chuck,

I think I get what you are talking about now but I must admit that I don't see that intersection line as being straight. In fact, it can't be. The inner surface of the side plate is curved so the intersection line must be also. It is only a slight curve but it is curved. It could only be straight if the inner surface of the side plate was flat, which it obviously isn't if you study the photos of the mockup. That intersection only appears straight in that photo because you are seeing it from a position nearly 90 degrees to the side. From the profile point of view that intersection is nearly straight but from a rear view it reflects the curve of the inner surface of the hull side plate. So when you see it in a photo like the one you posted it does appear straight (the picture isn't sharp enough to clearly display the curve). I drew a straight line on the photo because I was ony interested in the gross angle of slope in the lower rear wall.

BTW, I have to retract my earlier comment about the geometry being correct on those sample drawings that I posted. Since posting those, I have gone back and done a lot of little fiddling with various details so things have changed a bit. The changes aren't major but the final drawings will be different from what I posted before. The biggest change is that the roof now has a slightly greater arch to it, my previous version was too flat I think. It now has a radius of 48 feet.

Phil


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

I understand that it's not perfectly straight. What I'm interested in is your solution for finding the correct side hull curvature and how it looks at the rear engine plane intersections, the sidewall seems like a combination of multiple curves.

I'm not looking so much for you to have to explain it, I wouldn't waste your time like that asking you to essentially teach me geometry, I mainly would be more then satisfied with pictures of the solved shapes once you get to rendering that section would be fine. A mention of some descriptions like "two simple curves and two mating ellipsoides," etc might be informative, but not necessary.


----------



## Four Mad Men

Well I made the mistake of not adding the outer radius (where the upper and lower hulls meet) to the lower hull much earlier in the building so getting the two joined took FOREVER! They are 98% joined, I have some minor joining to do in the front which includes about four faces that run front to back, which explains why you can see through the rear hull where the upper meets the lower in the back.

I'll get back to the front (and have a go at that curved surface in the back) after I take a break from my ever-so-fun joining adventure. Right now my break consists of adding some rear details.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Hey! Just do what I do. Use some extra thick CA glue, sprinkle with micronized fiberglass dust, a couple of quick sprays of CA Glue Kicker/Activator, and viola!

No putty necessary...

Oh wait... you're doing a 3D model.  

Nevermind... :freak:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Damn!
I stopped jibber-jabbering long enough to take a look at the picture in your post above, Four Mad Men!

It's really coming together now!
Hope you like that new interior info I sent you earlier.

I tried to send you as set as well X15-A2, but the messages started bouncing back. Think I got two through to you before that happened though.

Was in the middle of sending some files to some Club-something guy who hardly ever makes it to the boards anymore :tongue: 

when I hit my daily "transmit limit"(about 15MB max transmit per day which I never even knew existed before this project!). So that Clubber guy only got 4 files. I should be able to once again transmit more stuff tommorrow evening a little after this time.

So please use my non-juno address(without attaching too large if any files) to contact me until then. Or to make it simpler just hit the "Email" button, third from the left below, if you want to contact me to clarify anything.

Four Mad Men... Go get a Coca-Cola and a cookie and rest your mind for a couple of minutes! Don't want anyone keeling over in the middle of a render!

You're on the verge of some incredible renders!!!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Phil, out of curiosity, how do you develop your 3D models? As an artist,
are you used to doing them by hand rather then programming and that's why
you do manual electronic traces? Do you use a digi-pad, electronic pen, 3
button mouse, any combination of the above? Can you then take such
electronic drawings/tracings and capture them somehow, to help produce the
actual render? Or do these primarily help you straighten all the tons of
issues out in your mind, giving you an increased sense of clarity when
later doing the programming?


I'm interested in your creative process. How long have you been a
draftsman? You've been able to marry together traditional artistic skills,
rational deductive reasoning skills and a relatively new computer
discipline in a way that seem to work excellently. You should put together
a short "about the site owner" piece on your website about your background, etc. so that
people have more insight into how you have come to do what you do.


Another reason I ask about your drawing first, render last process is that
it suggests that there may be software designed to take multiple
orthographic views and help convert them into 3D objects? Or at least can
use orthographic views to assist in the creation of 3D objects. Do those
kinds of views ever truly provide enough info to allow programs to do that
sort of thing?



P.S. I'm sure some might balk at the term "relatively new computer
discipline" applied to 3D modeling or even rudimentary computer aided
drafting. I'm only 38, but I can still remember when computers were little
more then $7,000 glorified typewriters. So in that sense it seems new to me.


----------



## Pygar

Take a look at www.photomodeler.com and see what can be done with photos...


----------



## StarshipClass

Chuck_P.R. said:


> . . . I'm only 38, but I can still remember when computers were little
> more then $7,000 glorified typewriters . . .


  I remember those days! 

Before the days of home computers, I learned to type on a manual typewriter in H.S. and at home and it wasn't long after that that the manuals went away at least (I'm 41) to be replaced by IBM Selectrics. I remember using punchcards in computer classes in the early 80s.

Phil, I'd love to hear a little about your processes as well. Your site is one of the best ever on the net and your CGI is incredibly well done.


----------



## John P

We had a computer in high school in 1974. It took up a small room and had a mechanical keyboard and hardcopy printout only. No graphics at all, onviously - no screen! But beleive it or not, it had a Star Trek space combat game! Text only! The computer printed out a sheet of specs of where the Enterprise was, and a bearing and course to an attacking Klingon cruiser. You typed in, using aplhanumeric code, "Fire one photon torpedo, bearing 145 mark 7." The computer responded "Hit on klingon engine. 20% damage. Klingon returns fire. Hit on Enterprise saucer. shields hold. Klingon course change to 288 mark 340" etc, etc, etc. Only all that was in code, not English. The geeks knew how to play it well, and it was quite exciting at the time!


----------



## Trek Ace

Oh, you kids and your newfangled toys!


----------



## Four Mad Men

Ah, memories! Let's not forget the ASCII are you could print. Snoopy, Mr. Spock, nude woman...

In fact I may still have the Mr. Spock! I'll have to check.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Interesting link, Pygar! Although after reading the literature it not so prominently suggests that even a $895 bucks this program doesn't do the work in a fully automatic fashion, plus it requires two or more overlapping photos from different angles.

It's very possible that it requires little user input and I'm reading too much into the descriptions, but then again that's a near $900 buck gamble. However, the customer base I think the program is aimed at probably would have no qualms with the price. Probably well worth it in time and money for guys doing forensic, crash-scene analysis, archaelogists, etc. who rountinely do tons of manual overlays etc.. For them virtually any time saved would make such a program worth it.

Thanks again for the link though. It's great to know what's out there. With all the great advances in computer hardware of the past several years it's good to know that at least a few people are concentrating on software development. So much computer power is made irrelevant by the fact that few programs ever really take advantage of the resources available.

Send me an email, Pygar. I have some info I'd like to send you.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Just to keep them visible on the most current page...

Here's links to the most crucial
pages:

http://www.ksent.com/members/~fourmadmen/shuttle/index.html

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

Keep in mind that these pages contain working views that are in flux. I would recommend members posting recommendations and observations here so tons of people don't repeat the same observations over and over again in individual emails, thus slowing the guys down.


----------



## Trek Ace

Maybe this'll help you guys out.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Gorgeous Trek Ace!

I've never seen that one before.
If you have a higher res pic you could email me I'd appreciate it. Also, I found a set of those blues I was asking you about, so don't worry about looking for them. Hope the move is going okay.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Some of the people I've been corresponding with have a problem I sometimes have myself - constantly filled mailboxes. I haven't been able to get a message to Trekkist(David Winfrey) for a couple of months because of this.

One completely free fix(or help) for this problem is a Juno account. A long time ago they originally provided free email only service. Now they do limited access free internet and email service.

I wouldn't recommend you use them as your primary service provider, but I like a neat feature that their email portion of the service has, or at least version 4.0 still has, and I'm reasonably confident the new one still has it.

Their email module uses different numbers and/or connections that are stand alone to their web service. When you retrieve your emails without first being logged onto the net, it will dial up, download the messages to your computer, and then hang up automatically(of course, just like on the web or with any service don't open emails or attachments from people you don't know and always have at least shareware virus protection at the ready).

It is real handy to have it just dial up, download(mailbox has either a 2MB or 2.5MB limit and It wont let you send more then about 15MB of stuff in a 24 hour period at which time it then resets and you can send up to another 15MB, low but good considering it's free) and automatically hang up. It's also good to be able to compose completely offline and then send without having to wait for it to finish and manually log off.

The biggest advantage though is that it ends up not being full most of the time - tremendously less bounced messages!

here is a link to the download page for anyone who is interested:

http://my.juno.com/s/download


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Phil, a request...

I loved the nacelle scrap view with realworld measurements, which I know you are planing to redo later on. When you do redo it, and do the same kind of stuff for the rest of the ship, could you please insert the metric equivalent accurate to as many decimal places possible/practical in parenthesis behind the English measurements?

I realize that the carpenters building the Galileo didn't use metric at all, but I think metric measurements would be easier to precisely convert down for those of us who might want to build a small scale model. Those kind of measurements would even help us choose things like the right thickness balsa, wood, or copper sheeting for the side primary hull walls, etc.

Of course, I'd still like to see what the real world carpenter's English measurements were. Besides, someone with more funds then I may decide to do a new full scale too someday. Maybe even one that's upscaled to include an accurate interior.


----------



## Four Mad Men

My brain hurts. I feel like I didn't get anything done this weekend when I've worked on it all day today. I took a stab at the back (port side only -- good thing there's a mirror function, I'd hate to know I had to do it again for the other side). I'm not really satisfied at how it ended up but have a look and let me know what you think.



I'm off to do some wireframes and I'll check back in a little while.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Four Mad Men said:


> My brain hurts. I feel like I didn't get anything done this weekend when I've worked on it all day today. I took a stab at the back (port side only -- good thing there's a mirror function, I'd hate to know I had to do it again for the other side). I'm not really satisfied at how it ended up but have a look and let me know what you think.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm off to do some wireframes and I'll check back in a little while.


It may be that there is a little too much curve in the bottom part although I can't really say one way or the other because of the shadowing and the gaps below and above the engine module. Between the gaps and the shadowing it's hard to evaluate the lines. Don't worry about the small circled gap if it would immediately require you to do too much work on the roof, but could you perhaps fix the one in the large green circle and perhaps post a better lit version(or wireframe version) that would allow me to see the true lines better?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Here is another good shot of the rear line.

Please ignore the added text, roofline stuff.
I didn't add it, not sure where the shot originally 
came from. The person wasn't aware that the side wings
slope upward, more then the roof sloping
downward.


----------



## Four Mad Men

That's an interesting picture you have *Chuck*, it almost looks like the upper part of the "curve" is almost vertical (a flat curve?).

OK, no time to mess with the lighting much but this one shows the lines pretty well. The new lines that is (yes I tweaked it somemore). The top is better I think. I hope the bottom is (at least) not worse.



Also, those interior drawings are just what the doctor ordered thanks!
Wireframe update... Having a slight problem with those, not sure if it's me or Blender. I'll check -- one way or the other I'll get the wires posted Monday night/Tuesday morning.


----------



## X15-A2

Aaaahhh...

I think there is now too much stuff on this BB for me to respond to!

Chuck,

I'm using Microstation which is a fully functional 2D and 3D drawing tool. When something is drawn in 2D it can be imported into a 3D environment and utilized. Microstation works with both solids and surfaces and can change items from one to the other. I gather that 4 Mad Men is building his model as surfaces? This seems like the "hard way" to me. The 2D info I develop can be used to make extrusions from closed shapes or surfaces from same. Having a good set of 2D plans is a huge help in Microstation, greatly speeding the model building effort. However, that is not why I'm making these Shuttlecraft plans. I want a fully dimensioned set of drawings (when working in Microstation you don't need the dimensions because the vector line work itself can be used as modeling tools) so that this subject can be built in any software that has dimension driven tools. In my case I plan to make a model in Lightwave. At work (Boeing) we use the three-button mouse for M-station but at home I use the regular two-button variety. I'm not using a digitizing tablet for my projects, I can import the pictures as backgrounds into M-station and trace them directly on the screen. You want metric equivalent dimensions too?? Yikes... That is how we do the illustrations at work. It will depend upon how much work it turns out to be. I may just leave that up to the user to workout for themselves if they want that information.

About me:

My story is that I've been drawing since 1st grade, I taught myself parallelism & one-point perspective before leaving elementary school and more recently have taught myself Photoshop, Solidworks & Lightwave (books have helped of course with these). So drawing has been a part of my life for nearly 41 years (I'm 46 so I guess that makes me the "Geezer Statesman" of the group...). I made my first mold and fiberglass castings in elementary school too (a Pistol Phaser & Communicator, what else..?) and over the years have acquired the nick-name "Mr Fiberglass" from my friends because of my many projects including an unfinished copy of the Batbike from the '60s TV series. I draw contour control drawings for fun...(anyone who has ever tried that knows how much work it is) which have included a Thunderbird #2 and the "Straker" car from UFO (I hope to get these into shape for posting to the web site too). I started drawing plans from photos when I first learned that 8x10s from movies could be bought in Hollywood (1973) and I then began amassing the collection you see on my web site. Eventually I hope to have plans posted of each subject found on my site but that is a huge undertaking and will likely never be completed. I also have a huge collection of copies of original studio blueprints of many subjects, electronic tracings of which I hope to post in the future too (I don't make copies of them so please don't ask). I love filmmaking, model scratch building, general design & history (with an emphasis on aviation history).

Trek Ace,

Do you have the whole photo survey that Shuttlecraft profile shot is from and could I get large-size scans (2000 pixels wide) to post on my web site?

Phil


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Four Mad Men said:


> That's an interesting picture you have *Chuck*, it almost looks like the upper part of the "curve" is almost vertical (a flat curve?).
> 
> OK, no time to mess with the lighting much but this one shows the lines pretty well. The new lines that is (yes I tweaked it somemore). The top is better I think. I hope the bottom is (at least) not worse.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, those interior drawings are just what the doctor ordered thanks!
> Wireframe update... Having a slight problem with those, not sure if it's me or Blender. I'll check -- one way or the other I'll get the wires posted Monday night/Tuesday morning.


Perfect! Gorgeous! Go with those lines!(Except for the roof join of course, I realize it may take you awhile to move the top of the roof flush with the side wall as it's such a large object). Every on the side wall except for that small piece above the engine looks dead-on accurate! Beautiful work! 

Do you have enough info to do the recess
for the landing strut(realizing you'll probably do the strut later)?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

X15-A2 said:


> You want metric equivalent dimensions too?? Yikes... That is how we do the illustrations at work. It will depend upon how much work it turns out to be. I may just leave that up to the user to workout for themselves if they want that information.


That's not a problem at all. Perhaps you would consider the measurement placement area when you do them so as to draw the numbers in locations where there is enough room to squeeze the
metric in? If worse comes to worse I can just copy them twice and do one that I would insert metric measurements into myself, so even if you can't always find measurement label locations that have nearby free space it's not a major deal.



X15-A2 said:


> About me:
> 
> My story is that I've been drawing since 1st grade, I taught myself parallelism & one-point perspective before leaving elementary school and more recently have taught myself Photoshop, Solidworks & Lightwave (books have helped of course with these). So drawing has been a part of my life for nearly 41 years (I'm 46 so I guess that makes me the "Geezer Statesman" of the group...). I made my first mold and fiberglass castings in elementary school too (a Pistol Phaser & Communicator, what else..?) and over the years have acquired the nick-name "Mr Fiberglass" from my friends because of my many projects including an unfinished copy of the Batbike from the '60s TV series. I draw contour control drawings for fun...(anyone who has ever tried that knows how much work it is) which have included a Thunderbird #2 and the "Straker" car from UFO (I hope to get these into shape for posting to the web site too). I started drawing plans from photos when I first learned that 8x10s from movies could be bought in Hollywood (1973) and I then began amassing the collection you see on my web site. Eventually I hope to have plans posted of each subject found on my site but that is a huge undertaking and will likely never be completed. I also have a huge collection of copies of original studio blueprints of many subjects, electronic tracings of which I hope to post in the future too (I don't make copies of them so please don't ask). I love filmmaking, model scratch building, general design & history (with an emphasis on aviation history).


Interesting, creative life. In many ways you have a lot in common with Franz Joseph. Of course all of his aviation and other work was done with pen and ink.

Once again I have to thank you for your involvement in our BB project. Words can't express how much I appreciate and admire your work. We're lucky to have your interest and time.

I'll try to take up less time with less important issues, don't mean to slow down your drafting fun! But since I can't be there to sit over your shoulder as you draw them I sometimes ramble to make the waiting and anticipation more bearable.


----------



## MGagen

Pygar said:


> Take a look at www.photomodeler.com and see what can be done with photos...


If you want a free program and don't mind an academic level interface check out:

Panorama Tools 

This is a suite of tools primarily intended to create seamless panoramas. They also do much more -- things like removing lens distortion and correcting viewpoints. One of the applications allows you create a measureable 3D model from two or more photographs of a subject.

Before you get too excited, though, it's a very involved process. But hey, at least it costs nothing to try it out.

Mark Gagen


----------



## X15-A2

Chuck,

I just posted an image showing a section view of the hull side-plate from my drawing with a few dimensions for reference. I hope you find this useful.

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

Phil


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Gorgeous X15-A2! 

The perfect set of details I was looking for.
Just please indulge one incredibly ignorant question though:

What do the "R"s stand for?


----------



## X15-A2

Chuck,

"R" = "Radius"

Phil


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Phil, FourMadMen, anybody who wants to see some incredible Galileo pics go to:

http://www.trekplace.com/articles/article11.shtml

ASAP!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

To keep the info visible on each page, for convience sake here's the links to the key Galileo Project pages:

http://www.ksent.com/members/~fourmadmen/shuttle/index.html

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

Keep in mind that these pages contain working views that are in flux. I would recommend members posting recommendations and observations here so tons of people don't repeat the same observations over and over again in individual emails, thus slowing the guys down.


----------



## Four Mad Men

Hey now those offer some interesting peeks at how that was built (or re-built as the case may be).

It's been a busy few day and I've not had to opportunity to work on this (productively) as much as I would have liked but I'm going to try and get some stuff done Tuesday night and Wednesday. So be on the lookout for an update soon.


----------



## Four Mad Men

X15-A2 said:


> Aaaahhh...
> I gather that 4 Mad Men is building his model as surfaces? This seems like the "hard way" to me. The 2D info I develop can be used to make extrusions from closed shapes or surfaces from same. Having a good set of 2D plans is a huge help in Microstation, greatly speeding the model building effort.


Actually everything on this shuttle was created by extruding this shape and that shape (with the exception of the nacelle caps). Although I can look back and see 2 big mistakes I made when starting.

1) I didn't create a single shape for the upper and lower parts like I should have.
2) I didn't add the small radius to the lower portion (where it meets the upper half) before extrusion (Perhaps the biggest error on my part) and ended manually "welding" it on.
3) Tackling the rearend curvature on too little rest and plenty of distractions.

---The rest are just ramblings, read as you see fit---

Now bear in mind that I started this shuttle to replace one I had lost and was just going to make one that was reasonably representative of the on screen version. While true I wanted to make in really detailed (inside and out) I had not planned on it actually being compared in an overlay for the "real" thing. I'll probably before it's over correct the above mistakes if only to see how long it would take to re-do the main outer shell now that I'm intimately familiar with the shape.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Granted I know little about 3D drafting, Four Mad Men, but as long as the "weld" isn't mismatched and looks right - no harm done.

Looks like you've got the shuttlecraft exteriors about 95% done. I wouldn't go back and restart from scratch as long as the contours and lines are correct, at least until after your current exterior renders are done. The prize of a gorgeous, complete exterior model is within your grasp. Don't worry about reaching backward when you can be reaching forward.

Can't wait to see those updates. Does Blender have an option, in wireframe mode, to turn off the normally non-visible underlying lines? I'd love to see both the transparent and non-transparent wirelines when you do you next updates. The transparent line mode can sometimes be hard to follow.

The one you just posted is gorgeous. Just have to stare at it for awhile to wrap my brain around which line is which.

Keep up the great work. You are inches away from finishing a gorgeous exterior, don't second guess the value of what you have already accomplished.

Just go for it! You are inches away from success.


----------



## Four Mad Men

And I guess while were at it.

My Story:

I grew up in England watching the subjects of Phil's contour drawings. The Thunderbirds, UFO, Captain Scarlet, great stuff. I illustrated my first book (badly) in the second grade and was all set to be the next world famous architect when my school got one of those (above mentioned) teletype terminals. Eventually those started to be replaced with stand alone "computers". And that term is used very loosely!

Fast forward several decades and I'm Mr. Global Circumnavigator who's traveling to all the worst parts of the best countries (and the reverse) doing freelance work in the Computer Industry. Fast forward a few more years and I've hung up my passport and here I sit working on the a Starfleet Shuttle.

I've lived on or near (AF) Military bases my whole life and planes are in my blood. My Uncle was shot down in Korea (but that's another story all together). I've even got to fly and Itialian F-260 last year (official member of the 4+g club). I have a brand new workshop that I'm currently wiring and one of the first projects for this Fall will be my 2'-3' TOS Shuttle, and I guess I'll try to squeeze in a few projects for the house. Apart from wood working and 3D models I like astronomy, DV production and legos (the real ones). And yes, I still "play" with them and am not afraid to admit it.


----------



## Four Mad Men

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Granted I know little about 3D drafting, Four Mad Men, but as long as the "weld" isn't mismatched and looks right - no harm done.
> 
> Looks like you've got the shuttlecraft exteriors about 95% done. I wouldn't go back and restart from scratch as long as the contours and lines are correct, at least until after your current exterior renders are done. The prize of a gorgeous, complete exterior model is within your grasp. Don't worry about reaching backward when you can be reaching forward.
> 
> Can't wait to see those updates. Does Blender have an option, in wireframe mode, to turn off the normally non-visible underlying lines? I'd love to see both the transparent and non-transparent wirelines when you do you next updates. The transparent line mode can sometimes be hard to follow.
> 
> The one you just posted is gorgeous. Just have to stare at it for awhile to wrap my brain around which line is which.
> 
> Keep up the great work. You are inches away from finishing a gorgeous exterior, don't second guess the value of what you have already accomplished.
> 
> Just go for it! You are inches away from success.


I know you, you just want those wireframes I keep promising and not delivering on! 

I'm actually one step ahead of you there and have a line out on a plugin that will render in wireframe with hidden line removal (you'd think that would be built in). It's solid or full wire if I can't track it down. On the other hand If I can't find one what I can do is hide parts of the model and just render selected portions seperately.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Impressive, Four Mad Men. I hope to one day travel to England, Ireland and Italy. Not too interested in France or Germany, other then perhaps Alsace-Lorraine(my family on my father's side originally came to New Orleans from there in the 1850's, Ireland on my mother's side during the same decade).


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Four Mad Men said:


> I know you, you just want those wireframes I keep promising and not delivering on!
> 
> I'm actually one step ahead of you there and have a line out on a plugin that will render in wireframe with hidden line removal (you'd think that would be built in). It's solid or full wire if I can't track it down. On the other hand If I can't find one what I can do is hide parts of the model and just render selected portions seperately.


That would be great. Don't get me wrong, I'm also intensely interested in seeing the solids with your latest changes. As long as there weren't any strong shadows and they were a good resolution, solids would serve the same purpose as any of the conventional blueprints yet done on the Galileo. But you are so close to having something way beyond that it's indescribable.

Did you read Aridas Sofia's comment in the TrekBBS Art forum?


----------



## Four Mad Men

I actually haven't been there recently. I'll probably hop over there when it's time to post an update in my Shuttle Thread. If it's good you can tell me now if you want, otherwise I'll wait to track it down during my update.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

I'd consider it very good, Four Mad Men.

Here's a direct quote from Aridas:

" I want to commend both of you on the great work you're doing, as well as everyone that's participating in that thread. I have been lurking, amazed at some of the things even a fanatic like me that has pored over photos of the original full scale(?) and miniature shuttlecraft didn't know. Truly impressive, and the resulting plans (and 3D model) will be something I will make certain I download.

Thanks for your attention to detail."


from,
http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/show...355398&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=7&fpart=1


----------



## Four Mad Men

Just got back from leaving a quick response to him. And as I said overthere "High praise indeed".

As you may or may not have guessed I'm goofing off from my Shuttlework tonight but I did (mostly) finish one piece of interior dressing...











OK, that's actually something I did sometime ago but as I said I'm goof... er catching up on paperwork.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Nice. You should check out Master Replica's phaser. I'm unfortunately too Catholic to drop $400 bucks on a phaser, but it's nice to dream...


----------



## Pygar

Well, I d/led the Writers Guide images that show the shuttle, from the Vault. And I put them in Photodeluxe, measured them and the scale bars. And learned the width "was" about 14 feet and the length, averaged between the two images, "was" about 22 feet. I have completely wasted my time, but figure if I post this I can maybe keep someone else from doing the same. My big contribution. Whoopee...


----------



## StarshipClass

^^Every little bit helps!


----------



## Richard Compton

Phil, after you mentioned that you'd check out the Palm Springs Air Museum to see if they had the shuttle there, I emailed one of their curators to ask about it. I was clear that it might not be an official exhibit, but might just be located at the air museum, possibly in storage or something. I just got a reply saying that they don't have it anywhere at the museum.

I don't know though, it could be somewhere he's not aware of. What was your information placing it at the museum?


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Richard,

Thanks for checking that out. It was just a rumor, I don't even remember who told it to me. The mockup is probably still in Ohio. Oh well...

We'll have to keep hunting.

Phil


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

X15-A2 said:


> Hi Richard,
> 
> Thanks for checking that out. It was just a rumor, I don't even remember who told it to me. The mockup is probably still in Ohio. Oh well...
> 
> We'll have to keep hunting.
> 
> Phil


I heard a bunch of bums at some place called Skunkworks had their best people on it. Apparently they heard that like a hunk of junk they designed, the Shuttlecraft could take off vertically and horizontally using just one engine.

Unlike the skunkwork hunk a' junk though, the Galileo doesn't need 16,000 extra moving parts to go vertical... :tongue:


----------



## trekkist

Damn. Go offline for a few days and...

I'm running out of reading time at the moment -- gotta work a little bit tonight, anyway -- so am risking posting without (mea culpa, yeah) having read past page 9 or so of this thread. At the risk, then, of being redundant:

1)the difference in slant of the interior and exterior walls is, if I recall, only extant in the FRONT wall....and not too noticable in most on-screen views. I first became aware of this discrepancy through seeing a behind-the-scenes shot of Spock at the controls in "Immunity Syndrome," which revealed not only said angular contrast, but the interior set's left "wild" (removable) wall. To clarify: the inside front is nearer to the vertical by some 15 degrees than the outside shell. Thus, front "windows" are either viewscreens (despite the use of "shutters" in various episodes) or thicker at the bottom than the top. 

2)Issues of the side walls being too thick for phaser lockers and such are resolved by the fact of the interior and exterior proportions being different. Which is to say: once you lengthen the ship to contain the (depicted) interior, said interior's height and width are considerably less than the exterior's (as well as being of a slightly different shape). In effect, the interior is short and wide, the exterior tall and narrow...but so much wider it nonetheless gives, oh, 3-4 feet "interwall" space on either side. Plenty of room for, well, anything: airlock, space suit storage, bathroom facilities, fuel & etc (not much room under the deck for that, Scotty's reaching down into a tech well in "G7" notwithstanding).

3)As to the nacelles' alleged toe-in: given this is seen in (I think -- like I said, not quite fully up to speed here, in my eagerness to...well, I'll get to that) a single shot of the underside of the studio miniature, taken MANY years after the show's airing: could not the nacelles have, well, shifted? Just a hair?

In closing: being, for a few more weeks, 44, I've often thought of changing my "name" to Trekgeezer -- in which capacity, let me say, where were you folks in 1987  or whatever bygone year it was I sat down at my homemade light table (cue violins) to grow many a hemmorhoid dissecting the "mass of conflicting impulses" that was the Galileo? Boy I had fun...but sharing said fun with more ears than my at-first-bemused, then somewhat-tolerant, at last...well, you get the drift...then-girlfriend would have been a barrel of monkeys.

Anyway...it's a sincere delight (I am NOT being sarcastic...I'm just a pretentious semi-old English major, is all) to watch from the sidelines as both precision and many an eye is applied to this quixotic project (sort of ratifies my madness, after the fact), not to mention, to see the product (I particularly liked the Galileo atop a 1701 nacelle...good place for a date, I'd say). Sorry for not having gotten my own stuff both updated and out there; lots of real-life BS and too little gumption, is all. Best of luck, all. I'll drop by in 24 hours or so, get up to speed, and see if I've anything else to contribute. 

And BTW: I'm flattered to see my blues reviews picked up and "reprinted." I enjoyed writing 'em, and hoped they'd be of use (as well as not come off as self-pandering....which I guess they don't). Damn shame we'll never see a professional compilation of all the stuff fans have put out for all these years. I've seen a good deal of it online...but not all...and (being somewhat a geezer) prefer hardcopy (which to date beats soft for reading in the john).

David Winfrey


----------



## trekkist

P.S.

Hey Phil,

PM me your address and I'll mail you copy o' the blues, with my blessing they be posted on your site. The work here is fast looking to make my one-of-these-days revision moot, save I go (I can dream, right?) full-blown-tech-manual & color, complete with real live "scale girls" (I'm thinking of an optional semi-nude version, ala "Low Rider" type car & truck magazines; any takers on that product?), and given my current lack of a scanner, and the doubtless soon-to-come queries as to the nature of the "Immunity" non-screen capture aforementioned, who am I to stand in the face of progress? 

David Winfrey


----------



## StarshipClass

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I heard a bunch of bums at some place called Skunkworks had their best people on it. Apparently they heard that like a hunk of junk they designed, the Shuttlecraft could take off vertically and horizontally using just one engine.
> 
> Unlike the skunkwork hunk a' junk though, the Galileo doesn't need 16,000 extra moving parts to go vertical... :tongue:


I think I saw it at Eglin AFB in Florida recently undergoing test flights -- wait, maybe I just dreamed the whole thing


----------



## StarshipClass

David:

Good to have you back amongst the cyber-living!

I was recently going over your G7 plans and am still totally amazed at the amount of detail that you have crammed into them. They are themselves perfectly good references in and of themselves. 

I may actually be making use of your heavily armored shuttlecraft plans first. Got a conversion in mind for the AMT Galileo kit. The rear of the HA looks an awful lot like the front of the G7. :devil:


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Everybody,

Hello David, nice to make your cyber-acquaintance! I would be pleased to host your plans on my site. You (everybody) can reach me at either of these two email addresses:

[email protected]
[email protected]

They are both pretty full so large batches of images files may need to be sent in small groups.

My drawing of the Shuttlecraft will actually be of the exterior mockup only, and later a separate drawing of the interior set. The mandate of this thread was to create the "ultimate plans" of it but that goal is not really possible. I say this because any "fully integrated" interior/exterior version can only be an opinion, based on which features the given designer feels are most important to preserve (it not being possible to keep everything). So I will be concentrating on defining the set pieces as built, then everyone else can use them as a basis from which to make their own integrated version. So your drawings will not be obsolete (if that was what you were getting at).

I like the idea of the girl posing on the Shuttlecraft too, official "Starfleet pin-up calendar"? Can a Shuttlecraft be "lowered"? Hmmm...

About the design:

Has anyone considered the Shuttlecraft hatch(s)? The main hatch cannot be built the way they originally showed it because the two filming sets had different designs. Both had a draw-bridge style lower panel which is fine, it doesn't present a problem. But the upper double-panel portion does. In the exterior, those doors retract inwards then to the sides (there was a really cool mechanism inside the mockup that operated the entire door sequence by simply pulling a big lever mounted to the floor) while the interior shows simple pocket doors. If one uses the pocket doors (which probably makes the most sense) then you won't have the nice flush fit on the exterior. Its a small change but noticable.

Also, the Shuttlecraft should encorporate a docking hatch too. My thinking is either on the roof or floor of the aft compartment. Has anybody else given this detail any thought?

Phil


----------



## StarshipClass

X15-A2 said:


> Also, the Shuttlecraft should encorporate a docking hatch too. My thinking is either on the roof or floor of the aft compartment. Has anybody else given this detail any thought?
> 
> Phil


IIRC, David has suggested that there is a hatch in the aft compartment.


----------



## Four Mad Men

I've actually considered both of those details and taking them in reverse order:

Docking Port --

If you wish to have some sort of "traditional" docking ring the forward cabin compartment is really the only part that will allow such a structure without drastically changing the outward appearance of the underside structure. With that said the compartment just aft of the main cabin is the logical choice as it could double as an airlock. Although having your "engineering section" double as an airlock is dubious at best. If I were to do such a thing at the moment I'd probably go with the idea of an emergency/eva hatch (i.e. need to get out or work on the exterior without compromising main cabin pressure) that would not really be used for docking purposes.

Doors --

I've considered both options you've mentioned and have even considered a third and fourth. But before I get to mine let's recap the others.

1) Pocket doors: While it is perhaps the best compromise the non-"flushness" of the outer hull bothers me. Although I'll submit that you can have both pocket doors and a flush exterior (see #3). That would require a change to the way the interior looks to the passengers but that is not really a big deal to me.

2) The other way: Don't really have a name for this one but it's really just a deviation of the pocket door idea. Except that instead of the doors being housed in between inner and outer hull plates, the interior cabin is "the pocket". Starting flush with the outside they move inward and seperate into the cabin. This would mean all those mechanisms would be visible from the interior. Not really my ideal situation.

3) Have something like a sliding door on a minivan but "reversed". Instead of starting flush and moving out then open have it move in and then open (into pockets). Having really thought about the specifics of this and perhaps it's not really feasible but it's food for thought at least. If not you might go the full minivan route and just have then pop out and slide open. This would change the looks of the open door exterior and would also require a visible opening for the track mechanism.

4) Forget the sliding door and make the upper part similar to the lower part and have it open Delorian style. Much like the "air tram" that we see in "The Motion Picture" that delivers Admiral Kirk to Starfleet HQ.


----------



## MGagen

First off -- 

Trekkist (David), Good to have you here at last. A thread like this begs for your input.

Second --

On the subject of the doors, I submit that what was _seen_ on screen is perfectly feasable:

The doors look like pocket doors from the inside, but the outside shows them moving in before sliding... Obviously the doors themselves are made to compress, with the outer face moving in before sliding into the pocket. This could even be part of the locking/sealing mechanism, since they would be incapable of opening until the outer surface moves in. 

Mark


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

He lives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thought I was going to have to start a "In Search of Trekkist" screenplay!!!!!!!

I've been trying to get in touch with you for quite awhile, but your PM box has been full all that time and a few months ago I had my motherboard and hard drive fried so your email address was lost.

Since you gave forum members permission to share copies/scans of your plans in the old Galileo thread(I think there is a link on page 1) I've located and distributed copies among the project participants.

However, I did so only with the express agreement by all that they would respect your wishes and not post them on the web for download.

If it's okay for the main project drafters, Phil and Four Mad Men, to do so I'll send Phil the rest of the pages. I sent all of them to Four Mad Men, but Phil's mailboxes have been bouncing.

Phil email me and let me know what actual page numbers you received(from the file names) and clear out those mailboxes.

Also, of course, since you don't have a scanner I'd be happy to email you a set of the scans as well, Trekkist. I know you want to someday revise them so maybe that would help you along those lines.

Once again, thanks for joining us!

This is perfect timing as Four Mad Men is close to finishing his exteriors. Check out his page http://www.ksent.com/members/~fourmadmen/shuttle/index.html and let him know if it's okay that he host your plans as well. He is supposed to be doing a major update to it tonight/tommorrow AM so hit the refresh button occasionally when checking his site.

Any help, suggestions/observations you can make would be greatly appreciated.

Welcome back!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

PerfesserCoffee said:


> IIRC, David has suggested that there is a hatch in the aft compartment.


On the airlock issue...

That "door to aft compartment" that David suggested I think was intended to lead to a Water Closet(toilet) based on the text of some of his plans. While he also mentioned also that there might be an airlock, I can't see where having both via that one door.

It's perfectly true that McCoy and Mears make unexplained rear entrances. But I wouldn't try to solve that scriptwriter's entrance error by trying to fit both of those behind that small cavity. You would end up with virtually zero mechanics room.

Personally I'm inclined to leave the shuttle without an extra exit/airlock. But if one were to be drawn I would definitely draw it on the bottom and then suggest that there was some hidden floor panel to the back of the main cabin from the floor panel where Scotty accessed the fuel lines. That way you would at least not be defying any of what was seen on screen.

I'm attaching a pic below that would have the approximate position of where such an airlock would go. It could be placed within the inner edge of where the filming miniatures "bottom ridge" ends. This positioning being under the rear of the cabin is roughly based on the interior position in Trekkist's rescaled exterior.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

On the door issue, I'm strongly opposed to seeing the exterior doors looking drastically different. 

I think that the best solution would be to have a seperate set of pocket doors on the inside and have the hull walls designed thick enough to hold both. That way at least the exterior would remain true, and the interior could as well(except for perhaps the width, which also might be fixed to some degree by thickened hull walls.) Then the only point where the interior and exterior might disagree is the connection between the two.

The only other possible point is one I made a few post back. The door control on the interior is above the door. When the door grows in size with the resizing that might be impractical. It might make more sense to move the door control to a point in the interior parallel to the door control on the exterior.

The only other issue in letting the door size(as opposed to design) grow with the upscaling of the exterior is the window height. However, since the windows and doors are low to begin with even lowering the windows might not be necessary.

If it turns out that it is, that wouldn't be a tremendously obvious change as would changing the exterior design of the doors themselves.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

To keep the info visible on each page, for convience sake here's the links to the key Galileo Project pages:

http://www.ksent.com/members/~fourmadmen/shuttle/index.html

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

Keep in mind that these pages contain working views that are in flux. I would recommend members posting recommendations and observations here so tons of people don't repeat the same observations over and over again in individual emails, thus slowing the guys down.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Trekkist, a question about something you said in your review of Allen Everhart's Galileo plans.

You said that FJ had access to the original Galileo.
A TrekBBS member who corresponds with FJ's daughter took polite issue with that, and said FJ's daughter doesn't agree with that assessment.

I guessed, and posited the opinion, that since FJ's daughter herself has mentioned that she enjoyed the fact that she and her friends could hop in a car and go visit the Galileo mockup on the front lawn of a guy who lived nearby;

that what you were talking about the fact that FJ knew exactly where the full-scale mockup was. Knew his daughter and friends had gone there to take pictures with it, etc...

that what you meant by access is that he could have hopped in a car at any time and seen it himself.

Is my guess correct?

(The fact that he didn't and could have also boggles my mind! But is nonetheless in keeping with his characteristic "aloofness.")


----------



## X15-A2

Hi David,

I tried the PM feature to send you my address but it reports that your mail box is full. If you have another email address that I can use, please send it to one of my two accounts (listed above) so I can pass along the info.

Thanks,

Phil


----------



## Richard Compton

I like the idea of the doors compressing then sliding into the walls. However, having two doors solves that problem as well.

As far as an airlock, I don't think it's necessary. We've seen many shuttles that had no airlock. Some did, yes, but it's not necessary. The sound of a door opening in the aft cabin (sounding just like the main door), and McCoy and the girl reporting that something is going on outside suggests that that's where they were. But again, I don't think it's necesary. They could have been looking at a viewscreen, or gotten word on their communicators.

If you put in a docking port or second exit, you could make one of the hull panels, either above or below, slide into the front hull. I'm not looking at the plans right now to see if there's a place that this would work on the shuttle.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Phil,

If you email me telling me which sheets you received from me(by filename, I don't know if I sent them in order), I'll email you the ones you don't have. You could be posting them by tonight.


----------



## Four Mad Men

Getting closer...

 

Chuck,

Couldn't help it. Had to. Only took a few hours. I re-modeled the entire hull. Hull details and inner cabin remain from the old one. Also got a nice start of the pylons and rear landing strut and pad. Wireframes by this weekend, I promise (and I mean it this time!).


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Four Mad Men said:


> Getting closer...
> 
> Chuck,
> 
> Couldn't help it. Had to. Only took a few hours. I re-modeled the entire hull. Hull details and inner cabin remain from the old one. Also got a nice start of the pylons and rear landing strut and pad. Wireframes by this weekend, I promise (and I mean it this time!).


I may let it slide THIS time... :freak: 

On one condition... Please, please, please repost the orthographic views you did with your old model.

Anyway you could turn on some lights in that room you're keepin' that shuttle in? :tongue:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

To keep the info visible on each page, for convience sake here's the links to the key Galileo Project pages:

http://www.ksent.com/members/~fourmadmen/shuttle/index.html

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

Keep in mind that these pages contain working views that are in flux. I would recommend members posting recommendations and observations here so tons of people don't repeat the same observations over and over again in individual emails, thus slowing the guys down.


----------



## Four Mad Men

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I may let it slide THIS time... :freak:
> 
> On one condition... Please, please, please repost the orthographic views you did with your old model.
> 
> Anyway you could turn on some lights in that room you're keepin' that shuttle in? :tongue:


That's very big of you, Thanks. Do you mean re-render the orthos with the new model? Because the old model orthos are still on the Shuttle Contruction Page. :wave: 

Ooops. Didn't even notice (was too busy basking in the glory) that I didn't activate the layer that contains the fill light.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Four Mad Men said:


> That's very big of you, Thanks. Do you mean re-render the orthos with the new model? Because the old model orthos are still on the Shuttle Contruction Page. :wave:


Yep. Those 12 views on your page are the ones I was talking about. Was wondering if you could do with the new model what you did with those. Maybe with the strut removed for the time being. I'm hoping to get more info on it.  

On the glory issue, you deserve it!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Check your email for more strut info...
Just sent you some more stuff.


----------



## Four Mad Men

And one more just because I can't seem to tear myself away from the computer...



I made a larger one for my desktop wallpaper -- I love that angle! The reflection of the underside came out nice too.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

trekkist said:


> 3)As to the nacelles' alleged toe-in: given this is seen in (I think -- like I said, not quite fully up to speed here, in my eagerness to...well, I'll get to that) a single shot of the underside of the studio miniature, taken MANY years after the show's airing: could not the nacelles have, well, shifted? Just a hair?
> David Winfrey


Quite possible. The miniature was repaired by the FX guys at Paramount in a real bad "stepped on" state, is the term that Phil uses on his website.

Even if it is in the original state, the tow-in degree is rediculously low. Plus in none of the full- size mock-up shots have we been able to determine that there was a "toe-in" so if there is one it is minor indeed.

As I think Phil pointed out, it's doubtfull that such a minor toe-in(if any at all exist) was designed that way. They just wouldn't have designed such a subtle difference if one exists at all. 

Plus since the aim of this thread is to try to come up with as believable a set of plans as possible real-world engineering has to be considered.
It doesn't make sense that two engines would be designed to be built in a configuration other than a parallel one, even though the craft itself is slightly wedge shaped viewed from above and below, front to back.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Four Mad Men said:


> And one more just because I can't seem to tear myself away from the computer...
> 
> 
> 
> I made a larger one for my desktop wallpaper -- I love that angle! The reflection of the underside came out nice too.


Puuuuuuuurty! Though you might want to send that rear strut to weight watchers while at the same time giving it some left and right love handles! Any chance before you do the orthographic repost on your page you might put those two notches in for the two different places where the strut connects to the rear? I'm attaching your pic with the general areas I'm talking about.

It's a gorgeous pic nonetheless! I see in the reflection that you moved the bottom shallow indentation further forward as it is seen in the bottom filming miniature pic. The reflection feature was a great idea. It also helps improve the lighting, which looks good in this one too.

Looking forward to your next update, the orthographics as much as the wireline stuff. In fact, if the wireline stuff is difficult to generate you might want to post the redone orthographic views first so that suggestions/observations can be made before doing the wirelines.

Beautiful work! can't wait to see more views of the newer model.


----------



## Four Mad Men

Yeah it's too fat. Since I stopped working before adding the "love handles" it looked too puny in the render I first made so I scaled it up temporarily. The cutouts were also something I did not want to attempt yesterday -- felt like I would be pushing my luck.

Actually I have not moved that indentation at all. Must be IOR causing a slight illusion/distortion there.


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Guys,

I'm at work now and we are all waiting for the announcement of the first round of layoffs this year in my department. I work in the Boeing Service Bulletins Group in Long Beach (formerly McDonnell Douglas which really makes us the red-headed, bastard stepchild of the Boeing Publications organization) and the company is working feverishly to vend all our work to an outside contractor. We have been told that out of the 52 people in my dept., we will probably be down to around 10 by June. I have my doubts that the company can move that quickly and get a vendor up to speed by that time (so far the work is going to Continental Graphics in England, located just north of London near Hatfield) but those big layoffs are comming, sooner or later. Aerospace is such fun...

Don't let this happen to your kids.

My drawing is still progressing, I've laided out 22 sheets of details and am starting on the main view sheets. Total will be close to 30 sheets, proportioned for printing on 8.5x11 paper. As I said before, this is a drawing of the mockup, not what the "real" Shuttlecraft would look like.

Phil


----------



## Ignatz

Sorry about your precarious job situation, Phil. I hope things look up for you! 

The Galileo is one of my favorite SF crafts. I've always wanted to have a model of it in 1/24 (so how big would that make it? :tongue: ) I'd love to see your drawings of it. Would you consider selling a printed set?

I like the idea of having the doors double walled, with the outside surface retracting back before pulling into the pockets. Although I've no clue if that even makes any real-world sense, it would best reconcile what's observed on screen. The outer hull skin could be pretty thin as the material's specs are unknown (and it is SF creative license in effect here). I'm on the fence about the airlock though. It does make sense, but as previously mentioned, there's precedent for small craft without airlocks. Actually it seems to me most Trek shuttles don't have that feature. Am I wrong about that?

Great project guys! :thumbsup:


----------



## Trek Ace

At 1/24th, it would be about a foot long.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Sorry to hear about the job situation at Boeing. But whatever the result I'm confident that with your skills you will be a success regardless of any foolish decision your company may make in laying off yet more American's. It's a shame they are farming out work to overseas when Aerospace is one of the few industries we are still dominant in. I can't imagine that Boeing's proprietary competitive secrets will be as safe when their info is traveling back and forth over such great distances. Seems damn risky and dumb to me. It's hard enough to secure proprietary secrets when everything is restricted to one plant complex, muchless having your info strewn across the globe.

Pennywise and Pound foolish. That's corporate management these days. About as loyal to their employees as a cobra is to it's handler.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Ignatz said:


> The Galileo is one of my favorite SF crafts. I've always wanted to have a model of it in 1/24 (so how big would that make it? :tongue: )


As long as the proportions are correct, the size won't matter too much.
The only reason that 24 feet is considered the length is because that's what some writer put in a script for Kirk to say. Writer's also wrote in a script for people to enter a scene from outside via a non-existent door! :lol: 

It's appeared in print since then(considered "non-canon" because it wasn't material appearing onscreen, not that canon-noncanon is a big deal to me) as 24 feet, but this is just more continuation of the dumb script writer's nonesense.

I've read in a few places that the actual length of the mockup itself was about 21'6" give or take a couple of inches, and that it was built as a 3/4 size set piece as it had to be transported from out of state to Hollywood by AMT. That would explain why it was shot at angles that make measurement so difficult so often and in profile so seldom.

Also, as MGagen has pointed out the scriptwriter's 24 foot quote they shoved into Kirk's mouth could be explained away by arguing that he was thinking about the actual usable space in the interior(which must have seemed exceedingly cramped as he ran out of oxygen in "The Managerie") and just mispoke as a result.

To fit the interiors as filmed into the exterior, the real-world craft would have to be at least almost 30 feet.

I feel that the most important thing is to get the proportions right, then anyone can build it any size they decide to and call it any scale they want. 

Since Four Mad Men is planning on doing a detailed interior his will probably end up having a definite scale, though I'm sure that some people who believe that the Galileo is actually a Tardis might end up quibbling here and there.

All the plans posted so far by Phil and Four Mad Men can be found at:

http://www.ksent.com/members/~fourmadmen/shuttle/index.html

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


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Guys,

About the "other hatch":

My original suggestion was not really meant to indicate an "airlock" but rather a type of hatch that a docking mechanism could seal to. True, it might be capable of being used as an airlock, if it is located in the rear compartment which might also make the ship more versatile but it doesn't have to have an airlock feature. My thinking was that it needed a way to transfer payloads when an atmospheric environment wasn't available outside. The current hatch doesn't strike me as being the utilitarian type of hatch I had in mind. Instead it should be a hatch with a flat sealing surface that requires no special "adapter" on the given docking port to be compatible with this craft (such as might be needed with the main hatch). Both the roof and floor centerline make excellent locations for such a hatch because of its additional usefulness as an escape hatch. For that matter there could be one in both positions for that same reason.

Allot has been said here about the bottom of the Shuttlecraft as seen on the miniature but I would like to put forward the notion that, since that area was never seen on screen, it is really up for grabs as to what it really looks like. Particularlly the Warp Drive nacelles, the inner faces should have some detail approximating that seen on the inboard side of the Enterprise versions, the Shuttlecraft's engines just being scaled-down. Because the bottom areas aren't seen, it is quite easy to add the lower hatch too. The engine detail should not be a scaled down copy either but rather a "similar feel", yet simplified.

My drawings:

I'm not sure why someone would need printed copies from me when they will be designed to be printed via downloading. I suppose I could supply printed copies but not enmasse. That is the sort of thing that I'm trying to avoid by putting them on the internet instead.

Layoffs:

Two of our writers were let go today that we know of and we heard that 5 more people will go in April followed by 10 more in June. Fun huh? Chuck, you are absolutely right about what is happening at this company. You sound as if you work here.

Phil


----------



## Pygar

Ignatz, the door idea is very logical if you remember that the idea is to keep vacuum out... so to speak. A pocket sliding door would tear heck out of any gaskets... unless it did its sliding first, then pushed against the gaskets...

I don't see the need for any noncanonical airlocks etc. The shuttle can't have everything in the world built into it at all times. If the mission required a space-to-space transfer, they could retract the doors and pop in a Ronco Insta-Lock... from the changes it went through onscreen, obviously the shuttles were meant to be highly modified to suit the tasks they would be doing. No need to make a kludge of it.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

X15-A2 said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> About the "other hatch":
> 
> My original suggestion was not really meant to indicate an "airlock" but rather a type of hatch that a docking mechanism could seal to. True, it might be capable of being used as an airlock, if it is located in the rear compartment which might also make the ship more versatile but it doesn't have to have an airlock feature. My thinking was that it needed a way to transfer payloads when an atmospheric environment wasn't available outside. The current hatch doesn't strike me as being the utilitarian type of hatch I had in mind. Instead it should be a hatch with a flat sealing surface that requires no special "adapter" on the given docking port to be compatible with this craft (such as might be needed with the main hatch). Both the roof and floor centerline make excellent locations for such a hatch because of its additional usefulness as an escape hatch. For that matter there could be one in both positions for that same reason.
> 
> Allot has been said here about the bottom of the Shuttlecraft as seen on the miniature but I would like to put forward the notion that, since that area was never seen on screen, it is really up for grabs as to what it really looks like. Particularlly the Warp Drive nacelles, the inner faces should have some detail approximating that seen on the inboard side of the Enterprise versions, the Shuttlecraft's engines just being scaled-down. Because the bottom areas aren't seen, it is quite easy to add the lower hatch too. The engine detail should not be a scaled down copy either but rather a "similar feel", yet simplified.
> Phil


Actually several feet of the inside of the pylons(granted, not all) are visible in a couple of space flight scenes and appear to be smooth and unremarkable. I have to conceed however, that the filmers never probably forsaw people later looking at 35mm clips of every frame muchless the technology of DVD captures. It might look good to duplicate the small cooler grills that are on the outside of the pylons with adjacent ones on the inside though. Perhaps the lower speed potential and mass of the shuttle wouldn't require an externally servicable cooler system like that seen on the Enterprise nacelles, but of course that is total speculation on my part.

Of course you're free to have as much fun with it as you choose. As long as the major details are accurate a model builder could just choose to ignore the added details. I have an idea that intercoolers might make it look to cluttered, but that's just my own personal asthetic taste.

As to the underside, I would totally agree with you that it's almost entirely up for grabs. I would still like to see that slight indentation that runs from the rear to a point about 80% towards the front of the nacelles, but an airlock underneath the back part of the cabin or the engineering section would be believable(though I would point out that you would have to rely on a rescaled, upscaled, exterior in order to place a full sized interior set inside, and then rely on the inserted interior to know exactly where to place the hatch and what size to make it). Plus no one would be required to add that detail to their model if they didn't want to. I'd definitely leave the roof totally alone, especially if your are trying to get plans that show things as close to "as built" as possible.

Sorry to hear the news at Boeing. With all the extra stress this kind of nonsense causes the ones that were let go first might end up being far luckier then people forced to leave later. With all of the intense competition in that industry and the prevalence of technical proprietary secrets being so sought after I just can't freakin' imagine a company that relys so heavily on intellectual property - information - that can be so easily stolen and transported with so little effort sending creative work overseas. It's truly insane. How much does a few CD's of info weigh? A hard drive? A server that is overseas, or the entire process to sending the info itself overseas can be compromised at so many points it's mind boggling!

But as long as they can save a couple of bucks this quarter they'll risk giving away tens of millions of dollars of R&D.

Freakin' Morons! Wake up corporate America!
You're starting to make the pinheaded bureaucrats in Washington, Democrat and Republican alike, look like geniuses by comparison.


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Chuck,

Actually, what I was envisioning was a hatch (in the roof or floor or both) that was covered by another conformal hatch. In the case of the roof, a lighting panel could be hinged downward exposing the hatch on the inside, the outside would be equipped with a similar "cover" that might slide back (pocket door, of course) to expose the docking surface (it makes sense to have it so protected). In this way there would be no real visible difference. The same would go for a floor hatch, it would have a lift up inner covering, which acts as a deck when closed, which could be raised to gain access to the actual exterior hatch. There are many examples of this sort of thing today in both aircraft and submarines.

You are right too, it would have to be in the enlarged "real" version of the Shuttlecraft, not the mockup that was built. That is what I was thinking too although I didn't make that clear. There are other things, at the risk of "kludging it up", that might be added to enlarge the scope of the design. Things that, although never seen on film, could still be present. Another example is a retractable flat screen view plate that sides down into the top of the main console (or several). No one could watch the show and say it wasn't there, because it is retractable, the most anyone could say is that it was never shown. The same can be said for the hatches I've described above, because they cannot be seen until they are opened, nobody can say they were never there. They just weren't shown. In fact there is plenty of space in the walls for all sorts of hidden compartments (someone else mentioned this too) and we know that the ship is designed with just that type of stowage because we were shown the hidden Phaser locker in "Galileo Seven". There could be plenty more containing all sorts of necessary space operations equipment (such as lockers for emergency one-size-fits-all pressure suits). Besides, where did all those tools come from in that episode or in "Metamorphosis"?

I finally checked, you sent me scans 4 & 6 of 7 of David's drawings. I'll post them as soon as you can get me the rest of them. Thanks again for them and thanks to David for allowing it.

Pygar,

Its my preference to try to go beyong the limited design created by the studio. The challenge as a designer is to come up with enhancements that don't destroy the original design, while at the same time making it seem more "real". After all, that was the original mandate of this thread, was it not? The "ultimate plans" are a fully integrated interior/exterior which by definition means that we must change the design since they were never designed to be integrated. This is just to explain my personal design philosophy and why I go on about "docking hatches" and such.

Phil


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

I fully agree that a floor hatch would be logical. I still sort of bristle at the idea of a roof hatch, but heck, like I said, if everything else is accurate it doesn't really matter as the modelmaker can pick and choose as to what to include and not include.

It may be a sophmorishly humorous thing to mention, but I also agree with something Dave Winfrey(Trekkist) said about the shuttlecraft interior - who designs a shuttlecraft with that has coffee and no toilet?

I guess you could do what James Doohan(Scotty) once told hobbytalk member John P. was the perfect solution, "ya' take a han' phaser, go in a corner, aim real-real-real carefully and..."

On the page 4 that you already have he has a faint outline drawn on the second cabin port side rear wall that could lead to a small Water Closet(as Franz Joseph referred to them), or toilet. Maybe something like a small Japenese style combo toilet and sink(sink on the back of the toilet, higher and to the rear of where one would sit).

That might require the craft to be lengthened a couple of feet. Although it might fit in the scale plans drawn by Trekkist we once again would be left with a very thin rear wall and little room for engine machinery.(WC would end up roughly on the other side of where that rear hull engine panel has the one panel with three rows of vents. Would be a real good placement for a set of air vents!).

But we're getting way way ahead of ourselves. We should do everything on the exteriors except for the optional extra hatches first. 

Better to at least have the exterior complete and leave the interior alone for awhile then to have neither finished.

Juggling too many things at once is a recipe for a never finished project.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Okay Phil,
Page 5 seems like it went through. 3 & 7 bounced. Pages 1 & 2 sent to the other yahoo address bounced too. You might want to consider that free Juno option.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

To keep the info visible on each page, for convience sake here's the links to the key Galileo Project pages:

http://www.ksent.com/members/~fourmadmen/shuttle/index.html

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

Keep in mind that these pages contain working views that are in flux. I would recommend members posting recommendations and observations here so tons of people don't repeat the same observations over and over again in individual emails, thus slowing the guys down.


----------



## Four Mad Men

So, does anyone have any good reference pics of the front landing pads?

Also any thoughts on them being retractable?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Haven't seen any. I would design them as just cut outs of the cylinder which retract flush to the rest of the cylinder.

Also, if you repost some new orthographics with the new model, could you do it at medium res, about the 2560 x 1920 level?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Okay, found a few pics of the landing pads on Phil's site. None of them are closeups or sharp as I don't think any shots were intentionally set up to capture their detail. However most of the structure can be extrapolated from the details seen in the black and white image crop below. It's rectangular, apparently the size of the notch above it. All of the port side shots have them obviously pressed into the soft earth, so in none of the shots can the bottom of the pads be clearly seen. So I would continue to suggest that they be designed as cut-outs of the cylinder designed to retract flush into the nacelles. Here's a couple of the best pics from Phil's website with the contrast, etc optimized to bring out the pad details to as high a degree as possible.


----------



## trekkist

A'hm back...still not fully up to speed (couple busy nights, not to mention lotsa meat in this thread) but have read forward from where I entered the fray.

To the Perfesser: thanks for your compliments as to the amount of detail incorporated in my plans; I endeavoured to depict "all that was knowable" and, comparing Phil Broad's DVD grabs to what I recall seeing from my old videotape off-the-screen Kodak analog prints (*sigh*) and my examined-to-page-removal copy of the "Galileo Seven" Fotonovel, think I succeeded (though I never noticed "Spock's levers" in "Immunity Syndrome" were the butts of steak knives). 

Enough crowing. 1st off, the non-integration of interior and exterior is the ONLY way to go. That way, said plans will be the closest possible thing to "raw data," usable by us canon-compromisers as we wish. Also, that way, one could actually...gasp...legally sell the things as "research." Not that I'm suggesting that...

Hatches: if done as above, need little/no explication. However, I reiterate that an as-depicted-sized interior placed within an enlarged-to-minimal-containment-length exterior allows several feet between the interior and exterior walls. Want an airlock? 's built in. Want a docking ring? Slide it forward of the hatch (behind's for space suits and whatnot). Want a phasser (sic -- lil Making in-joke there) cannon? Sky's the limit. "'Canon?' We don' need no stinkin' canon." As has been said:

_As long as the proportions are correct, the size won't matter too much.
The only reason that 24 feet is considered the length is because that's what some writer put in a script for Kirk to say. Writer's also wrote in a script for people to enter a scene from outside via a non-existent door! _ 

Or...if said canonically-heretical docking hatch is concealed beneath the rug (watch out for the location of "Scotty's trench," though...which I think was centerline) and opens to beneath, note that the bottom view of the SFX model and what we can see of that of the "full scale" setpiece prop seem to be a bit different...

Sorry, BTW, my PM box has been full. A lazy cuss, I've let it's contents sit. I'll be onto that -- well, tomorrow at the latest.

Where was I? Oh yeah. I'm pretty sure the Trek BBS member who sez FJ's daughter sez he (FJ) never saw the mockup's wrong. IIRC, FJ told me contrary in his letter. Said letter (I'll have to dig it up...shouldn't be too hard, got it in the "Galileo" file I think) was quite irate, in its response to my writing to say, in working toward my "integrated" plans, I wondered, could I lift FJ's exteriors from the Starfleet Tech Manual? given as they appeared spot-on (dig the catch -- maybe it was ME presumed he'd had access...gotta verify this). Ol' FJ, provoked no doubt by a decade's or so worth of bitchy (can I say "bitchy" here?) fanboys, told me in no uncertain terms that...well, it don't reflect well on him, and was at the same time understandable, so I'll let it lie. I was hurt, not angry, and quite regret not writing back again to assuage him (or at least sending him my work, once done). Thus forbidden usage FJ's canon (?) rendering the exterior, I made do with the depicted side views (as seen on Phil Broad's site) and some judicious, dubious usage of the AMT model kit...which in fact I began to kitbash (much fun there), though never finished.

Re: the "aft compartment" (into which the first body went, and from which, I think, Yeoman Mears (slurp) and McCoy emerged to say (as though with sight or at least sound of the outside) "There's something happening"): a 29 ft overall length allows this space to be some 3 feet long. Further, there's room (in my maybe-someday revision) to put a stasis (corpse) locker-cum-bunk or two behind the "aft," and STILL allow room for the deep hollow interior of whatever the %$#* it is we see at the top end of the back exterior (impulse engines, are they? Does that mean the Big E's same look like rows of windows?). Incredible, but true. Given this, the below-decks space, the "attic" (not much there) and what's to either side the interior, a 29-ft Class F becomes a rather credibly-sized machine.

@ 1/24, "my" 29-footer fit on an 11x17 foot Xerox page. Barely, but still. A big beast. At 1/48, said Class F is -- drum roll -- "AMT scale" (can you see her alongside a Dick Tracy space coupe? Same scale...once you ignore the figures and check out the comic depictions...the hours I spent looking at made me so ashamed I'm unlikely ever to "blues up" that flying silo).

Phil, my deepest condolences. I wrote a novel once (250,000 words...guess it was a novel) featuring, among other things, a 1960s aerospace engineer. Hard life he thought he had, being laid off from one firm, going then to another...seems like paradise compared to now, what with, is it 3 American "content providers" for aerospacecraft? Or are we down to two? But hell, come time the last goes under, we'll just contract out for warplanes, right? Just like the Romans did for troops, there toward the end...

Apocryphal inner "flush vents" (as I called 'em) are a logical addition. Which reminds me: pre-Net, there used to be a big debate, were shuttles warp-powered. Kind o' silly: every time shown, they travelled intersteller; in "Metamorphosis," one left a trail of antimatter ("the analogy to unburnt byproducts of petroleum is ludicrous, but the implication, clear" -- unpublished ST Tech Manual, "my own invention," mostly, rejected Pocket Books circa 1985...)....and in the (retroactively non-canon! alert! alert!) Animated "The Slaver Weapon," the shuttle Copernicus' nacelles had..._inter_coolers...

Okay, I've shot my...eh, done got done for the day (I'm like McCoy, good Southern boy). Oh wait...got a question:

Fellow who followed my plans to the tune of 1/12(!!) scale, I think it was, sent me loads of in-progress (analog) pix, showing ribbing etc. Anyone know Mark Nehmzow? I can't imagine he'd mind his shots being shared or posted...but lacking a scanner (I'll get around to it), I can't help. I can, however, provide color copies (ala Kinkos) of same to one(1) interested party...for to host/distribute scans. This of interest? Or must we dig up Mr. Nehmzow first? 

And if you're out there, Mark: my sincerest apologies. I'm a whole lot less intellectually bigoted these days. Almost a Christian, of late...but that's another story.

Which reminds me: my kudos to the boardmaster here for letting folks go on & on. Lots more user-friendly than...well, that other place, where the likes of David Merriman are not merely taunted, but Cast Out. 

More the merrier's what I say. Creed or character regardless. Doubt DM'd appreciate that (doubt he did me, the other day...still haven't checked THAT thread)...but I appreciate him. All the rest of you too.

Sorry I rambled. Pin my ears back, I don't care.

I shall return.

David Winfrey


----------



## Four Mad Men

David,

Love your plans. Excellent detail. Can't say enough. (Are those "suckups"?)

I'm sure there is no shortage of takers for your color copy offer of those pictures. But I'll add my name to list of "acceptors".

-- in a rush, have more to say, be back later today --


----------



## Ignatz

He add me to that list! With apologies to Mr. Nehmzow, we could add the info to the growing pile of facts, extrapolations, and pix into the Galileo Fact pages. Or I can host some pix on Forbidden Plastic if web space becomes an issue (I've got a couple of hundred Mb with no limitations on bandwidth).


----------



## X15-A2

Four-mad-men,

Chuck is right, the front landing feet are simply cutout of the lower Warp Drive cylinder so when retracted (I believe that they were intended to) the cylinder looks complete. The foot is attached to a center post that is about 1.5 inches in diameter (too small in my opinion). There is a stiffening web arrangement on top similar to the the rear foot, an "X" arrangement of four tappering web plates (see the photos).

I haven't mentioned it before but your model is comming along great. Keep up the great work.

Phil


----------



## X15-A2

David,

I would be happy to add the photos you mention to the other Shuttlecraft pages on my site if you can get me the copies (I could return them to you also, after scanning. I know that color copies cost.). Just let me know how to get in touch and I'll send you my mailing address.

Phil


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

So I guess on the FJ issue what you're saying is that by access you meant that you think he had told you in correspondance that he had seen it. Understandable. Also I would add that since he did know where it was, knew his daughter and friends had gone to see it and had seen pics she had taken with it, as well as knew he could visit it himself that he did indeed have "access" to it. He may not have had the thing in his own backyard. But he could have jumped in his car and seen it at any time. The fact he chose not to is mind boggling. If I were doing sketches of something like that I would have probably gone through four rolls of film had I known where it was and it was so easily reachable.

However, FJ seemed to take issue with a lot of the inconsistencies in Trek Tech, as was right for him to do. The fact that he poured over thousands apon thousands of 35mm clips and original scripts to include every litte feature, room and bowling alley in his Constitution plans and Tech Manual are a testiment to his thoroughness even if not everything was always perfectly rendered.

I have a feeling that on certain items, the shuttlecraft may or may not be one of them, he had his own ideas of how a "logical" craft would have looked and perhaps wasn't 100% interested in just rejurgitating what was seen on screen. That's the only explanation I can think of for having never gone to visit it in person(according to FJ's daughter).

Of course maybe one day he gave in to the temptation and just never mentioned it to his daughter while mentioning to you in the letter that he had seen it. That would also be in keeping with the "aloof" aire to his personality.

Quirks aside, his works will always be of nostalgic value to me. They were an oasis in the center of the Dark Ages of Trek fandom. He was a great artist, even if his depictions weren't always precise literal renderings of the subjects. God's speed, Franz Joseph!




On the pics issue...

Those pics would be a great resource for help in scratchbuilding. As many as you have of the "skeleton" structure please send to Phil. Those need not be in color, although a couple of exterior finished model shots in color would be nice. But as many skeleton shots as you have please send, even if they seem redundant, black & white copies(using the "photo" setting on the copier of course, to preserve the depth perspective) should be fine for those, and being black & white copies should save on the cost tremendously.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Also, David, if you would give Four Mad Men permission to post your Blueprints on his website too it would make things much simpler for Phil and I, as it's been difficult for me to get him all of the files, even at 300Dpi(I don't want to even mention how big the 1200Dpi files are, mostly in the 3-4MB range).

Phil could then download the files from Four Mad Men's website and post them on his. That's bound to happen anyway on other sites. Once Phil or anyone else posts them within days people we have never even heard of will probably have them on their sites.

At least in this instance it will provide some convience.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Phil, 

Was that grille in the rear engineering section ever lifted to reveal what was under it? The one that Scotty electrifies in order to shock the creatures outside the shuttlecraft(not the fuel line hatch)? Seems to me that that might be a perfect location under which to place your EVA/cargo hatch.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

On the rear compartment issue, personally I would just restrict it to taking up about a third of the area behind the compartment(right where David's suggested a door), with a simple head.

I'd also perhaps place a replicator(or whatever those unnamed cartridge-programable things are in TOS) on the unseen port side wall of the engineering compartment to explain where Kirk got the coffee in Metamorphosis. 

But I'm of the opinion that any more then a john in the rear compartment I think would "kludge it up" to use another members term.

I think it's obvious that the writers just screwed up the entrance info and McCoy & company were supposed to have been coming in from outside.

I think that messing with the engineering of the shuttle in order to cover some lame writer's butt would be a mistake.

No matter how advanced the technology of Trek allegedly is I think we need to leave ample room for un-defined mechanics/engine area if this model is going to be believable to our 21st century minds(or if we are going to keep it within the well thought out 29.7 foot range that Trekkist conjectured in his rescaling)...


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Everybody,

The Rear Compt:

I would just like to put forward the obsevation that Galleys, lavatories and crew sleeping quarters on commercial aircraft are all modular and may be moved around or removed by ground crews. The Shuttlecraft should be the same way. In fact we see that it is when it is reconfigured in "Immunity Syndrome" for science-reccon. Therefore there may or may not be a galley or lavatory in the rear compartment at any given time, it would depend on the stated mission or "left over" configuration from a previous outing.

Any docking hatch will have to be positioned such that a docking port can reach it. I'm not certain which position you are referring to Chuck but it sounds like that would not be possible (do you mean on the side wall or rear wall?) where you are describing. No matter where it is located it will require an automated approach-to-dock, the pilot will not be able to see it. There is nothing wrong with automation but ideally there would be a manual backup in case of emergency, such as a window that the pilot could use to "eyeball" the approach. Alas we are stuck with what we have design-wise (which isn't much).

Perhaps a more interesting and stimulating exercise would be to design what the Shuttlecraft "should" have looked like. Thus starting with a clean sheet. 

We'll leave that for another day but it is something to think about...

Phil


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

I wasn't talking about a hatch on any wall, Phil. I was talking about a hatch on the underside of the shuttle, underneath the floor of the second compartment. I'm referring to the floor grille seen in 14_StarTrek_TOS_165.jpg from you site. Now that I think of it I remember that that's not the one he electrified. Haven't seen the episode in awhile, sorry about the confusion. Again it's not an important feature to me, just thought that since you were interested in having a docking or EVA hatch I'd contribute my two cents as to positioning. That part of the underside of the the shuttle has never been seen, and as you put it before, could be seen as up for grabs. The only wall reference I made other then about a possible third partial compartment containing a latreen is the port side wall in the second compartment. I theorized that a small replicator might be placed there for food purposes, since the shuttle may be expected to have to sustain it's crew for at least short periods of time I think you'd want to have that 24/7 regardless of configuration(same reason I'd also include a head, but again that's not a necessity), and because Kirk once had coffee on the shuttle.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

I feel compelled to say that I'm hoping we'll concentrate on the known exteriors before going too deeply into the interior. Any chance of getting some new medium-res orthographics soon Four Mad Men(maybe without the rear landing gear)?

I don't know how many members have ever build balsawood models from plans. I've only done it once myself with the help of my father when I was about twelve years old. What I would like to do eventually, once the exterior 3D models are complete, is to have both Four Mad Men and Phil "slice" their model's main hull up vertically at various points along the length, visible from the rear and/or front. Then after subtracting the thickness of balsa or plastic sheeting to be used for the hull walls I'll be able to lay out a "skeleton" framework similar to the one described by Trekkist(David). I plan on making one about 15 inches long(thus easy for me to make multiple prints to work from using 11 x 17 inch paper). Once I figure out all the standard balsa/plastic thicknesses etc I can insert them and share the annotated plans with everybody. If you decide to do a 30 inch version, Four Mad Men(I remember you saying you wanted to do a two or three footer), you could just get parts that are double the size, and could enlarge the plans at 200% size at any Kinkos for $2 a page. I might even decide to go that route myself(the bigger the model, the easier it is to scratchbuild), but will at least lay out the plans to fit on 11 x 17 inch paper for convience sake. I will actually scale the proportions for 10 x 17 inch paper, so those of us(like me) who don't have an 11 x 17 inch printer can either take the files to Kinkos or go the lazy route, scale it down by 20% then take a legal sized print to Kinkos and scale it up to 11 x 17 paper by enlarging 125%(thus perfectly perserving the scale).

Phil, because they'll probably end up enlarged the higher the res you can post your shuttle drawings the better. If you haven't yet decided how large you are going to make your shuttle drawings for standard printout a shuttle drawn with a length of 12" drawn in a way that would fit on legal sized paper(8.5 x 14 inch - leaving a little extra lengthwise border) would be perfect for someone who wanted to upscale them for either 15, 18, 24, 30, or 32 inches all while perfectly maintaining your scale. Also, of course, a 7.5 inch shuttle could serve the same purpose, though might not enlarge as clearly. 

If you have already imported and sized them in 3D no big deal. I can just resize them in Photoshop, do the parts list and repost that way.

Things are coming together great guys! I can hardly wait to actually start building this thing physically. Any extra effort you can make on the exteriors would be greatly appreciated! :roll:


----------



## Ignatz

I'm of two minds about it. I love the original, so a comprehensive set of views of the Galileo is a must, but the thought of creating a type F shuttle as a "real" machine also has its appeal! Is it too much to go both ways? It seems we'd need to map out the "canonical" Galileo in order to do a clean slate one (being that the visual cues for the clean slate one would come from the TV shuttlecraft).

I'm pretty excited about this too. I would really be interested in building a model of the shuttlecraft in 1/24 or 1/12 scale--with lights! 

I was at a Chiller show about 3 years ago and a fellow had what looked like a 1/12 scale shuttlecraft. It had a full interior, with interior and exterior lighting and the doors were mechanized to automatically operate in the same way the stage set actuated. The only flaws were that the details were off for instance, the hull looked like it was based largely on the AMT kit! And the lights were a little over the top, sort of like a disco. Still, the overall effect was impressive. I'd love to make something like that, only true to the shooting miniature.


----------



## Four Mad Men

Well it looks like my laziness has bitten me! Should have done this sooner but here is a comparison between my work and Phil's










And here's a list of the damage:

Nacelles are not same distance away from CL and a little short
Width is too narrow
Front hull (viewport area) at the top is not curved outward (not an oversight just been putting it off)
Pylons "wings" not long enough, got super lazy on those
Gap in hull length due to the fact that I have not fully modeled the impulse deck

I've had all this great info at my disposal and apparently am just too sorry to take advantage of it!!! 

Thankfully these are all pretty easy fixes but the point is I should have taken the time to do it right in the first place. Don't worry Chuck I'll get the new orthos in this weekend after I fix my "mess". I hate losing time due to stupid crap (especially if it's of my own making).


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Okay. So how late tonight should I wait up for them? :lol: 

Do me a big favor and consider posting a set of orthographics as it is now before you start tearing it apart all over again.

A couple of things I would definitely not "fix" as it were.

Don't slant the inner roof downward as seen in the port profile shot. As discused earlier in the thread, much of what appears to be a heavy downward slant is actually due to a misinterpretation of the upwardly sloping side walls. Besides we had pretty much decided that this one was to be built as a more logical looking version, which should also rule out a nose down orientation as well as nacelles and main hull centerline(where it bisects the wings and door) that aren't parallel to the ground.

I would adjust zero parts as seen from your side profile. Please don't trash the mostly level yet sloped inner roof, level craft centerline, and level nacelles! 

Spare me pulling out what few hairs I have left. Besides that the nose down profile as seen in "The Immunity Syndrome is still even debateable. Especially after seeing the pick that Trek Ace posted. About the only info I would recommend incorporating from that side shot is the gentely sloping outer roofline, which you have already done.


----------



## Richard Compton

Chuck, are you planning on building your model from FMM's unfinished plans? Why not let him finish it instead of rendering multiple sets of orthographic views that will only be obsolete the minute he refines the model some more?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

He's already emailed me to let me know it won't take very long to do the adjustments.

By the way, I forgot to mention that Thanks are due to Professer Coffee, who was the person who was able to get a copy of Dave Winfrey's plans to me. Thanks again, Professer.


----------



## trekkist

Short n' sweet this time (we pre-Net folk tend to post letters -- & I do long letters):

I took the shape of my blues' landing pad posts from the side view in Making, which may or may not reflect a more complex (and practical) design than that of the actual soundstage setpiece.

Four Mad Men, feel free to post my stuff also. Come one, come all.

What's beneath the grille in the "front-aft" compartment is a row of silver pipes, 16 or 17 if I recall, submerged about a foot below the floor. 

Shuttle interior modularity's a given, as has been said of what's seen in "Immunity Syndrome" (all but 2 seats removed & "stock" machinery, as oft reused in TOS, inserted before and behind a grille). I'm dubious, however, than the never-seen toilet and likely-minimal galley (we saw coffee, replete with a pot, but must assume food also) would EVER be removed. ("Sorry, Cap'n, you'll have to hold it 'til the _Enterprise_").

Joseph letter not in Gal files; will continue search. Easy enough to deduce whether he took physical and/or photographic stock of the soundstage prop: overlay his Tech Manual exteriors onto those derived from screengrabs. If his work is spot-on, y'all's is redundant (heh, heh) -- albeit gorgeous, and of course virtually manipulable. Which reminds me -- clue in this ig'n'rant guy if the final result will constitute a CGI-animatable mesh, huh? 

Chuck: where do I mail the Nehmzow pix? Email me at my hotmail account, a one-word phrase, without a dot, whose first half is right, second half, write. ("correctcomposition," mind you...I'm a yellow dog Democrat...god help me). As to photo mode copies: won't those introduce visible artifacts (a sort of moire effect)? Will do either way you want 'em.

Sans FJ's data, as I've said, I derived my blues from a comparative study of screen pix, the Making plans, and an examination of the AMT model. Latter is rather interesting, not simply in assuming a "non-box" scale (given a length of 29 ft), but also in being readily convertible to a generally-accurate rendition of the "real" shuttle. I began (but did not finish -- I do a lot of that) this conversion by cutting the inward-slanting aft side walls free the roof and bending them flush with the forward section, and replacing the appallingly simplistic aft section (which interestingly appeared unchanged in the animated series) with scratchbuilt structure. Lastly, I replaced the nacelles with larger, metal ones (real fun filing down an area on each to insert the kit's "flush vents," thereafter surrounded with a thin metal panel), and finally, cannibalized the kit nacelles for to obtain quarter-cylinder sections which, grafted onto the top of the shuttle's sidewalls, convincingly replicated the real craft's inward-curving aerosurfaces.

Time now to regress to pg. 9 or thereabouts of this thread and see if I've anything else to offer. And as before, my thanks for the compliments, and kudos to all of you in turn. Damn shame Matt Jeffries ain't still around to see all us fanboys do homage to his work.

Which reminds me: anyone familiar with the nacelle-less "first draft" shuttle design? I forget where all this appeared in print; an issue of James van Hise's short-lived prozine Enterprise Incidents is where I found it, but I think it turned up elsewhere, too. In later years, "Jackdill's" Starfleet Reference Series featured it (or a close approximation, anyhow) as an aquashuttle, I believe. 

David Winfrey


----------



## trekkist

Okay, I'm up to speed. Couple things:

Link to PhotoModeler (I've a Mac...damn) sparked my memory of FJ's saying in his letter how he knew how to (manually, obviously) loft "blueprints" from photographs. Thus he need not have had physical access to the Galileo setpiece, and may well, what with his training, have rendered rather effortlessly what's now having blood sweat over.

Re: the downward-sloping roof (in reference to the "upper wings") -- as shown in the model shot posted by Chuck on pg. 10 this thread -- has a firm conclusion been reached that this is not an artifact of perspective? The possibility that the shuttle (model and/or soundstage prop) was built with some degree of forced perspective would perhaps complicate this issue. I offer this suggestion with some diffidence, given I found it hell itself to come to a conclusion on this issue, was never certain I'd reached the right one, and have found some of the back & forth on this & related perspectival and viewpoint issues frankly over my head. I'm basically self-taught as a draftsman, y'see...

Also, have y'all considered that the "full size" and miniature shuttles may have subtle, or not-so-subtle, differences in proportion and/or dimensions? Thus, utilization of data derived from both could play hob with the resultant reconstruction.

Phil, I've forgotten to express my drooling (boy, that was a disgusting image) over your drawings. No words can convey how much I liked the riding the nacelle shot. 

However, I do note that enlarging the shuttle some 125% destroys the "cavernous" aspect of the hangar deck as conveyed in the TOS shuttle-rotation sequence. Being as how rescaling is I presume a matter of clicking a mouse, howzabout putting a 125% enlarged shuttle into a relative-sized-matched (as per TOS screengrabbed) hangar, and seeing how big that makes the _Enterprise_? 

Whatever the canon purists would say about stated dimensions and so forth, it seems to me that this would be the absolute, inviolable determination. If it takes a 29 ft. shuttle to give crews room to stand and walk, and a so-and-so sized hangar to look like what we saw on screen, well then, Kirk's girl must be...somewhat larger than we all grew up thinking she was.

And by the way: impulse...is...hyperlight. And I can "prove" it.

Really.

(ducks)

David Winfrey


----------



## Four Mad Men

X15-A2 said:


> Four-mad-men,
> 
> Chuck is right, the front landing feet are simply cutout of the lower Warp Drive cylinder so when retracted (I believe that they were intended to) the cylinder looks complete. The foot is attached to a center post that is about 1.5 inches in diameter (too small in my opinion). There is a stiffening web arrangement on top similar to the the rear foot, an "X" arrangement of four tappering web plates (see the photos).
> 
> I haven't mentioned it before but your model is comming along great. Keep up the great work.
> 
> Phil


I've had a look at the images and they are clear enough to were I won't take liberties with the design. Can't say that I really care for it (the design) but so be it. Thanks for the kind words. I know Chuck is drooling to get the orthos (and wires) from me but I'm really looking forward to seeing all the 2D cross sections/plan views, etc that your working on. The pylon support structures are of particular interest to me right now.



Richard Compton said:


> Chuck, are you planning on building your model from FMM's unfinished plans? Why not let him finish it instead of rendering multiple sets of orthographic views that will only be obsolete the minute he refines the model some more?


A man of reason! However, as restitution for my laxness I've made most of the fixes and re-rendered the orthos. Still might be some tweaking along the way though but don't tell Chuck.



trekkist said:


> Phil, I've forgotten to express my drooling (boy, that was a disgusting image) over your drawings.


Hear, Hear!



trekkist said:


> And by the way: impulse...is...hyperlight. And I can "prove" it.


I know people on "another board" who would not see even the remotest glimmer of the possibility of that statement being a joke.

Also, David, thanks for the permission to post your work. Are you sure you don't want a watermark or something? I'd hate to see the availability of those drawings limit anything you might want to do in the future.

Now... who am I forgetting??? Oh, yes. Chuck,

New renders are up. I sent you an e-mail about a minor decision for you. See below for and image that's not on my Shuttle page yet.. You'll note that the countours of the nose are still square instead of having a radius but I'll save that for later this weekend. Hopefully I'll be able to call major modeling over by Sunday. That is, of course, if I don't decide to re-do the entire hull over (again).


----------



## trekkist

Boy that's gorgeous, Four Mad. How about a "hotrod" version with two side doors? 

A watermark...yeah. Thanks for the thought. More & more though, I'm thinking you guys are going where I went before, but better...and too, quicker. I'm not playing any violins...just sayin'. But yeah, a watermark'd be nice.

And yeah, I got into some hot water on the impulse thing awhile back, "over there." But actually...it's true. Really. Even unto the "Next Generation." Multiple, independent on-screen evidence in both series, and several tie-in films. Kinda disquieting actually...not to mention reminiscent of FJ's setup of the Tech Manual being an accidental download from the future.

But hey, it's not a modeling topic. And I'm a bad, bad man for gratuitous rattling of cages. If any.

I'm gonna go clean out my PM box now. Please don't overflow it with -- wait. I hear the canon poli--

\


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

The new model is gorgeous! Can't wait to see more.
Sorry if I've seemed overzealous of late. I'm just itching
incredibly to get started. Plus you are so very close to
have the exteriors done the anticipation is killing me.

I'll try to find a "chill pill" around here someplace and
relax a bit, but I can't make any promises. It might become
necessary to cyber-slap me at some point ... :tongue: 

You're just so very close it's incredible. 
You're in the home stretch!!!!

If everthing goes well, you might make this weekend the 
most productive the Galileo project has ever seen!!!

Time for that pill now...


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Trekkist, on the shuttlebay issue, that was brought up and led up to a really good discussion of Enterprise scale that started around page 4 and then spawned another thread in this forum.

Basically, the original shuttlebay set was such a highly forced perspective piece to begin with, I'm sure some way could be contrived to fit it. 

Checkout Phil's thoughts on the intended Enterprise scale in http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=74430

On the pics issue, I didn't mean to interject myself between you and Phil. He has a gorgeous website he has done tons of work on. I don't have any such site but would love to see the pics. But there is no reason why you would have to send them to more then one of us. We can all see them at Phil's site, as he's agreed to scan and post them.

Email him and I'm sure he'll send you his snail mail address to receive the pics. You can occasionally get a plain text message through, just don't use bold text or anything that might fatten the message size, might bounce on you... :tongue:


----------



## trekkist

Will review pg. 4 et al. Sorry 'bout that. I am hip on the "how big is she?" issue, though, back to the MGagen/Phil Broad "not 947, but 1072 ft" thread. 

PM box is now cleared. Let me know who needs the Nehmzow xeroxes and I'll get 'em in the mail sometime early next week. Believe me when I say there will likely be more than enough...but also, that many are (hypothetical) skeletons -- less good for virtual than actual modeling. 

Apologies on my long posts. Some chaff amidst the wheat, I know...

David Winfrey


----------



## trekkist

Quick & dirty, but here we go:

Jeffries' hangar side view (the standalone; not the overall ship cutaway) -- whose inclusion of a scale bar and undistorted human figure and shuttlecraft would, I presume, make it a true side view said space (whether or not the "set" was built in forced perspective) is, via the scalebar, some 124 ft. in length.

On the other hand, if we take the shuttle as being 29 ft long, the hangar becomes 161.9 ft in length. At a glance, the relative size of shuttle to hangar appears about as shown on screen.

Turning now to Phil Broad's "Constitution Class Starship Hangar Deck Layout" drawing for reference to how far the hanger extends forward of the warp pylons -- then applying this relative distance to Matt Jeffries' plans of the ship itself (which although much castigated have, IIRC, stood up to scrutiny on this board) -- we find the ship's overall length to be some 8.4 times that of the hangar...

Yielding an overall length of some 1,359 feet....140% the "canonical" 947. 

I am NOT trolling here...simply observing that this is the closest thing we have (I think) to a depiction of a human being standing in or beside the Enterprise. Nor am I happy with this result...

Anyway: AMT-1: 18 inches...1/906
AMT-2: 22 inches...1/741
PL: 11.36 inches.....1/1435.5

I forget how big the lil ol' 3-ship AMT E's were, and frankly am too nauseated to continue.

Please don't hurt me. :freak: 

David Winfrey


----------



## X15-A2

Chuck,

Your wish is my command! Yesterday I completed about 30 sheets of section views of the exterior! Originally I wasn't going to draw such a contour drawing of the hull but that damned curve on the lower hull side plates demanded it. So there are about 30 sections, spaced every 12 inches down the hull (except for one which is located on the aft engine pylon support web). For this drawing I included an interior cavity but that detail is really meaningless because, as we already know, the mockup is just too darned small to be of real use. But for this drawing there is a 4-inch roof and side wall thickness and a 2-inch front, rear and bottom thickness.

I am going to start scanning these drawings and some of the other mechanical detail drawings (for FMM's benefit) and get them posted to the site today. Not all the sheets are complete yet but many are.

When I do get them posted, please take a moment to let me know if the format is OK (size, resolution, suitabilty for printing, etc). Also let me know if you see typos or other mistakes so I can fix them.

David is my kinda guy, a "cage-rattl'r". So am I (paid the price for it a few times too). I like your idea of scaling the Enterprise from the inside out, that is exactly how I approach a new design. My Starfleet Support Transport was done in that fashion, I first figured out what it had to carry then built the ship around those boundries. Your 1300 foot length compares favorably with my version at 1100 feet.

Four Mad Men,

You don't have to get too hung up on what my drawings look like, it is just my opinion of the shape. Your opinion is just as valid since nobody here has any real definitive data on the ship. Your model certainly looks close enough, the differences are well within the "fuzz factor" caused by our lack of hard data. Actually, I thought your model compared quite favorably to my drawing and has just as much chance of being correct as mine. You can go by my drawings if you want but don't think of them as being "the last word" or anything like that. They will only be "close".

Ignatz,

Glad to see that someone out there is up for the design challenge. The question of "what it should have looked like" is one that always runs through my mind when I see a vehicle in a science fiction show. Put it another way, "how would I have designed it?". I originally wanted to get into movie art direction and the special challeges posed by a design which must also be rendered as a full scale mockup have fascinated me. In shows such as Trek, Galactica, Lost in Space or Land of the Giants they faced the same problems and design constraints. The ships had to be small enough to be built and handled in a practical way but at the same time they had to appear large and give the feeling of being robust enough to withstand a crash landing. They also could not be too complex of a shape and usually are built with flat surfaces or curved surfaces that only curve in one direction (keeping away from compound curves as much as possible). At the same time we want to see a design that a least gives the feeling of being practical (not usually achieved by Hollywood designers). These all make for interesting challeges to the given designer. I already have thoughts about a redesigned Class "F" Shuttlecraft and may persue it after this version is done. As you mention, I would take the current capabilities and capacity of the design that was built and use that as a guide for the new design.

Going to start scanning now, hopefully the drawings will be posted by tonight. I'll let you know when they are.

Phil


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Actually the shuttlebay scaling started on page 1, not 4. The size of the Enterprise discussion began in earnest on page 4. You might want to check out the earlier pages in the thread for more stuff on the shuttlebay scaling issue. I should have mentioned where it started, not just where the Enterprise scaling issue started.

The Jeffries drawings of the hanger aren't really of concern, Trekkist. Though your points are valid. The shuttlebay could just be drawn with slightly wider elevator, conveyor. Or who is to say that the shuttlecraft as seen onsreen wasn't already about 30 feet? We're only talking 6 more feet here. 

Besides, Jeffries' drawing of the bay which appeared in a book isn't necessarily authoritative, completely thought out or 100% accurate. I have a Jeffries pencil drawing of the shuttlecraft around here somewhere and it's not at all accurate(slanted rear nacelle ends, perfectly flat and parallel horizontal lines, etc.).


----------



## Nova Designs

Holy cow Phil, that rocks!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Incredible news Phil!!!!!!!!!!!

This is going to be one great weekend!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Four Mad Men

X15-A2 said:


> Chuck,
> Four Mad Men,
> 
> You don't have to get too hung up on what my drawings look like, it is just my opinion of the shape. Your opinion is just as valid since nobody here has any real definitive data on the ship. Your model certainly looks close enough, the differences are well within the "fuzz factor" caused by our lack of hard data. Actually, I thought your model compared quite favorably to my drawing and has just as much chance of being correct as mine. You can go by my drawings if you want but don't think of them as being "the last word" or anything like that. They will only be "close".


Understood. But given that you created them with much more deliberation than I used when modeling I'm quite happy to accept your drawing as my general baseline.


----------



## Four Mad Men

trekkist said:


> Boy that's gorgeous, Four Mad.\


Thanks, that means alot.



trekkist said:


> How about a "hotrod" version with two side doors?
> 
> A watermark...yeah. Thanks for the thought. More & more though, I'm thinking you guys are going where I went before, but better...and too, quicker. I'm not playing any violins...just sayin'. But yeah, a watermark'd be nice.
> \


And with a flaming paint job like people used to put onto '57 Chevys? That might be fun to see.

Just let me (us) know the specs of the watermark and I'll be glad to include it before posting anything. I think we should at least co-ordinate it so that they are consistent among all our sites (probably the thing to do is have one person manage it and the others can just get those copies to post).

And Phil,

Great news about those sections. Above and beyond the call.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

To keep the info visible on each page, for convience sake here's the links to the key Galileo Project pages:

http://www.ksent.com/members/~fourmadmen/shuttle/index.html

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

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

Keep in mind that these pages contain working views that are in flux. I would recommend members posting recommendations and observations here so tons of people don't repeat the same observations over and over again in individual emails, thus slowing the guys down.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Phil, 
have you ever considered applying for a job at Skunkworks? Or Boeing's unmanned aircraft division? Might involve a move, but if you ever were hired there I doubt you'd have to worry about job cuts to the same degree people in the wider commercial market need to. Wouldn't it be nice to work for an outfit whose primary goal was keeping it's budget secret as opposed to cutting it?

Can't wait to see your new scans!!!!


----------



## Pygar

Have you seen the "Bird of Prey" test aircraft? Looks a *lot* like our Flying Butter Dish, if you ask me... it's a stealth vehicle test bed or some such.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Nope. Where did you hear about it Pygar?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

To keep the info visible on each page, for convience sake here's the links to the key Galileo Project pages:

http://www.ksent.com/members/~fourmadmen/shuttle/index.html

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

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

Keep in mind that these pages contain working views that are in flux. I would recommend members posting recommendations and observations here so tons of people don't repeat the same observations over and over again in individual emails, thus slowing the guys down.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

On the watermark issue...

the plans have David's name, the year and the copyright statement on them already. About the only other things I ever see on watermarks are a specific web address or email address. Do you want to place either of those, or something else, on the plans, Trekkist?


----------



## trekkist

As to watermark, can you overlay a big greek omega over some portion of the image? Being as how my "company" was Omega Prints, that seems appropriate.

I'll not belabor the scale issue further (would've added my points to the scale thread, save it hadn't been active of late)...but 

Chuck:

_The shuttlebay could just be drawn with slightly wider elevator, conveyor. Or who is to say that the shuttlecraft as seen onsreen wasn't already about 30 feet? We're only talking 6 more feet here. _ 

doesn't "scan" to me. Sure, the elavator & conveyor could be widened...but my issue began with the relative sizes of the shuttle & bay. And your question expresses exactly my point: if we accept (as seems inevitable) the shuttle's being 29-odd ft. long, then the "shuttle...as seen" *was* 29 -- thus implying a bay larger than that we've grown up with...and possibly larger than could be fit into a 947-ft ship. 

It's not "six more feet" that matters. It's a percentage increase of 124 (or whatever) for the shuttle. Jigger with the hangar placement and you might get away with a ship as small as 947 X 124%...but maybe not.

The definitive answer, as always, lies in close analysis. Thus

Phil

If you've time or inclination, lay some perspective on a hangar screengrab, and let us know how wide and/or tall a 29-ft shuttle makes it. This datum will, I think, trump parsing what Jeffries, Roddenberry et al "meant" to do in terms the old girl's size...which facts of dim history are, while less than moot, of passing relevance to what they in fact _did _ do. 

The shuttlecraft's no TARDIS. And personally, I like a "cavernous" hangar deck. If this makes me an apostate, so be it.

After all, this all started with something named "Galileo."

David Winfrey


----------



## trekkist

Modern (real) Bird of prey:

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,12543,365576,00.html

scroll down to Tacitblue:

http://www.strange-mecha.com/aircraft/Stealth/US-S.htm

This one gives the non-lie to FJ's profession of the Tech Manual dropping through time, it seems to me.

Not that I believe that. 

Make an interesting religion, though.

In fiction, anyway.

David Winfrey


----------



## trekkist

More refs to Tacit Blue. Scary, ain't it?

http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/tacitblu.htm

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/mf37a.htm

http://www.photovault.com/Link/Technology/Aviation_Research/Aircraft/TacitBlue.html

This one shows the designers (yeah, sure):

http://www.pocketprotectors.com/atf3/Tacit_Blue.htm

http://avia.russian.ee/air/usa/northrop_tacit.html

Here it is at the USAF museum. "America's first stealth aircraft."

http://richard.hofer.com/gallery/wright-pat_2000/page7.htm

I recall reading some years back how the inventor of the compact disc was inspired -- the thought put into his head -- by seeing the silvery library discs of Mr. Atoz in the TOS "All Our Yesterdays." 

Looking at the Tacit Blue makes me wonder if one of the 3 designers ever saw the Galileo and thought "h'mmm...."

Be interesting to overlay (at the same size, not scale) the shuttlecraft and Tacit profiles. If nothing else, this might say something about the stealth characteristics of the former.

David Winfrey


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

That can be done easy enough with the info Phil has already created. He rescaled the pic to Jeffries' forced perspective set/plans. Though he didn't apply a scale to it, just assume the shuttlecrafts in red are 24 feet long, in the pic that is in this link...

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DesignStudy/Drawing_Hangar_Deck_Section.jpg

then the measurements can be calculated by simple multiplication.

Although I would agree with you about wanting a cavernous shuttlehanger, seeing it in that profile view Phil did made something else occur to me. While we might be able to believably increase the size of the craft, elevators and conveyors to help build a more believable craft, You really can't do that to the overall(sidewall) hanger objects as well. 

While I have no qualms with thinking of the Enterprise as larger then previously thought, larger doorways wouldn't lend to believability. The doorways that were used to access the hanger deck are among the few "standard" heights I can't see upscaling. Making anything but a few centerline shuttlebay details marginally wider would force you to abandon standard hanger entrance doorways and, by logical extension, also therefore skew the other doorways, halls and thereby the scale of the entire ship. 

I wouldn't be completely discouraged by this however. Some solace can be taken in the fact that tight quarters like this for craft storage and landing are how real-life aircraft carriers are designed, as I think Phil once pointed out. So it leaves the shuttlebay just as believable(if not quite as asthetically pleasing, as it ever was.


----------



## Pygar

Tacit Blue reminds me more of the Proteus, at least in front. But the white, angular BOP with the flat angular wings sticking out just reminds me of Galileo, somehow. If they'd made the front flat instead of triangular I guess it'd be an even better match... but I suspect if I wrote in and complained they'd think I was some kind of nut and either put me away or put me in Administration...


----------



## X15-A2

OK Everybody,

The plans are posted so start your engines! They are not all complete with dimensions and other notations yet (the unfinished ones are labeled "incomplete") but the drawings that appear on the pages are complete. I will be adding a couple of pages of details not seen on the site yet but everything else is there. Here is the page they are found on:

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

It is past midnight now and yours truly is fried so I'm going to call it quits until tomorrow. Enjoy the plans and let me know if there are errors and such on them so I can fix them.

Cheers,

Phil

P.S. Don't all download at once and make the server crash!


----------



## trekkist

Wow.

Now my clever strategem is revealed: I've been trying to change the subject. I knew this day was coming, and...wow.

Per Chuck:

(_determinedly_ changing subject)

_While we might be able to believably increase the size of the craft, elevators and conveyors to help build a more believable craft, You really can't do that to the overall(sidewall) hanger objects as well. _ 

I agree. Thus, my take would be to...not. Shrink the doors to scale -- as I did the Galileo's external doors to match the inner -- and enlarge the hangar to match a 29 ft shuttle. Not sure what enlarging the viewing galleries would do (though I suspect their interiors from "Conscience of the King" matches nothing), but this could likely be finagled by some judicious resizing/movement of their windows.

This sort of revisionism is of course a matter of aesthetics as much as "logic" (if indeed the word applies to this sort of thing).

As to a "cramped" hangar reflecting that of aircraft carriers, however, I disagree. The only excuse for so large a hangar (and indeed, "flight hatch") as a Trekkian starship's is to give room to house quite large "guest" vessels (or cargo, as in the animated "More Tribbles, More Troubles"). 

Oh, and Phil: did I forget to say: wow.

Or, more accurately -- nah, can't post that here. But it involves both blasmphemy and reverence. And perhaps a bit of anatomical impossibility.

Wow.

David Winfrey


----------



## Richard Compton

Wow Phil. You're unbelievably quick.

Those are amazing drawings. If I had to make any observations it would be the nacelle steps. It would seem to me that they need to be more substantial than that to take the weight of the actors stepping on them.


----------



## trekkist

The nacelle step is, however, per canon (funny term for me to use, what?) if _perhaps_ not _exactly_ the right shape (maybe...I'm speaking from memory, with no offense meant to Phil's excellent draughtsmanship). 

Remember, too, that the step, being an integral part of the nacelle, is composed of "hullmetal" -- duranium/osmium alloy or whatever it was called -- whose vast strength is depicted in "Wrath of Khan" (wherein a phaser -- maybe a cannon, I forget -- cuts a swath along Enterprise's flank, but does not penetrate until reaching the airlock hatch).

And, too, that sort of thing is exactly what the actors _did _ step on.

David Winfrey


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Wa hooo!!!!

InFreakinCredible!!!!!!!!!!

Gorgeous!

A few quick comments before I tumble into slumber.

First, THANK YOU! These are beyond my wildest expectations.

Secondly, THANK YOU AGAIN for the contour slices. Your having done plans for scratchbuilding before I guess you knew where I was going with this long before I even thought to express it with the "slicing" request.

Could you perhaps also do an underside(ventral) view?

I'm hoping you'll consider going an extra few yards after these "as built" plans are done and consider doing a set with a more level(yet still rounded) interior roofline, as opposed to the sharply downward sloping(front to back) inner roof.

About the only other suggestion I would make(before getting some shuteye, will check closer tommorrow) would be that perhaps the contour frames in the final version might be on paper turned to landscape orientation so an entire cross-section could be printed on the page and balsawood frames could then easily be laid out directly on the page. A very old school approach, but I don't see why it couldn't work on this model.

Once again, incredible work!


----------



## trekkist

I was wrong. Rescaling the ship via the relative size of the (29') shuttle and (depicted) hangar is not a mere exercise in idiosyncratic apostasy. 

Take a deep breath, and gaze upon the following, well-known image:

http://www.trek5.com/caps/tos/00_CAGE/pages/00-cage_019.htm

-- which though opening the original pilot, "The Cage," is canon via its wholesale incorporation into "The Menagerie." Now compare the relative sizes of the bridge and "bubble" to those shown in the following:

http://www.gilsostartrekschematics.co.uk/cutaways/jackillcut/orgentcutaway.jpg

-- which though merely the product of an expert (in attention to detail) draughtsman is, I think, in relatively close agreement with every other Constitution class cutaway ever devised (i.e., Jeffries', FJ's, the Captain's Chair game, etc.).

I have done nothing more than apply a (non-metric) ruler and calculator to these two images. My results are therefore not precise. My guesstimate, however, is that Pike's bridge is some 62% the diameter of the "bubble;" the latter bridge corresponding to some 80% the diameter of _its_ housing.

Tossing the latter image into MS Word and enlarging it enough to get a ruler to it allows derivation of the bubble's size if enlarged by 140-odd percent. If this is done, the (non-enlarged) bridge "shrinks" to occupy pretty much the fraction of the bubble diameter as does Pike's.

The conclusion is inescapable: from head to tail, the TOS Enterprise displayed an overall length -- derivable from on-screen depicted human figures -- of some 1400 feet. 

I know the Great Bird & his minions didn't _mean_ to do that. But that is what they did. That, my friends, is "reality."

Deep, cleansing breathes, people. There is...no pain. There is...no pain.

David Winfrey


----------



## trekkist

I'm an English major. I _get _ to misspell "breaths." Damnit.

Phil, the plans will be in the mail Monday. Expect photos by seperate shipment, as I have to both locate and copy those.

Again, my highest compliments on your work. From one Galileo-reconstructor to another, bravo.

Now all we have to do is build the damn thing...sell -- scratch that, *lease* it to "Star Trek: The Experience" -- and retire.

I said it first. 

David Winfrey


----------



## Ignatz

Phil! Incredible work! No excuses now. GOTTA BUILD IT!


----------



## Nova Designs

Phil you are truly one hell of a generous soul. Now I have no excuse not to rebuild my Galileo and this time _nail the sucker!!!_ :thumbsup: 

Thank you!!


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Guys,

I am awake now...

Thanks guys for all your compliments about the drawings. Today I plan to travel over to work and try to finish them up. I have thought of a few more sheets that I need to add and there are the others already posted which need to be completed (obviously). I'm hoping that they will all be done by no later than next weekend.

Chuck! "Weak minds think alike"... I was thinking when I got up this morning that maybe the frames should be complete intstead of half-frames and also I need to show the level of the wing root line on each frame (because that is where the one horizontal section is taken).

Chuck, I must now take you to task for your comments about the slope of the roof. I just measured it and it slopes 0.4703 degrees, less than half a degree (which tells me that it was probably actually level in the mockup). So there, naah!. It is probably a mistake on my part to have it sloped at all (maybe I'll change it...).

About the flimsy step, on the actual mockup the step was just a piece of 1/4 inch thick steel plate that had been welded onto the engine nacelle, so it was quite strong. I enhanced this part of the drawing by detaling one which not only encorporates the curvature of the outer nacelle but also folds up, which I believe is implied by the shape of the step cutout. I will add a note to the drawing that explains the change I made there. Also I am showing a step on both sides of the ship which the mockup didn't have either but, once again, I think it would have if the ship were real. The one on the opposite side would be used for climbing up on the engine pod then the wing for maintenance purposes (they both would).

I look forward to seeing some models made from these drawings. Send me pictures of your efforts and I'll post them to a "Fan built models" section of the Galileo pages on my site. And Chuck, I would reccommend thin plywood (often found at RC hobby shops) for your frames (and liberal amounts of glue), it is more expensive than balsa wood but will provide a much stronger foundation for your model and help to prevent "settling" and cracking down the years.

Next drawing project: the interior set.

Stay tuned.

Phil


----------



## X15-A2

BTW,

I don't know how many of you Trek fans know this or not but the plans made by Rick Sternbach of the Next Generation Enterprise were not the first ones drawn of that subject. My good friend Ed Whitefire spent two and a half years of spare time effort, working with Sternbach, Probert, Okuda, et al, drawing plans which were to be published. He made many trips to the studio and spent quite a bit of time meeting with these fellows. He obtained copies of the original drawings for the ship and the sets and basically worked his guts out to produce these beautiful plans. Then Rick decided that he would make "his own" versions and have them published and in the process took a fair amount of Ed's work and encorporated it into his drawings. Welcome to Hollywood. Ed didn't get a dime.

The reason that I'm telling you this is that last night, when we all went out to dinner, I put it to him that he could post the drawings on my web site if he wanted to. He said yes. He will also contribute photos of the filming miniature that were given to him by Andy Probert (Ed also has a casting of the Bridge blister from the 6-foot model which I could also take photos of). So look forward to seeing the "original" deck plans of the NG Enterprise on my site. He says that he will also sell drawing tubes which will come with complimentary copies of the full size sheets as packing to anyone who wants them (he can't sell you the drawings themselves because of copyright issues but he can provide them as packing in a drawing tube).

Phil


----------



## Trek Ace

trekkist said:


> I'm an English major. I _get _ to misspell "breaths." Damnit.
> 
> Phil, the plans will be in the mail Monday. Expect photos by seperate shipment, as I have to both locate and copy those.


You get to misspell _separate_, too! 

Hehe. I'm just "funnin" with ya, Dave! 

Seriously,

Phil, 

I want to echo all the other's sentiments by stating what a beautiful piece of work those drawings are. I have some more photos/measurements of the shuttle from twenty-some-odd-years ago while it was sitting in the storage yard in Torrance. It may be just a little while more (my move will be complete on March 1st!) until I can find the rest of those files. I think they may be of good use to answer some questions.

I do remember that the front grille/vent on the lower right (three rows of vents) was exactly 3' wide, the nacelle step is a foot wide, the "wings" measured straight out from the seam/fillet along the body to the outer edge was 20". There are others I can't remember off the top of my head. I'll find them once I'm settled.

BTW, I would be VERY interested in buying a set of those drawing tubes from your friend, Ed. He just needs to pack them with a special rolled, inky fiberous material.


----------



## Ignatz

Oh MAN! I LOVE drawing tubes! I'll buy a few!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

I want some tubes too, Phil. Tell him to get crankin'! I minored in English and I'm from the South -though New Orleans has a more Mediterranian feel then a southern one - so I get to say "crankin'". Can't blame my incessant editing of my own posts on my minor though. Credit for that goes to years and years of passive-agressive guilt-reward-ruler-finger-swatting training on the part of Catholic nuns. Also it explains my unnatural attraction to bitchy women who wear a lot of black!!! :lol: 

Also if you can find a friend who has tubes available that he could stuff with CAD drawings of TOS Enterprise taken from the 11' foot filming miniature during reconstruction those would be nice too!!!!(Of course, I personally would suggest seperate links for the actual tube "offers" just to be safer.)

On the roof issue, I may have spoken in haste. I was going by a dotted interior line seen in profile "Plan_Sheet_01.jpg." The interior four inch(which I think is about right based on the construction shots) roof looked too close to the door, thought there was more "ducking room" even in the "as built" mockup. However, after re-examining the construction pics it appears there probably wasn't. Guess that's what my feeble brain gets for making snap observations on too little sleep/caffeine. Could you perhaps do a portside cutaway similar to the starboard side one on page two of Everhart's prints? I don't want you to theorize about the interior, just a nacelleless sideless view of the interior roof and bottom lines. Perhaps you could use that one underside view of the filming miniature as a guide. Also would love the one view unseen, a ventral one, would make my joy complete!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

To keep the info visible on each page, for convience sake here's the links to the key Galileo Project pages:

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

http://www.ksent.com/members/~fourmadmen/shuttle/index.html

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

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

Keep in mind that these pages contain working views that are in flux. I would recommend members posting recommendations and observations here so tons of people don't repeat the same observations


----------



## trekkist

Actual...shuttlecraft...measurements (pant).

Primordial E-D blues (drool).

Guys? 1400 feet? Guys?

David Winfrey[


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

trekkist said:


> Wow.
> 
> Now my clever strategem is revealed: I've been trying to change the subject. I knew this day was coming, and...wow.


You have ZERO reason to feel that way Trekkist. It was your work that inspired me to start this thread. You were the first person ever to take on the task of approaching the Galileo from an interior-out perspective. Also, had your plans been easier to acquire I might also never had bothered with the thread. So what I was frustrated with(not being able to get a hold of them after months of trying) was actually a blessing in terms of exterior plans.

Your contribution will never be diminished because of these facts. The dozens apon dozens of hours Phil, a professional draftsman for Boeing aircraft, has dedicated to this effort shows that creating dead-on accurate exteriors of what at first glance appears to be a simple structure isn't necessarily so simple. Especially that underside curve line he mentioned. I had to buy a flexible S curve(two complete, different sets of french curves were of zero help) to even be able to roughly trace it on paper from a construction shot that wasn't the best lit view in the world. So even with the S curve I don't think I nailed it the way he did.

Your contribution will continue to help especially once we move on to the interiors in a week or so. I'm hoping Phil will consider adding an interior to his model, at least the wall cavities, panels, chairs, instrumentation(i.e. visible stuff). Failing all the details, at least rescaled interior wall cavities.

Four Mad Men even plans on doing a more elaborate interior then that, to include wiring(don't know if he meant for mockup illumination of theoretical interior inner workings of the fictional craft).

So hold on Trekkist, probably in a week or so we'll be getting to the part that is your particular area of expertise - the interior.

One day I can see this thread progressing to the point where either Phil or Four Mad Men produces a 3D model that could be actually walked through, and maybe even sat in!!!


----------



## edwhitefire

*Primordial Enterprise D drawings...*

 HI! I'm Ed.

I know this is off subject (only tangentialy), but I am the one who will be supplying the Ent.-D drawings to Phils website. These are reduced copies (the originals are 22" x 34"), but I'm sure you will be able to at least get a good look at what was done back during season 1 of STTNG.
I hope there is a little interest in them. Unlike some others that people had done later, mine had a number of elements that were discussed and approved for inclussion (such as a structure and a number of other elements I won't go into). I hope you like them. I will also be selling mailing tubes with packing material (that look remarkably like inkings) for any interested. Have not come up with a price yet, but that will be on Phils site as well.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Great Ed! If you're going to do reductions I suppose the most logical size would be 11 x 17. Hope you print them extra sharp for those of us who might eventually upsize them.

Welcome to Hobbytalk Ed! 

This thread has brought us three new members and awesome material from Phil, Four Mad Men and others.

Thanks for recruiting Ed, Phil. And thanks to MGagen who made both possible.

Keep up the great work guys!


----------



## edwhitefire

*More on the Ent. D*

BTW, there are 13 sheets to my drawings, total of 42 decks. Interior and Exterior. If you have seen the later released drawings you will notice that they are layed out the same way that mine are (gee, I wonder where they got that idea from...?) However, you will notice that mine are copyrighted much earlier than any other drawings available (and I have the official paperwork to prove it!). :lol:


----------



## edwhitefire

The drawings that will be scanned to Phil's site will be 11" x 17". What you get as packing material will be 22" x 34" (original size).


----------



## edwhitefire

one more BTW... Are there any other BBs where people might be interested in knowing about these illustrations?


----------



## edwhitefire

one more BTW... Are there any other BBs where people might be interested in knowing about these illustrations?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Yes Ed. Go to http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=UBB20 it's the TrekBBS art forum.


----------



## Pygar

Wow, the Galileo Club (apologies to Robert Heinlein) is moving right along! After we get an interior and exterior right, I vote we start on the yeoman in the miniskirt in the "Galileo 7" episode...

Wonder if Blender can make DXF files for CAD work...?

If only there were the level of interest in the Alpha 7 that there is in the Galileo 7... I'd be a happy Barbarella fan...


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Phil, one suggestion on the scans of Ed's drawings. 

If you don't have a tabloid sized scanner and they are copy reduced please consider reducing them to 40%. That way they should fit on your scanner as long as there is some slight border(8.8 x 13.6). If your scanner isn't legal sized then you could at least then just piece together two scans. Also the 40% setting would help maintain the scale perfectly(we could then multiply by 2.5 to know what the exact original measurements were). A final 300dpi greyscale setting would be great, 600Dpi as an optional link even better.

If you take the prints to someplace that scans oversized prints to CD be careful. Often those places are used to doing this for people copying deck plans, etc. and don't care about the asthetic look of the scans. As a result they often scan these kinds of oversized stuff as strickly line art(black and white only) which often ends up giving you very jagged and/or broken lines as often faint areas or line portions aren't picked up at all. Make sure they do it for you in greyscale.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

I just remembered, and perhaps should mention, that Rick Sternbach is a frequent contributor to the Trek Tech part of the TrekBBS, don't know how often he shows up in the Art section. I should have remembered that sooner. Sorry.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Any chance of an underside view, Phil?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Also looking forward to seeing some of the work Four Mad Men has been doing on his model. It's looking really hot. You are probably right on the lighting issue, Four Mad Men(about keeping some light shadowing), as I think you suggested earlier, removing the newly added floor would probably solve most of the harsh looking shadows without having to mess with the lighting.

A door and some grillwork and you're almost done with the exterior!


----------



## X15-A2

Chuck,

We have an 11x17 scanner at work that I can use so it is no problem scanning the copies Ed will be giving me. I have been using the photo setting to avoid the exact problem you were mentioning (what did I say about "weak minds"..?).

I will add a bottom view of the Shuttlecraft too.

Phil


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Great news Phil! On the bottom views and the scanner.

Once again, welcome to Hobbytalk Ed! If you haven't already made those reduction copies for Phil make sure they use the photo setting...


----------



## Nova Designs

whoa! The 1701-D is _very much_ next on my list of Big-Es to make (now that my TOS and TMP 1701's are modeled) I would LOVE a set of those plans. I actually bought Rick's plans as well several years ago, but they are so big that I can't scan them well enough to use as Lightwave backdrops.

I look forward to seeing those on your site too Phil.. and I'll probably buy a big set, er... I mean a drawing tube, too whenever they/it becomes available


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Welcome Aridas!

Sorry to pre-empt any statement by you but as I sit here seeing yet another brand-spanking new Hobbytalk member name on the bottom of my screen I can't resist!!!!!

Edit:
Must have just missed you. You disappeared just as I was hitting post reply. Hope you liked the updates... :wave:


----------



## Richard Compton

Hey Ed, I sent you a Private Message.


----------



## Four Mad Men

Phil,

Holy














!!!

Those are incredible. I'm trying to find words that are adequate but I can think of none so I'll just quote a mad man...

'_That is really amazing. That really is truly amazing. That is so amazingly amazing I think I'd like to steal it._' -- *Zaphod Beeblebrox*


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Four Mad Men, while Phil's blueprints are the most accurate real-world plans of the "as built" Galileo I've ever seen, heck, of any Trek subject for that matter, your less slanted version(especially if you take up Phil's earlier offer to use some of his drawings as guidelines for a couple of details like the landing gear, etc.) has the potential of going a long ways towards helping create a craft that is of a more thoroughly believable design then the original set piece was.

Looking forward to your updates as well as Phil's!
Keep up the great work guys.

Hoping that Phil will also consider an interior as well, once he has his exteriors done to where he's happy with them.


----------



## Four Mad Men

What you see here is essentially complete. There is just a short list of things to do to finish the exterior (mostly minor detail work and nothing that will change the overall shape, with the possible exception of adding an outward "bow" to the nose where top meets bottom and adding the pylon support "beams").

Anyone wishing to build a model that represents the mockup should ignore what I've done as that's not the ultimate focus of what I'm doing. And Phil's work on the subject of how it should look is, in my mind, without parallel. Infact the rear strut was built in just a few minutes using Phil's images (so too I will use them to finish the pylons). *There's no thief like an honest thief*.

Note: I'm calling the door part of the interior (likewise for the nacelle step) so until that's blocked out more completely the only way in is through the window.


----------



## Four Mad Men

Pygar said:


> Wonder if Blender can make DXF files for CAD work...?


Yes, Blender has native support for DXF, and most other formats as well via scripts.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Incredible updates, Four Mad Men!

Keep up the incredible renders!



Here's this pages relisting of links:

To keep the info visible on each page, for convience sake here's the links to the key Galileo Project pages:

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

http://www.ksent.com/members/~fourmadmen/shuttle/index.html

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

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

Keep in mind that these pages contain working views that are in flux. I would recommend members posting recommendations and observations here so tons of people don't repeat the same observations over and over again in individual emails, thus slowing the guys down.


----------



## trekkist

From Chuck P.R. Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by trekkist
Wow.

Now my clever strategem is revealed: I've been trying to change the subject. I knew this day was coming, and...wow.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_You have ZERO reason to feel that way Trekkist. It was your work that inspired me to start this thread. You were the first person ever to take on the task of approaching the Galileo from an interior-out perspective. Also, had your plans been easier to acquire I might also never had bothered with the thread. So what I was frustrated with(not being able to get a hold of them after months of trying) was actually a blessing in terms of exterior plans._

Believe me, I was kidding. I'll grant you a bit of self-consciousness at how quickly and (by the standard of parallel bar and triangle) "effortlessly" y'all've followed the path I once blazed in a somewhat long-suffering (if not indeed masochistic) isolation...but I've nothing but admiration for the rexsults, and look forward with pride to my stuff being displayed alongside it. I don't quote the above back to blow my own horn or etc...merely to set at ease the fear my feelings might be tender. 

And in any case...being hosted by Phil offers the possibility of ego-boo beyond my wildest dreams of avarice. The last few hundred-unit lots Class F prints I sold to New Eye Studios and...I never can recall both outlets; the one in Florida, that you see emptying its warehouse these days on Ebay...included (non-postage paid) reply cards. I got a few...but now (cue horns) the *world * can see my work--! _See what we've done! Your mighty CAD/CAM--_

Sorry. Channeling Richard Daystrom there.

Beginning a new thread, now. Follow...if you dare.

She's...even bigger than I thought.

David Winfrey


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Hoping you will do it here in the Computer Assisted Modeling Forum. CultTVman has said in no uncertain terms that blueprinting/plan threads aren't welcome there.

If it's just a theoretical issue and/or not about a physical kit it is almost always considered taboo there these days.


----------



## MGagen

Chuck_P.R. said:


> This thread has brought us three new members and awesome material from Phil, Four Mad Men and others.
> 
> Thanks for recruiting Ed, Phil. And thanks to MGagen who made both possible.


You're welcome! Really, I knew once I had put Phil on the case, he would push forward at warp speed. I have never known anyone who can turn out mechanical drawings as fast as him. 

We have corresponded at length about various issues. A common occurance has been that I'll make an observation about some detail and seemingly mere hours later he drops a fully rendered image in my mail box confirming or disproving it! 

I am also glad that David Winfrey has joined us. His input is invaluable.

My only regret is that, with a new baby to care for, I don't have the time necessary to keep up with the thread. Most times, when I have something to add, by the time I get around to catching up with the posts it has been brought up by others.

Regardless, I'm still with you all, and I'm enjoying the ride!

Mark


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Mark,

Glad to see you back here, I was begining to think that we had lost you (actually, I figured you were probably just busy, what with a new kid and all).

I posted a new image to the Design Study section of the Shuttlecraft pages (http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DesignStudy/GalileoDesignStudy.htm). It shows the dimensions of one of the standard communicator panels found throughout the various interior sets, including the Shuttlecraft. This is where I plan to begin the interior project. I'll layout the main instrument panel and go from there. I put the image on the site for those who would like to follow along.

There is another observation about the interior that I would like to put forward. That is that the interior was originally meant to have a very low ceiling, just as the exterior mockup actually has. I believe that the change to a higher ceiling occurred while things were already under construction, this is why the seats were built unusually low, in anticipation of a set with a low ceiling. This would be in keeping with the original sketch of the interior which shows a crewman stooped over inside. So my thesis is that originally the interior and exterior sets were planned to be much closer in size. Then someone said "hey wait a minute, the actors aren't going to be able to move around very well inside that thing" so they simply raised the roof but the chairs were already built to fit in a much tighter space and were never changed. This is just wild-ass speculation on my part, I just wondered what you guys thought about it?

Phil


----------



## Four Mad Men

What's in a (Shuttlecraft) nacelle? The discussion is two-fold.

*Part I*

Bearing in mind it's accepted that the nacelle caps on the Enterprise are essentially Bussard (ramscoop) collectors -- even though they were never presented as such in the orignal show, what can we suppose about the shuttle nacelle based upon what we know?


The shuttlecraft is a low speed, short range warp cabable craft.
And insofar as any ship can be called self-sufficient the shuttlecraft isn't one of them. It requires a "base", whether that's an actual starbarse, starship or planet.

Now add to that what I believe to be a reasonable assesment...

Each nacelle is functionally selfcontained. It contains the warp coils, powersource, "fuel" (more on this later), and all the hardware that ties it together and makes it work. The only connections to the rest of the shuttle are physical hardpoints (to attach them to the shuttle) and whatever control lines are neededed for, well, control.

So I submit...

That given the dependency of the shuttle for it's "life" and the nature of the trips people take in it (small distances and low speeds -- by Trek standards anyway) there is no need for bussard collectors. In fact the way they were shown on screen was completely different than what we see for Enterpise. Granted that may have more to do with the size of the miniature and cost/time constraints but I'm not really talking production decisions here. Why would you need them when everything else about the craft is subject to the (regular) need for resupply? I say you don't. A Starship sure, I guess, but a shuttle? No.

Now the question about the caps becomes, "What are they?". Maybe nothing more that the desire to have continuity betwee the shuttle nacelle and the starship nacelle. Or maybe we can ask ourselves, "What DOES every warp cabable ship need?". The answer? A clear flight path. Now for those of you paying attention I just gave it away...

Inside each nacelle cap is a navigational deflector. Which explains the outward difference in shuttle nacelles and starship nacelles. Sense makes?

*Part II*

Now about the "fuel". Is it a foregone conclusion that shuttles use a M/A reaction as the nacelle power source? If the answer is yes then you have to say Zephram Cochrane had a M/A rector in his first warp flight experiment. And that's just not something I'm willing to believe. Given the low speeds could we not, using Trek tecknology, do the same thing with some other powersource? Fusion perhaps? The powersource question is more of a thought exercise given that the vehicle doesn't really exist _...duck..._ and we can fill it with whatever equipment we wish. But I'm curious what other's think on this.


----------



## Four Mad Men

X15-A2 said:


> Hi Mark,
> 
> Glad to see you back here, I was begining to think that we had lost you (actually, I figured you were probably just busy, what with a new kid and all).
> 
> I posted a new image to the Design Study section of the Shuttlecraft pages (http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DesignStudy/GalileoDesignStudy.htm). It shows the dimensions of one of the standard communicator panels found throughout the various interior sets, including the Shuttlecraft. This is where I plan to begin the interior project. I'll layout the main instrument panel and go from there. I put the image on the site for those who would like to follow along.
> 
> There is another observation about the interior that I would like to put forward. That is that the interior was originally meant to have a very low ceiling, just as the exterior mockup actually has. I believe that the change to a higher ceiling occurred while things were already under construction, this is why the seats were built unusually low, in anticipation of a set with a low ceiling. This would be in keeping with the original sketch of the interior which shows a crewman stooped over inside. So my thesis is that originally the interior and exterior sets were planned to be much closer in size. Then someone said "hey wait a minute, the actors aren't going to be able to move around very well inside that thing" so they simply raised the roof but the chairs were already built to fit in a much tighter space and were never changed. This is just wild-ass speculation on my part, I just wondered what you guys thought about it?
> 
> Phil


Seems reasonable to me. There seems to be a recurring theme here about the differences in exterior/interior dimensions. Not suprising though, who thought after all these years people would be debating/modeling this stuff.

Now a question from me for everyone: Just what is the floor to ceiling height of the main shuttle cabin anyway? Is there an accepted value? Some proposed values?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Quite possible Phil, however I'd still go with an "as shown" interior roof height.

Actually I made an observation and some measurements of a key interior piece as well. I'll have to come clean and admit that I was holding back on the observation until the actual work on the interiors was set to begin.

However, since you are now thinking about laying things out I guess I'm forced to spill the beans.

There is a definite measurable feature on the center panel. The FX guys actually used a small portable sized(for those days) reel to reel tape player upside down and made to meet flush with the panel. They even left the rewind/play/fast-forward lever and volume nobs on it!

These smaller reel to reel players had standard sized platens and tape reels. The reels themselves(there are metal ones installed on the one on the panel are exactly 3 inches wide) I have a similar sized "portable" tape player of a different brand and lots of old 3 inch wide "standard" tape reels.

Here's a pic of one with the same size reels/head arrangement, sans the reels...


----------



## StarshipClass

Sounds reasonable to me as well. The grilles could conceal nav deflectors as well, but there seems to be no reason for Bussard collectors as you pointed out.

I would suggest that the fuel for shuttlecraft are to antimatter reactors as nuclear batteries (correct term for power source for some satellites?) are to nuclear reactors. Obviously, the phasers can be used as a fuel source, so that must be taken into consideration.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Oops, another case of my being mistaken. On closer inspection the part on the Galileo panel doesn't contain reels. However, I just remeasured the platens and just like the reels they are also exactly 3" wide.

Here's a couple of reduced size pics originally from your website Phil, so everyone knows what I'm talking about.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

So Four Mad Men... I guess since you aren't theorizing the shuttlecraft has Brousard Collectors then Mandel's schematics of the TOS Enterprise nacelle interiors would be of no interest to you, they're based heavily on TASeries anyway...


----------



## Four Mad Men

Chuck_P.R. said:


> So Four Mad Men... I guess since you aren't theorizing the shuttlecraft has Brousard Collectors then Mandel's schematics of the TOS Enterprise nacelle interiors would be of no interest to you, they're based heavily on TASeries anyway...


Actually chuck they would interest me as there are still coils, injectors and the like involved. Just no hydrogen collection.


----------



## Pygar

I don't see that shuttles having matter/antimatter powered warp drive equals Cochrane using it on the first flight. I suspect a conventional nuclear reaction is capable of powering inefficient low warp speeds. Why a shuttle would leave antimatter traces behind when it doesn't have antimatter, is beyond me...

If you can believe in force fields to deflect matter away from the ship, then you can believe they can be also shaped as a funnel to draw matter in...

<edit: I left out a phrase by typing ahead of my brain>


----------



## Pygar

Oh, yeah... if you guys have any reference shots that need enhancement, I'm yer guy! I have AutoEye which really is great at bringing up details, color, contrast etc. without turning stuff that is already bright into a blur. Just *send me a web link* to the pix that need clearing up, and the email address to send them to. I can't ask you email 'em to me because Yahoo has these little tiny email boxes in the hopes you will get disgusted and pay for a good sized one.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Four Mad Men said:


> Actually chuck they would interest me as there are still coils, injectors and the like involved. Just no hydrogen collection.


"You've got mail!"


----------



## Four Mad Men

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Sounds reasonable to me as well. The grilles could conceal nav deflectors as well, but there seems to be no reason for Bussard collectors as you pointed out.
> 
> I would suggest that the fuel for shuttlecraft are to antimatter reactors as nuclear batteries (correct term for power source for some satellites?) are to nuclear reactors. Obviously, the phasers can be used as a fuel source, so that must be taken into consideration.


M/A batteries, brilliant! As for the "Phaser for fuel program" I believe that only applies to the impulse engines. I have always understood, and please corrent me if I'm wrong, that the nacelles only generate the warp field and it's the impulse engines that provide the propulsion. I'm not sure what effect that has on the F/X of "The Galileo Seven" what with their "ignited fuel" trick seemingly flowing from the rear of the nacelles though. Just another discrepancy between the powers that be in a TV production (like writers vs. F/X men) then add to that all the remaining years of Trek (and realworld) technology development/refinement.



Pygar said:


> I don't see that shuttles having warp drive equals Cochrane using it on the first flight.


If Cochrane had anything on that first flight I'm pretty sure it would have been warp drive


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

All this phaser fuel stuff requires way too much thinking for me. I just want it to look puuuuurty!

Although I'll join in regardless and put in my two cents in. In the Galileo 7, it was never explained that way, but two distinctly seperate engine problems had to have existed.

1) I there must have been, as has been suggested by the mere presence of the different distinct engine structures, TWO propulsion systems. One warp, one partial impulse at the least.

2) They probably weren't fueling the warp engines with the phasers, as I can't imagine that they were using warp drive against creatures physical trying to hold them down on the planet. If warp drives worked in the slightest I doubt even the biggest creature would have been able to slow their assent.

3) Unlikely warp drives are used for slow atmospheric flight, at least not at low altitude. They certainly weren't what was straining against fur-clad creatures trying to hold down the Galileo.

4) The Galileo achieved at least a low orbit but didn't engage warp engines. One must assume therefore that even though it wasn't mentioned in the episode the warp drive had to have been damaged as well.

True, once Spock "jettisoned" the last of their fuel in a "distress flare" attempt there was a visible trail coming from the warp nacelles. However, as stated earlier it's doubtful that the warp engines are what was working so shabbily at take off.
Besides, what are those be ole' impulse engine looking things for anyway if it's not an engine?

Solution to this quandry? The fuel released from the rear of the impulse drive reacted with the wake from the unmentioned yet damaged nacelles.

About the only way to explain warp drive of any power that could be used atmospherically not being strong enough to easily achieve liftoff is that they weren't able to use the warp drive at all. Obviously the rear structure on the back of the shuttle is designed to be an impulse engine.

That had to be what Scotty was refueling with the phasers. It also agrees with Four Mad Men's theory that the warp drives are independant units. Both different types of propulsion had to have been on the fritz for them to allow themselves to be dragged back into a decaying orbit.

Whew!....

That there's a lot of thinking about something you just want to look puuuuuurty!


----------



## Four Mad Men

Chuck,

Got your email, thanks. It almost looks like (for those drawings) that the author conjectured that the Enterprise nacelles were self-contained (fuel tanks, matter anti-matter reaction assembly). Not sure I buy into that for Enterprise but it might be a good start for the shuttlecraft (I'm mean the crystal has to be somewhere in there doesn't it)?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Damn, I've got to start typing faster or thinking faster. Now some of my brain squeezin's from above appear redundant since you posted while I composed!

On impulse versus warp though, they are two distinct seperate propulsion systems that operate seperate from one another. See my strained explanation of the nacelle trail above. I do have to agree with your observation though that a lot of this stuff wasn't thought out when the scripts were written and the F/X's were put together.

We may be wasting our brain squeezin's here...


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Didn't you see that little dilithium dot in the legend, Four Mad Men?

Now go find Waldo...


----------



## StarshipClass

ARGGGGHHHH!  

Y'all are right of course -- phasers for IMPULSE fuel! I wasn't thinking!

I'm glad you like the M/A batteries idea Four Mad. I thought it might make for a realistically compact, derivative fuel source that has to be replenished on a more frequent basis. Perhaps the reactor on a starship can generate the necessary M/A fuel


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

To keep the info visible on each page, for convience sake here's the links to the key Galileo Project pages:

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

http://www.ksent.com/members/~fourmadmen/shuttle/index.html

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

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

Keep in mind that these pages contain working views that are in flux. I would recommend members posting recommendations and observations here so tons of people don't repeat the same observations over and over again in individual emails, thus slowing the guys down.


----------



## Four Mad Men

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Didn't you see that little dilithium dot in the legend, Four Mad Men?
> 
> Now go find Waldo...


Yes I did, sorry if that was confusing. I was mixing two thoughts at the same time. What I was referencing was my initial thoughts on where the crystal would be in a completely self contained nacelle.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Rather then the nacelle, the secretive inner workings of the shuttlecraft I'm more interested in seeing you and Phil come up with, Four Mad Men, is exactly where you two are going to put the toilet.

And Phil, is this toilet a full-height one, or one of those low to the ground things like the shuttle chair. And what about that cute Yeoman chick? Any chance of squeezing in a Bedet for her? And will she have to cross her legs to use it?

Talk about a unique scrapview!!!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Hey Phil! What do you think about the tape player observation? Do you think it will help scale things?


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Guys,

I've posted another study tool for the interior, this time a photo. It may seem a little "dodgy" but it is an image that I made it in Photoshop from three other images. Check it out on the study pages of my site.

I won't join in on the discussion about Trek technology to any great degree here because frankly, the show is so idiotic that it defies analysis. However, when it comes to such issues, I stick to the original series only, everything that came after was so totally changed from the original concepts and details that it cannot really be synchronized with the original series. I realize that this makes me a "heretic" to the religious faithful but it is the way it is.

The whole idea of Bussard Ram Scoops on a ship that utilizes antimatter makes about as much sense as having propellors on the fronts of the engine nacelles. Bussard technology is way down the evolutionary scale from that of antimatter. For what little it is worth, my take on the domes is that we are seeing the antimatter storage area which is reacting in a luminous way with its containment field (excited antiparticles or something like that). In my opinion the Shuttlecraft nacelles should look the same way, that they were never seen that way on the show is chalked up to bad continuity (which the the shows that followed the original series would make bad continuity into a fine art).

OK, so its out in the open now, I'm one of those cavemen that only likes the original series. The rest of them, well...

(however, that does not prevent me from adding sections devoted to them on my site, as material becomes available. My site is not limited to just those shows that I like. When it comes to the web site, I'm a panthiest)

OK, I've made my peace, lead me to the stake.

Phil


----------



## X15-A2

Chuck,

Every little bit helps! Glad you put that in.

Phil


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Yeah, Phil, we know. All that fancy anti-matter stuff aside, when are you and Four Mad Men going to finish your exteriors and start designing that brunette Yoeman chick's bedet?


----------



## X15-A2

Chuck,

Actually I'm more interested in designing the brunette!

Phil


----------



## Ignatz

I'm with Phil on the the treknology/treknobabble/treklore. I enjoy the orginal show and the devices and vehicles that inhabited that world. It fired my imagination way back when, and so has a special place in my heart. No rationalizations required, no explanations needed. I just want to make a nice model that accurately represents what was in the show. Besides, I always thought those low, goofy chairs _were_ built-in toilets!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Just looked at http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DesignStudy/Communicator_Panel_01.jpg

and most impressively:
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DesignStudy/Forward_Compartment01.jpg

Once again I'm in awe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Out of curiosity, Phil, what did you use as a frame of reference for the communicator sizing?

Also, given that we know the tape player platens in the center console are each exactly 3 inches wide, couldn't you use that info to lay out virtually exact measurements for the entire front consol? Allowing for viewing angle, etc? Maybe even up to ceiling height?


----------



## Richard Compton

I'm sure there are comm panels someone owns. The desk kind were auctioned on eBay with dimensions.


----------



## Four Mad Men

You misunderstood what I said. The question was about powersources, I submitted that Cochrane probably did not have a M/A reactor to power his warp field. And if that's true then the shuttle's warp field would not need one either. Basically I was attempting to (for my shuttle which will have the nacelle interior modeled) not have such a device (M/A reactor that is) to power the shuttle's warp field.


----------



## Four Mad Men

David,

How about this?


----------



## Four Mad Men

Updated page and renders.

Shuttlecraft Galileo Construction Project


----------



## X15-A2

Ignatz!

LOL!

You guys are too much!

Love the flames!!!!!!

That is how my personal war-surplus Shuttlecraft would look!

The scale of the communicator comes from the Ebay "Profiles in History" auction, they gave the dimensions. I don't go entirely by any item which is that small in the image. Instead I use it as guide, then check the resulting dimensions for the overall object and adjust the resulting dimensions to rational values.

I have posted three preliminary images of the forward portion of the interior set, complete with dimensions. The results gave some very likely sounding dimension so I think I'm pretty close on this one. There is also a comparison of the interior and exterior version. Please note how well the console fits inside the exterior and hits just below the bottom window sill. This further indicates to me that the set was originally designed with a roof that, if not as low as the exterior, was much closer to it. When the chairs are drawn this comparison will be even more revealing (not that this point is all that important, I just think its interesting).

I feel like I'm having to struggle to keep up with Four Mad Men.

Er, interesting how that statement sounds, perhaps more truth than poetry...

Phil


----------



## X15-A2

Four Mad Men,

Don't forget the bumper sticker that says: "Bad cop, no doughnut"!

Phil


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Geez! 
I'm beginning to think that if I stumbled across the full-scale mockup completely restored that I might find it boring as hell compared to Phil's drawings and Four Mad Men's 3D model! :thumbsup: 

Don't worry though, if that happens I'll snap a pic or two anyway...  

Hey Phil! How about a couple of overhead interior seat and wall layouts? Pretty please...?


----------



## trekkist

Trekgeezer here...

Though not (in the blues anyhow) a tech manual author, I did think a great deal about how the shuttle worked. Addressing the points raised as to shuttle range & power, my observations:

*A)*I must emphasize that a shuttlecraft is a only a _relatively _ short range vehicle. How short? Well...not inordinately:

1)"Galileo Seven" had the thing lost within an area of space containing four solar systems. Granted they didn't intend to go there that quickly; their speed was "multiplied geometrically" until they "shot forward like a projectile." But they were dispatched _into _ that region of space, for to study Murasaki 312. This, in effect, gives a minimum limit on shuttle range: some 8-10 lightyears or so.

2)"Metamorphosis" depicted an interstellar journey of unknown range & duration...but such that it made sense for the Enterprise to dispatch the shuttle and then rendezvous with it after a course (the shuttle's) involving several changes of course (teaser: "we have reached projected point three; changing course" -- a paraphrase from memory). 

3)"The Cage" had a starbase shuttle chasing the Enterprise for some significant fraction of what was a four day (I think) journey at warp...something or other. Six, maybe? Or perhaps seven (Spock cites time & speed to Pike, in the teaser). This distance can be derived...sort of, based on the warp factor cubed formula (which is, however, demonstrably incorrect), or by the far faster (then ever later achieved -- call this a "sequel series inconsistency") velocity established in (for instance -- I've other examples) "That Which Survives"). This latter speed would curl your hair; suffice to say it makes sense of Pike's telling the Talosians he comes from "the other end of this galaxy" -- and is consistent throughout TOS.

4)"Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" had Loki 2 weeks out of a Starbase in a stolen shuttlecraft.

Thus, far from being a strictly dependent, warp-capable vehicle, I deem the shuttle to comprise the smallest practical "short" range starship.

*B)*As to power:

1)TNG et al's incorporation of Bussard intakes into the warp nacelles is not only anachronistic (per Phil), but also badly researched. Which is to say: if one takes prior aired information as canon, the nacelles functioned on the (basically magical) Franz Joseph principle, wherein the rotating domes are not nacelles but "space energy/matter sinks." Josephian W/D terminology was, after all, cited in the pre-departure bridge systems check-out scene of "ST: The Motion Picture."

2)Does the shuttlecraft use antimatter? Yep. In "Metamorphosis," Enterprise followed the Galileo (II's) antimatter trail until the point where the Companion took control (at which point the nacelles were presumably shut down).

3)The nacelles are apparently "bolted on" to the shuttle proper, viz. Kirk & Spock's lines when enveloped by the Companion: "Helm doesn't answer" // "Neither do the pods."

*C)*Power issues are complicated somewhat by the muddled events of "Galileo Seven," of which, however, some sense can be made:

1)"I can modify the reactor to function on a substitute fuel supply" (e.g. energy drawn from the phasers). Substitute to what? Not antimatter; surely, else the Planet of the Giant Cavemen would have suffered a really big boom (and Enterprise "located" the Galileo right away). 

2)"He's jettisoned the fuel and ignited it!" must be taken to mean that Scott drained the phasers of their energy and in the process ("a phaser can only drain so fast") changed that energy into fuel. What sort of fuel? Hydrogen comes to mind, and fits both bills: it's the simplist element (presumably easiest to nucleosynthesize from energy), and is readily "ignitable."

3)Though unmentioned, it is apparent Galileo's warp drive was offline. Otherwise, why not warp at least a little ways out of orbit?

4)To account for the fuel's jettisoning/burning, I labeled the nacelle's outboard (and inboard?) louvers "emergency flush vents." 

5)TOS tech's being absolute nonsense is of course proven beyond a doubt by the conclusion of "Galileo Seven." They make orbit...will maintain same for a single revolution, so it's said..."jettison and ignite" the fuel, whereupon upon the end of "burning," their orbit begins to "decay." Orbit being by definition a powerless state, there is no way to make sense of this, I think, and indeed, no way to justify the entire "jettison/ignition" scene save for Spock's thereby demonstrating an emotional outburst (and of course Mears falling onto her knees).

Lastly, please take it as the most polite correction as I point out it's spelled "bidet."

I should know. I have one. And lemme tell you, all of Europe may be wrong on some things, but not on this.

David Winfrey

PS--Darnit! Is _no _ one going to take up my Connie size revision?


----------



## trekkist

Four Mad,

LOVED the flaming shuttle!!! I can just see a bathing beauty reclining on the nearer warp engine...which is of course "humming with barely restrained power." 

Now how 'bout a chopped shuttle? Or one with a moonroof, ala the "prototype" sketch I alluded to awhile back?

Said sketch will be online in due course (Phil willing), being included in my blues package (whose mailing President's Day delayed...but not for long).

David Winfrey


----------



## MGagen

trekkist said:


> Trekgeezer here...
> 
> SNIP
> 
> PS--Darnit! Is _no _ one going to take up my Connie size revision?


David,

If you're referring to your deleted thread over at Culty's, I'm afraid it has been going on in your absence. The thread had a link to the discussion on this board, but you must not have seen it before it was deleted.

Anyway check this out, starting with Post #25:

How Big is the TOS Enterprise? 

Sincerely,
Mark "Trek-codger" Gagen

"The three stages of old age in humans: 1) Geezer, 2) Codger, 3) Coot" :jest:


----------



## StarshipClass

X15-A2 said:


> The whole idea of Bussard Ram Scoops on a ship that utilizes antimatter makes about as much sense as having propellors on the fronts of the engine nacelles.


 :lol: 

Love it!

I've always preferred to think of the fronts of the nacelles as cooling areas for the engines, hence the fans in some versions accelerating the cooling process. There could be some gaseous coolant being circulated to allow the engines to operate more efficiently.


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Chuck,

What you see in those interior drawings I posted is all there is so far. I posted them because I thought the crossection dimensions would be helpful to others here, the other views will be coming. The window width is incorrectly measured I noticed, it should read 2' 8.0" (not 9.0"). It was late and I was getting punchy...

David,

I'm looking forward to seeing (and posting) whatever you send and thanks again.

Phil


----------



## X15-A2

PerfesserCoffeee,

It really is difficult to come up with a reasonable explaination for that whole glowing/spinning light effect on the fronts of the nacelles. Yours sounds as good as any.

Phil


----------



## capt Locknar

HOLY COW, 14 pages on this thread. 

Wow these jobs are coming out fantastic. I've been behind on this thread and WOWWWWWW. 

Things are getting realllll close. Finished products will be looking fantastic. 
Keep up the great work and what a fantastic thread.


----------



## Four Mad Men

X15-A2 said:


> Ignatz!
> Love the flames!!!!!!





trekkist said:


> Four Mad,
> LOVED the flaming shuttle!!! I can just see a bathing beauty reclining on the nearer warp engine...which is of course "humming with barely restrained power."
> 
> Now how 'bout a chopped shuttle? Or one with a moonroof, ala the "prototype" sketch I alluded to awhile back?





X15-A2 said:


> Don't forget the bumper sticker that says: "Bad cop, no doughnut"!


Thanks, it was a fun diversion. When things settle down I'm definately going to dust off an old copy of Adobe Illustrator and make a really hi-res version of those flames, Phil's bumber sticker and David's enhancements.


----------



## Four Mad Men

X15-A2 said:


> I feel like I'm having to struggle to keep up with Four Mad Men.


Considering your exteriors are complete and mine aren't I would have said the reverse. Especially now that you've started working on interiors and equipment.

And now the update for today. All this talk on the nacelles has caused me to take a small break from the exterior (sorry Chuck) and work on what said nacelle might look like on the inside. There really is only a small amount of work to do on the exterior, I'm not avoiding it... really (ok maybe I am just a little). Part of me simply wanted a break from it and the rest of me enjoys something other than simply (HA!) re-creating something that somebody else designed. So without further delay...



The item on the left is the main nacelle frame. This is what the skin attaches to, and will include hard points that the pylon will be (explosive) bolted to.

And on the right we have the component frame that will contain the warp coils, M/A batteries (*love it!*), etc. Nothing you see is finalized yet but the component frame will eventually be two seperate frames (split aft of the landing pad -- the landing pad being part of the forward frame). The rear section will slide out on rails (you should just be able to make out the rails and the track they use in the image), either partially to replace the batteries or completely to replace things like the warp coils. Though two seperate component frames exist both can be removed as a whole unit (maybe). There will also be two access panels on the inside face which allow installation of the nacelle to the pylon (may add one or two more but right now those are the only definites)


----------



## trekkist

Again: gorgeous work, Four Mad! When working on my Gal blues, I had the distinct (and erroneous) impression I could fly the ship if it were real. Looking at your work, I get the feeling I could build it.

David Winfrey


----------



## Four Mad Men

Well if anybody goes this far in a physical construction I want to meet them personally (and negotiate a price for buying it!).

FYI for everyone -- I seperated my shuttle page into seperate pages. Main page is the same url as Chuck has been posting.

More progress on the interior -- general blocking of the components anyway. It can currenly be seen in the "On the bench" page.


----------



## Four Mad Men

P.S. The batteries are called "*Coffee cans*" as a tribute to their inventor. They can be switched out indiviually (they are mounted on a rotating connector arm) or all at once by removing the entire battery assembly.


----------



## X15-A2

BTW,

Had anyone noticed that the doors only have windows on the outside...?

I hadn't until I started trying to figure out the dimensions for the interior version. Its a small detail.

As a bit of trivia, the exterior mockup had real windows in the doors, they were filled with darkly tinted glass but you could see through them. I think the only reason they were put there in the first place was so the actors could see a visual que while waiting to exit.

Phil


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

X15-A2 said:


> BTW,
> 
> Had anyone noticed that the doors only have windows on the outside...?
> 
> I hadn't until I started trying to figure out the dimensions for the interior version. Its a small detail.
> 
> As a bit of trivia, the exterior mockup had real windows in the doors, they were filled with darkly tinted glass but you could see through them. I think the only reason they were put there in the first place was so the actors could see a visual que while waiting to exit.
> 
> Phil


Strange you should ask. I just emailed Four Mad Men and yourself about that yesterday afternoon. It didn't seem to bounce so I thought you had gotten it.

I left a couple more emails for you too in your pwbroad account.

Unfortunately right now I'm away from home at training. Usually I will only have plain vanilla email available here where I'm training. I just found out that a couple of machines like the one I'm using are available, but they're only available on a very limited basis so I'll be trying to mostly email you and Four Mad Men for the next little while, unless I find an internet cafe' nearby.

I was going to post a copy of the email I sent you and Four Mad Men here but I've found out that the floppy drives aren't readable on the internet accessible equipment(security is a bear here).

Perhaps Four Mad Men perhaps could post it later...

Anyway, suffice it to say that I noticed that there are zero windows on the inner door from a couple of your screengrabs.

So there is no longer any question but that doing the doorway will require two distinct set of doors, inner and outer.

Also, there is zero way to match up the interior and exterior window placement and have the windows at a believable height.

Assuming it's function is indeed supposed to be a window - obviously it was originally intended to be but it's function could be restated - what exactly would this window provide a view of? A grey hull? Plus if one were to open the inner door without opening the outer ones the bottom of the window would be well over 6 feet in the air!

Not to mention that based on the exterior view of the shuttle door the door should on the interior be less then two inches from the ceiling!

Solutions?

Just lowering the windows would be untenible as the windows would have to be lowered about two feet for the bottom of the window to be visible to someone about 5'5 feet high(like David's, Trekkist's, model).

There are two ways to go as I can best figure it, based on an initial placement of Phil's front interior scrap view inside either his or Four Mad Men's models.

1) Make the external of the two doors smaller, either with or without lowering the windows. Without lowering the windows at least a little the door would have to be made tremendously smaller, or skewed in terms of angles, in relation to an upscaled exterior. Based on Phil's very partial interior I'm roughly estimating a real world ship exterior would have to be upscaled to approximately 32 feet long. This might grow or shrink a foot,
I'm guessing, dependant apon some more detailed cavity layouts by Phil. Any chance of seeing any of those this weekend, Phil? But I don't expect those to change much more then a foot either way.

Perhaps Four Mad Men could post the rough scaling drawing I sent him, with the front and side views pasted in?

2) Leave the exterior door size alone and have the internal door remain as scaled in the interior scenes. The major downside to this would be that in a working model the inner door "rim" would be visible from an externally open doorway. However, on a model without opening doors it might not even be noticed. The visible(from the exterior) smaller inner door wouldn't be a perfect solution. But it's doable.

But what about the "window" height?
We could very well design those "windows" as flip down panels, hinged on the bottom horizontal edge so that when pushed they reveal manual door pull down override handles, to open the outer doors in the case of a power emergency.

At least this way the exterior views of the shuttle would be unchanged.
This solution could be combined with a variant whereby a matching larger interior doorway that went almost all of the way to the ceiling. Thus leaving no smaller rim area visible from the outside.



Phil, if you clear out your pwbroad mailbox I'll try to send you more of the Winfrey files. If any go through I'll try a second time about 10PM at the latest.

Thoughts guys?


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Chuck,

You're go'in the long way 'round the barn. Why not just have slip-down covers on the inside of the windows like they have on commercial jets? They could be close enough to "flush" with the surface that they would be nearly invisible from most angles (thus saving us from saying that the interior set was "wrong").

As to height, the interior version of the door is only 6'6" high, where is the problem with placement? If we lower it two feet, it will be about belly-button high.

Truthfully, I haven't gotten to the problems regarding the integration of the two sets. For now, I'm just trying to get drawings finished of them "as built".

Tomorrow morning I'm doing a "lightning raid" on Phoenix and Tuscon so I won't be around online again until Sunday night or Monday. A few friends and I are going to the big aircraft museum at Pima and the Titan Missile Museum. Should be fun.

Tonight I'm going to try to get the new full-frame cross sections of the Shuttlecraft up on the web site. And hopefully the copies on Matt Jeffries Enterprise drawings from Star Trek II (1977) that Mark is sending me. I'm going out there with Ed Whitefire so he should be dropping off his E' D drawings too. They should be on the site sometime next week (fingers crossed).

Phil


----------



## Four Mad Men

OK, This is a long one. Chuck is away on training as he mentioned above and has asked me to post this.
Some of the beginning is already in his above post but it does contain additional comments.
It contains comments from both Chuck and I, author of the comment is in *bold*

===================================

*Chuck_P.R.*

I brought a CD with a bunch of working files with me.
Since I have little else to do I was browsing through
some files when I noticed something I hadn't previously
in Phil's internal galileo screengrab named
"14_StarTrek_TOS_152.jpg".

Phil wasn't kidding when he said they were "simple 
pocket doors."

He didn't mention, and I didn't notice, just how "simple"
those interior pocket doors are. I hadn't noticed any views
where the doors were entirely visible and closed until
I looked closer at this one. Noticed Scotty and the chick
but never paid attention to the door before!

There can be no debate any longer as to whether or not
there needs to be two different sets of internal and external
doors.

There are rectangular panels I think might have been meant
to simulate windows on the exterior door.

However, there are ZERO windows or panels on the inner
door!

If we are going to explain it as anything other then just
a construction oversight on the interior set, the only way
to do that would be to assume that those flat black 
panels aren't windows. At least not windows meant
to look into or out of the shuttlecraft with!!!

It might be explained away as hinged access panels
(with the hinge on the bottom horizontal lines of the
panels) that when pushed in exposed an underlying
set(one under each panel) of "PULL" handles,
a manual override to the automated "PUSH" button
mechanism.

That way we wouldn't have to try and explain why a 
set of windows are apparently over six feet
off the deck!

Also, the inner door can be made smaller then the outer door,
thus not requiring a change in the outward side appearance
of the shuttle, while also not requiring a door that appears
to go almost all the way to the roof in the interior.

Not a perfect solution as the "inner hatch" rim would
be visible from the outside when the doors were opened,
but still maybe the most logical one that would best maintain
inner/outer symmetry.

===================================

*Four Mad Men*

That's an interesting discovery. I've certainly never
noticed it before. Although I think they can still be
windows.

It's true you wouldn't want the only thing between you
and space is some little window. Even the forward
viewports have covers.

You might however appreciate a window or two while "on
planet". Open the inner doors and you have a view out
of that side while still having protection from the
elements (or whatever).

Now, I do feel that the opening for the inner and
outer doors should be the same because the opening for
entry and exit is the smallest of the two and really
makes no sense from a logical perspective. I do
understand wanting to keep the outside proportions and
placements the same as seen on screen but if you
accept that they are indeed windows as I discussed
above then you might have to lower them so they are
useful windows. That's not really something that
bothers me too much as I'm going to eventually add
detail that wasn't seen on screen anyway but might
prove a conflict for your goal of building one of
these (as I also intend to do) for display.

Although if lowering the windows is the only exterior
compromise that needs to be made is upsizing the door
and lowering the windows than perhaps we count
ourselves lucky.

===================================

*Chuck_P.R.*

I like the attached nacelle drawings. However, I tend to still think a
technology
like matter/antimatter would be limitless in terms of power, other then
maybe
in casing decay, parts wearing out, etc. That, however, doesn't mean 
that
the
M/A batteries, or some such similar structure serving the same purpose 
on
a full-sized starship, wouldn't also be necessary as backup to failed
power
relays, maybe even just to keep the nacelles running at a constant warp
speed
in the case that the power from the M/A reactor failed to reach the 
warp
engine
for a moment or longer. It would probably be real disorienting if there
was only
one warp power source(M/A reactor or M/A battery) in each nacelle, and
something
happened to that single power feed.

Would hate to have one nacelle going at warp 2 and the other suddenly
drop to warp
1! While TNG and others have come up with the very understandable idea 
of
a single
warp field contributed to by one or more engines, one nacelle dropping 
in
power wouldn't
necessarily send the ship spinning in circles, however I'm willing to 
bet
it would really
do something waaaaay bad to the ship's structural integrity.

For that reason I'd include both a small M/A battery and a small M/A
reactor operating
in line to power the warp engines, with the battery operating sort of
like an
Uninterruptible in-line Power Source, with the M/A reactor connected to
both the
battery and the warp engines, and the M/A battery having a feed in from
the reactor
and then out to the warp engine. There would also be sensors which 
would
monitor
power from both sources in order to instantly switch to battery or
temporarily power
down even the working nacelle on the other side of the ship in the rare
event that
both power sources within a single nacelle failed. Then, once any 
stress
that might 
have been caused by one bad engine going out while the good one
still operated has been avoided, the one good engine could be restarted
in order
to then limp home without having damaged the structure.

Sort of a combination UPS/Circuitbreaker arrangement.

=========================================================================

*Four Mad Men*

All good points but I've always been dubious of the
ability (in the era in question) to have a warp
reactor small enough to fit in a shuttle nacelle. I
was going to go with fusion power (which is what is
going to power the impulse engine) until
PerfesserCoffee came up with the M/A battery.

You can't really tell it from the angle but there is
an external power feed (from the fusion reactor) into
the nacelle(s). And that power feed is tied into the
M/A battery system. Also there are four batteries per
nacelle (I was considering 6 but the 4 arrangement
looked better to me), so there's probably some
redundency there as well. In the unlikely event that
all eight batteries go out at the same time the Fusion
reactor can probably be good for at least generating a
Warp 1 field. And in addition, since there is a power
connection going into the nacelle from the main cabin
that does perhaps provide an ability to distribute the
power from one set of (good) batteries to the other
(bad) set -- maybe. However, as you say, in such an event
things are probably going really bad at the point.

As a side note I've never really been of the opinion
that ANY nacelle actually provides propulsion. It
"simply" provides the warp field and the impulse
engine provides the propulsion. But I'll sway to
popular opinion on this as it's not really relevant
to the design.

===================================


----------



## Four Mad Men

David,

The first of you shuttle plans are up. Please have a look and see if this is what you had in mind before I do the others. If not let me know. The omega symbol is upsized from something quite small and I can redo that part if it bugs you.

Shuttlecraft Galileo Construction Project - David Winfrey Page

Thnx,
Four Mad Men


----------



## Four Mad Men

And here is a shot of how it all currently comes together (much still to do).


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Guys,

This will be my last posting until next week when I get back from Phoenix.

The new full-frame contour sections have been posted as Chuck requested. The Star Trek II drawings will have to wait until next week, sorry.

Phil


----------



## Four Mad Men

X15-A2 said:


> Hi Chuck,
> 
> You're go'in the long way 'round the barn. Why not just have slip-down covers on the inside of the windows like they have on commercial jets? They could be close enough to "flush" with the surface that they would be nearly invisible from most angles (thus saving us from saying that the interior set was "wrong").
> 
> As to height, the interior version of the door is only 6'6" high, where is the problem with placement? If we lower it two feet, it will be about belly-button high.
> 
> Truthfully, I haven't gotten to the problems regarding the integration of the two sets. For now, I'm just trying to get drawings finished of them "as built".
> 
> Tomorrow morning I'm doing a "lightning raid" on Phoenix and Tuscon so I won't be around online again until Sunday night or Monday. A few friends and I are going to the big aircraft museum at Pima and the Titan Missile Museum. Should be fun.
> 
> Tonight I'm going to try to get the new full-frame cross sections of the Shuttlecraft up on the web site. And hopefully the copies on Matt Jeffries Enterprise drawings from Star Trek II (1977) that Mark is sending me. I'm going out there with Ed Whitefire so he should be dropping off his E' D drawings too. They should be on the site sometime next week (fingers crossed).
> 
> Phil


*Posted on behalf of Chuck*

I understand, and don't want to spend a lot of time
discussing integration and take your mind off an
accurate interior. However, I took a little time integrating
your interior with your exterior. It may be off by an inch or
so, but I don't think much more than that. The extra inches
back from the outer wall you see isn't just to make the hull
thicker arbitrarily(not all that unwise an idea anyhow) but
because of where chairs were visible from the outside in
several scenes pretty much dictated it. 

Based on all of that the door as viewed from the outside
is about 7'1 inches tall. The bottom of the windows(not the top
but bottom) is about 6'5" inches off the interior deck. When I
said lowered a couple of feet I was not trying to be exact. But
clearly a window that starts off at 6'5" inches would be way too
high. For the bottom to be at eye level a person would have to be 
almost seven feet tall.


----------



## MasaoOkazaki

Phil: I can't contribute anything to the shape of the shuttle itself, but I'd like to point out something about the lettering on your plans. I think that the shape of the R is incorrect, in particular the inclined leg. Replacement decals for the 11-foot were sold on eBay last year, and I saved some pictures. The letters would probably be similar for the shuttle and the 11-foot model.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Four Mad Men said:


> David,
> 
> The first of you shuttle plans are up. Please have a look and see if this is what you had in mind before I do the others. If not let me know. The omega symbol is upsized from something quite small and I can redo that part if it bugs you.
> 
> Shuttlecraft Galileo Construction Project - David Winfrey Page
> 
> Thnx,
> Four Mad Men


Four Mad Men, check your past emails(maybe about a week ago) as I sent an updated version of the first sheet with the handwritten notations of what appeared in print to the right of the shuttle door typeset rather then just handwritten, I also straighted the horizontal lines in the page as well. If you didn't get it email me and let me know and I'll send it again.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Awesome new full contour drawings Phil!!!!!


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Everybody,

MasaoOkazaki;

Those are great images of the decals! Thank you for posting them here. You are probably correct about them being the same on the side of the Shuttlecraft, I will look at revising the markings when I get back to work on the drawings. Were there other images of those decals and if so, would you post the others here for us? It may not be strictly pertinent to the Shuttlecraft but I'm sure everybody on this thread is just as interested in the Enterprise too. Thanks again.

Chuck,

Your comparison view is interesting but my thinking will be a little different about the integration. The roof height is going to have to come down a bit and the people inside may have to stoop slightly when walking around inside. Why you ask? Because a shuttlecraft that is scaled-up to strictly fit the interior as built will most likely be too big to fit through the main hatch of the Hangar Deck (that space is very tight). Not to mention that it will also be too big to get below decks without making the deck height a lot higher too. Frankly, I don't want to redesign Enterprise to fit the Shuttlecraft, if I don't have to. I think a suitable compromise is very possible but as I said before, I haven't begun that part of the process yet, this is just my opinion based on what I've seen so far.


Your humble Shuttlecraft draftsman almost became a "statistic" last night on the way back from Phoenix. It rained heavily from the Colorado river all the way into LA (about 200 miles). It was night by the time we reached Banning, west of Palm Springs, that is when we hit a patch of high water in the outside lane and began to swerve in heavy traffic. Our car spun to the left (thank God we didn't spin to the right, off the freeway!) and entered the next lane at a right angle to the direction of traffic, sliding sideways. The cabin began to roll in that direction as traction began to increase and I thought for sure that we were going to roll down the freeway over and over but somehow we remained upright. I was driving and I think that I had turned the wheel in an attempt to get the nose pointed back into the direction of traffic so when the car regained its traction, it suddenly spun back to the right, violently. When it came to a stop we were in the inside lane, pointed in the right direction! We both (Ed Whitefire and I)braced for BANG BANG BANG as the cars behind us began plowing into us.

Nothing happened. Apparently we had enough forward motion through the whole event that the other drivers had time to slow down. We crossed all the lanes of traffic while spinning, came to rest in the fast lane and didn't touch another single object!!

A lady pulled up beside us and asked if we were OK, we gave her the "thumbs up" and she went on her way. I got the car started again and we pulled off the freeway for a little "breather"...

The funny part was that Ed had just called his wife and when this all started, he actually got off the phone with her by saying "gotta go!" and hung up! I was laughing about that later.

On the way home I asked Ed if he thought we should pull off and buy lottery tickets but I think we both felt like we had "used up" our luck for the night...

Phil


----------



## Nova Designs

OMG! What a story! I'm so glad you guys are ok!!


----------



## capt Locknar

Wow Phil, What luck. Thank God no one was hurt or injured. I know how scary car accidents can be sometimes and just thankful no one was hurt. 
Congrats.


----------



## MasaoOkazaki

X15-A2 said:


> Those are great images of the decals! Thank you for posting them here. You are probably correct about them being the same on the side of the Shuttlecraft, I will look at revising the markings when I get back to work on the drawings. Were there other images of those decals and if so, would you post the others here for us? It may not be strictly pertinent to the Shuttlecraft but I'm sure everybody on this thread is just as interested in the Enterprise too. Thanks again.


Glad to be of help. There was only one other image, of assorted hull markings, but it's very small.


----------



## Ignatz

Geez Phil! Bet that got your pulse going! Glad you guys are okay! :thumbsup:


----------



## Trek Ace

Try to hang around just a while longer, okay Phil?


----------



## Richard Compton

Glad you came through all right. I know what you mean by needing a breather. I went off the highway down into a ditch once in a van. One second everything is fine, then....it's not.


----------



## StarshipClass

Four Mad Men said:


> David,
> 
> The first of you shuttle plans are up. Please have a look and see if this is what you had in mind before I do the others. If not let me know. The omega symbol is upsized from something quite small and I can redo that part if it bugs you.
> 
> Shuttlecraft Galileo Construction Project - David Winfrey Page


Great job, Four Mad!

The 'illegible numbers' are, as David pointed out to me, shown in the _Starfleet Technical Manual_ on the plans for the shuttlecraft hence the altered note regarding same.

Phil:

As James Bond would say: 'You only live twice: once when you are born and once when you look death in the face.' (Or something close to that -- IIRC it was originally a haiku  )


----------



## Four Mad Men

*Phil*,

Well I'm just glad no one was hurt. And welcome back! Besides you would do my er... your interior?

*PerfesserCoffee*,

Ah, the inventor of the "Coffee can"! (and if you missed the post, that's what I'm calling the M/A batteries). Thanks again for a great idea!


----------



## StarshipClass

Four Mad Men said:


> *PerfesserCoffee*,
> 
> Ah, the inventor of the "Coffee can"! (and if you missed the post, that's what I'm calling the M/A batteries). Thanks again for a great idea!



Yeah, I missed it somehow [kicks self]!

I am honored, sir, by the chosen nomenclature! :wave:


----------



## X15-A2

David,

I received your drawings in the mail yesterday (thankfully it didn't rain) so I will be posting them on my site, possibly tonight. Thanks again for sending them.

Phil


----------



## Four Mad Men

X15-A2 said:


> Chuck,
> 
> Your comparison view is interesting but my thinking will be a little different about the integration. The roof height is going to have to come down a bit and the people inside may have to stoop slightly when walking around inside. Why you ask? Because a shuttlecraft that is scaled-up to strictly fit the interior as built will most likely be too big to fit through the main hatch of the Hangar Deck (that space is very tight). Not to mention that it will also be too big to get below decks without making the deck height a lot higher too. Frankly, I don't want to redesign Enterprise to fit the Shuttlecraft, if I don't have to. I think a suitable compromise is very possible but as I said before, I haven't begun that part of the process yet, this is just my opinion based on what I've seen so far.
> 
> 
> Your humble Shuttlecraft draftsman almost became a "statistic" last night on the way back from Phoenix. It rained heavily from the Colorado river all the way into LA (about 200 miles). It was night by the time we reached Banning, west of Palm Springs, that is when we hit a patch of high water in the outside lane and began to swerve in heavy traffic. Our car spun to the left (thank God we didn't spin to the right, off the freeway!) and entered the next lane at a right angle to the direction of traffic, sliding sideways. The cabin began to roll in that direction as traction began to increase and I thought for sure that we were going to roll down the freeway over and over but somehow we remained upright. I was driving and I think that I had turned the wheel in an attempt to get the nose pointed back into the direction of traffic so when the car regained its traction, it suddenly spun back to the right, violently. When it came to a stop we were in the inside lane, pointed in the right direction! We both (Ed Whitefire and I)braced for BANG BANG BANG as the cars behind us began plowing into us.
> 
> Nothing happened. Apparently we had enough forward motion through the whole event that the other drivers had time to slow down. We crossed all the lanes of traffic while spinning, came to rest in the fast lane and didn't touch another single object!!
> 
> A lady pulled up beside us and asked if we were OK, we gave her the "thumbs up" and she went on her way. I got the car started again and we pulled off the freeway for a little "breather"...
> 
> The funny part was that Ed had just called his wife and when this all started, he actually got off the phone with her by saying "gotta go!" and hung up! I was laughing about that later.
> 
> On the way home I asked Ed if he thought we should pull off and buy lottery tickets but I think we both felt like we had "used up" our luck for the night...
> 
> Phil


Relayed on behalf of *Chuck*:

Wow! Just got an update of the thread emailed to me
courtesy of Four Mad Men. 

Thank God you are all alright!
Look's like you had a little pre-Ash Wednesday reminder
of your mortality! No sullied forehead required!



Kind of puts talking about a fictional spacecraft into perspective.
Having said that, let me go on to say that I understand you
integration issues, although I hope you will do a full scale
"as built" interior before deciding to scale it down.

Plus I think that some of the height issues may seem to vanish
on second look at the interiors. The partial interior you've done
so far looks to be over seven feet high. In one where Spocks
head just barely touches the bottom of the light fixure it would
be significantly lower, perhaps not in inches, but in proportion
to the cabin lengths


Anyhow, welcome home! You are safe and that's the most 
important thing!


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Guys,

Thanks for your all your concern, as you may imagine I am now treating the rain-slick roads with new respect...

This is just a note to let you know that David's drawings are now up on my web site under the Shuttlecraft model building plans section.

Ed still hasn't remembered to give me the copies of his E drawings yet but I should be getting them soon (soon as I remind him!).

For those of you who are interested, I also posted a three-page article about the special effects from "War of the Worlds" which originally appeared in the Nov 1952 issue of "Popular Science". It is brief but still kind of neat and has at least one behind the scenes photo that I had never seen before.

Some other good news on the home front here, we heard today that Boeing management is having a little re-think about out-sourcing all our jobs. There was a shake-up in the upper management arena and the result was a re-examination of the whole issue. It may still happen but we were told that there may be no layoffs until next year and in fact, two of the people who got layoff notices a few weeks ago were told that they are staying for now. So things are a little better at work. We are all hoping that management will realize that the out-sourcing just isn't going to give the results that they were expecting and change their minds altogether. Fingers crossed here.

Also, I discovered yesterday that the Galactica DVDs have been released in a normal-size box and they are at a cheaper price too. So I picked them up to allow me to post more material to the site. Just passing that along incase there are some crossover fans lurking here...

Phil


----------



## StarshipClass

Great news all around, Phil! :thumbsup: 

(Not to start another topic but I think 'out-sourcing' is one of the great evils of our time and I wish there'd be an end to it.)


----------



## Richard Compton

Unless it's a Polar Lights Star Trek model....I don't think they can afford to make them in the US.

Cool updates Phil, off to check them out!


----------



## Four Mad Men

I've been under the weather the past few days so I haven't gotten much done but I did start on an animation test...

Animation Test, part I (AVI, 900 KB, 640x320 15fps)

I would have rendered the second part as well but I did not get a chance to setup one other element that is needed for it. The audio is quick and dirty . I threw it together from a couple of clips I have lying around.


----------



## pcumby

*Animation*



Four Mad Men said:


> I've been under the weather the past few days so I haven't gotten much done but I did start on an animation test...
> 
> Animation Test, part I (AVI, 900 KB, 640x320 15fps)
> 
> I would have rendered the second part as well but I did not get a chance to setup one other element that is needed for it. The audio is quick and dirty . I threw it together from a couple of clips I have lying around.


Sweet!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

X15-A2 said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> Thanks for your all your concern, as you may imagine I am now treating the rain-slick roads with new respect...
> 
> This is just a note to let you know that David's drawings are now up on my web site under the Shuttlecraft model building plans section.
> 
> Ed still hasn't remembered to give me the copies of his E drawings yet but I should be getting them soon (soon as I remind him!).
> 
> For those of you who are interested, I also posted a three-page article about the special effects from "War of the Worlds" which originally appeared in the Nov 1952 issue of "Popular Science". It is brief but still kind of neat and has at least one behind the scenes photo that I had never seen before.
> 
> Some other good news on the home front here, we heard today that Boeing management is having a little re-think about out-sourcing all our jobs. There was a shake-up in the upper management arena and the result was a re-examination of the whole issue. It may still happen but we were told that there may be no layoffs until next year and in fact, two of the people who got layoff notices a few weeks ago were told that they are staying for now. So things are a little better at work. We are all hoping that management will realize that the out-sourcing just isn't going to give the results that they were expecting and change their minds altogether. Fingers crossed here.
> 
> Also, I discovered yesterday that the Galactica DVDs have been released in a normal-size box and they are at a cheaper price too. So I picked them up to allow me to post more material to the site. Just passing that along incase there are some crossover fans lurking here...
> 
> Phil


Great news!!! Hopefully the new Boeing management will realize the folly of having their proprietary design info flying all over the darn globe. With aerospace competition being what it is I doubt it's a bright idea.

Perhaps you can confirm a BG(original series) info I had heard. Allegedly the mass produced BG vipers are way off in scale due to the fact that the production people built the full size mockups in 3/4 scale and they were never intended to be viewed dead-on in profile view. However, the model kit people who had access to the set didn't know this apparently and as a result the mass produced viper kits were allegedly way off as a result. Any info on this?

On the Galileo issue, though, I'm ansiously looking forward to seeing your fleshed out "as built" interiors. The more I look at what seems to be required for a logical integration, the greater respect I have for Dave Winfrey's plans. Any more progress on the "as built" interiors Phil?

BTWay, did you get the Jeffries original pencil sketch of the Galileo I sent? If you email me you're work email I'll go ahead and send it and a couple of other files that never got through...

Thanks again for the tremendous amount of info you and Four Mad Men have put together on your sites in conjunction with the project!!!
We're on the cusp of seeing the best Galileo, and as Aridas puts it "the best Trek blueprints ever."

Keep up the great work guys!!!!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Are David's plans portion of Phil's website down?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

I should be back in full by late this weekend though I'm still trying to keep up with everything via email. Miss keeping up with the thread as often as I'd like, but that won't soon be a problem

Here is this page's relisting of the most important thread page links...

To keep the info visible on each page, for convience sake here's the links to the key Galileo Project pages:

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

http://www.ksent.com/members/~fourmadmen/shuttle/index.html

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

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

Keep in mind that these pages contain working views that are in flux. I would recommend members posting recommendations and observations here so tons of people don't repeat the same observations over and over again in individual emails, thus slowing the guys down.


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Chuck,

Sorry about that, I forgot to load the updated linking page to David's drawings. They should be available now. It seems like I'm always loading pages late at night when some of the mental cylinders have already shut down...

Phil


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Guys,

Check out the new Photoshop study picture I made today. It's a profile view of the Shuttlecraft cabin, stitched together from a tracking dolly shot. I think you will find it useful, eventhough it is not strictly speak a "true" view but it is close. My working assumption so far is that the splits in the wall are four feet appart. The photo is on the "Design Study" page of my site found here:

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

Phil


----------



## lonfan

*Outstanding*

Gentlemen, Although I have Nothing to add to your Conversation, I stumbled across this thread. I've just gotta tell you Fellas YOU GUYS ARE AMAZING! Really I wish the rest of the World could come together Swaping ideas and Trading Solutions like this.Meanwhile I was enjoying some of the CGI Shuttle Pics,I thought the (for lack of abetter word) Rear Windows looked a little Deep BUT then I saw a REAL Screen Grab on Phil's Site and I'll be Damned This rear Structure DOES LOOK DEEP! I guess I've been used to years of the AMT Decal for this Part.lol well I'll leave you alone know don't mind If I just Observe do ya'? thanks.


JOHN/LONFAN :thumbsup:


----------



## heiki

X15-A2 said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> Check out the new Photoshop study picture I made today. It's a profile view of the Shuttlecraft cabin, stitched together from a tracking dolly shot. I think you will find it useful, eventhough it is not strictly speak a "true" view but it is close. My working assumption so far is that the splits in the wall are four feet appart. The photo is on the "Design Study" page of my site found here:
> 
> http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DesignStudy/GalileoDesignStudy.htm
> 
> Phil


This shot would appear to show differences in the chair used by each crew member. One looks like it has a recliner, another looks like it has a back extension. Maybe they didn't have enough chairs in the studio inventory.


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Hieki,

The chairs are all the same. They do tip forward and backwards on their base. Some of the apparent differences may also be an artifact of the way the images were stitched together. I was more interested in seeing the details on the walls and their relative spacing so the chairs and the people in them may have suffered from my blending of images taken from different perspectives.

Phil


----------



## StarshipClass

Great job on those interior photos, Phil! :thumbsup: 

It's like having a personal tour of the set.


----------



## heiki

Ya, what I noticed was the the red girl has a circle adjustment piece, Scotty's looks like it has a different top. If artifacts are obscuring the other chairs that could be it.

Nice job of imaging!


----------



## X15-A2

Thanks guys, glad you like my slight-of-hand photo.

I wanted to pass along a little detail that I discovered (then remembered) about the impulse deck on the Shuttlecraft. The black plate inside, with the cut out "exhaust" ports in it, is actually two plates, one set behind the other with about an 8-inch gap. The funny part about it is that the tapering holes in the plates are inverted from each other. The outer plate (easiest to see) has the holes tapering towards the bottom, while inner plate has the holes tapering to the top. When I was visiting the Shuttlecraft at its owner's home I only saw that inner plate because the outer plate was loose and just laying flat on the deck, only the inner one was in place at the time. I remember thinking then that it had been put in "up side down" but it didn't occur to me at the time that this was impossible because of the way the outer edges taper inwards. This means that the plates can only be installed one-way-up. If my description here is too vague to really convey what I mean then you will see it in the drawings as soon as they are done. Otherwise, checkout the frame grab images. You may have to lighten them to really see what I mean but there are a few shots where this detail is visible.

BTW, did anyone notice the reflections of the film crew on that black panel (which was just a piece of black plexiglass) in the images from "The Galileo Seven"? If not, check it out. You can see about three guys standing there watching what is going on.

Phil


----------



## Nova Designs

You know I wonder if that might be Gene standing there in the white shirt!


----------



## Ignatz

Great observation about the impulse engine! Another important detail to add to the plans. I love the composite photo; makes it look roomy! It's nice to see an unobstructed view of the interior, distortions aside. Great job Phil, and great news on the job front. Reprieved!


----------



## Four Mad Men

Completed both parts of the test animation...

Shuttlecraft Test Animation (WMV, 386KB)


----------



## trekkist

My lawd, that animation (which wouldn't play for me til tonight...earlier postings didn't run for me, for some reason)! Dunno what else to say...save to ask, what sort of time goes into making that sort of thing?

And -- are you intending continuing it to show the shuttle's flying behind the ship and then entering the bay?

Wow....

David Winfrey


----------



## Four Mad Men

Just as well on the first one as it was just the first part. Changed to a format most WIndows and Mac users can handle.

I'm glad you like it it was fun to make. It was boring to make. Fun part is setting it all up. Boring part is rendering. I don't have the fastest computer in the world althought it's not the slowest either. It takes about 30 minutes to render 1 second of video at 15fps (although I distribute it at 30fps -- 29.997 actually but I digress). Doing that cuts my render times in half and does not seem to affect the final product.

Yes, I intend on "going in for a landing". In fact I'll add something to the beginning. The next part will shot a nacelle flyby from inside the shuttle so I need an interior. And for the landing I'll need we'll... a shuttle bay. Then Enterpise you see is not finished and the rear section has the furthest to go.

I'm thinking of rendering the full flight from two cameras. One inside and one outside and then just edit them together as looks best. I figure that way (while more time consuming) might produce better results as I'll have more options in editing the two togehter. Perhaps I should think digitally and set it up in the computer as it's going to be in it's final form but I find myself thinking from a film perspective (shoot as much as you can and put it together in post). I just wonder sometimes which way is best.

Again, I'm glad you liked it and be on the lookout for more soon(ish).


----------



## StarshipClass

Four Mad Men said:


> Completed both parts of the test animation...
> 
> Shuttlecraft Test Animation (WMV, 386KB)


Very cool! :thumbsup:


----------



## X15-A2

Four Mad Men,

Way to go! The Shuttlecraft lives! More please...

I think the same way you do, get "coverage" then edit as seems desirable. Probably much more time consuming but you need freedom in edit, not restriction from lack of coverage.

Looking forward to seeing your aimation expand into a full scene.

Phil


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

5000+ views!
444 posts!

You know how I'd like to see you help commemorate the event, don't ya' Four Mad Men?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Have a little paperwork to do but should be back by Monday at the latest guys!

Keep up the great posts!


----------



## Four Mad Men

Chuck_P.R. said:


> 5000+ views!
> 444 posts!
> 
> You know how I'd like to see you help commemorate the event, don't ya' Four Mad Men?


I believe I do. Soon. I'm on the list and it won't be long.


----------



## Four Mad Men

Posted on behalf of *Chuck*,

Phil, did Dave Winfrey send you any of the pictures he
said he had of the "skeleton" structure a fan of his plans
had used to construct a scratchbuilt Galileo?

Also, based on your plans of the shuttlecraft hanger and
the shuttlecraft, assuming your pictured shuttlecraft to be
24 feet long(the perhaps erroneously mispoken length Kirk
gave in the series, maybe as MGagen has suggested he was
thinking about the internal part of the shuttle and simply mispoke)
there seems to be 3-5 feet of room to the fore and aft of the launch
floor "hatch" making up to a 34 foot vessell possible, if admittedly
a tight squeeze.

But again, we won't be able to go into tremendous detail until more
interior "as built" dimensions are worked out.

I agree with you that those panels probably are 4 feet wide, though it
may be advantageous in the future to suppose they are 6-12 inches
narrower.
I'm assuming that is perhaps why David didn't assign them that size
and/or make them equidistant apart in his interiors, as that probably
would have required an even larger cabin, and consequently a larger 
exterior. 

Also, do you really think the inside ceiling is over 7 feet high in the
interior
stage piece? 

It seems as though Spock's head is almost touching the light
fixture in some clips. 

However, I must admit that the ridiculously low camera
angles in many of those shots may be to blame. That may be just
a perspective illusion.


----------



## Pygar

Uh, that was my suggestion, not Mgagen's. No biggee. It's just that there's little enough I can contribute except rah-rahs!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Sorry about that Pygar. My mistake.
Special thanks to Four Mad Men for helping to keep me updated by email during while I was gone.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Any new interior plans on the horizon, Phil?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

To keep the info visible on each page, for convience sake here's the links to the key Galileo Project pages:

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com

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

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

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

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

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehic...ans/DavidWinfrey/GalileoDavidWinfreyPlans.htm

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/GalileoDVDimagesSht1.htm

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/GalileoDVDimagesSht2.htm

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehic...ecraftConstruction/GalileoConstructionTop.htm

Keep in mind that these pages contain working views that are in flux. I would recommend members posting recommendations and observations here so tons of people don't repeat the same observations over and over again in individual emails, thus slowing the guys down.


----------



## trekkist

Still haven't gotten around to getting the Nehmzow (1/24 shuttle model skeleton) photos in the mail to Phil -- sorry, guys; my co-worker quit without notice a few weeks back and I've been working every night since then. Lots of time to "work" at work -- little time to do squat at home (in this case locate -- d'oh! -- and photocopy -- for my ref and as backup; Phil'll be loaned the originals -- the pix).

Did take time last night to compare my work and Phil's -- not to "check" his, but so we can serve as a reality check on one another. Results thus far:

Interiors (panel/nose) a near-perfect match in all regards.

His outline matches near-perfectly to Franz Joseph's, implying latter did indeed have access to the sub-scale exterior prop.

Via Phil's height at -- I forget what point exactly; I didn't do multiple checks -- applied to FJ's exterior, "real" shuttle (blown up to contain interior) sizes out at 29-31 ft (diff. based on FJ's non-canon landing gear). 

Someone asked how I came at different lengths between the interior wall's "seams" (put at 4 ft apart by Phil). I sweated long and hard over this -- intuitively, I figured they should be identical, but they didn't "seem" to be. Final answer was derived from a series of 35 mm photos taken off the TV screen (that era's version of "frame capture"), strung together as in Phil's full-length interior assemblage. I think he said he wasn't entirely sure of this; neither was I of mine. So I stand at this point where I did way back when: the seams should be equidistant, and most likely were...but I'm not entirely sure.

David Winfrey


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

I think that the rear landing gear shouldn't affect total length, Trekkist. The nacelles extend past either the FJ or "real world" versions.

But don't let me neglect to say that the more I study the issues involved in the integration of interior to exterior, the greater respect I have for your plans, David.

Looking forward to some new interiors from Phil.

I also noticed the walls in the second, "engineering room," has vertical walls, suggesting that part of the ship's interior to be narrower. Another detail you correctly picked up in your plans Dave...


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com/winfrey.html

Four Mad Men will shortly be posting some high rez versions of David's prints at the address above, complete with the letter-size sheet that were originally included in the full set of 11 x 17 inch prints.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Hello in here!!!! echo... echo... echo..


----------



## Ignatz

Shhhh. You'll wake Phil.


----------



## X15-A2

You only have to worry about waking me while I'm at work...

Made good progress on the drawings last friday but the rest of the weekend was filled with other tasks. The drawing count for the exterior is up to 32 sheets and there will probably be a few more.

I received Ed's Enterprise D plans and have scanned them. Last night I went through "Generations" looking for images of the ship to go with the plans but there are not a lot of really good shots of the ship in that movie and the TV episodes are only being sold as boxed sets by season. Ain't no way I'm paying $112 for a boxed set of a TV show I can't stand (my apologies to you faithful fans out there). I was hoping that they might be being sold as individual episodes or two-per-disc like TOS is but I guess they aren't. I'll have to see if I can find some to borrow.

Otherwise I will go with what I've got and get the "D" page up as soon as possible. Thats the news so far.

Phil


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Great! Looking forward to seeing the new drawings you've done!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Phil, please excuse an off-topic question or two. You and others have inspired my interest in 3D modeling. Blender seems to be the best of the shareware packages. But if I were to take the time to learn complicated software I might want to try and turn it into a marketible skill(not to suggest that someone proficient in one package couldn't become proficent in another, but at a whopping 39 years old I don't know how much time I'd like to spend jumping from one system to another).

Of the commercial packages, it seems that Microstation and Lightwave are the most widely used.

Having said that, however, let me point out the obvious and say I'm by no means well read on these subjects and would appreciate your input as well as anyone else who is knowledgable in the subject.

From what I've been able to see, based on books available via Amazon.com and by website hits when doing searches on Microstation and Lightwave,

Lightwave seems to be the industry standard for people who are producing 3D stuff for Special Effects for TV and many movies(thought there is another, even more expensive $17,000 dollar program that many moviemakers use for their F/X, yet I've read that people who use it for things like superior character generation actually tend to fall back on Lightwave for it's supposedly superior rendering.

Microstation, however, seems to be far more widely used by people doing "real-world" rendering. Engineers, architects, civil-engineering, etc.

Would you agree that this tends to be the case?

It also seems, based on both your comments and a couple of statements in review of the books available for Microstation, that Microstation has little to no trouble converting scanned line drawings to usable 3D models. Is this true?

When asking about this here in this forum, as well as in the TrekBBS art forum I've been told that nothing works well for this purpose, especially if you have an original with uneven line thickness that you are trying to standardize.

However, all of those guys seemed to be using one of the packages used primarily for F/X or shareware software.

How is Microstation at equalizing line sizes, etc, from scanned drawings?

Another reason I'm interested in all of this is that it would seem like someone who trained with Microstation would later have a lot more job opportunites then someone who has trained in Lightwave. Seems like there would be more "real-world" drafting jobs then F/X jobs. 

But that's just a total guess on my part, based partly on the number of links to sites dedicated to schools offering Microstation drafting training versus Lightwave. But again, I don't have any industry knowledge as you do, so it's an impression, not something I can authoritatively comment on.

Any info, opinions, observations you'd like to share would be appreciated.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Hoping we'll see some updates soon. The six or so new exterior drawings you have done would be greatly appreciated, Phil. Seems like this thread may be going the way of the dinosaurs...


----------



## Four Mad Men

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Hoping we'll see some updates soon. The six or so new exterior drawings you have done would be greatly appreciated, Phil. Seems like this thread may be going the way of the dinosaurs...


You mean in all the science and history books? Talked about the world over? Cool!

Also, gave myself a one hour break from my "real" work and the results are as follows (from your list):

1,2,3,7,8 Complete
6 in progress

I'll check back when I can.


----------



## Nova Designs

Hey Phil, I have a one of the TNG Boxed sets, you want me to make a few screencaps for you? Its the least I can do for getting my hands on those excellent plans and photos you keep dishing up


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Four Mad Men said:


> You mean in all the science and history books? Talked about the world over? Cool!
> 
> Also, gave myself a one hour break from my "real" work and the results are as follows (from your list):
> 
> 1,2,3,7,8 Complete
> 6 in progress
> 
> I'll check back when I can.


Great!!!!

Get whatever you need done at work, this is hobbytalk, not pay-the-bills talk. 

Just seems like we've hit a wall for the last couple of weeks or so, when we seemed to be so close to seeing your and Phil's finished exteriors, and more of Phil's interiors. I totally understand when it comes to having to put things aside from time to time. I probably wouldn't be nearly as anxious if we weren't so close to seeing totally finished exteriors. Plus I kind of started researching this way back in August or so. It took me over three months just to get a copy of Trekkist's blueprints. You are both so close on the exteriors it's incredible!

Sorry if my over-exuberance is annoying from time to time. You both are doing an incredible job!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

To keep the info visible on each page, for convience sake here's the links to the key Galileo Project pages:

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com

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

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

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

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

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/GalileoDVDimagesSht1.htm

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/GalileoDVDimagesSht2.htm

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehic...ecraftConstruction/GalileoConstructionTop.htm

Keep in mind that these pages contain working views that are in flux. I would recommend members posting recommendations and observations here so tons of people don't repeat the same observations over and over again in individual emails, thus slowing the guys down.


----------



## Nova Designs

Well since I do this CG stuff for a living, I'll take a stab at answering some of this. I'll try to be as unbiased as I can, but still try to let you know what I think personally



Chuck_P.R. said:


> Of the commercial packages, it seems that Microstation and Lightwave are the most widely used.
> 
> Having said that, however, let me point out the obvious and say I'm by no means well read on these subjects and would appreciate your input as well as anyone else who is knowledgable in the subject.


There are many fine professional applications for doing 3D work. However you really need to decide what your goals are before you begin comparing applications. Lightwave and Microstation could not be more different if they were Photoshop and MS Word. The fact that both of those apps can "handle images" does not mean that you'd want to type a term paper in Photoshop or that you could even _begin_ to create a digital painting in Word.

That being said, the simplest way to divide the categories up is this. 
3D applications purposed for previsialization and CAD fabrication, and 3D applications purposed for animation and visual effects. Microstation being in the former and Lightwave being in the latter.



Chuck_P.R. said:


> From what I've been able to see, based on books available via Amazon.com and by website hits when doing searches on Microstation and Lightwave,
> 
> Lightwave seems to be the industry standard for people who are producing 3D stuff for Special Effects for TV and many movies(thought there is another, even more expensive $17,000 dollar program that many moviemakers use for their F/X, yet I've read that people who use it for things like superior character generation actually tend to fall back on Lightwave for it's supposedly superior rendering.


"Industry standard" is perhaps _the most_ erroneous term used to descibe software used for animation and visual effects. Nearly every studio in existence requires _multiple_ applications to create what we eventually see in movies and on TV. There is no one piece of software that will do it all (in spite of all the hugely misleading marketing you've probably seen) and any that try to do it all tend to be weak in most of the areas  You'll see ads all the time saying "Product X was used to make the feature film Y" But that is _totally misleading_ because it may have only been used for storyboarding, or maybe just modeling, or just to make scenery or only for particle effects. The truth is there is no one app that is superior in every way to all others. So, the smart studios try them all and develop a _pipeline_ that works best for their needs and keeps the number of apps to a minimum.

For example, at the studio where I work (DNA) our pipeline goes _basically_ something like this:

Modeling in Lightwave
Texturing in Photoshop and Painter
Animation in Maya
Lighting and VFX in Lightwave
Rendering in Lightwave
Compositing and post FX in Digital Fusion 
Editing in Avid
Audio post in ProTools.
So you see, its quite a lot of jumping around. But we make it work smoothly  Some studios will use many more apps that that and some at simultaneous stages in the pipeline. It can really slow things down a lot too.

All that being said there are 3 or 4 major 3D applications in use in studios, any of which will probably be far beyond your requirements for some time--in other words you'll be satisfied.

They are: Lightwave, Maya, 3D Studio Max and XSI (softimage)
Some not-so-production-useful-apps (excuse the term) that are also excellent to learn on are Electric Image Universe and Cinema 4D.

These apps range in cost from around $1,400 all the way up to about $22,000. Also apps like Maya and XSI require exspensive yearly "maintenance" fees that make the software less than attractive for hobbiests.

Lightwave and Max are the two most accessible and full-featured out of the box experiences. They also have no fees after initial purchase, although with both apps there are third party plugins that extend the functionality (and with Max that's pretty much necessary for things like character animation and decent rendering. Note: 3DS Max 6, the latest version, now finally ships with a good quality 3rd party rendering engine.)



Chuck_P.R. said:


> Microstation, however, seems to be far more widely used by people doing "real-world" rendering. Engineers, architects, civil-engineering, etc.


This is possibly true although there are a heck of a lot more CAD apps than Animation/VFX apps out there. Most are not rendering apps per/se (ala AutoCAD) and so, as is the case in a VFX pipeline, design and rendering tasks are probably separate in a lot of cases. What this ultimately means for you is BIG $$$$$ being spent.



Chuck_P.R. said:


> It also seems, based on both your comments and a couple of statements in review of the books available for Microstation, that Microstation has little to no trouble converting scanned line drawings to usable 3D models. Is this true?
> 
> When asking about this here in this forum, as well as in the TrekBBS art forum I've been told that nothing works well for this purpose, especially if you have an original with uneven line thickness that you are trying to standardize.
> 
> However, all of those guys seemed to be using one of the packages used primarily for F/X or shareware software.
> 
> How is Microstation at equalizing line sizes, etc, from scanned drawings?


While I am not very familiar with the Previs/CAD side of the street I will say that it is not very likely that there would be a reliable push-button technology in any app that would convert raster line at into 3D objects, without a tremendous amount of cleanup work. Vector artwork is a different story, but I still think that there would be some level of manual expertise required for that tech to do what it is I think you're after.




Chuck_P.R. said:


> Another reason I'm interested in all of this is that it would seem like someone who trained with Microstation would later have a lot more job opportunites then someone who has trained in Lightwave. Seems like there would be more "real-world" drafting jobs then F/X jobs.
> 
> But that's just a total guess on my part, based partly on the number of links to sites dedicated to schools offering Microstation drafting training versus Lightwave. But again, I don't have any industry knowledge as you do, so it's an impression, not something I can authoritatively comment on.


Like I mentioned before the funtions of these apps are completely unrelated and they are not interchangeable. If you were a trained engineer or architect and skilled in the use of a CAD 3d app, you would very likely _never_ be hired as a visual effects or animation artist and visa-versa. One is a _technical_ job and the other is an _artistic_ job with technical requirements. They are quite different.

However both fields are subject to offshoring and downsizing due to the recent economic crunch. Layoffs are common. I would speculate that the only way to ensure employment in any career is to be damn good at what you do, don't be greedy, and always _ALWAYS_ continue learning new skills.

As far as getting into either field and education... remember that engineering and architecture are very, very old fields and have long been traditionally accepted careers in our society. Its only natural that you would run across many more options for training in that field as opposed to the barely infant field of visual effects. Also the visual effects community is a very small tightly knit one, and one not easy to get into professionally.

For engineering the standards and educational methods are already structured and known. If you can pass your classes and get your degree, that is a large part of qualification for employment.

In VFX and animation its all about your talent and your work. There are very few schools dedicated to training in only applications because its not a techincal field, its an _art field._ You need traditional art skills and _talent_ far more than application and computer knowledge. So those application classes tend to be embedded in traditional art curriculums, or at a very few specialized trade schools. 

In VFX, if you don't have a quality demo reel with some stunning material on it, you won't get a job no matter how many applications you've mastered. And of course your reputation and who you know in the industry are equally as important, this is Hollywood we're talking about after all! 

I hope some of that is helpful to you.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Thanks a ton Nova, now I'm going to go get a cup of coffee and go through this obviously well thought out and considerate response. I'm sure it will be helpful. Will give a little feedback as soon as I can.

Thanks again! Anybody else?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Tremendously helpful response on the VFX side, Nova Designs. Thanks tremendously!

I understand what you are saying about the Technical/CAD side having more traditional training, more inroads available, etc. Though I have to say that many many such people seem to have a tremendous amount of artistic skill and I'm sure many should be considered artists in their own right. Being able to accurately render objects in 3 dimensions and creating accurate plans, even using 2D CAD applications, takes skills such as depth perception and understanding of problems with perspective etc that are associated with art as well. On the flip side a lot of what people would label as art training is really scientific geometric and spatial training. It just isn't viewed that way by those studying it because of the less formal atmosphere, and because there are art disciplines that don't rely on such rules(though any well rounded artist should understand the principles, only if they are interested in abstract art).

I'm glad to know what you've told me about the VFX community. Though I think that the practioners of the two types of rendering, etc I think the camps may have more in common then they realize. Though you point about a drafter/engineer not being hired for VFX work is a point well taken.

Such a person may be few and far between, but do you think that this bias would extend towards someone with both engineering and artistic training? Would scientific training be looked apon as a negative by those who might consider the person to be "less creative?"


----------



## Trek Ace

For the kind of work that Nova describes, it is best to have a background in film/television production and already posess a good sense of composition, balance, characterization, timing and dramatic storytelling, etc., - and be taught how to use the (3D) tools and related fx applications, than to try to teach someone with CAD skills from a technical school the art of production. The two worlds are VERY different.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

No one is going to teach the CAD person, or any person, all of these things, Trek Ace. They will have to pursue their own education learn and develop these skills whether they have a CAD background or no background at all.

I know that having one skill set has zero effect on whether or not someone is truly able to perform another skill, in the case of CAD experience it would truly help.

The real-world question I was asking Nova Designs was whether the bias he describes would often cause those in the VFX community to discriminate against someone who had BOTH skill sets because of a possible anti-engineering bias.


----------



## Richard Compton

Well I have neither ability (technical drafting or 3d visual effects) but I maintain an interest visual effects....mostly amateur hobbyist type. I see a lot of people get really into this field with a desire to work in that field, but it's not necessary for them. They do it because it's fun. They buy expensive software and spend hours learning everything there is because they like it. It's just like a lot of the scale modelers here at Hobbytalk. How many of them do any kind of professional work? 5 or 6? Out of how many? The rest just do it for fun.

I rather enjoy seeing what amateurs can achieve almost more than what the pros can.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

I agree Richard. One of the great things about this forum is that people can get input from people like Trek Ace, Nova Designs, Phil, and Four Mad Men to help us make decisions, as well as share our own worries, failures, successes and ideas. I fall into the category you described of one who isn't necessarily interested in doing professional 3D modeling. But know myself well enough that I'll also probably get anal retentive and dive into it deeply if I do get started. I'm thankful that Capt. Locknar's provided this forum so I have the chance to get advice from the pro's about the best way to indulge my interests. Hate to spend tons of time learning one piece of software when another would be more fitting.


----------



## Nova Designs

Well that's the cool thing about where the technology has brought us. Today we can do things with a $900 PC and a $1,500 software package that cost more than a _million dollars_ 10 years ago! It puts the opportunity to see what can be done with VFX into the hands of people who might never have been able to.

And all of this cool stuff is a direct trickle down from the Movie industry. There is the place where ridiculous sums of money will be spent to try to acommplish something visually. And as new tech is invented, stuff made a few years ago finds its way into the programs we buy. Its pretty cool how that all works.




Chuck_P.R. said:


> Such a person may be few and far between, but do you think that this bias would extend towards someone with both engineering and artistic training? Would scientific training be looked apon as a negative by those who might consider the person to be "less creative?


No, any knowledge that might be useful to a studio would be considered an advantage. But the artistry and directly relevant skills _must_ be there. Now there are other options available such as C++ programmers, shader writers and render technicians. They don't necessarily do the _creative_ side of things, but in certain pipelines they are necessary to create custom tools for the artists to use. And its a rather high paying position to boot 




Chuck_P.R. said:


> Though I have to say that many many such people seem to have a tremendous amount of artistic skill and I'm sure many should be considered artists in their own right. Being able to accurately render objects in 3 dimensions and creating accurate plans, even using 2D CAD applications, takes skills such as depth perception and understanding of problems with perspective etc that are associated with art as well. On the flip side a lot of what people would label as art training is really scientific geometric and spatial training. It just isn't viewed that way by those studying it because of the less formal atmosphere, and because there are art disciplines that don't rely on such rules (though any well rounded artist should understand the principles, only if they are interested in abstract art).


Well, its true there can be an artistic side to that as well, but that of course begs the whole unanswerqable "What is art" question. _For me_ and my personal definition of "art", in cases of highly technical skills like engineering, architecture, and computer programming, its more a straightforward _technical skill_. In the case of most engineers, they are not actually creating something for an artistic goal but for a practical one. And generally its someone else's design, vision, idea... that is being fleshed out through the engineer's technical prowess. I'm not trying to belittle that, but I do feel that skill and artistic talent are distinctly different things. I know several CG students that are highly proficient at the software--they know it inside and out. But their work is ugly because they have no sense of aesthetic, even though _they have been trained to!_
I just feel that, given the aptitude, its probably much easier to train someone to become proficient at engineering than it is to train someone to be _talented artistically_--regardless of the art medium. Now when that engineer becomes senior enough to become a _designer_... well that's a different thing. There is a large element of talent and artistry that is involved in that, I'll agree.

--------------------------------------------



Trek Ace said:


> For the kind of work that Nova describes, it is best to have a background in film/television production and already posess a good sense of composition, balance, characterization, timing and dramatic storytelling, etc., - and be taught how to use the (3D) tools and related fx applications....


I know this is a little out of the context of your statement... In a general sense I suppose that is true. But as in most fields there are varying needs for skills. For example as a director or producer, film and TV production knowledge would be vital. However it wouldn't really be a huge necessity to master, say, Maya or Lightwave so long as they had a general understanding of what it takes for _those_ artists to do _their_ jobs.

For what I do, which is strictly modeling, lighting, and visual effects. Things like timing, composition, storytelling... have all been worked out and structured by other people. I'm way down the pipeline from them. It does indeed benefit and round me out as an artist to understand those concepts, even be able to practice them proficiently. But for my specific job, they are really non essential. In fact, I recall my director looking a one of my FX shots once and he said "I have no clue how you guys do all this cool shit, all I know is I really like it!" Hehehe!
For doing a project completely on my own I would, of course, need to master all elements of concept and production. But the VFX industry tends to be heavily specialized, especially at larger studios like ILM, Pixar, and Digitial Domain.

The reason is there are so _very many_ difficult-to-master skills that go into something like movie making. And those skills change with the new technology, which evolves almost _daily_. It would take an extraordinary person to be able to master and be really good at _everything_ required to make a movie or TV show. And from what I have seen, those people are extremely rare (and rather disfunctional too! )

I used to think that someday I'd like to make my own heavy effects laden scifi movie. But after spending 6 months to make 2 minutes of my demo reel (and that has no story, acting, music or custom sound) I realized why it takes several hundred people a couple of years of 7 day work weeks to make a feature film. 

Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Great info, Nova Designs!
Glad to know I was perhaps reading too much into your previous post as to cliquishness, the who-you-know syndrome, etc...

Hoping Phil will eventually chime in with some info about Microstation.

BTWay, take another look at my re-edited post #6 in the thread http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?p=703182

If the history of the TOS D-7 studio models described on that ebay page is true...

well, checkout the post and you'll see what I mean.


----------



## Four Mad Men

So, does anyone remember where I parked my shuttle?


----------



## edwhitefire

OK guys, the Enterprise D drawings are posted. I started a new thread about them as well. Enjoy!


----------



## Pygar

Four Mad Men said:


> So, does anyone remember where I parked my shuttle?


You must have left by the rear Mystery Door!

Cool rendering!


----------



## Four Mad Men

Perhaps the grilled hatch in the back.

But yes, of the two things left to do (along with tweaking the impluse deck, so I guess that's three things then) a door is one of them. Until the interior is sorted out in more detail they'll just have to climb in through the viewports.


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Guys,

Chuck, 

Nova Designs has really answered the software question quite fully. Microstation is a CAD/Soft-Engineering tool. It creates renders, as you have seen, but it lacks many of the sophisticated surfacing tools such as bump-maps (used for making 3D textures from 2D artwork when applied to a surface) and has very poor decaling abilities (so poor that I don't even use them, the markings on my models are "carved" into the surface then the color changed as necessary. That is the "really dumb way" to put markings on a computer model!). Microstation has some animation abilities but once again, these are very primative. Microstation's strength is in building objects such as machines or buildings. Particullarly in a case where you are working from a blueprint with dimensions. All the tools in it can be dimension-driven which makes very precise models. The FX industry tools are typically geared to more free-form shapes and lack the wide range of precision input tools that Microstation has.

For me, the answer will be to find a way to import models built in Microstation into one of the FX style software packages such as Lightwave. I have not tried this yet but I believe that the answer will be to import the Microstation files into Rhino3D then export them to a file format compatable to one of the FX softwares. Rhino V3 has a huge list of import/export file types.

Nova Designs has already pointed out that the industry uses many software packages and that is what we must do too. You would also want to learn a package like "Bryce" which is used for creating natural environments (rocks, trees, lakes, clouds, etc) and another called "Poser" which creates human figures in different poses for animation purposes. Photoshop is also a "must" for creating graphics and many of the software packages are already set up to work directly with the files it creates.

There is a lot to learn in this field, so much in fact that no one will ever finish learning it. I do it because I have a creative bent and this media offers a very exciting outlet for that creativity. This means that I only struggle with the details, not in finding motivation to learn. BTW, I'm 46 so don't feel bad.

Saturday my access to the web site was cut off, I don't know why. My FTP software is no longer connecting to it. I have a trouble-email into the hosts but have not heard back from them yet. The last thing I posted was the Enterprise D pages with Ed's plans of it but unfortunately the page is full of typos and worse, I gave the wrong size for the plans that he will be "giving away" with his "drawing tubes". They are 22x34, not 16x22. Hopefully I can get this fixed before too many people see it.

Nova Designs,

Thanks for the offer of STNG screen caps. Any that you can get of the ships exterior would be appreciated. If you look at the pages on my site you will see the areas that are covered so far (not many). It is primarily the top of the saucer and the forward parts of the saucer pylon. What I would like to get are close ups of the other areas; Saucer underside, Warp Drive nacelles (top and bottom), saucer pylon rear surfaces, Engineering Hull (all sides), Hangar Deck details (inside and out). Basically anything that a model builder would need. The images on my site are about 1200 pixels wide so if you can get images that size it would be great. My Enterprise D pages are here:

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STNGEnterprise/EnterpriseDTop.htm

The Shuttlecraft plans have slowed down because I'm no longer stuck at home without transportation so real life has intruded once again. They will be completed however, just at a slower pace.

Phil


----------



## X15-A2

BTW Chuck,

Microstation does not make models from scanned drawings, it only allows you to trace scanned images (pictures, other drawings, etc). Once you have traced a scanned drawing, you can use that vector geometry (a scanned image is called a "raster image". Raster and vector are the two types of drawings. Vector is a drawing with line work that can be edited, raster is just a "photo" of a drawing) to then create a 3D model by bringing it into a 3D environment. But this is not an automatic process. I forgot to address this in my last post.

Phil


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Four Mad Men said:


> So, does anyone remember where I parked my shuttle?


Incredible!!!
Guess you know where my browser(at least one of them) is pointed next!
Great Work Four Mad Men!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Thanks for all the great info, Phil!
Guess there is no real easy way to convert raster to vector. Hope everything goes okay with your ISP. Thanks for all of your posts. You do amazing work!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

To keep the info visible on each page, for convience sake here's the links to the key Galileo Project pages:

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com

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

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

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

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

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/GalileoDVDimagesSht1.htm

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/GalileoDVDimagesSht2.htm

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehic...ecraftConstruction/GalileoConstructionTop.htm

Keep in mind that these pages contain working views that are in flux. I would recommend members posting recommendations and observations here so tons of people don't repeat the same observations over and over again in individual emails, thus slowing the guys down.


----------



## Nova Designs

OK, Phil I will go through my DVDs this week and snap any images that would be helpfull! I will post them to my FTP for you to grab when I have finished.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Four Mad Men said:


> So, does anyone remember where I parked my shuttle?


These latest renders are good enough to deserve to be quoted, if for no other reason then to keep the last of the work visible.

Maybe three or so small details left on the model and the exterior will be flight worthy!!!

So close...


----------



## capt Locknar

Looking good. Peaking new interest for me in the shuttle. Anyone done any underneath views of it yet. Are there any details on the bottom or is it just smooth???


----------



## Pygar

The model had details, I suspect the big one didn't. I'd prefer the detailed version, myself.

Did the cowls and spheres really go like that, or were the cowls sheet metal wrapped over spheres and the model in that area just needs tweaking?


----------



## Four Mad Men

*Hello everyone*,
It's me checking in. I'm having serious shuttle withdrawals. The next two weeks are looking busy for me but nowhere near as busy as the last two. I'll probably even get a chance to get back into it before next weekend. Here's hoping anyway.



Pygar said:


> The model had details, I suspect the big one didn't. I'd prefer the detailed version, myself.
> 
> Did the cowls and spheres really go like that, or were the cowls sheet metal wrapped over spheres and the model in that area just needs tweaking?


That's one of the last areas that needs attention. Most notably is the corrugation of the read end caps.



capt Locknar said:


> Looking good. Peaking new interest for me in the shuttle. Anyone done any underneath views of it yet. Are there any details on the bottom or is it just smooth???


That's actually one of my favorite views. I haven't rendered the latest modeling yet but the views section of my site has an orthographic of the underside as well as several perspective shots that show the underside.


----------



## Four Mad Men

In fact here's a perspective view hot off the press...


----------



## capt Locknar

That looks pretty kewl. Good job.


----------



## Pygar

Do you have that pic of the model's underside, from the IDIC page? If not I can try and track down my copy and send it to you.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Great render, Four Mad Men!!!

Haven't touched a computer since Saturday, sorry about the delay.

Hoping to see some re-rendered updated orthographics and maybe some wireframes whenever your "real life" schedule allows you to get to them.

Also noticed that all of the complete David Winfrey prints are up on Four Mad Men's site as well. They are very high res for internet prints but more then worth the download. Thanks again to Perfesser Coffee for sending them to me, to Trekkist for giving FMMen permission to post them, and Four Mad Men for hosting them(as well as Phil, of course). When I scanned them I shifted a couple of things on a couple of pages slightly(without touching the scale) and standardized the borders so that the pages didn't take up an entire 11 x 17 inch sheet and can thus be printed out by most 11 x 17 inch capable Epson and HP printers.

Thanks again Four Mad Men for hosting them, and Trekkist for the permission to do so!

Everyone may want to note that Four Mad Men has a page from Trekkist's prints that he must have forgotten to send to Phil.http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com/winfrey.html

Also very much looking forward to seeing those additional exterior views Phil said he had drawn(especially an underside view), as well as still keeping my fingers crossed for new interior stuff...

Keep up the great work guys!!!

We're almost at 6,000 views!

Can hardly wait to see more of Phil's drawings and some new Four Mad Men renders!!!


----------



## StarshipClass

Most excellent presentation of David's work! Congrats and thanks, Chuck, on your hard work coordinating and creating to make it all happen!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

They wouldn't be up and running if it weren't for yourself, PerfesserCoffee and Four Mad Men's efforts. It's his webspace and Dave's drawings.
The files may be huge, but they are definitely worth the time to download.


----------



## X15-A2

Progress report: My Shuttlecraft exterior plans are nearly finished. When complete there will be about 70 sheets, including the contour plans. Whew! I will be glad to be done with that.

Chuck, I have also created a bottom view for you and the others here who requested it.

Phil


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Fantastic!!!

I realize you will want to probably take a hiatus after that, but is there any chance that you will be able to post a rough interior side view like the mess I emailed you, but with your signiture accuracy?(No need to try and shoehorn it into an exterior view like I did though, just an "as built" interior.) I wouldn't need wall details, etc, just seat placement and wall dimensions, rear room cylinder height, just the big stuff...

Can't wait to see your new drawings. Have you been able to get control of your web pages again?


----------



## X15-A2

Hi Chuck,

Yeah, I forgot to mention that control of the web site has been returned to me. :freak: 

The inmates have taken over the asylum, once again...

A lot of the basic interior stuff is done so I should be able to post something. I will readdress the ceiling height issue too but it looks like this will be difficult to nail down with certainty. There is a lot of optical illusion type stuff happening in those images, it is difficult to be certain what part of the ceiling a given actors head is actually under. Further, the way that set was photographed it looks like the rear is lower than the front. I don't believe that it really is but it looks that way. In "Galileo Seven" it looks like Nimoy can stand inside the set with a clear distance above his head yet in "Menagerie", Shatner stands next to the hatch at the rear and it looks like his head is nearly touching the roof. There are several possiblities to explain this; the roof height changed (was made higher) in "Galileo Seven", the roof slopes down towards the back (I don't think so), Shatner was standing on a box to get the upward composition that the cameraman wanted for that one scene (possible but hard to prove). Obviously further investigation is required on this issue.

Everyone should feel free to put in their opinions here, hopefully before the drawings are finalized.

Phil


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Another issue is how much smaller to make the rear cabin. It's walls are perfectly vertical. Personally I would just make the rear cabin narrower only to the point where it necessary in order to have perfectly verticle walls. Plus we need an unseen smaller light fixture in there. For simplification I'd make it exactly like the other one, just shorter.

You are, as usual, absolutely right about the roof height issue. Everything was filmed from a VERY low angle. I'm guessing that since you can see out the open doors that the interior set is elevated off the stage floor(at least in Galileo Seven), that they probably just had removable sides and maybe used standard cameras that were sitting on the ground outside the interior, requiring a really steep angle. But again, that's just a guess. Personally I would set the lighting fixture height(which protrudes down from the ceiling) at about 6'6 inches high and the ceiling a little higher(depending on how large you determine the light fixture sides, which seem to be slanted, to be) and continue that height throughout the craft.


----------



## Four Mad Men

I'm seeing green.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Four Mad Men said:


> I'm seeing green.


Gorgeous!!!

Incredible!!!

Once the last couple of details are done I'll be drooling in anticipation of the wireframes.

Those are a fitting St. Patrick's day present to the project.

Great work, Four Mad Men!!!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Just out of curiosity Phil, will those 70 exterior pages be just on the outside, not counting any contour frames? That will be an incredible amount of detailed views either way. 

Couldn't resist asking while drooling in anticipation...


----------



## Thom S.

This thread continues HERE.


----------

