# 1/32 Galileo Shuttlecraft Coming From Round 2



## eradicator178

Round 2 has announced a (new tooling) 1/32 scale Galileo Shuttlecraft. Expected release date the end of 2013!! :thumbsup: Read about it here.

http://www.collectormodel.com/polar-lights/1652-star-trek-model-kits-galileo-shuttle/


----------



## Ductapeforever

Thanks,....but old news.


----------



## John P

Yes, we know. 

See the other threads about it in this forum.


----------



## Opus Penguin

However this is probably a good idea to start this thread for us to discuss the kit (like the thread on the refit and TOS E).


----------



## fluke

Yes and no....for crying out loud folks! The kits release is more or less over one year away! LOL :tongue: 
"
"
Star Trek rivet counters ...oh boy!


----------



## John P

Rivets? Where did you see rivets!?


----------



## James Henderson

Rivets?! If its got rivets, then it is clearly inaccurate! Let's bash it!


----------



## Ductapeforever

fluke said:


> Yes and no....for crying out loud folks! The kits release is more or less over one year away! LOL :tongue:
> "
> "
> Star Trek rivet counters ...oh boy!




Amen Brother !


----------



## Zombie_61

Riveting conversation, this.


----------



## SFCOM1

Well I guess that would make me "Rivited" to this board! :jest:

(I can just hear the groans from here!)


----------



## Gemini1999

Zombie_61 said:


> Riveting conversation, this.


Isn't it just...?


----------



## Warped9

Opus Penguin said:


> However this is probably a good idea to start this thread for us to discuss the kit (like the thread on the refit and TOS E).


Uh, we were already doing that in this thread.


----------



## Opus Penguin

I saw that as a wish list. I meant this one could discuss paint ideas and such.


----------



## Warped9

Opus Penguin said:


> I saw that as a wish list. I meant this one could discuss paint ideas and such.


Well like so many subjects the conversation easily diverges which is fine as long as it's tangental or related to the subject matter.


----------



## irishtrek

James Henderson said:


> Rivets?! If its got rivets, then it is clearly inaccurate! Let's bash it!


Well then pull out the old sledge hammmer and start bashing away!!!


----------



## Scotty K

If all of you guys are going to be talking about rivets, then I think I'll just bolt from this conversation...


----------



## scotpens

A starship with rivets? Now, that's just screwy!


----------



## Zombie_61

You're all nuts. But I find that _fasten_ating.


----------



## fluke

I like to keep my audiences riveted!


----------



## eradicator178

*Old*

I didn't realize it was old news. I don't have a lot of time to be riveted to my computer.  I still think Pong for the Atari is the greatest game ever!!


----------



## John P

You're forgiven. 
If you search back in the forums, you can even find Youtube footage of the Wonderfest panel where the vote to make the shuttle was taken.


----------



## KUROK

Someone should do a resin figure of the giant ape and perhaps a boulder to go with it!


----------



## Dr. Brad

eradicator178 said:


> I didn't realize it was old news. I don't have a lot of time to be riveted to my computer.  I still think Pong for the Atari is the greatest game ever!!


Heh. Then check this out!

http://www.pong-story.com

And you can find versions online that you can play in your web browser!


----------



## eradicator178

Dr. Brad said:


> Heh. Then check this out!
> 
> http://www.pong-story.com
> 
> And you can find versions online that you can play in your web browser!


AWESOME!!!!!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Any new info?


----------



## JohnLogan

What was the scale of the old shuttle?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

JohnLogan said:


> What was the scale of the old shuttle?


I'm guessing you mean the old AMT version, which was way inaccurate and looks to have been based more on Franz Joseph's design then what appeared on the series.

I always thought that Franz Joseph had his copyrights violated by Paraborg on that kit.

Depending on how smoothly you want to integrate the interior/exterior as seen on screen you would have to make a real-world craft 29 to 32 feet long.

Splitting the difference would make it 30.5 feet long, real world.

AMT's old Galileo kit with rear pad include is just about 7.75" long.

Ignoring the interior and assuming it to represent a craft of 30.5 feet long would make AMT's old kit about 1/47th scale, rounded off.

Conversely, at 1/32nd scale, making the same assumption of a 30.5' craft, the NEW AMT kit would be about 11.43 inches long.

Personally I wish they would make it 1/24th scale and about 15.25" long,
but I understand that that might be more difficult to do with a mass produced model. 

Though I think AMT did make a Next Gen Runabout that large - if not in that scale.


----------



## Warped9

An old issue, but a 30ft. Shuttlecraft gets rather cumbersome in the space available within the hangar deck.


----------



## goodtexan

Unfortunately, a year is not as long a it once was.


----------



## irishtrek

If I remember correctly the AMT shuttlecraft is a scale of 1/35 and the AMT runabout is a scale of 1/72.


----------



## Captain April

And the AMT shuttlecraft predated FJ's stuff by a couple of years. If anything, it seemed to be based on those drawings that were in "The Making of Star Trek".

The really confusing part is that AMT designed and built the big mockup. How could they, of all people, get the model kit so horribly wrong?


----------



## Warped9

Captain April said:


> The really confusing part is that AMT designed and built the big mockup. How could they, of all people, get the model kit so horribly wrong?


That one really does boggle the mind.


----------



## mach7

because they did not care. They just wanted to sell us kits.


----------



## Richard Baker

It was cheaper to do it their way- jsut inmagine the parts count increase to do a correct hull. Original had top and bottom, a correct one would need front, back, two sides, top, bottom and perhaps the stern engine.


----------



## Trek Ace

Entirely different time, facility and group of people who did the kit from those who built the prop.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Captain April said:


> The really confusing part is that AMT designed and built the big mockup. How could they, of all people, get the model kit so horribly wrong?


Exactly!!!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

irishtrek said:


> If I remember correctly the AMT shuttlecraft is a scale of 1/35 and the AMT runabout is a scale of 1/72.


I had the box and kit in front of me for the Galileo 7 - I even have one of the long box kits  - but didn't even bother looking or quoting the scale on the box as AMT never even attempted to integrate an accurate interior. 


I have an out of the box Runabout kicking around here somewhere, and that model was more accurately done then the Galileo.

So if the manufacturer claims a scale of 1/72 I don't have any reason to immediately doubt them.

My only point in bringing up the Runabout was not the scale; it was because it was so much larger then the Galileo 7 kit in real world inches.

Point being that it probably wouldn't be out of the question to be able to do a 15.25" long Galileo kit(which I would personally consider to be 1/24th scale).

Though I do conceed there would probably be less profit in doing that then a 1/32nd scale kit.

I'll be happy with a 1/32nd scale kit though, as long as it's well made.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Warped9 said:


> An old issue, but a 30ft. Shuttlecraft gets rather cumbersome in the space available within the hangar deck.


I agree. If you take as canon an old gel-backlit blueprint that only appeared on-screen for a couple of seconds that put the length at 947 feet.


But as you point out, that's a very old issue.

If you look at CBS's 3D revamps of the shuttlebay, they have pretty much thrown out the concept that the old forced-perspective shuttlebay minature set would have ever fit in the TOS E to begin with.

The CBS HD 3D redesigns as well as the latest movie have done away with being straight-jacketed by a sub 1000 foot Enterprise length . . . 

I think the CBS and Abrams revision of the TOS E's overall size was a smart thing.

While I'm sure that some will still argue that it all can be shoehorned into 947 feet - and I respect their views on that. . . I've gone back and forth on that issue myself, very much wanting it to work . . .

Taking all of that struggle quite seriously, I still have to say that *while I strongly dislike what Abrams did with the TOS timeline* - 

I think he and CBS were right to not feel tied down by the 947 foot length.

I just don't see a need to stick to that as hard and fast rule in situations like the shuttlecraft bay where it clearly wouldn't fit. 
At least if you take the original forced perspective shuttlebay miniature and it's blueprints seriously.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I agree. If you take as canon an old gel-backlit blueprint that only appeared on-screen for a couple of seconds that put the length at 947 feet.


On top of that you have Kirk on-screen saying the shuttlecraft was only 24 ft.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Opus Penguin said:


> On top of that you have Kirk on-screen saying the shuttlecraft was only 24 ft.


Yep. 

That's a biggy to get around if one looks at everything said and shown on screen as being literally true.

Clearly a 24 foot shuttle would have never fit the interior set seen onscreen.

The only plausible explanation I can offer that might explain away the contradiction between what Kirk said and our own lying eyes

is that he said it while deeply troubled, and he might have been pondering those trapped and lost inside a craft with a 24 foot interior, which would be about right.

Otherwise we are left with the conundrum of whether or not Kirk is being accurate without mispeaking

or the federation used Tardis technology in all there Class F shuttlecrafts! :tongue:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

P.S. Kudos to Phil Broad to be the first person to point out that AMT was barely able to transport the shuttle they made in the size they made it.

And more importantly it was common back then to make 3/4 scale stage pieces that would be filmed carefully from only certain angles to hide the true size of the prop.

It's been years since we discussed it in the thread, but I also seem to remember reading that the interior filming stage was not only built seperately, but redesigned after production of the AMT exterior was already begun.

They may have intended to built the interior smaller, but decided for dramatic reasons and purposes of practical shooting to make changes - such as the actors being able to fully stand up and pace back and forth without bashing their heads  - after the AMT mockup was already a done deal.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

P.P.S.

I unforgivably forgot to give credit, when naming only a few of the people who contributed to all the parts of the "TOS Galileo Shuttlecraft, The Bob Villa version" thread,

to the great David Winfrey! 

The guy who was the first to both attempt and actually succeeded in coming up with the first set of blueprints that integrated the full size interior set with a properly detailed as-seen-onscreen-but-necessarily-enlarged exterior.

He achieved this feat way back in 1979 in the early days of videotape back when one had terrible resolution, couldn't really freeze anything and had to have developed carpel tunnel syndrome just due to the number times he had to hit rewind and play!!!! 

Kudos David Winfrey, wherever you are!!!!:thumbsup:


Please chime in and let us know how your are, if possible.


----------



## Captain April

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I think the CBS and Abrams revision of the TOS E's overall size was a smart thing.


Can't really speak to the TOS-R redo, but JJ blew the ship up to the size of a frakking battlestar, so I'd avoid that one as an example.


----------



## jbond

Indeed you would.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Captain April said:


> Can't really speak to the TOS-R redo, but JJ blew the ship up to the size of a frakking battlestar, so I'd avoid that one as an example.


You're right, I agree that Abrams overdid it.

I only used that and the TOS-R as examples of not being too literally wedded to the 947 feet.

I must give CBS credit in that they didn't go overboard with their 3D shuttlebay, it looks less high then the TOS shuttlebay miniature, but still longer then would fit in a 947 foot long craft. 

From what I could tell they did little more then correct for the forced-perspective view seen in the TOS miniature, and seemed to stay true to all of the original TOS' major design elements.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Yep.
> 
> That's a biggy to get around if one looks at everything said and shown on screen as being literally true.
> 
> Clearly a 24 foot shuttle would have never fit the interior set seen onscreen.
> 
> The only plausible explanation I can offer that might explain away the contradiction between what Kirk said and our own lying eyes
> 
> is that he said it while deeply troubled, and he might have been pondering those trapped and lost inside a craft with a 24 foot interior, which would be about right.
> 
> Otherwise we are left with the conundrum of whether or not Kirk is being accurate without mispeaking
> 
> or the federation used Tardis technology in all there Class F shuttlecrafts! :tongue:


Hmmm . . . I had thought this explanation of Kirk thinking about the interior was something that had occurred to me out of the blue many moons ago.

While doing some research in the last couple of days I've now been reminded that credit goes to Pygar,

in post #4 of this really old thread:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=101255


----------



## irishtrek

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I must give CBS credit in that they didn't go overboard with their 3D shuttlebay, it looks less high then the TOS shuttlebay miniature, but still longer then would fit in a 947 foot long craft.


So then are you implying that the secondary hull of TOS Enterprie is 947 feet long and just how long do you think the shuttle bay is supposed to be 200 feet or more??? Because evrything I've seen or read says it's about 340 feet long and every pic or drawing I've seen indicates that is plenty of room for a shuttle bay.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

irishtrek said:


> So then are you implying that the secondary hull of TOS Enterprie is 947 feet long and just how long do you think the shuttle bay is supposed to be 200 feet or more??? Because evrything I've seen or read says it's about 340 feet long and every pic or drawing I've seen indicates that is plenty of room for a shuttle bay.



So is there a sincere question hidden somewhere in there?

947 foot craft means 947 foot craft. That means a craft with a total length of 947 feet.

Do you disagree that the CBS shuttlebay was reasonably done?

If so I'd be interested in hearing your views and reasoning.


----------



## Buc

ahhhh Trekkies... making IPMS folks look like proper social types, everyday!


----------



## irishtrek

Chuck_P.R. said:


> So is there a sincere question hidden somewhere in there?
> 
> 947 foot craft means 947 foot craft. That means a craft with a total length of 947 feet.
> 
> Do you disagree that the CBS shuttlebay was reasonably done?
> 
> If so I'd be interested in hearing your views and reasoning.


You've answered my question with your opening line there.
And just what is a CBS shuttle bay???? Are you reffering to the CBS network or something else????


----------



## Paulbo

irishtrek said:


> ...And just what is a CBS shuttle bay???? Are you reffering to the CBS network or something else????


He means the shuttlebay as shown in the digital remastering of TOS Trek. The 3D work was done by CBS digital.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Buc said:


> ahhhh Trekkies... making IPMS folks look like proper social types, everyday!


Nothing inherently anti-social about the exchange. As I wrote, I'm willing to listen to anyone's views and discuss them if there is a valid point to be made. 

But a key ingredient to being social is often the same as the key ingredient to positive diplomatic relations - 

you sometimes have to wait for the translation.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Paulbo said:


> He means the shuttlebay as shown in the digital remastering of TOS Trek. The 3D work was done by CBS digital.


Yes. Exactly.

Thanks Paulbo!

I'm glad that's all cleared up.:thumbsup:


----------



## irishtrek

Even though I don't like it when some one else asnwers a question directed at another person I will also say thank you. Why do I not like it?? Because it can lead to misunderstanding.
As for the shuttle bay in the remastered Trek I never really noticed any difference between the orignal and the revamped versions.


----------



## Warped9

I liked the original better. I don't care for CBS' TOS-R shuttlecraft or hangar bay.


----------



## Trek Ace

Neither do I. The CGI doesn't even look remotely like a 'physical' object, let alone a real one.


----------



## John P

Well, the CBS/CGI hangar seems a more sensible size than the cavernous stadium-sized miniature one, which would have required the doors to be something like 100 feet wide. But I don't like how they had the shuttle lift off and spin around like a helicopter - that looked bloody dangerous to do inside a hangar. The turntable's there for a reason!


----------



## Warped9

John P said:


> But I don't like how they had the shuttle lift off and spin around like a helicopter - that looked bloody dangerous to do inside a hangar. The turntable's there for a reason!


Yeah, it looked silly. The whole texturing and lighting of both the shuttlecraft and the hangar looked sloppy too. I also didn't care for the reddish impulse engine, but then I don't like it on the _E_ either.


----------



## Opus Penguin

I must be in the minority here. I actually like the new special effects in TOS. This is not to say I don't have a spot for the old effects which was why I bought the Blu-Ray for all three seasons so I could enjoy both.


----------



## jbond

I enjoy them, although I agree the original miniature work looked more real. Even the Enterprise exterior shots always looked like a giant ship instead of a model, despite (or maybe because of) the heavy film grain and matte lines...


----------



## Lou Dalmaso

John P said:


> Well, the CBS/CGI hangar seems a more sensible size than the cavernous stadium-sized miniature one, which would have required the doors to be something like 100 feet wide. But I don't like how they had the shuttle lift off and spin around like a helicopter - that looked bloody dangerous to do inside a hangar. The turntable's there for a reason!


the only time I recall seeing that manuver (sp?) was when Decker was stealing the shuttle and I figured his reckless takeoff was due to his state of mind


----------



## Opus Penguin

This is what I figured as well.


----------



## John P

Did Spock do it too, in The Immunity Syndrome? Maybe not...


----------



## Richard Baker

Plus the Shuttle was not prepped for launch- he just found the cloest one and tried to leave before he could be stopped. I sort of liked that particular scene- it does display despiration and urgency.


----------



## John P

True dat.


----------



## Opus Penguin

John P said:


> Did Spock do it too, in The Immunity Syndrome? Maybe not...


Just watched FX reel on Youtube. Shuttlecraft launches normally.


----------



## Captain April

The miniature hangar bay was certainly better lit....


----------



## KUROK

Captain April said:


> The miniature hangar bay was certainly better lit....


That was the '60s...they're going green now!


----------



## Warped9

They had a helluva lot of imagination back then. A lot of us are still juiced by their creations and ideas going on fifty years later.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

John P said:


> Well, the CBS/CGI hangar seems a more sensible size than the cavernous stadium-sized miniature one, which would have required the doors to be something like 100 feet wide.


That's exactly what I was eluding too earlier. Your term "cavernous" is spot on!:thumbsup:

Others are correct too, that the CGI could have been better. But I think the basic bones of their shuttlebay was spacially more reasonable.

Warped 9 is right about the texturing.

However, I think I still like it, everything considered.

That being said I still have a tremendous nostalgic appreciation for Richard Datin's shuttlebay.

It does look like a real shuttlebay, just the size looks too big, as John P mentioned.(Which wasn't Datin's fault, let me say for the record.)


----------



## Dr. Brad

Chuck_P.R. said:


> It does look like a real shuttlebay....


As a kid watching it in reruns, that's the impression I had too. Okay, I was a kid and didn't really know what I was talking about, but it did seem real. And of course, back then, I had no idea it was too big!


----------



## Gemini1999

Dr. Brad said:


> As a kid watching it in reruns, that's the impression I had too. Okay, I was a kid and didn't really know what I was talking about, but it did seem real. And of course, back then, I had no idea it was too big!


The one thing about that was that's all it was supposed to do was look like a real shuttle bay, which it did quite well. Nobody could forsee that 50 years later, men in their 40s and 50s would be dissecting and comparing those images as though they actually were something real.

Its a nice mental excercise, but since we all know it doesn't exist and can't work as the tons of blueprints and drawings would have us believe, attempting to reconcile everything to suit our sense of continuity and order is an impossible task.


----------



## Warped9

Damn. My whole worldview has just been shattered.


----------



## Trek Ace

I'm not certain what is meant by the hangar miniature representing an area too large or cavernous to fit inside the ship. I can take a camera with a short lens, shoot inside a small aircraft hangar at a high angle, and make it look far larger than it is in reality.

If there were a 'real' shuttlecraft hangar sized to fit inside a 'real' starship, I guarantee you that I could photograph it to look large and cavernous - exactly the same way in which the miniature hangar deck was depicted on the show.


----------



## John P

Trek Ace said:


> I'm not certain what is meant by the hangar miniature representing an area too large or cavernous to fit inside the ship. I can take a camera with a short lens, shoot inside a small aircraft hangar at a high angle, and make it look far larger than it is in reality.
> 
> If there were a 'real' shuttlecraft hangar sized to fit inside a 'real' starship, I guarantee you that I could photograph it to look large and cavernous - exactly the same way in which the miniature hangar deck was depicted on the show.


We're saying that compared to the size of the shuttlecraft model sitting in it, which we know to be "around" 25 feet long to scale, the room looks way bigger than would fit inside the stern of the ship, keeping scale in mind.

The hangar deck set was made to give the _illusion _that the ship is more gigantic on screen than it would be in "reality." It appears wider and taller than it could possibly be, when the shuttlecraft model's apparent size is taken into account.

It's an intentional cinematic illusion, but it doesn't work when you try to fit it into a properly scaled model of the ship.


----------



## RSN

Everything about the set designs on the original series gave the illusion that the ship was bigger than it was supposed to be, I mean the ceilings were at least 12 feet high and the rooms were all oversized. It was all done to represent an idea of a ship, not to show an actual ship that could be copied and recreated in reality to fit inside a model that was only 11 feet long. TV is about tricks of the eye, nothing more.


----------



## Trek Ace

RSN said:


> Everything about the set designs on the original series gave the illusion that the ship was bigger than it was supposed to be, I mean the ceilings were at least 12 feet high and the rooms were all oversized. It was all done to represent an idea of a ship, not to show an actual ship that could be copied and recreated in reality to fit inside a model that was only 11 feet long. TV is about tricks of the eye, nothing more.


The original ship sets didn't have ceilings. The sets for the ship's corridors, sickbay, briefing room, quarters, etc., all were ten feet high. The bridge set was about eleven feet from the stage floor to the top of the arced panels and was 32 feet in diameter. The main engineering set was the only one that rose above twelve feet, but it was supposed to represent a space larger and taller than a single deck height. As it was, it nearly brushed the stage permanents, with one whole side supported by them.

The lone exception was the shuttlecraft interior set, which was oversized in height and compressed in perspective for the forward piece. The 'ceiling' was wild, as was the rest of the set components to allow for practical camera angles and setups.

All of the sets were designed to 'fit' into a full-size craft, with the exception of the shuttle, as stated above.


----------



## RSN

Trek Ace said:


> The original ship sets didn't have ceilings. The sets for the ship's corridors, sickbay, briefing room, quarters, etc., all were ten feet high. The bridge set was about eleven feet from the stage floor to the top of the arced panels and was 32 feet in diameter. The main engineering set was the only one that rose above twelve feet, but it was supposed to represent a space larger and taller than a single deck height. As it was, it nearly brushed the stage permanents, with one whole side supported by them.
> 
> The lone exception was the shuttlecraft interior set, which was oversized in height and compressed in perspective for the forward piece. The 'ceiling' was wild, as was the rest of the set components to allow for practical camera angles and setups.
> 
> All of the sets were designed to 'fit' into a full-size craft, with the exception of the shuttle, as stated above.



I know there are no ceilings on the sets, in order to allow for lighting, but there are height indicators that show where the ceiling begins, trim, different paint color and the like. All illusions. Take a look at the beams in the hallways, the tops of them are higher than a normal ceiling as are the transporter room and sickbay. All above a standard 8 foot height. If you were designing a real ship of that size, space will always be a concern and you would want to maximize it as much as possible and not waste it, thus the ceilings would be lower than shown.

The sets were not designed to fit into a full-size craft, they were built to fit a soundstage and give the illusion that they would fit in a ship on a 25 inch TV screen in your living room. In reality, sets were built much larger than they would be in real life to fit lights, cameras and production crew work. This holds true for the hangerdeck miniature. Trust me, I design sets.


----------



## Gemini1999

Warped9 said:


> Damn. My whole worldview has just been shattered.


Wow...sarcasm...what a swell, swell surprise...


----------



## TrekFX

Was there ever an issue of the AMT kit that had separate sides? With that little curve-over at the top? Or is my memo ry pl ayi ng t rick s on m e ?


For some reason I'm thinking of a build with separate sides and top (at least) and that it was a bear to align.


----------



## RSN

TrekFX said:


> Was there ever an issue of the AMT kit that had separate sides? With that little curve-over at the top? Or is my memo ry pl ayi ng t rick s on m e ?
> 
> 
> For some reason I'm thinking of a build with separate sides and top (at least) and that it was a bear to align.


I don't think so. I remember when it was first released and it always looked the same. I could never figure out why there were so many differences in the kit since AMT built the original full-size and miniature. My biggest problem in the early '70's was not with the lack of detail in the rear or the roof being not right, those were features that were hard to see on TV back then. The obvious problem for me was the angle in the sides of the upper body causing a "crease" on the outside, where the miniature and full-size were obviously straight from front to back.

Problems I know we will not see in the new kit by Gary!


----------



## kenlee

TrekFX said:


> Was there ever an issue of the AMT kit that had separate sides? With that little curve-over at the top? Or is my memo ry pl ayi ng t rick s on m e ?
> 
> 
> For some reason I'm thinking of a build with separate sides and top (at least) and that it was a bear to align.


Every version of the AMT kit I have seen has been just the boxy top and bottom hull without the curve over at the top. I have bought at least 7 of those kits over the years from the mid 1970's until the 1990's. The only alteration was the Star Trek 25th anniversary version that added the clear front windows in 1991. I still have a long box version and a 1991 version of the kit in storage.
I never built any of them straight out of the box without some alteration either to the interior, exterior or both.


----------



## Captain April

Yeah, the only changes have been those clear windows and corrected decals.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Gemini1999 said:


> The one thing about that was that's all it was supposed to do was look like a real shuttle bay, which it did quite well. Nobody could forsee that 50 years later, men in their 40s and 50s would be dissecting and comparing those images as though they actually were something real.
> 
> Its a nice mental excercise, but since we all know it doesn't exist and can't work as the tons of blueprints and drawings would have us believe, attempting to reconcile everything to suit our sense of continuity and order is an impossible task.


They had excellent set designers for their time.

I believe they did what they could with the time and budget allowed. And certain things may not have even been the fault of the designers. 

I believe Roddenberry even changed the intended size of the ship at some point during the pilot's production. It was originally designed to be smaller and have a much smaller crew and as a result - I would assume - less decks.

Anybody know if this happened before during or after the construction of the interior sets?

(I know the shuttlebay is irrelevant for that discussion).

Anyhow I think that Gemini does have a valid point. They were never expecting these things to be hyper analyzed 50 years later.

How could they?

I'm pretty sure Trek was the first sci-fi series that ever attempted to believably be set hundreds of years in the future.

Trek succeeded as not just a series but also went on to become a cultural phenomenon.

It's inspired the invention of countless real world technological advances.


So I don't fault them if this or that detail doesn't really add up. 
I'm not interested in criticizing the incongruities just to criticize them.

There are two polar opposite views one could take on this:

A) It was just a fictional TV show it's dumb to bother trying to figure out how these interiors/exteriors could work believably.
B) Virtually everything as seen onscreen could work in the craft we saw seamlessly.

Both views are inaccurate.

Not everything can be made to fit without some substantial revision.

And more importantly - it not true that it's silly to try to make them work.

Why?

We're all modelers here.

You can't build and/or design a model of something if the parts don't fit properly.


The main reason most of us should try to discuss these problems is in order to see how they could be solved in order to be able to judge if this or that scale model is believable. 

Or how to design a scale model that would work in the real world, as many of us contributed to doing in the "TOS Galileo Shuttlecraft, The Bob Villa version" thread.http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=101255

I just think it's fun when considering building a model or mockup, of whatever we are discussing to try and figure out how these discrepancies could be made to work.

Because when building a scale model we have to find a way to make it work.

I'm looking forward to seeing R2's take on the shuttlebay in the upcoming 1/350th TOS E.


----------



## RSN

The crew compliment in the first pilot, "The Cage" was stated at 204, *after* sets and minatures were built and filmed. The figure is given in the footage used in "The Menagerie", so it must be deemed to be accurate in the context of thier universe. In the series it was stated that the crew was now 430. The windows on the minature remained the same size, so if ship theoretically were doubled in size, between the first pilot and the series, so too were the windows. We see one of the windows in the curved wall of Pike's quarters. This tell us two things, the size of the windows in relation to a person and the fact that there were staterooms, at least that of the Captain, in the engineering section of the ship. 

Six ways to Sunday, Trek is full of contradictions that I am sure some one will try and reason out.


----------



## Shaw

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Anybody know if this happened before during or after the construction of the interior sets?


October of 1964... before the sets and models were started.


I had remarkably few issues getting Jefferies version of the Enterprise to work out. In fact that amount of detail and integration shown in Jefferies work was surprising considering that much of it seems to have been thought out between the first pilot and the start of series production.

That having been said, some things in the production (like putting crew quarters on deck 12) weren't under his control. Similarly, the shuttlecraft was outside what he had control over and the production was happy to get the financial help in even having a shuttlecraft. But even then, he was able to keep Star Trek within a remarkable amount consistency.

For me, because the shuttlecraft wasn't a Jefferies component, *Warped9*'s version is the compromise on that which not only preserves the look of the shuttlecraft, but also fits the starship Jefferies imagined.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

RSN said:


> The crew compliment in the first pilot, "The Cage" was stated at 204, after sets and minatures were built. In the series it was stated that the crew was now 430. The windows on the minature remained the same size, so if ship theoretically were doubled in size, between the first pilot and the series, so too were the windows. We see one of the windows in the curved wall of Pike's quarters. This tell us two things, the size of the windows in relation to a person and the fact that there were staterooms, at least that of the Captain, in the engineering section of the ship.


The length of the ship was changed at some point too. I remember a very long discussion of window placement that discussed how they would have worked much more logically had the ship remained it's original length.




RSN said:


> Six ways to Sunday, Trek is full of contradictions that I am sure some one will try and reason out.



True.

But if we consider not just models in general, but specifically the subject of this thread - the 1/32nd scale shuttlecraft ...

there will be no choice but to solve some of the most complicated contradictions seen on Trek if R2 is going to produce the Galileo model.

The good news is, it can be done!!!!


----------



## RSN

Chuck_P.R. said:


> The length of the ship was changed at some point too. I remember a very long discussion of window placement that discussed how they would have worked much more logically had the ship remained it's original length.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> But if we consider not just models in general, but specifically the subject of this thread - the 1/32nd scale shuttlecraft ...
> 
> there will be no choice but to solve some of the most complicated contradictions seen on Trek if R2 is going to produce the Galileo model.
> 
> The good news is, it can be done!!!!


No, the windows size on both miniatures remaned the same from pilots to production. It they arbitrarily doubled the size, (Which I have never heard of, that is a fan invention over the years to force Star Trek to make sense in their minds!), the windows remaind the same. There is plenty of photgraphic proof of this, just watch an episode and see that they are the same size, despite which of the 3 versions of the 11 footer is in the shot. The size of the bridge interior in the zoom-in shot at the beginning of "The Cage" also confims that the ship is the same size, roughly 950 feet, as it would be in the series.

I don't buy into a fans wish to make it something it is not, what is on the screen is good enogh for me.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Has everyone forgotten about FourMadMen's model?

We, meaning myself, Phil Broad, FourMadMen,and countless others back in 2004 started tackling the problems of the integration and banged out countless issues over a couple of years that led to what I believe has become the best integration to date. Warped 9 even participated towards the end of the project.

http://www.fourmadmen.com/gallery/albums/animations/sgcp/spin_test_v3.wmv

the above doesn't reflect the latest model he's done as some of the elements like the phaser cabinet, back floor grating, and cabinet floor door aren't visible here.

Here's links to the original threads that cover a couple of years worth of development.

Unfortunately about 400 posts in the thread were accidentally deleted by a moderator when they tried to break what had become a huge thread into smaller sizes:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=101255

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=101257

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=101267

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=111046

P.S. David Winfrey deserves credit for being the first in Trekdom to believably design an integration of the Galileo interior/exterior way back in the eighties(published it in 1989).
I believe he used a VHS player, stone knives, and bear skins!:tongue:

Thanks David, for starting it all!:thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Gemini1999 said:


> Wow...sarcasm...what a swell, swell surprise...


I don't think he meant it that way.

I think Warped9 was being self-depricating.

I've had a lot of correspondance with the guy and he lives for and enjoy 3D modeling and modeling tremendously.

He's the first person to admit he like me, is just a big old Trek geek.:tongue:

I read him as being facetious.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

RSN said:


> No, the windows size on both miniatures remaned the same from pilots to production. It they arbitrarily doubled the size, (Which I have never heard of, that is a fan invention over the years to force Star Trek to make sense in their minds!), the windows remaind the same. There is plenty of photgraphic proof of this, just watch an episode and see that they are the same size, despite which of the 3 versions of the 11 footer is in the shot. The size of the bridge interior in the zoom-in shot at the beginning of "The Cage" also confims that the ship is the same size, roughly 950 feet, as it would be in the series.
> 
> I don't buy into a fans wish to make it something it is not, what is on the screen is good enogh for me.



To clarify.
I only meant in relation to the placement of the interior decks.

I should have been clearer about that. Sorry.


----------



## RSN

Chuck_P.R. said:


> To clarify.
> I only meant in relation to the placement of the interior decks.
> 
> I should have been clearer about that. Sorry.


It's all good. :thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Shaw said:


> October of 1964... before the sets and models were started.
> 
> 
> I had remarkably few issues getting Jefferies version of the Enterprise to work out. In fact that amount of detail and integration shown in Jefferies work was surprising considering that much of it seems to have been thought out between the first pilot and the start of series production.
> 
> That having been said, some things in the production (like putting crew quarters on deck 12) weren't under his control. Similarly, the shuttlecraft was outside what he had control over and the production was happy to get the financial help in even having a shuttlecraft. But even then, he was able to keep Star Trek within a remarkable amount consistency.


Agreed. Jefferies did a tremendous job.

And the shuttlecraft he designed originally was more like the size of a bus, and wasn't going to happen due to the budget.

Though I often wonder what it would look like if they went with the original Jefferies design.


I think his blueprints went up for auction awhile back, if my feable memory is right. Have any of the sheets been released publicly yet?


Has anyone seen any 3D models of the original Jefferies shuttlecraft design?


N.B. I'm referring to the one with the one wing gull style side door and the rounded contours.


----------



## MGagen

The ship size was doubled before the models were even completed. Window scale remained the same between _The Cage_ and the series (although more were added). Pike's ship was the same size as Kirk's, just more sparsely staffed.

And TrekACE is right (as usual) about interiors being designed to work with the exteriors.

M.


----------



## RSN

MGagen said:


> The ship size was doubled before the models were even completed. Window scale remained the same between _The Cage_ and the series (although more were added). Pike's ship was the same size as Kirk's, just more sparsely staffed.
> 
> And TrekACE is right (as usual) about interiors being designed to work with the exteriors.
> 
> M.


So it was always 950 feet long with the 204 person crew and the 430 person crew, just as I thought. Thanks!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

MGagen said:


> The ship size was doubled before the models were even completed. Window scale remained the same between _The Cage_ and the series (although more were added). Pike's ship was the same size as Kirk's, just more sparsely staffed.
> 
> And TrekACE is right (as usual) about interiors being designed to work with the exteriors.
> 
> M.


Thanks, MGagen. When Shaw mentioned when the ship scale was changed I assumed the rest, but I should have mentioned that.

Still hoping someone has some links/info about the original rounded, larger Jefferies shuttlecraft . . .


----------



## Trek Ace

RSN said:


> We see one of the windows in the curved wall of Pike's quarters. This tell us two things, the size of the windows in relation to a person and the fact that there were staterooms, at least that of the Captain, in the engineering section of the ship.


I wouldn't make that assumption. In fact, one might consider that the Captain's quarters was originally to be located within the teardrop, just below the bridge. The min*i*ature has curved windows there as well.


----------



## Captain April

MGagen said:


> The ship size was doubled before the models were even completed. Window scale remained the same between _The Cage_ and the series (although more were added). Pike's ship was the same size as Kirk's, just more sparsely staffed.


Although, the rough schematics on the various bridge displays would indicate that at least when those details were being prepped, Jefferies still thought the ship was going to be around 450 feet.



MGagen said:


> And TrekACE is right (as usual) about interiors being designed to work with the exteriors.
> 
> M.





Trek Ace said:


> I wouldn't make that assumption. In fact, one might consider that the Captain's quarters was originally to be located within the teardrop, just below the bridge. The min*i*ature has curved windows there as well.


And the briefing room, with its circular arrangement, looks to have been intended to be directly below the bridge.


----------



## Carl_G

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Has anyone seen any 3D models of the original Jefferies shuttlecraft design?
> 
> 
> N.B. I'm referring to the one with the one wing gull style side door and the rounded contours.


A guy named Vance Bergstrom, aka RedSpar on TrekBBS did one, and it's gorgeous:

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=78081

http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=27382


----------



## MGagen

Captain April said:


> Although, the rough schematics on the various bridge displays would indicate that at least when those details were being prepped, Jefferies still thought the ship was going to be around 450 feet.


Yes, the schematics visible on the bridge set reflect the earlier, approximately 540' design. The bridge set was completed and decorated before the model was finalized.



> And the briefing room, with its circular arrangement, looks to have been intended to be directly below the bridge.


That was always my assumption, too. And who needs a "ready room" when it and the captain's quarters are just one deck below the bridge?

M.


----------



## John P

RSN said:


> ...This tell us two things, the size of the windows in relation to a person and the fact that there were staterooms, at least that of the Captain, in the engineering section of the ship.


Engineering? I've always assumed that (rather tight) curved wall meant his cabin was on deck 2, in the dome below the bridge.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Carl_G said:


> A guy named Vance Bergstrom, aka RedSpar on TrekBBS did one, and it's gorgeous:
> 
> http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=78081
> 
> http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=27382


Those are fantastic!!!

Thanks:thumbsup:


----------



## Carson Dyle

Trek Ace said:


> I wouldn't make that assumption. In fact, one might consider that the Captain's quarters was originally to be located within the teardrop, just below the bridge. The min*i*ature has curved windows there as well.


Thanks to effective production design, and without ever having to give much thought to the matter, I always assumed both Kirk's cabin and the Briefing Room were located in the so-called teardrop. Just seemed "logical" based on subtle, almost subliminal design hints.


----------



## RSN

It was always stated in the series, and films I believe, that Kirk's quarter's were on deck 5, so that is where I always assumed it was. As for Pike's cabin being on deck 2, if I remember the shot, he walks down a corridor and int his room. The exterior area outside his quarters to me always suggested it was on a much larger deck than you would find inside the teardrop of deck 2. But that is just how I always saw it.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

The thought never occurred to me until I saw the 3D model here:

http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=27382

*How big would the TOS E Shuttlecraft bay have to be to fit a few of those puppies!!! :tongue:*



Don't anyone bother trying to calculate the answer literally. I'm sure the answer I have in mind (which is a generalization) is precise enough . . .


----------



## Trek Ace

Just to clarify my statement from earlier:

Here are three frames showing relationships of ship interiors as depicted in _The Cage_. I made notes to illustrate certain details:




























This shot of the corridor "Briefing Room" is a different angle than in the first frame. It is about 90 degrees to the side. The elevator doors shown in the first shot are offscreen to the side of this angle.

There was another major interior location was originally to be on this same deck. It was not shown in _The Cage_, but it was to be located there, nevertheless.

After all, Boyce wasn't just hanging around in the corridor outside of the Captain's Cabin waiting to be called now, was he?


----------



## Blufusion

Sad thing here is this is a modeling site which I enjoy. But all you guys that take this to seriously are really sad. I just want to build a model as best as they can offer. It not like real space rockets. You know where we went to the moon and all. It's a science fiction series not real at all ! we all want to make to make models that represent what we saw on a TV or movie screen as real as possiable. But come on get a life . build it as best as they can offer and get on with you life. I love this site cause it gives me great idea for what i want to do . But it just model's people . Model's that most people that see them will never notice the difference in what was or wasnt there. Most of you are pathetic about this.
Get a life.


----------



## Jafo

pathetic? pathetic? is it gonna have grid lines?


----------



## RSN

Trek Ace said:


> Just to clarify my statement from earlier:
> 
> Here are three frames showing relationships of ship interiors as depicted in _The Cage_. I made notes to illustrate certain details:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This shot of the corridor "Briefing Room" is a different angle than in the first frame. It is about 90 degrees to the side. The elevator doors shown in the first shot are offscreen to the side of this angle.
> 
> There was another major interior location was originally to be on this same deck. It was not shown in _The Cage_, but it was to be located there, nevertheless.
> 
> After all, Boyce wasn't just hanging around in the corridor outside of the Captain's Cabin waiting to be called now, was he?


Thank you for posting these pictures and proving my point about the location of the Captains Quarters. I can't think of any reason in "reality" why you would have two people out of uniform just strolling about the the deck that was only big enough to house the Captains cabin and briefing room. In the "reality" of the show, this tells me as a viewer that it is a deck with general crew quarters located in a larger section of the ship. What is seen in these pictures is far too much to fit inside the ficticious deck 2 as well as the fact that the elevator from the bridge could only go straight down and could not be off to the side of the deck where the outer wall is, it would be in the middle where the briefig room is. I am a draftsman, I can see the functionality of design and where things would need to be.

I reality, this was all the corridor set they had built and did not care where in the ship it was, it was just to give the illusion of being inside the ship somewhere. that is how I see it, if others want to try and make "Real World" sense over all of it, good luck. The one thing I never see anyone take into account when trying to make a "real" Enterprise where everything fits, is the space that would need to be allotted for utilities like electric conduits, water lines, air ducts, waste water removal and all the other things that would eat up a lot of space in an actual ship.

I build the outsides, not the insides, so none of it needs to "fit" inside for me, nor does it when I am watching in order to enjoy the story they are telling me. Enjoy it! :thumbsup:


----------



## John P

Blufusion said:


> Sad thing here is this is a modeling site which I enjoy. But all you guys that take this to seriously are really sad. I just want to build a model as best as they can offer. It not like real space rockets. You know where we went to the moon and all. It's a science fiction series not real at all ! we all want to make to make models that represent what we saw on a TV or movie screen as real as possiable. But come on get a life . build it as best as they can offer and get on with you life. I love this site cause it gives me great idea for what i want to do . But it just model's people . Model's that most people that see them will never notice the difference in what was or wasnt there. Most of you are pathetic about this.
> Get a life.


Howcum there's always someone who doesn't get it, pissing in our coffee?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Blufusion said:


> Sad thing here is this is a modeling site which I enjoy. But all you guys that take this to seriously are really sad. I just want to build a model as best as they can offer. It not like real space rockets. You know where we went to the moon and all. It's a science fiction series not real at all ! we all want to make to make models that represent what we saw on a TV or movie screen as real as possiable. But come on get a life . build it as best as they can offer and get on with you life. I love this site cause it gives me great idea for what i want to do . But it just model's people . Model's that most people that see them will never notice the difference in what was or wasnt there. Most of you are pathetic about this.
> Get a life.


What gives discussions like this a point *is* the fact that this is a modeling site.


Unlike other boards where admittedly they may just be arguing points about where things would fit just to argue them . . .

a scale modeling web site is one of the few sites where these things* should *be discussed!

*Of course* this isn't a real rocket ship, like say the Saturn V.

Then there wouldn't be much need to discuss what fits where, or how large certain things should be.

Half of the term scale modeling is the word scale.
Understanding scale is not a trivial issue.

If you enjoy modeling, you want to make sure all the parts are the right size and they fit together properly.

The reason that you give for discussing these things as being "pathetic," 

- that this is a modeling site -

is in fact the reason that they should be discussed here.

To date, no one has gotten venomous about this exchange of viewpoints, defensive perhaps, but that's about it.

Your statement is laced with a lot of language that looks like it's designed to incite a flame type response - which you won't get from me. 

What issue of modeling is discussed in *your* post?

Your statement doesn't upset me because it's more then a little silly.

Telling *modelers* they are pathetic *for discussing proper scaling and where parts should fit* is just plain silly.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

John P said:


> Howcum there's always someone who doesn't get it, pissing in our coffee?



Oops!

I started typing my response before I saw yours. Should have refreshed my screen.

To answer your question, I think it's an attempt to get a knee jerk reaction. It's admonishes people for discussing issues in too much detail and being petty. . .

while at the same time the only thing contained in the post is venom.

I for one am not taking the bait!

I made my long post to state what I think should be very obvious points and explain why his statement contradicts itself - venom aside.

But I like your response better!


----------



## RSN

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Oops!
> 
> I started typing my response before I saw yours. Should have refreshed my screen.
> 
> To answer your question, I think it's an attempt to get a knee jerk reaction. It's admonishes people for discussing issues in too much detail and being petty. . .
> 
> while at the same time the only thing contained in the post is venom.
> 
> I for one am not taking the bait!
> 
> I made my long post to state what I think should be very obvious points and explain why his statement contradicts itself - venom aside.
> 
> But I like your response better!


Well, you are right, we all bring our own point of view to the discussion. As a point of fact, none are 100% right or wrong, it is just how we as individuals approach the subject matter. I understand a person wanting to have it all make sense, but as a TV set, you will always run into a wall where something was just done to suit the requierments of the production and contradicts the miniature.

My only frustration here is when something is stated as the only point of view, when there is no real basis to make that assertion.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

RSN said:


> Well, you are right, we all bring our own point of view to the discussion. As a point of fact, none are 100% right or wrong, it is just how we as individuals approach the subject matter. I understand a person wanting to have it all make sense, but as a TV set, you will always run into a wall where something was just done to suit the requierments of the production and contradicts the miniature.


Sometimes the discussion can become too heated. True. 

What I found ridiculous - if you set aside his venom - was the person in question was arguing that modeler's are being too nitpicking and "Model's that most people that see them will never notice the difference"

Personally I find this forum extremely helpful to my understanding the models and figure we talk about - and the subjects they are based on.



RSN said:


> but as a TV set, you will always run into a wall where something was just done to suit the requierments of the production and contradicts the miniature.


Also 100% true.

That's why I enjoy seeing these reference pics, posts, links etc.

Heck, sometimes I embarass myself by having to be reminded about something I learned about long ago and had forgotten.

But there are lots of guys here who know that stuff off the top of their heads to re-edjumacate me, and I appreciate that!





RSN said:


> My only frustration here is when something is stated as the only point of view, when there is no real basis to make that assertion.


You are right that there are things that can probably never be reconciled fully in a way anyone can claim their compromise is 100% accurate.

Take the Galileo shuttlecraft doors as an example. 

Are you going to keep the interior doors properly proportioned, or the exterior doors?

Projecting one into the other will result in one of them being too big. During the "Galileo . . . Bob Villa" thread most generally agreed that it was best to keep the exterior door the size it was thus making the interior doorway bigger.

But there is no wrong answer there, just a matter of preference.


In that type of case these discussions can only help flesh out logical compromises.

I'm thankful when someone is there to remind me of something I hadn't considered even if it totally blows my theory out of the water - though it's nice to have that correction be made in a respectful way.

We don't have to agree with one another in our preferences and opinions.
As long as everyone is sincere, open and honest about their views we shouldn't have any problems discussing any of this.:thumbsup:


----------



## starseeker

Blufusion said:


> Sad thing here is this is a modeling site which I enjoy. But all you guys that take this to seriously are really sad. I just want to build a model as best as they can offer. It not like real space rockets. You know where we went to the moon and all. It's a science fiction series not real at all ! we all want to make to make models that represent what we saw on a TV or movie screen as real as possiable. But come on get a life . build it as best as they can offer and get on with you life. I love this site cause it gives me great idea for what i want to do . But it just model's people . Model's that most people that see them will never notice the difference in what was or wasnt there. Most of you are pathetic about this.
> Get a life.


Way too harshly said but I have to agree with your basic sentiment. What does a discussion about which deck Spock's favorite bathroom is on have to do with building a model, unless you're adding that room into a model? There is a general sci fi discussion forum on this site and in the last year or two, that would seem a more appropriate place for at least 3/4 of the posts on this and the Moebius forums. Has anyone noticed how much drek one has to plow through here before stumbling on a useful, informative bit of modelling information? It's hardly worth it anymore. There are a lot of new people here so maybe they won't have noticed how many of the actual modellers of say two years ago have just vanished completely or are no longer participating or have been insulted and harassed away. 
I honestly feel that the sf-related Hobbytalk forums are at a crossroads here and now. Either they remain on-line comic book letters pages (on Space Station 1, where do Tammy and Tim get such colorful costumes?) [where's Robert Hargraves, who was building that fantastic Space Station 1, gone?] or the moderators might have to come together and discuss some rule changes, like no one gets to make a post unless they have posted an attachment with some actual model build finished or in progress or even just containing some model-related information in, say, the last year, even? And not, oooh oooh, this is what I'm going to build someday as soon as I finish my perpetual motion anti-gravity magnotron to hold the pods together, or I have this wonderful information and set of pictures that shows you all how wrong you are about everything, only I promised I wouldn't show them to anyone. 
I'm down to lurking here once every few weeks or once a month now, hoping that something dazzling, inspiring, or interesting shows up,and it's becoming just painful. When I discovered Hobbytalk, it was an amazing place full of amazing modellers and amazing projects. Now just about the only models being shown here are little more than advertising for cottage-industry builders. On the other hand, at least they're actually building something. Between things like driving Gary Kerr away and the CL fiasco, I wasn't just embarrassed to be a Hobbytalk member, I was actually embarrassed at being a modeller. This week has been the first time I've touched a model in over a month, and it's a new project, because I still don't want to go near any of my old ones. They still fee somehow tainted. What kind of impact is Hobbytalk having on new modellers, if it can actually kill the joy in life-long hobbyists?
Someone should start a thread on the future of Hobbytalk. Or at least a thread on where the real modelling sites are. I would, but I barely care what happens here anymore. You wouldn't believe how sad that makes me.


----------



## RSN

Considering this thread was started over a model that was just announced and a number of people are trying to speculate on how the many discrepancies between what has been shown to represent one object, full-size exterior, full-size interior, miniature, CG model, can be reconciled, I see no problem. A number of posters have been exchanging ideas about what was seen on film and what was intended to be where on the ship or shuttle. No harm in that, it is all in good fun.


----------



## Shaw

starseeker said:


> I'm down to lurking here once every few weeks or once a month now, hoping that something dazzling, inspiring, or interesting shows up,and it's becoming just painful. When I discovered Hobbytalk, it was an amazing place full of amazing modellers and amazing projects. Now just about the only models being shown here are little more than advertising for cottage-industry builders.


Ummm... sorry for not being _dazzling, inspiring, or interesting_.

Those types of models are usually done by professionals, not by people engaging in a hobby. I'm a moderate model builder who shares his least embarrassing works. Amazing modellers are amazing because they are few and far between... if there were a ton of them, they'd be average.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

starseeker said:


> Way too harshly said but I have to agree with your basic sentiment. What does a discussion about which deck Spock's favorite bathroom is on have to do with building a model, unless you're adding that room into a model? There is a general sci fi discussion forum on this site and in the last year or two, that would seem a more appropriate place for at least 3/4 of the posts on this and the Moebius forums. Has anyone noticed how much drek one has to plow through here before stumbling on a useful, informative bit of modelling information? It's hardly worth it anymore. There are a lot of new people here so maybe they won't have noticed how many of the actual modellers of say two years ago have just vanished completely or are no longer participating or have been insulted and harassed away.
> I honestly feel that the sf-related Hobbytalk forums are at a crossroads here and now. Either they remain on-line comic book letters pages (on Space Station 1, where do Tammy and Tim get such colorful costumes?) [where's Robert Hargraves, who was building that fantastic Space Station 1, gone?] or the moderators might have to come together and discuss some rule changes, like no one gets to make a post unless they have posted an attachment with some actual model build finished or in progress or even just containing some model-related information in, say, the last year, even? And not, oooh oooh, this is what I'm going to build someday as soon as I finish my perpetual motion anti-gravity magnotron to hold the pods together, or I have this wonderful information and set of pictures that shows you all how wrong you are about everything, only I promised I wouldn't show them to anyone.
> I'm down to lurking here once every few weeks or once a month now, hoping that something dazzling, inspiring, or interesting shows up,and it's becoming just painful. When I discovered Hobbytalk, it was an amazing place full of amazing modellers and amazing projects. Now just about the only models being shown here are little more than advertising for cottage-industry builders. On the other hand, at least they're actually building something. Between things like driving Gary Kerr away and the CL fiasco, I wasn't just embarrassed to be a Hobbytalk member, I was actually embarrassed at being a modeller. This week has been the first time I've touched a model in over a month, and it's a new project, because I still don't want to go near any of my old ones. They still fee somehow tainted. What kind of impact is Hobbytalk having on new modellers, if it can actually kill the joy in life-long hobbyists?
> Someone should start a thread on the future of Hobbytalk. Or at least a thread on where the real modelling sites are. I would, but I barely care what happens here anymore. You wouldn't believe how sad that makes me.


Spock's bathroom?

You seem to believe everything bad in this world is contained in this thread.

If you actually read the thread you would realize the poster you are agreeing with was trying to turn a discussion into a fight.

Again, reference pictures and discussions of scale and placement are what a modeling website should be about.

Please don't join in on or try to further what was an obvious attempt at Trolling.

Sometimes people are momentarily taken aback when someone comes up with info that they may not have considered or counters their position. That's natural.

But this person was trying to latch onto any disagreements about facts and turn it argumentative.

The person you are quoting has contributed nothing in information or the exchange of ideas that has happened in this thread.

Neither have you.

So who really needs to step back and check what they are saying?

You are agreeing with someone trying to start a problem and thereby becoming a part of the problem yourself.

To paraphrase JohnP, please stop pissing in our coffee and go try to start fights elsewhere.


----------



## SteveR

I'm really looking forward to the shuttlecraft model!


----------



## StarshipClass

starseeker said:


> . . . the moderators might have to come together and discuss some rule changes, like no one gets to make a post unless they have posted an attachment with some actual model build finished or in progress or even just containing some model-related information in, say, the last year, even?


Blufusion won't be happy.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

SteveR said:


> I'm really looking forward to the shuttlecraft model!


Me too!:thumbsup:

If they integrate the interior as seen in the Episode Galileo 7, at 1/32nd scale it should end up being between 11-12 inches long.

I'm also really looking forward to holding the 1/350th TOS E's shuttlebay parts in my hand and studying them.

At 11 - 12 inches long, I'm sure someone should be able to create a 1/32nd scale diorama to place her in.

That would be cool!


----------



## Griffworks

Thanks to *Blufusion's* and *starseeker's* comments, this thread is getting a short lock. 

*Everybody Read and Heed*, 'cause I'm really getting tired of people who can't take simple hints and/or be respectful of the opinions of others to the point of Flaming and/or Trolling others posts....

1. If you don't like the posts of someone, ignore them. There's a way that you can literally input a Username on IGNORE so that you no longer have to read what they post. It's simple and something you should consider doing instead of resorting to Trolling to disagree with them. 

a)Click on My Settings
b) Scroll down on the left-hand side of the screen and select EDIT IGNORE LIST
c) Add the Username of the person whose posts you wish to no longer be able to view 'cause they cause your nickers to get in such a twist
d) Click OKAY

Pretty simple. 

2. If you don't like a particular subject or thread - Ignore It! If you see that a particular poster has started a thread or you think that discussing Grid Lines on the 1701 isn't stoo-ped, then here's a novel idea - *don't go in to the thread.* 

The inability on some people's part to show even a modicum of self-restraint is a problem that seems to becoming ever pervasive on the InfernalWebz, also known as The Keyboard Kommando Syndrome. I seriously doubt that most of you would say half of what you've posted in response to others here on HobbyTalk or elsewhere if you were face-to-face with them. 

You don't have to agree with everyone else, but you _will_ stop with this incessant attack on the thoughts and opinions of other folks. I'll just start giving folks a Two Week Time Out who can't respectfully disagree with another persons opinion or just keep their opinion to themselves. 

Likewise, you should not respond in kind to someone who flames you. In fact, you should use the REPORT POST function to report the offending post and/or shoot me a PM. I'm generally "not too far away" via email/PM, so can pop in and see what's up. Hopefully, to put a kibosh on anything like has happened in this thread - a Flame Fest from a couple of folks on BOTH sides of the argument. 

Be the better person and just ignore what someone says and/or Report something that's of a Flaming/Trolling nature. 

*Everyone* agreed to follow the TOS when they joined up. Treating others poorly is a violation of TOS, regardless of "who started it". 

I'll give this thread 48 hours for all involved to read this, then unlock it again. So, Monday night at 10pm I should unlock it. If not, someone shoot me a PM and remind me to unlock it.


----------



## Tim Nolan

*Polar Lights Galileo shuttlecraft reissue*

I know they are adding more figures to the reissue, but has anyone heard if they are fixing any of the errors of the original cast, or is this the same mold? (Namely the roofline)


----------



## Paulbo

It's going to be completely NEW tooling done to Gary's exacting specifications. :thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Griffworks was going to unlock the older thread but I don't think any of us reminded him. 


I just shot him a PM about it.


----------



## Tim Nolan

Paulbo said:


> It's going to be completely NEW tooling done to Gary's exacting specifications. :thumbsup:





Awesome!!! But damn, I have a HUGE project started, and I can't wait a frickin' year!!! LOL!! Well, when the new one comes out, I'll swap it out! It will be part of a fairly large display I am building.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Tim Nolan said:


> Awesome!!! But damn, I have a HUGE project started, and I can't wait a frickin' year!!! LOL!! Well, when the new one comes out, I'll swap it out! It will be part of a fairly large display I am building.


The new one is going to be between 11-12 inches long, BTWay. Larger then the old kit. Also since there will be no inward bow towards the rear of the craft it will be proportionally much wider as well as longer.

I thought that in case you are working on a landscape diarama you might want to know ...


----------



## Griffworks

Unlocking this now, per request. Yeah, I sorta forgot about it myself....

Anyhow, something to think about folks, is that there's always Topic Drift in a thread. That's true just about anywhere on DaInfernalWebz and even more so in modeling forums, as I've noticed. So, just chill yourself out and either ignore any topic drift you don't like - or just don't go back to that thread. 

It's a personal responsibility thing, sorta like turning the channel from one that has content which you're not in agreement with or turning the dial on a radio station you don't like. If you can't turn away, that's on you, not the person w/whom you don't agree. 

That being said, if you don't like what folks are saying - IGNORE IT. I don't want to keep having to feel like I'm babysitting folks.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Thanks! Griffworks!

I know some of you guys already have your Big TOS E.

Would any of you perhaps be willing to scan a loosely put together, Secondary hull/half shuttlebay next to a really clear ruler in a decent definition(say 600DPI) and post links to the pics?

I'd be interested in then using those images to figure out the size a 1/32nd scale shuttlebay would have to be based on Gary K's 1/350th R2 TOS E version . . .


----------



## RMC

*will it have a complete interior ?......what about lighting capabilities ?*


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

RMC said:


> *will it have a complete interior ?......what about lighting capabilities ?*


I think only R2 can answer that. 

They did just start working on the kit from what I've read on the boards so far.

R2 probably hasn't made the final decisions on all of it yet.

Even if it doesn't have a complete interior,

I'm really really hoping they at least get the internal cavities for the forward and aft sections of a Gallileo 7 episode version right.

Along with an accurate front helm, swingout sidewall sensors, front cabin backwall/doorwary and chairs.

Accurate front and rear cabin side with consoles, rear cabin niche wall "cannisters" etc; would be nice too of course. 

But as long as they leave enough room for 1/8" sheet mounted inserts the other details could be scratchbuilt or aftermarket parts made.

Of course the more they include the better.

I'd urge everybody to contact R2 and let them know what you want to see in the kit.

And buy as many 1/350th TOS E or other recent Trek releases so they'll have the capital to do it as well as possible.

We should let R2 know what we'd like to see before they set everything in stone.

In a respectful, un-demanding tone of course. And we should ask to be allowed to vote with our wallets as well.

Heck, I'm going to email Jamie myself and ask if he's willing to start a Galileo 7 club.

One in which we'd pay a reasonable fee for a shirt and updates on the front end.

I'd be willing to pony up a few bucks on the front end for a T-shirt and project updates.

Say something in the $25 buck range. 

New molds are darned expensive.

By paying for the shirts and updates on the front end they won't have to 
spend any money they could otherwise be spending on product development 
and I think it would be a good gesture on our part, IMNSHOpinion.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Below is an exchange from the other thread that was started on the 1/32nd scale Galileo that I thought would be pertinent to this thread:



RMC said:


> *will it have a complete interior ?......what about lighting capabilities ?*


I think only R2 can answer that. 

They did just start working on the kit from what I've read on the boards so far.

R2 probably hasn't made the final decisions on all of it yet.

Even if it doesn't have a complete interior,

I'm really really hoping they at least get the internal cavities for the forward and aft sections of a Gallileo 7 episode version right.

Along with an accurate front helm, swingout sidewall sensors, front cabin backwall/doorwary and chairs.

Accurate front and rear cabin side with consoles, rear cabin niche wall "cannisters" etc; would be nice too of course. 

But as long as they leave enough room for 1/8" sheet mounted inserts the other details could be scratchbuilt or aftermarket parts made.

Of course the more they include the better.

I'd urge everybody to contact R2 and let them know what you want to see in the kit.

And buy as many 1/350th TOS E or other recent Trek releases so they'll have the capital to do it as well as possible.

We should let R2 know what we'd like to see before they set everything in stone.

In a respectful, un-demanding tone of course. And we should ask to be allowed to vote with our wallets as well.

Heck, I'm going to email Jamie myself and ask if he's willing to start a Galileo 7 club.

One in which we'd pay a reasonable fee for a shirt and updates on the front end.

I'd be willing to pony up a few bucks on the front end for a T-shirt and project updates.

Say something in the $25 buck range. 

By paying for the shirts and updates on the front end they won't have to 
spend any money they could otherwise be spending on product development 
and I think it would be a good gesture on our part, IMNSHOpinion.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Since so far there are only 7 posts in the newer thread perhaps Griff could make like the Borg and assimilate it?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Anybody else at all interested in a Galileo 7 kit club?


----------



## feek61

Sign me up!!!

I love the Galileo as much as any TOS ship!!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Kewl!!!

I'd suggest anyone truly interested might want to go here and drop them a line letting them know:

http://round2models.com/contact

Personally I'd suggest mentioning you'd like to support the idea up front, maybe by paying a joining fee for $25 bucks or so that would cover the cost of a shirt and give them a little a couple of bucks profit that could go towards kit development.

That's just my own personal opinion and suggestions.
I'm not saying you have to agree on the money thing or even the amount -
- and I'm not trying to say they should commit to sending us anything but the T-Shirt if they do think it's a good idea.

but whether or not you guys agree, as long as you support the 1/32nd Galileo 7 kit, I'd ask people to drop them a line and let them know.


----------



## Warped9

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Anybody else at all interested in a Galileo 7 kit club?


I'm in. :thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Great Warped9!

Let'em know if you are interested guys!
This is something that even those of you seeing these posts as guests could do to help.


----------



## Konar

Feek, always in awe of your Galileo.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Konar said:


> Feek, always in awe of your Galileo.


You're 100% right Konar.

Incredible build!

I was in such a haste to ramble on about my point that I totally forgot to mention it.

Anymore pics, Feek?

Would you give us a little background on the build, size, etc?


----------



## Griffworks

Threads merged.


----------



## Warped9

A _Galileo 7_ Club would be cool. It could be simplified this time around such as forgoing anything like t-shirts. But updates about the development of the kit in progress would be awesome and very much appreciated.

And considering the likely retail cost of such a 1/32 scale kit I could see myself buying two or three of them right off the bat.

I'd like to see this happen.


----------



## Ductapeforever

*Ohh Jamie...*......


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Griffworks said:


> Threads merged.


Thanks!!!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Warped9 said:


> A _Galileo 7_ Club would be cool. It could be simplified this time around such as forgoing anything like t-shirts. But updates about the development of the kit in progress would be awesome and very much appreciated.
> 
> And considering the likely retail cost of such a 1/32 scale kit I could see myself buying two or three of them right off the bat.
> 
> I'd like to see this happen.


I would truly love as many updates as possible during the project.

But would feel more comfortable giving R2 $25 bucks for nothing more than to be guaranteed a T-Shirt and updates whenever they could get to them.


I have no way of knowing, but I'm willing to bet putting together highly detailed updates and responding back to tons and tons of individual club member info requests . . .

cost waaaay more in sweat, brain cells, and coffee-filled sleepless nights . . .

then just selling us a club T-Shirt and posting some more loosely organized updates would cost.

I'd like them to see both our commitment to the project and give them a little cash towards making it a reality 

without adding some really dark bags around Jamies eyes!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

I know it's only loosely related, but anyone have any really good scans of the design of the 1/350th TOS E's shuttlebay?
Something that might be high res and include a really sharp ruler for sizing reference?

I've been able to guesstimate the size of R2's shuttlebay based on some video here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/TrekWorks

Roughly I'm guessing it to be about 82 feet deep real world from the innermost wall to the clamshell doors, but that is a REAAAAALLY rough guess.

Anybody, anybody at all, have some better info, scans, etc.

Any chance you might have some background information to share on the design, if you are out there, Gary K.?


----------



## phicks

Chuck - See the current issue of Sci Fi and Fantasy Modeller for tons of Gary's thoughts and drawings of the shuttle bay.


----------



## Nova Designs

Warped9 said:


> A _Galileo 7_ Club would be cool...


I'd join that club in a heartbeat.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

phicks said:


> Chuck - See the current issue of Sci Fi and Fantasy Modeller for tons of Gary's thoughts and drawings of the shuttle bay.


I plan on buying a copy of that issue and a couple of others in late January, early February after I pay a couple of bills that were unexpected and buy Christmas presents.

I could put together $25 bucks for something like the Galileo club if they ever decide to create one soon,

but other then something like that most of my duckets are going to go to Christmas presents for others and paying off the last of a debt I owe.

Thanks for the info on the article though. By sometime in February I'll pick up a copy. It's just that right now spending $30+ bucks to read one article is a bit impractical right now.

I've spent nearly that much on some of the older issues in the past, and will buy more in the future, just right now isn't a good time.

Really the only info I'd need to see to make some calculations is maybe some scans of the 1/350th TOS E parts next to a fairly precise ruler.

I've looked at some videos of the secondary hull in various degrees of build up and I'm curious as to the relative size of the shuttlebay.

I was also wondering that since R2 had a license from CBS, whether or not they gave Gary and R2 access to their CGI take of the shuttlebay, and how much of that version may or may not be present in the 1/350th model.

I'm much more interested in the shuttlecraft itself though.

But wanted to kill some spare time perhaps approximating what it would take to create a 1/32nd mockup of the shuttlebay/rear end of the secondary hull . . .

. . . while I mark time past the holidays to the point where I will finally have some fundage to spend on those things.




In a sense I'm kind of lucky in that I only have a girlfriend and a couple of other people to buy presents for. I am probably going to be less stressed then some others here.

I can't imagine what some of you guys with kids are going to be going through in the next month, and the months that will follow paying for the next month!

I'm sure some of you are saying to yourself, "If only he knew!"

It's not just a season for gifts right now though, but also a season for counting your blessings - and in that sense my Christmas will still be a good one.

May all of your holidays be good ones, guys!:thumbsup:


----------



## Opus Penguin

Cool! Would we get gold "Captain Decker" shirts as team members?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Opus Penguin said:


> Cool! Would we get gold "Captain Decker" shirts as team members?



Maybe!

I'm finally old enough to be able to pull off the salt-and-pepper razor stubble!


----------



## Nova Designs

Opus Penguin said:


> Cool! Would we get gold "Captain Decker" shirts as team members?


OMG that's hilarious! :lol:


----------



## feek61

Chuck_P.R. said:


> You're 100% right Konar.
> 
> Incredible build!
> 
> I was in such a haste to ramble on about my point that I totally forgot to mention it.
> 
> Anymore pics, Feek?
> 
> Would you give us a little background on the build, size, etc?


Thank you guys. I did it several years ago from plans that I drew myself based on every scrap of information I could find. Building it quite frankly originated back in the 1970's when I got the AMT Galileo; the disappointment from the inaccuracies in that kit have haunted me since then, lol. Anyway, the build is about 22" - 23" long (can't remember exactly). I know the warp engine nacelles are not screen accurate but wanted to do them like the Enterprise miniature with the rotating fans and blinking lights (which looks great IMO). I think if the budget would allowed they would have done it on the show. It is made mostly of wood but has some metal parts in the right places. The lighting is LED's in the cabin and nacelles and CCF for the impulse engines. Here are a few photos (I feel bad about hijacking this thread). Honestly, I frickin' love this ship which is WAY more complex than it appears; trust me! 



















Here is my group of TOS ships in the library. The ships are; 1/350 "Botany Bay" (Rel), MR "Enterprise", Scott's Romulan BOP, studio scale "Aurora," studio scale Tholian and of course the studio scale "Galileo" (sorry about the bad cell phone photo; I just took it)










BTW, I'm in for a Decker shirt!!! lol


----------



## pagni

wow !


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Fantastic pics!

You aren't in the least hijacking the thread.

It's about a model that whose design hasn't been finished yet.

So I don't think postings of other's takes on the subject are in any way off-topic,

even when it comes to blueprints and 3D work, muchless beautiful scratchbuilt models like this one.


----------



## eagledocf15

*Wow*



feek61 said:


> Thank you guys. I did it several years ago from plans that I drew myself based on every scrap of information I could find. Honestly, I frickin' love this ship which is WAY more complex than it appears; trust me!


That is fantastic work. Can you give any more details on the construction!! What a great work of art!


----------



## Dr. Brad

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Maybe!
> 
> I'm finally old enough to be able to pull off the salt-and-pepper razor stubble!



Sadly, with my mother's side of the family's tendency to go grey early, I'm a lot more salt than pepper!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

feek61 said:


> Thank you guys. I did it several years ago from plans that I drew myself based on every scrap of information I could find. Building it quite frankly originated back in the 1970's when I got the AMT Galileo; the disappointment from the inaccuracies in that kit have haunted me since then, lol. Anyway, the build is about 22" - 23" long (can't remember exactly). I know the warp engine nacelles are not screen accurate but wanted to do them like the Enterprise miniature with the rotating fans and blinking lights (which looks great IMO). I think if the budget would allowed they would have done it on the show. It is made mostly of wood but has some metal parts in the right places. The lighting is LED's in the cabin and nacelles and CCF for the impulse engines. Here are a few photos (I feel bad about hijacking this thread). Honestly, I frickin' love this ship which is WAY more complex than it appears; trust me!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is my group of TOS ships in the library. The ships are; 1/350 "Botany Bay" (Rel), MR "Enterprise", Scott's Romulan BOP, studio scale "Aurora," studio scale Tholian and of course the studio scale "Galileo" (sorry about the bad cell phone photo; I just took it)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, I'm in for a Decker shirt!!! lol


That's PUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRTY!

Especially love the one of the top of your bookcase!:thumbsup:


Any chance of an update to the 1/32nd, Gary?


----------



## feek61

eagledocf15 said:


> That is fantastic work. Can you give any more details on the construction!! What a great work of art!


This was my first studio scale scratch build and you can read all about the long saga here if you are interested.

http://propreplicas.yuku.com/topic/7507/TOS-Galileo-quotStudio-Scalequot-work-progre?page=1

Thanks for all of the kind words


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

You deserve all the kind words and more feek!

Thanks for the link!


----------



## Patron Zero

Awesome model to say the least !

Myself I keep threatening to build a kid-scale Galileo shuttlecraft as a playfort for my nephews.


----------



## feek61

When we were kids we wanted to build one as a pontoon boat, lol.


----------



## Zombie_61

Patron Zero said:


> ...Myself I keep threatening to build a kid-scale Galileo shuttlecraft as a playfort for my nephews.


Who are you kidding? Build it full-scale so kids of _all_ ages can use it as a "playfort". Go big or go home! :lol:


----------



## John P

I _LOVE _the pontoon boat idea! :lol:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

I always thought the main body reminded me of the Chris Craft water cruisers of the 60's.

I know Gary K's is probably still busy fielding questions on various boards and places about the 1/350th TOS E.

Not to mention the ten things he seems to be juggling at any one time.

Was kinda hoping maybe the 1/32nd Galileo might be something he's thrown threw the air a few times lately? 

Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

John P said:


> I _LOVE _the pontoon boat idea! :lol:


Which one would survive a head on collision, a 1/6th scale Radio Controlled Gallieo with a boat motor on the back, or one of those gigantic Radio Controlled Seaview models?


(Haven't seen pictures of one of the Seaviews(Dobeurs?) in years, don't remember how big they were but they were HUGE!)


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

I know R2 has announced the 1/32nd scale Galileo and new bridge set for 2013 in posts rather then the website.

Any updates as to which quarter they may appear?
I'm assumming last since they aren't listed on the main Trek pages yet under 2013 yet.


----------



## Zombie_61

Based on the closing comments in Jamie's blog from September, my guess is that some time in 2014 is a little more realistic for the Shuttle.


----------



## Opus Penguin

I hope very early 2014 if that is the case. I am hoping to have the new re-vamped bridge and the shuttle on display with the big E.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Opus Penguin said:


> I hope very early 2014 if that is the case. I am hoping to have the new re-vamped bridge and the shuttle on display with the big E.



No way of really knowing. Even if they continue to schedule release for 2013 - stuff can happen.

If they continue to schedule release for 2013 and seem to be on track through half the year we will probably know for sure by the third quarter.

One thing R2 has in it's favor is that the kit will likely not be over 12" inches. Probably a tad under.

It won't be the monstrosity that the 1/350th E was.

I'm hoping for 2013 for them as well as us - as of course sales during Christmas are going to way outstrip sales in February or so.

But at long as it's a good kit I'll be happy either way.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Opus Penguin said:


> I hope very early 2014 if that is the case. I am hoping to have the new re-vamped bridge and the shuttle on display with the big E.


Looks like everyone who was talking about kit development has disappeared. 

Might be they are just busy with Christmas. Or they might be too busy designing kits to stop and comment.

Here's to keeping our fingers crossed in anticipation. :thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Sooooooooo . . .

Any updates?


----------



## Proper2

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Sooooooooo . . .
> 
> Any updates?



I guess no time soon....


----------



## Opus Penguin

I don't expect we will hear much until after Wonderfest in May.


----------



## mach7

I asked Jamie at the R2 blog site about the Galileo. He said more info at Wonderfest but probably no test shot.


----------



## eagledocf15

*News*

Any more news on the Galileo? Thanks


----------



## mach7

I think Jamie said the next info would be wonderfest.


----------



## Bwain no more

Sort of NON information really, but the Galieleo kit is NOT on the 2013 Order Form/Price List while the new Bridge, TOS:E w/Botany Bay, Wolverine, Superman and Witch figure kits ARE. Not scientific by any means, but 2014 seems likely to me also. Hey, I'll be glad to have an RG JJPrise to fill my Trek needs for 2013. :thumbsup:
Tom


----------



## Model Man

Bwain no more said:


> ...TOS:E w/Botany Bay...


A special release of the AMT 1/650? What is this?


----------



## John P

Model Man said:


> A special release of the AMT 1/650? What is this?


Nope. 1/1000, I hear.


----------



## Paulbo

John P said:


> Nope. 1/1000, I hear.


Yup: http://www.culttvmanshop.com/Classi...on-reissue--PREORDER-RESERVATION-_p_2502.html


----------



## Opus Penguin

Gonna be a really tiny BB


----------



## Buc

says 'reissue'... but don't recall a Enterprise w/ Botany Bay ever
coming out previously?


----------



## Paulbo

Reissue of the 1/1000 Enterprise WITH a new Botany Bay.


----------



## Proper2

Opus Penguin said:


> Gonna be a really tiny BB



Yeah, about 3 to 3-1/2 inches. Good luck with _those_ solar panels! Maybe toothpicks for the rods?


----------



## beeblebrox

Brass wire on this one. (scratchbuilt)


----------



## Opus Penguin

Very nice!


----------



## zysurge

Yup, it is possible. Here's the resin one I built, also in 1/1000 scale:

http://www.luckyredshirt.com/dy100/CIMG1956.JPG
http://www.luckyredshirt.com/dy100/CIMG1955.JPG


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Bwain no more said:


> Sort of NON information really, but the Galieleo kit is NOT on the 2013 Order Form/Price List while the new Bridge, TOS:E w/Botany Bay, Wolverine, Superman and Witch figure kits ARE. Not scientific by any means, but 2014 seems likely to me also. Hey, I'll be glad to have an RG JJPrise to fill my Trek needs for 2013. :thumbsup:
> Tom


Even if it doesn't get produced this year for whatever reasons, the fact that they have hired Gary Kerr to design the Gallileo kit gives me confidence it will get done, and done well.

There are easily about two dozen issues I know of in trying to integrate an as seen onscreen interior with an exterior grown to match it. And which decision you make at which point will determine how you have to deal with the rest.
In my attempts of working on getting everything to fit right, I found myself redrawing and going back a couple of times due to decisions made earlier whose implications I didn't forsee.
FourMadMen and I must have exchanged a couple of hundred emails, 2D drawings and orthographic views when we were working on it in the Galileo thread. Not just between ourselves,
but also with the tremendous help of guys like Phil Broad, David Winfrey, and tons of other guys. Even with all that colaboration, there were compromises made that not all of us liked. 

There are several points in the design that are canon on the interior and exterior that totally contradict one another and one will have to be chosen over another.
Finding the least objectionable compromises are key, but there will be people who will not like this or that decision and would have favored one decision over another.

But if anyone is going to pull off integrating the as-seen-onscreen interiors and exteriors with a minimum of compromise I believe it will be Gary Kerr.

Does anyone know who is working on R2's improved TOS Bridge set?


----------



## Proper2

I would rather see an accurate exterior. I would not want a removable section in order to view the interior; I think that would affect the exterior look negatively in one way or another. It would be nice if the crew section of the interior was fairly accurate as can be seen from the front windows or the open door, and the rear compartment compromised as needed, since that would not be seen. That's my take.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Proper2 said:


> I would rather see an accurate exterior. I would not want a removable section in order to view the interior; I think that would affect the exterior look negatively in one way or another. It would be nice if the crew section of the interior was fairly accurate as can be seen from the front windows or the open door, and the rear compartment compromised as needed, since that would not be seen. That's my take.


There is no need to proportionally make the exterior inaccurate due to the interior. I get what you are saying about sacrificing the rear cabin depth with perhaps a closed door, though.


----------



## Warped9

To get the interior to fit in a smaller exterior (and not as small as 24ft.) you basically lose ceiling height and cabin length. You don't really have to lose in cabin width because the exterior is proportionately wider than the exterior would have you believe.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

True.
To get everything in the interior to fit - basically in terms of both length and cabin height, we're not talking distorions in door and window size - 

you would need a craft about 35' 7" long. Which to many if not most people is an unacceptible upsizing.

Integrating everything in a way that is acceptible to everyone is not likely to happen.
I'm not even happy with some of the things I had to compromise to get to a length of 33 feet. Fourmadmen was able to get his 3D model down to 30 feet, but he too had to change a few things he wasn't happy with.


----------



## Warped9

I was quite happy with my 26-1/2 ft. version. Everything looked pretty much as it should only my ceiling height was about 5'-7" and I lost in some cabin length. If I were to build a full-size mock-up that's how I would do it.


----------



## Chrisisall

Warped9 said:


> I was quite happy with my 26-1/2 ft. version. Everything looked pretty much as it should only my ceiling height was about 5'-7" and I lost in some cabin length. If I were to build a full-size mock-up that's how I would do it.


I agree; yours is the final word in this discussion for ME.:thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9

And the happy coincidence was that the length of the main hull came out to almost exactly 24ft. Imagine that and I wasn't trying for that.

That said the thickness of the hull as seen onscreen makes no sense whatsoever, but the space between hulls on my version does allow for the things we saw onscreen (such as the fold-out phaser storage bin). But granted the inside of the doorway by necessity looks different than what was done onscreen.


----------



## Proper2

I'm not familiar with the "ins and outs," excuse the pun, of the Galileo, but are not these blueprints accurate to take measurements from in designing the kit? They show elevations and sections:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Warped9 said:


> I was quite happy with my 26-1/2 ft. version. Everything looked pretty much as it should only my ceiling height was about 5'-7" and I lost in some cabin length. If I were to build a full-size mock-up that's how I would do it.


While I like your design, I believe it would be difficult to build as a full size mockup. Some conventional lumber was used to build the top and siding of the exterior mockup.

Your floor and ceiling would require almost everything to be constructed of welded metal tubing covered with thin sheeting or maybe even metal. 
While not impossible(much of the exterior's bottom was constructed that way with metal tubing and plywood sheeting) there would be no room 
for the space seen under the floor in the Galileo Seven.

Plus you were only able to squeeze out the 5' 7" ceiling by using the method I used in my 33' version and FourMadMen used in his final 30 foot version 
during the Bob Villa Galileo thread development, i.e. you made the space between the horizontal centerline and the floor greater, then used chairs that had taller bases.

If your interior horizontal centerline were centered with the external one as shown on one interior set shot, but then your floor were to only go down as low as seen on 
the interior onscreen, you would lose about 8 inches and your ceiling height would be about 4' 11". 

Also, as first suggested by Phil Broad(the man deserves a ton of credit for both his interior and exterior plans) and also present in my own 33 foot craft 
and FourMadMen's 30 footer as well, you have shortened the panel and between-the-chair spacing - though I believe to a point significantly more 
then 42 inches wide(also possible due to the raised chair bases giving increased leg room).

Those are completely valid decisions for designing a more functional craft then seen onscreen, but it does make it noticably different in the interior.

I'm not happy with my amount of below-the-floor to lower outer hull space either, so please don't take this as a serious criticism.

I'm just saying that in order to build her with sufficent space for the under the floor fuel lines space seen onscreen you would need to grow the craft size,

plus it would be difficult to build a sturdy floor people could walk on using conventional materials.

As I was saying earlier, integrating this thing will be a difficult exercise in compromise. 

We all will have differing views on the two dozen or so decisions that have
to be made along the way to integrating her. No one can say this or that decision is either wrong or right, just difficult. 

But if anyone can do it in a kit form convincingly, I believe it will be Gary Kerr.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Proper2 said:


> I'm not familiar with the "ins and outs," excuse the pun, of the Galileo, but are not these blueprints accurate to take measurements from in designing the kit? They show elevations and sections:



Those Everhart blueprints are nice from a nostalgia standpoint, but not very accurate.

For way too many posts then most people might want to read through, you can try this and the other three parts of this thread, 
for an attempt at integrating both the interior and exterior that started way back in 2004, 
and had tons of contributors, including Warped 9 towards the end.

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=101255&highlight=Bob+Villa

unfortunately about 400 of the most interesting posts were deleted by the then forum owner and 
Thomas Sasser when they both tried (at the same time!!!!) to split up the then almost 2000 
posts into four different parts.

But much of the development and thinking as to the decisions to be made are still there.

If you are interested in plans of the Galileo, better conventional plans of the exterior can be found here:

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehic...uttlecraftPlans/GalileoVaultExteriorPlans.htm

plus a good deal of source material including attempts at integration on the same site:

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

Also, you can see copies of plans drawn by the first guy to attempt 
to integrate an as seen onscreen interior into a grown exterior - David Winfrey, here:

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehic...ans/DavidWinfrey/GalileoDavidWinfreyPlans.htm

Plans which I believe he started working on back in 1979 using a videotape machine, 
stone knives, bearskins, barbed wire, paste, and drafting pens.

Not necessarily in that order. :tongue: 

Kudos to you David!

FourMadMen and I spent probably more then a few hundred hours going back and forth between 2D drawings I was able to do and cobble together 
and his 3D models that we tweaked and had to redo countless times to get the point where we were relatively happy.

I can never thank him enough as I have zero 3D skills and would never have been able to figure out all the spacial issues involved
without him. Even though we both drew and redrew tons of different parts, many of them starting out with sources like
Phil Broad(whose contribution to the Bob Villa thread effort cannot be overstated) the 3D modeling is 100% his work.

His site with Galileo info and models of his latest versions as well as some past in-progress works can be found here:
http://www.fourmadmen.com/gallery/index.php?cat=3

I believe some of them may need a password to initially access and/or download. It's been awhile since I had to log in there so I'm not really sure.

I was able to draw the helm based on some very specific measurements,
the key being the portable tape player embedded in the center console.

Plus kudos to a Bob Villa thread member who gave me some very caliper quality measurements/pictures of his Master Replicas phaser that I was
able to use to design the phaser cabinet you see there as well.

FourMadMen still wants to tweak a few things on his 30 foot model, but it's darn near perfect in my opinion.

I prefer a 33' version that is a little bit less compact,
but I fully understand why he wanted/wants to keep her right at about
30 feet in length.

Again, each decision effects something else, there are many ways to approach an integrated Galileo.

Also, here's a link to Warped9's Galileo thread:
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=142783

again, yet another beautiful design and another way to approach integration.


----------



## Warped9

Actually my interior centreline is not exactly parallel with the exterior one. I pitched the interior forward about a half degree (hmm, or was it one degree?), but since the craft is tilted back about one degree in landed position then it's a wash and you have a floor level with the ground under the ship.

Yes, I sacrificed cabin length and spacing between chairs, but since they now sit more upright (in that their legs aren't splayed out) then it's not really a sacrifice in leg room. Indeed the crew would propably be seated more comfortably because their legs aren't scrunched up by sitting too close to the deck.

One has to decide what matters most. If you want the onscreen interior as is then the exterior becomes simply too damned big to be practical. If you want a 24ft. exterior then you simply can't have the interior seen onscreen or in the very least you can't have an aft cabin and the rest of the interior is ridiculously cramped. If you alter the exterior to fit the proportions of the interior you deform the shape of the exterior including lowering the forward windows which changes the face (so to speak) of the shuttlecraft.

I learned a lot seeing others' efforts before I tried it. The simple fact is the exterior as seen and the interior as seen are irreconcilable. There simply has to be give somewhere and that includes the craft being accommodated within a starship's hangar facilities. I kept the exterior near exactly as seen onscreen with only a _very_ modest tweaking primarily to the roof line. I kept the sizes and shapes of the interior fittings except for shortening the cabin in length and height and lifting the chair height a bit. And while my 26.5ft. version is bigger than 24ft. it's still manageable, and because I find a 31-33ft. exterior simply unworkable to be properly accommodated within the starship's hangar facilities. A large craft also is much more awkward to enter and exit.


----------



## Proper2

Warped9 said:


> Actually my interior centreline is not exactly parallel with the exterior one. I pitched the interior forward about a half degree (hmm, or was it one degree?), but since the craft is tilted back about one degree in landed position then it's a wash and you have a floor level with the ground under the ship.
> 
> Yes, I sacrificed cabin length and spacing between chairs, but since they now sit more upright (in that their legs aren't splayed out) then it's not really a sacrifice in leg room. Indeed the crew would propably be seated more comfortably because their legs aren't scrunched up by sitting too close to the deck.
> 
> One has to decide what matters most. If you want the onscreen interior as is then the exterior becomes simply too damned big to be practical. If you want a 24ft. exterior then you simply can't have the interior seen onscreen or in the very least you can't have an aft cabin and the rest of the interior is ridiculously cramped. If you alter the exterior to fit the proportions of the interior you deform the shape of the exterior including lowering the forward windows which changes the face (so to speak) of the shuttlecraft.
> 
> I learned a lot seeing others' efforts before I tried it. The simple fact is the exterior as seen and the interior as seen are irreconcilable. There simply has to be give somewhere and that includes the craft being accommodated within a starship's hangar facilities. I kept the exterior near exactly as seen onscreen with only a _very_ modest tweaking primarily to the roof line. I kept the sizes and shapes of the interior fittings except for shortening the cabin in length and height and lifting the chair height a bit. And while my 26.5ft. version is bigger than 24ft. it's still manageable, and because I find a 31-33ft. exterior simply unworkable to be properly accommodated within the starship's hangar facilities. A large craft also is much more awkward to enter and exit.


Sounds like you've done a lot of research! 

I agree with your plans: I would *much* rather have a screen-accurate exterior and let the interior be tweaked and cheated to work. You are not going to be entering the cabin! And I would hope the top and or side would *not* be removable; I hate that! So however compromised the interior specs are it won't matter because you couldn't really see it very well in its entirety—just what glimpses you can gather through the windows and door.


----------



## Chrisisall

Proper2 said:


> Sounds like you've done a lot of research!
> 
> I agree with your plans: I would *much* rather have a screen-accurate exterior and let the interior be tweaked and cheated to work. You are not going to be entering the cabin! And I would hope the top and or side would *not* be removable; I hate that! So however compromised the interior specs are it won't matter because you couldn't really see it very well in its entirety—just what glimpses you can gather through the windows and door.


I totally agree. The interior was a cheat set anyway, made to make filming easier. I take it as a sort of forced perspective, and any changes made to accomodate the accurate exterior are completely acceptable to me, as Warped has done.:thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9

The funny thing is I started out like most everyone else, with a 30 some foot exterior, but it just didn't sit well with me.

Here's something to look at from when I was working this out.


----------



## Chrisisall

Warped, you rock.


----------



## Proper2

Warped9 said:


> The funny thing is I started out like most everyone else, with a 30 some foot exterior, but it just didn't sit well with me.
> 
> Here's something to look at from when I was working this out.


What do these terms mean: PLANNED, CONJECTURED, and FULL-SIZE MOCK-UP?


----------



## Warped9

Proper2 said:


> What do these terms mean: PLANNED, CONJECTURED, and FULL-SIZE MOCK-UP?


The "full size" mock-up was the shuttlecraft exterior we saw on television it actually wasn't very big. The real craft was supposedly about 24ft. long, but the filming exterior was actually smaller than that and a "real" 24ft. shuttlecraft is still too small.

The "conjectured" exterior was when I was playing around with the idea of a large shuttlecraft between 28 to 32 feet long that could accommodate an interior reasonably close to what we saw on television albeit with some give in ceiling height and cabin length. Note that the shuttlecraft interior set we saw onscreen was way oversized.

The "planned" exterior was the final version I decided on. I came to this conclusion because of a few considerations. Firstly, the spoken reference by Kirk in "The Galileo Seven" about a "24ft shuttlecraft." Now "24ft." doesn't really tell us much, but it seems to imply that's the length of the shuttlecraft. Except research tells us the shuttlecraft simply can't be that small. So maybe "24ft." refers to something other than overall length. Maybe it's cabin length or some other not-so-obvious reference point.

Secondly there are visual clues in the shuttlecraft's interior set that suggest (at least to me) that despite what we're seeing they seem to be suggesting the interior is supposed to be smaller. Why are the chairs and consoles set so low to the deck when they don't have to be? Why are the actors walking about stooped over when they obviously don't have to (Nimoy himself was well over 6ft. tall and the others were shorter)?

Finally there is the matter of accommodating not just one, but easily four of the shuttlecraft (referenced in "The Omega Glory") within the starship's hangar facilities. If anyone has followed Gary Kerr's comments regarding the hangar interior for the 1/350 TOS E then you're aware that you can't really have quite as cavernous a flight deck as we saw onscreen. In that case you then can't realistically accommodate a 30 or 32ft. shuttlecraft let alone four of them. Remember it's not just length because as length goes up so do width and height to keep the vehicle proportionate.

When I put all this together it struck me that Matt Jefferies did indeed plan for a smaller shuttlecraft, but it simply can't be as small as 24ft. I fussed and fussed and fussed again with it until I came to a compromise I felt was acceptable: 26.5ft. L.O.A. (it's a tad longer than what's seen in the images I posted above because I later changed the design of the rear landing pad).

Now because I wanted to keep the shape and proportions of what we saw onscreen some interesting things happened. Firstly the exterior is wider than what the interior would otherwise dictate. The result was a generous amount of between hulls space making room for mechanicals that in a real vehicle would need to be there (such as the swing-out equipment lockers we saw onscreen). It also allowed for a bit of room under the deck where we saw Scotty mucking about in "The Galileo Seven." One thing I couldn't avoid: the angle of the interior's sloping forward bulkhead doesn't match the exterior forward hull. In that respect alone it becomes impossible to match up the three interior "windows" with the three panels seen on the exterior. No matter what you do something ends up looking wrong. If you change the angle of the interior bulkhead (which changes the look of the interior) it doesn't look right. And you still have a problem that the interior isn't as wide as the exterior. It all becomes a major migraine. In the end I said "the hell with it."---I decided that what we saw were not actually windows but actually display monitors similar to the large viewscreen we saw on the _Enterprise_ bridge. Yeah, I know the implication is that they're supposed to be windows but you just can't make them work that way. Besides as windows they're useless because they're set too high to be usable as such. You certainly can't use them for piloting the craft. But as monitor displays they're just fine.

What it all comes down to is an individual has to decide for themselves what their ultimate goal is. Do you want to replicate what you saw onscreen as the "real" ship and to hell with anything else (such as some insisting the onscreen interior is the real thing and the exterior was just an approximation or vice versa) or you try to make it all work in a realistic manner? My goal was to depict an integrated design that had all the things we saw onscreen only tweaked just enough to make it work. Jefferies did plan on a smaller ship and that's what I ended up with while still having an interior that isn't really that far removed from what we saw on television. 

Oh, and as I mentioned before it was a happy coincidence that if you measure the main hull of my version without the rear landing gear and nacelles you get just a smidgen over 24ft. :lol:


What this discussion has me thinking is that I will likely have to go ahead and put an interior into my 3D model as I've planned it just to see how it all works.


----------



## Proper2

Wait, I'm still a little confused. You say that the planned length is the one you settled on (which in the diagram is 30', or 29'-11' to be exact). But then you decided that's too big and you revised it to 26.5'? Is that what you meant? By the way, nice diagrams. I appreciate the thought you've given this.


----------



## Warped9

Yes, originally I planned for something about 30ft. long, but after _a lot_ of trial and error and repeated rethinking I settled on 26.5ft.

Here is another little comparison between how Franz Joseph did the shuttlecraft and how I did it.


----------



## Proper2

Excellent! But the thing that bothers me is the window/viewscreen issue. In "Galileo 7" there are scenes in which you can see the interior through the windows—at least in the remastered version. I believe them to be windows not monitors, even if their location is not for piloting.


----------



## Warped9

Sorry, but I don't care about the remastered version. That isn't original source materiel. I also don't care for how they redid the hangar deck and shuttlecraft exterior. *McCagen* (for one) is doing decidedly better work than what was done on TOS-R.

I know they were meant to be windows, but they can't work that way for a number of reasons. For the moment forget about using them for piloting. Just positioning the damned things is hell. You have to mess around with changing the angle of the interior bulkhead, you have to greatly widen the interior to match the exterior and then you have to reshape and reposition the panels on the exterior. In the end it all looks wrong...for me anyway. I thought my solution was simpler and more elegant.

The shuttlecraft wasn't really designed as an integrated whole. Both exterior and interior were production compromises to satisfy the needs of the story to be filmed. And that's true of the hangar deck and mostly all of the _Star Trek_ sets. The producers approximated things to make it work well enough for television and without any thought their work would be scrutinized for decades afterward. That thinking is still in effect today even with more polished post-production resources. You simply don't have the time to agonize over it because you have deadlines to meet whether it be for television or film. We as fans have the luxury of not having deadlines and because we're interested and don't see it as just another job before moving on to the next assignment. I don't believe the producers don't care either, but that they just have to have a different focus due to the realities of their situation.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Warped9 said:


> Actually my interior centreline is not exactly parallel with the exterior one. I pitched the interior forward about a half degree (hmm, or was it one degree?), but since the craft is tilted back about one degree in landed position then it's a wash and you have a floor level with the ground under the ship.
> 
> Yes, I sacrificed cabin length and spacing between chairs, but since they now sit more upright (in that their legs aren't splayed out) then it's not really a sacrifice in leg room. Indeed the crew would propably be seated more comfortably because their legs aren't scrunched up by sitting too close to the deck.
> 
> One has to decide what matters most. If you want the onscreen interior as is then the exterior becomes simply too damned big to be practical. If you want a 24ft. exterior then you simply can't have the interior seen onscreen or in the very least you can't have an aft cabin and the rest of the interior is ridiculously cramped. If you alter the exterior to fit the proportions of the interior you deform the shape of the exterior including lowering the forward windows which changes the face (so to speak) of the shuttlecraft.
> 
> I learned a lot seeing others' efforts before I tried it. The simple fact is the exterior as seen and the interior as seen are irreconcilable. There simply has to be give somewhere and that includes the craft being accommodated within a starship's hangar facilities. I kept the exterior near exactly as seen onscreen with only a _very_ modest tweaking primarily to the roof line. I kept the sizes and shapes of the interior fittings except for shortening the cabin in length and height and lifting the chair height a bit. And while my 26.5ft. version is bigger than 24ft. it's still manageable, and because I find a 31-33ft. exterior simply unworkable to be properly accommodated within the starship's hangar facilities. A large craft also is much more awkward to enter and exit.


I really can't agree that you have to deform the exterior in any way or lower the windows in order to upsize the exterior.

The windows will always be too high to be seen through properly when sitting down. You really can't lower them enough in the interior for a seated person to see through them as simple windows during level flight. Even with the higher chairs we came up with.

Not without messing up the exterior proportions.

The biggest issue is whether or not you consider them to be simple windows or not.

Obviously the original intent was probably for that to be the case, but unless you consider them to perhaps be viewscreens instead they will never work properly as designed in level flight.

The centerline of the exterior and interior are definitely intended to be matched onscreen.

Slight titling of the ship both forward or backwards can be shown depending on the surface the exterior mockup was on. Phil Broad, who saw the ship on many many occasions when it was in California has his listing forward in his blueprints, which I believe to be the best of the exterior as actually built there are. http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehic...uttlecraftPlans/GalileoVaultExteriorPlans.htm

The reason being primarily due to the way the lower part of the ship was constructed with steel tubing and connected at the wings with steel tubing, allowing the connection points to twist as well as the craft. In the Immunity Syndrome, the entire center part of the ship even flexes when Spock steps in!!! :freak:

Another reason why I think any kind of integrated ship built should be at least 30 feet, it would be nice to see someone with the proper resources, like Paul Allen eventually build something that would be integrated and serve as an attraction - perhaps for his sci-fi museum in Seattle.

Otherwise you will never have any under the floor room, and the chances of constructing something that can hold the necessary weight out of conventional materials is pretty close to nill unless you have the money to build a titanium steel hull covered with carbon fiber sheeting. Even if someone with the money Paul Allen has decided to build a fully integrated mock up, I doubt he's drop that kind of money - not to mention the only people who have experience working with those kinds of materials to custom build something probably are employed in the defense industry. 

To me 30 to 33 feet isn't a problem. Personally I'm not wedded to the idea the TOS E is 947 feet long.

It causes problems not just in the Enterprises design (please guys, let's not get into whether not eggshell thin decks with no room for pipes or service areas are realistic) but also it doesn't allow for a shuttlebay like the one originally seen, and probably not enough room for one as seen on CBS remastered version.

To me the bigger issue is designing something that is as close to an as seen on screen integrated craft as possible, even if a perfect integration is impossible.

Personally I don't care if that ship is 33 feet long or even 36 as long as the exterior isn't compromised.


Get the ship as right as possible and let the hanger bay be someone elses' problem.

But that is simply my own personal preferance.


----------



## Warped9

No matter whether they're windows or displays the angle of the forward interior bulkhead isn't the same as the exterior hull. Changing the interior bulkhead angle to match the exterior simply deforms the interior too much for my liking. Every version of the craft I've seen has had to deform the interior and exterior to some degree to make them work together. I did the same thing while trying to minimize the changes. I tweaked the curvature of the roofline as well as the rear half of the underbelly to accommodate an interior that maintained its shape except in terms of absolute length and height. Inside I also opted to make the box like fixture of the ceiling lights thinner than the bulky affair it actually was. 

To each his own. It all comes down to where you're willing to make compromises.

I don't care much what they do with the interior on the planned R2 kit because I won't see it and it won't affect my perception of what the "real" interior should be like. As for the exterior I hope/expect them to do much as what they did with the 1/350 _Enterprise,_ give us the _starship_ the 11 footer was meant to represent rather than replicate a filming prop. So I want the _shuttlecraft_ the mock-up was meant to represent rather than the filming prop.



Chuck_P.R. said:


> Get the ship as right as possible and let the hanger bay be someone elses' problem.


For me it's really all part of the same issue if you want it all to at least seem realistic. *McCagen* and a few others are finding ways of giving us a hangar area that looks a lot like what we saw even if some of it is a bit of illusion. On the flip side we get others drawing out hangar decks that bear only a passing resemblance to what we saw.


----------



## Buc

blah, blah, blah, pictures! blah, blah, blah, next page


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Warped9 said:


> No matter whether they're windows or displays the angle of the forward interior bulkhead isn't the same as the exterior hull. Changing the interior bulkhead angle to match the exterior simply deforms the interior too much for my liking. Every version of the craft I've seen has had to deform the interior and exterior to some degree to make them work together. I did the same thing while trying to minimize the changes. I tweaked the curvature of the roofline as well as the rear half of the underbelly to accommodate an interior that maintained its shape except in terms of absolute length and height.


Yep. On both my 33 foot version and FourMadMen's final 30 foot version we started out with Phil Broad's plans way back in 2004.

We quickly found out we needed to reduce the slant of the roofline in order to fit the rear cabin in.
Not tremendously so, but it did need to be tweaked.

On the front interior/exterior hull slant issue, even way back in 1979 David Winfrey noted that the interior and exterior front hulls were too drastically different to not change the interior slant on the front wall over the helm. So you are right about their being a difference of course - though I don't think it rises to the level of "deforming" the front interior hull to match them.

I don't think doing so deforms it though. Most people would never notice the difference even in a full size 36 foot mockup unless they were hold screen captures, I believe.

You, myself, and a few others know about the difference, but I don't think it would look weird or deformed to make the inside hull the same angle as the exterior hull, even if you or I were standing in a 36 foot long mockup. We'd know there is a difference, but I don't see it looking weird as there would still be more then enough headroom to sit down and stand up over the front-most seats.

We would probably be most annoyed and taken aback by the fact that the windows in the interior set(and exterior too for that matter) are way too high. We can try to explain it away with the idea that they are viewscreens - though it still doesn't make too much sense that even viewscreens are set that high. 

On the subject of interior vs exterior centerlines not being level when matched up, Gary Kerr recently made the observation that we never see Federation ships lose gravity in the time periods shown after the series Enterprise, federation ships never lose gravity. And that artificial gravity probably is a technology built into the physical construction of all federation craft. At least in the TOS period and afterwards.

Which is a very apt explain-away for how the ship could be listing forward or backwards and the interior scenes still show the craft as being level inside.

The interior might not actually be level if one were to cut the craft in half and view it from outside the shuttlecraft, but the federation artificial gravity makes it seem level inside even when the outside is tilting one way or another. 



Warped9 said:


> To each his own. It all comes down to where you're willing to make compromises.


Exactly!

On my 33 foot version, my biggest ambivalence is that I lowered the floor and raised the chairs to get enough headroom. Mind you that at 33 feet that still leaves enough room under the floor for a fuel line access area as seen in the Galileo Seven, but the change still bugs me a bit.

However, not doing that and still having enough headroom so even Nimoy can walk around standing fully upright I figured out would require a craft almost 36 feet long.

But messing with the chair design and centerline-to-floor height still bugs me almost as much. 




Warped9 said:


> I don't care much what they do with the interior on the planned R2 kit because I won't see it and it won't affect my perception of what the "real" interior should be like. As for the exterior I hope/expect them to do much as what they did with the 1/350 _Enterprise,_ give us the _starship_ the 11 footer was meant to represent rather than replicate a filming prop. So I want the _shuttlecraft_ the mock-up was meant to represent rather than the filming prop.



There seems to be a lot of people who don't really care about the interior of the kit much as long as the exterior looks right.

Proper2 suggested, for example, to have the kit designed so you would only see the middle cabin wall through the front windows.

I would point out though, that including a properly scaled interior doesn't have to effect the exterior in any way.

So if one truly doesn't care about the interior, why not include the proper amount of space and cavities inside for one?

It wouldn't negatively effect the exterior to do so.

I'm not expecting R2 to include a fully tricked-out interior(wouldn't complain if they did - however).

But I'd like to see properly sized front and rear cabin cavities. Plus I don't see them not including a decent helm and chairs - the most difficult stuff to scratchbuild.

That way most people would be happy.

Those who want a fully integrated interior could build one,
and there would be zero skin taken off the nose of those 
who don't really care about the interior.

Whether it's scaled at 1/32 to be 30, 33, or even 36 feet long would be of no consequence if one truly only cared about getting the exterior proportionally correct.

Unless somebody wanted to put her inside a near 30 foot long 1/32nd scale TOS E. 

But let that guy worry about that problem. Anyone that could afford to do that needs a problem or two to work on in their life anyway. :tongue:

Just give us a properly integrated model with a big enough interior cavities. That way those of us that want a full sized interior can build it 
that way, and those who don't care can just not bother with it if they truly don't care.

Best of both worlds. :thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Get the ship as right as possible and let the hanger bay be someone elses' problem.





Warped9 said:


> For me it's really all part of the same issue if you want it all to at least seem realistic. *McCagen* and a few others are finding ways of giving us a hangar area that looks a lot like what we saw even if some of it is a bit of illusion. On the flip side we get others drawing out hangar decks that bear only a passing resemblance to what we saw.



Sorry Warped. My last response was to an earlier version of your post that wasn't this specific about the hanger bay.

Both MGagen and CBS's shuttlebays are much more realistic then the original forced-perspective ones seen in TOS.

But we're talking about a model kit that is likely to be somewhere between 11 1/4 inches to 12 3/8" long.

I don't think the difference between an 11 1/4" model and a 12 3/8" model would somehow make a tremendous difference in how realistic the model appears. We're all in agreement that the exterior should be proportionally accurate.

A 1 1/8 inch difference in the model's size I don't believe will make it look unrealistic.

Especially if you aren't concerned with the model interior.

Few people will be placing it in a 1/32nd scale shuttlebay.

So I would argue for at least getting the craft integration right.

and those who have the money, time, skills and ability to want to scratchbuild a 1/32nd scale shuttlebay can certainly afford to 
scratchbuild their own version of the shuttlecraft.

People who don't care about the interior are extremely unlikely to
care about how it would fit in a shuttlebay they are never going to
build.

But that's just my take on it. Your mileage may vary.


----------



## Proper2

Since there are so many varying opinions as to what the thing should look like, or what the size should be, for me the bottom line regarding a Polar Lights kit would be for it match the 22" studio model that we see flying onscreen. And for it to be engineered well and cast well, with good details. Since to me the windows were meant to be windows, they should be clear plastic (or missing altogether) with an option tom keep 'em closed, and you should be able to peek in and see an interior that is laid out as accurately as possible to work with the exterior. For me the interior angle of the cabin with the windows is irrelevant. Since the interior was never built to co-exist with the exterior for filming, it need not be and cannot be completely accurate. I can live with that since my emphasis is by far the exterior model.

Pre-order me one....


----------



## Warped9

A 1/32 scale hangar deck? Hmm...*Awesome!* :thumbsup:

A "flying" 22ft. mock-up? Hmm...equally *Awesome!* :thumbsup:


----------



## MGagen

Warped9 said:


> Sorry, but I don't care about the remastered version. That isn't original source materiel. I also don't care for how they redid the hangar deck and shuttlecraft exterior. *McCagen* [sic. MGagen] (for one) is doing decidedly better work than what was done on TOS-R.


Thanks!



> The shuttlecraft wasn't really designed as an integrated whole. Both exterior and interior were production compromises to satisfy the needs of the story to be filmed. And that's true of the hangar deck and mostly all of the _Star Trek_ sets. The producers approximated things to make it work well enough for television and without any thought their work would be scrutinized for decades afterward.


This is very true. What we see on screen is always a compromise with the time clock having the final say. But what's really special about Matt Jefferies' work on ST is that, while he couldn't have put in the time to plan out every detail, he seemed to have a very clear mental image of how it all fit together. This seems to have allowed him to work at an instinctive level and crank out designs in a production environment that hang together almost as well as if he _had_ planned it out in minute detail. 

I do believe the Shuttlecraft was designed as an integrated whole, but I think that changes were made after it left the drafting table. For example, MJ's design was judged too costly to build as it had compound curves, so the exterior was altered to the more slab-sided version. (I do not believe the design judged too curvy was the "teardrop" shuttle; rather it is the one depicted in the TMOST drawings where the sides of the shuttle are seen to be curved. See drawing.)










As for the interior, the ridiculously low seats and the flattened front angle seem to point to a last minute dictate to "raise the roof." MJ's perspective interior sketch in TMOST implies that you would have to stoop to walk around in his version. I think they simply stretched the design at the mid-level seam to accommodate the higher ceiling. This leads to all sorts of proportional problems fitting interior and exterior.

Am I right in thinking that the main problem with the narrower proportion of the interior is getting the windows to align side to side? I wonder if one were willing to live with the smaller shuttle size with the lower ceiling, if one couldn't have the interior compartment wide enough to fit the windows at the front, but still have some wall thickness by the time you get to the rear end since the exterior seems to be wider at the back end.

Put me in the camp of Outside outweighs Inside. I want a shuttle model that looks correct from the outside, and I'll live with changes to the inside to make it workable.



> That thinking is still in effect today.... <snip> I don't believe the producers don't care either, but that they just have to have a different focus due to the realities of their situation.


I'll only say that, indeed, some producers DO NOT care. We'll get to see another example of this, soon. I won't mention names so as not to derail the thread...

M.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Proper2 said:


> Since there are so many varying opinions as to what the thing should look like, or what the size should be, for me the bottom line regarding a Polar Lights kit would be for it match the 22" studio model that we see flying onscreen. And for it to be engineered well and cast well, with good details. Since to me the windows were meant to be windows, you should be able to peek in and see an interior that is laid out as accurately as possible to work with the exterior. Since the interior was never built to co-exist with the exterior for filming, it need not be and cannot be completely accurate. I can live with that since my emphasis is by far the exterior model.


There are some differences between the 22" studio model and the exterior stage prop.

Plus now the 22" miniature will only be seen in old DVD collections.

My point is not to say that's good or bad. Just making the point that using the 22" model for proportions rather then the exterior stage prop would end up being confusing to many going forward.

On all your other points I'm in unqualified 100% agreement.

Furthermore, I'd add that when looking into the craft from the exterior of the 1/32nd model you wouldn't notice the difference in the slant of the front wall.

You'd only notice that from the inside, and then probably only on a full size integrated mockup. Even then you wouldn't probably notice the slant as much as the window height.

Of course you are also right that they can never agree with one another 100%. But as long as enough space is included for an integrated interior I believe most people will be happy.

Especially those only concerned with the exterior, and perhaps only looking through the front windows. 

Best of both worlds. Whether scaled at 1/32nd of 30 feet or 33 feet I'll be happy either way. I just don't see her being scaled significantly below that without cobbling the interior.

And if one doesn't care tremendously about the interior of the model, why care about an inch either way?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Warped9 said:


> A 1/32 scale hangar deck? Hmm...*Awesome!* :thumbsup:
> 
> A "flying" 22ft. mock-up? Hmm...equally *Awesome!* :thumbsup:



:roll:

rotflmao!

:tongue:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

MGagen said:


> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> This is very true. What we see on screen is always a compromise with the time clock having the final say. But what's really special about Matt Jefferies' work on ST is that, while he couldn't have put in the time to plan out every detail, he seemed to have a very clear mental image of how it all fit together. This seems to have allowed him to work at an instinctive level and crank out designs in a production environment that hang together almost as well as if he _had_ planned it out in minute detail.
> 
> I do believe the Shuttlecraft was designed as an integrated whole, but I think that changes were made after it left the drafting table. For example, MJ's design was judged too costly to build as it had compound curves, so the exterior was altered to the more slab-sided version. (I do not believe the design judged too curvy was the "teardrop" shuttle; rather it is the one depicted in the TMOST drawings where the sides of the shuttle are seen to be curved. See drawing.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for the interior, the ridiculously low seats and the flattened front angle seem to point to a last minute dictate to "raise the roof." MJ's perspective interior sketch in TMOST implies that you would have to stoop to walk around in his version. I think they simply stretched the design at the mid-level seam to accommodate the higher ceiling. This leads to all sorts of proportional problems fitting interior and exterior.
> 
> Am I right in thinking that the main problem with the narrower proportion of the interior is getting the windows to align side to side? I wonder if one were willing to live with the smaller shuttle size with the lower ceiling, if one couldn't have the interior compartment wide enough to fit the windows at the front, but still have some wall thickness by the time you get to the rear end since the exterior seems to be wider at the back end.
> 
> Put me in the camp of Outside outweighs Inside. I want a shuttle model that looks correct from the outside, and I'll live with changes to the inside to make it workable.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll only say that, indeed, some producers DO NOT care. We'll get to see another example of this, soon. I won't mention names so as not to derail the thread...
> 
> M.


Agreed on all points.

I don't believe there is a problem with getting the windows to fit side to side when integrating a grown exterior, even if one were to grow the exterior to as large as 36 feet.

The biggest issue is that they will be much larger on the inside, unless one were to design the window to grow from smaller to larger as it goes from interior to exterior. Not an impossible task, but it might alter the look through the windows from the outside.

The only other issue would be the door would grow into the curve of the interior upper wall just below where the ceiling flattens out.

But that is neither avoidable, nor would it be noticable from the outside.

What you said about the upper half of the interior set being changed at the last minute makes perfect sense. You made a similar statement years ago in the Bob Villa Galileo thread; and it does totally explain 98% of all of the seemingly unsurmountable issues of integrating the craft.

Thanks again for all the research and work you have done on not just the Galileo but the TOS E as well! :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9

MGagen said:


> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> This is very true. What we see on screen is always a compromise with the time clock having the final say. But what's really special about Matt Jefferies' work on ST is that, while he couldn't have put in the time to plan out every detail, he seemed to have a very clear mental image of how it all fit together. This seems to have allowed him to work at an instinctive level and crank out designs in a production environment that hang together almost as well as if he _had_ planned it out in minute detail.
> 
> I do believe the Shuttlecraft was designed as an integrated whole, but I think that changes were made after it left the drafting table. For example, MJ's design was judged too costly to build as it had compound curves, so the exterior was altered to the more slab-sided version. (I do not believe the design judged too curvy was the "teardrop" shuttle; rather it is the one depicted in the TMOST drawings where the sides of the shuttle are seen to be curved. See drawing.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for the interior, the ridiculously low seats and the flattened front angle seem to point to a last minute dictate to "raise the roof." MJ's perspective interior sketch in TMOST implies that you would have to stoop to walk around in his version. I think they simply stretched the design at the mid-level seam to accommodate the higher ceiling. This leads to all sorts of proportional problems fitting interior and exterior.
> 
> Am I right in thinking that the main problem with the narrower proportion of the interior is getting the windows to align side to side? I wonder if one were willing to live with the smaller shuttle size with the lower ceiling, if one couldn't have the interior compartment wide enough to fit the windows at the front, but still have some wall thickness by the time you get to the rear end since the exterior seems to be wider at the back end.M.


Hmm, now I'm thinking of tackling a curvy Class F design to see how it would look like.

Even lowering the ceiling doesn't help much with the width of the interior. The windows are just a different issue. If you get the interior to match up with exterior the resulting ceiling basically has you walking around bent in half inside. Just look at the actors exiting the fullsize mockup to get the idea. And start scaling up the exterior to get more ceiling height and at some point your cabin starts getting proportionately too wide.


----------



## TrekFX

Chuck_P.R. said:


> There are some differences between the 22" studio model and the exterior stage prop.
> 
> Plus now the 22" miniature will only be seen in old DVD collections.


Actually, I have the the full series on Blu Ray and always watch episodes with the original effects. 'Cos they're "real."

My vote goes to matching the miniature's exterior, at whatever cost to depicting the live-action set interior.


----------



## Gary K

chuck_p.r. said:


> we would probably be most annoyed and taken aback by the fact that the windows in the interior set(and exterior too for that matter) are way too high. We can try to explain it away with the idea that they are viewscreens - though it still doesn't make too much sense that even viewscreens are set that high.


For what it's worth, I was inside the undersized Galileo mock-up in 1992. If you were seated in a chair, the windows are at exactly the right height to see out of. 



chuck_p.r. said:


> on the subject of interior vs exterior centerlines not being level when matched up, gary kerr recently made the observation that we never see federation ships lose gravity in the time periods shown after the series enterprise, federation ships never lose gravity. And that artificial gravity probably is a technology built into the physical construction of all federation craft. At least in the tos period and afterwards.
> 
> Which is a very apt explain-away for how the ship could be listing forward or backwards and the interior scenes still show the craft as being level inside.


I believe my exact statement is that the Federation's gravity generators run on Energizer batteries and therefore never run out of power.  A more prozaic explanation for the durability of the gravity generators is that depicting weightlessness was too expensive a proposition (and was only shown briefly on the Klingon flagship in ST VI). Likewise, it didn't make sense to go to the trouble to tilt the shuttle's interior set a couple degrees to match the exterior since 99.9% of the viewers would never notice it.

I don't lose any sleep over the discrepancies in the design of the shuttlecraft. If you'll notice, almost the entire interior of the Galileo consists of empty space, with almost no room for a powerplant, HVAC equipment, fuel storage, seatbelts, and other neccessities that an actual spacecraft would require. That's because both the interior & exterior sets were simply there to help tell the story, and were built on a limited budget. 

Gary


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Warped9 said:


> Hmm, now I'm thinking of tackling a curvy Class F design to see how it would look like.
> 
> Even lowering the ceiling doesn't help much with the width of the interior. The windows are just a different issue. If you get the interior to match up with exterior the resulting ceiling basically has you walking around bent in half inside. Just look at the actors exiting the fullsize mockup to get the idea. And start scaling up the exterior to get more ceiling height and at some point your cabin starts getting proportionately too wide.


With the walls the same thickness as seen onscreen while looking out the door through the opening from the interior you are exactly right.

You pretty much have to increase the wall thickness between the interior and exterior. But that actually helps make the door mechanism and rearward storage areas a bit more believable.

Again, not a perfect solution.

But the walls as seen framed out during the exterior's construction would never be possible considering the thin walls seen in the interior set's doorway.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Gary K said:


> For what it's worth, I was inside the undersized Galileo mock-up in 1992. If you were seated in a chair, the windows are at exactly the right height to see out of.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe my exact statement is that the Federation's gravity generators run on Energizer batteries and therefore never run out of power.  A more prozaic explanation for the durability of the gravity generators is that depicting weightlessness was too expensive a proposition (and was only shown briefly on the Klingon flagship in ST VI). Likewise, it didn't make sense to go to the trouble to tilt the shuttle's interior set a couple degrees to match the exterior since 99.9% of the viewers would never notice it.
> 
> I don't lose any sleep over the discrepancies in the design of the shuttlecraft. If you'll notice, almost the entire interior of the Galileo consists of empty space, with almost no room for a powerplant, HVAC equipment, fuel storage, seatbelts, and other neccessities that an actual spacecraft would require. That's because both the interior & exterior sets were simply there to help tell the story, and were built on a limited budget.
> 
> Gary


You are 100% right, of course.

As long as the exterior is great and we have a couple of decent sized cavities for what we saw that is about the best anyone can ask for.

It's impossible to make everything in the Trek universe work together 100%.

Even if you were able get a perfectly integrated shuttlecraft(not 100% possible) there are issues that are created by doing something as fantasticly impressive as that would be.

Namely the shuttlebay issue.

But you can't worry about every single issue.

An accurate exterior with enough room for good, if not perfect, interior cabins is about all we can reasonably ask for.

And I don't know of anyone more qualified to accomplish that then yourself. 

Thanks again for all your work helping making excellent Trek models possible. :thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

TrekFX said:


> Actually, I have the the full series on Blu Ray and always watch episodes with the original effects. 'Cos they're "real."
> 
> My vote goes to matching the miniature's exterior, at whatever cost to depicting the live-action set interior.


It wouldn't really cause a problem with the interior to match the filming
miniature. 

But the filming minature is a bit more boxey then the exterior stage piece, however.
I can't take credit for the observation. Many years ago I did notice that the nacelles 
on the filming miniature were parallel. But it never occurred to me until it was pointed
out that the side hull walls of the filming miniature were too.

Can't believe I missed that, but I did. :freak:

I too do like watching the original special effects, though.

Even if I wouldn't choose to match the filming miniature instead of
the exterior mock-up.


----------



## Warped9

Chuck_P.R. said:


> It's impossible to make everything in the Trek universe work together 100%.


What? *WHAT???* :freak:

My worldview has been crushed...


----------



## Chrisisall

All this is fascinating, but reading this much all at once makes my head hurt.
Just get the outside right- I'll do the inside myself.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Chrisisall said:


> All this is fascinating, but reading this much all at once makes my head hurt.
> Just get the outside right- I'll do the inside myself.


I feel your pain. 

Time for some coffee and an aspirin!!!


----------



## Chrisisall

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I feel your pain.
> Time for some coffee and an aspirin!!!


Or 'FUEL IGNITE'
:lol:


----------



## Zombie_61

Chrisisall said:


> All this is fascinating, but reading this much all at once makes my head hurt.


It's a lot to take in, to be sure, but I'm enjoying this thread. My enjoyment is made that much better by the fact that everyone contributing to the thread is _discussing_ the various issues rather than _debating_ them. It's definitive proof that adults can discuss and accept each others' opinions without the conversation devolving into a useless insult-fest, especially when the discussion is of a subject that so many feel so passionately about.

I'm definitely in the "get the exterior right" camp, and don't particularly care about the interior since I believe most of it won't be seen without some sort of transparent or removable exterior, which would only make the kit look toy-like. In that regard, it wouldn't surprise me if Round 2 produced two versions of this kit--a "standard" version with the exterior only (for those who don't care about, or prefer to scratchbuild, an interior), and a "deluxe" version with full interior (however they reconcile the differences). Regardless, this is a "must have" kit for me.


----------



## Proper2

Zombie_61 said:


> It's a lot to take in, to be sure, but I'm enjoying this thread. My enjoyment is made that much better by the fact that everyone contributing to the thread is _discussing_ the various issues rather than _debating_ them. It's definitive proof that adults can discuss and accept each others' opinions without the conversation devolving into a useless insult-fest, especially when the discussion is of a subject that so many feel so passionately about.
> 
> I'm definitely in the "get the exterior right" camp, and don't particularly care about the interior since I believe most of it won't be seen without some sort of transparent or removable exterior, which would only make the kit look toy-like. In that regard, it wouldn't surprise me if Round 2 produced two versions of this kit--a "standard" version with the exterior only (for those who don't care about, or prefer to scratchbuild, an interior), and a "deluxe" version with full interior (however they reconcile the differences). Regardless, this is a "must have" kit for me.


Absolutely agree. Would like to have a lighted interior, though just to peek in the through windows. With at the very least, Spock and Scotty figures sitting in the front seats. Scotty turning to Spock (accent, of course): "A distress signal? It's like sending up a flare. Mister Spock, that was a good gamble. Perhaps it was worth it." :thumbsup:


----------



## Zombie_61

Proper2 said:


> ...With at the very least, Spock and Scotty figures sitting in the front seats. Scotty turning to Spock (accent, of course): "A distress signal? It's like sending up a flare. Mister Spock, that was a good gamble. Perhaps it was worth it." :thumbsup:


Since it seems they will be doing an interior, I'd like it to include figures as well. Mr. Spock and/or Mr. Scott certainly, maybe a couple of generic redshirts, Commodore Decker...


----------



## Proper2

Zombie_61 said:


> I'd like it to include figures as well... Commodore Decker...


"Matt, you'll be killed!"


----------



## Warped9

Proper2 said:


>


This is what you look like trying to reconcile the shuttlecraft's interior and exterior.


----------



## mach7

Umm, 
Hello Yeoman Mears!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

mach7 said:


> Umm,
> Hello Yeoman Mears!


In "We're moving!" position. :tongue:

For diorama purposes, of course.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Zombie_61 said:


> It's a lot to take in, to be sure, but I'm enjoying this thread. My enjoyment is made that much better by the fact that everyone contributing to the thread is _discussing_ the various issues rather than _debating_ them. It's definitive proof that adults can discuss and accept each others' opinions without the conversation devolving into a useless insult-fest, especially when the discussion is of a subject that so many feel so passionately about.
> 
> I'm definitely in the "get the exterior right" camp, and don't particularly care about the interior since I believe most of it won't be seen without some sort of transparent or removable exterior, which would only make the kit look toy-like. In that regard, it wouldn't surprise me if Round 2 produced two versions of this kit--a "standard" version with the exterior only (for those who don't care about, or prefer to scratchbuild, an interior), and a "deluxe" version with full interior (however they reconcile the differences). Regardless, this is a "must have" kit for me.


Yep. It's great to see so many people who care about a Trek subject be able to discuss it and make points with one another without attaching any venom to the points being made. :thumbsup:

It's especially nice to have the kit's designer be able to contribute as well, without there having to be any kind of rush to judgement being made about the options possible.

I suspect that the ship will probably be cut along the centerline with the top removable, for simplicity of casting purposes if for no other. Probably with a door engraved but not openable.

But those of us who want a more detailed interior with perhaps even a door could always cut it out ourselves, if they can't cast it seperately due to practical casting considerations.

There are many ways to approach the interior from that point though.

Again, as long as they get the inner two cabin's cavity spaces the right size for me to add computer and other wall panels myself, and maybe the back cylinders in a niche myself(I can even build the niche myself, as long as the space is there), most of us can do the rest ourselves.

As long as the exterior is accurate and the two cabins are there with a good helm and chairs it seems that most of us will be happy.


----------



## Chrisisall

Chuck_P.R. said:


> As long as the exterior is accurate and the two cabins are there with a good helm and chairs it seems that most of us will be happy.


That's all I could ask for.:thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Chuck_P.R. said:


> As long as the exterior is accurate and the two cabins are there with a good helm and chairs it seems that most of us will be happy.





Chrisisall said:


> That's all I could ask for.:thumbsup:


While I'm sure some people will disagree on some small detail about the kit,
it's a great thing that I believe most people can agree on the above framework.

Even though some would probably like this or that detail added, if Gary Kerr can 
accomplish the accurate exterior, properly large if empty fore and aft cabin cavities, 
helm and chairs that would be a tremendous accomplishment.

Especially considering how off the old AMT version is,

if they surprise us with anything more then those five features, 
it will all be gravy!


----------



## StarshipClass

Chuck_P.R. said:


> While I'm sure some people will disagree on some small detail about the kit,
> it's a great thing that I believe most people can agree on the above framework.
> 
> Even though some would probably like this or that detail added, if Gary Kerr can
> accomplish the accurate exterior, properly large if empty fore and aft cabin cavities,
> helm and chairs that would be a tremendous accomplishment.
> 
> Especially considering how off the old AMT version is,
> 
> if they surprise us with anything more then those five features,
> it will all be gravy!


I heard there are going to be grid lines on the shuttlecraft. What is that all about? I didn't even know there were any grid lines on the original shuttlecraft. Was there some detail on the miniature that isn't really visible on screen? 







Sorry.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I heard there are going to be grid lines on the shuttlecraft. What is that all about? I didn't even know there were any grid lines on the original shuttlecraft. Was there some detail on the miniature that isn't really visible on screen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry.


Sorry!?! 

You know, I had to very strongly fight the urge to make the comparison between our discussion here,

to that discussion elsewhere. But I had totally gotten over it and had left it alone.

Thanks a lot for blowing that wide open! :freak:

I can only hope and pray the Visigoths don't see the smoke from the fire you just lit.


----------



## Chrisisall

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I can only hope and pray the Visigoths don't see the smoke from the fire you just lit.


The Huns & the Vandals are keeping them busy I believe.

This is a civilized thread.


----------



## Proper2

mach7 said:


> Umm,
> Hello Yeoman Mears!


Soft focus, and all. Did you catch when she falls to her knees and perches like a kitten later in the episode when the craft is trying to take off from the planet? :tongue:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Proper2 said:


> Soft focus, and all. Did you catch when she falls to her knees and perches like a kitten later in the episode when the craft is trying to take off from the planet? :tongue:


Yep. That was the "We're moving!" position I was talking about.

Be great to have an after marketer maybe make one of those,

strictly for diorama purposes, of course. 

Maybe a big, fur covered 12 foot tall homonid with a big
rock on the outside too?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

^^^^Had to add that last sentence as my girlfriend was just staring over my shoulder before going down the hall. Plus, with her looking over my shoulder while I was typing, 
I suddenly felt like I was creeping myself out a little with my own joke. Darn parochial school education!!! :freak:


----------



## Chrisisall

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Maybe a big, fur covered 12 foot tall homonid with a big
> rock on the outside too?


I SAW a dio of that somewhere!!! But where...?



> ^^^^Had to add that last sentence as my girlfriend was just staring over my shoulder before going down the hall. Plus, with her looking over my shoulder while I was typing,
> I suddenly felt like I was creeping myself out a little with my own joke. Darn parochial school education!!!


 LOL!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Chrisisall said:


> I SAW a dio of that somewhere!!! But where...?


Once apon a time I saw a picture of a scratchbuilt Galileo on a diorama of the exterior rocks seen in The Galileo Seven. 

I don't remember the Hominid being included, but it may well have been there too and I just didn't pay attention to it, 
or you might have seen yet another diorama too . . .

I think a member posted the pic in one of the 2000+ posts of the Bob Villa Galileo thread. It might still be in there somewhere

- unless it was one of the 400 or so posts accidentally deleted(yes, it's years later and I'm still pi**ed about that. Sorry!).


----------



## Chrisisall

This is all I could find...
http://www.starshipmodeler.com/trek/sos_col_02_Attheready.jpg

I KNOW I saw one with furry dues, one holding a boulder.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Chrisisall said:


> This is all I could find...
> http://www.starshipmodeler.com/trek/sos_col_02_Attheready.jpg
> 
> I KNOW I saw one with furry dues, one holding a boulder.


I don't think that's the one I saw. Unless the same guy later added a small rock "mountain" behind the starboard side of the Galileo later(which is always possible).


----------



## Warped9

The grid lines on the shuttlecraft were even fainter than those on the 11 footer. They used a really hard pencil like a 9H or something.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Warped9 said:


> The grid lines on the shuttlecraft were even fainter than those on the 11 footer. They used a really hard pencil like a 9H or something.


Let's not give Gary any flashbacks, please.

Even if the Vandals are currently keeping them busy, the Visigoths are always nearby ready to pounce. :freak:

Don't look into your bathroom mirror and say their real name three times, either!


----------



## Warped9

You know funnily enough there is a line on the fullsize mockup that could be interpreted differently: the seam where the stabilizers attach to the main hull. Should the seam remain visible as a penciled line or a slight engraved line or do you not show it at all?


----------



## Chrisisall

Warped9 said:


> You know funnily enough there is a line on the fullsize mockup that could be interpreted differently: the seam where the stabilizers attach to the main hull. Should the seam remain visible as a penciled line or a slight engraved line or do you not show it at all?


I've locked onto your tricorder...


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Warped9 said:


> You know funnily enough there is a line on the fullsize mockup that could be interpreted differently: the seam where the stabilizers attach to the main hull. Should the seam remain visible as a penciled line or a slight engraved line or do you not show it at all?


I know the seam you are talking about.

I had some stabilizers grown in 1/24th scale.

Once I have a couple hundred dollars for enough RTV and rubber I might make resin copies of them. Right now I only have originals made from extremely fragile material.

Personally on a styrene kit I would design the lower half of the wing itself(not the parts that attach below it) as attached to the bottom half of the hull with an engraved line.

Then the top small piece of the wing I would design as a seperate piece to be glued on the bottom half.

Then I would cast the top half of the craft with no wing, but designed to fit right on and around the piece that glues on to the bottom horizontal half of the wing.

That would make most of both the top and bottom halves of the kit easy to cast in one piece, and the wing seams would end up looking just like the ones seen on the exterior mockup.


----------



## Zombie_61

Chrisisall said:


> I've locked onto your tricorder...


Nuke him from orbit; it's the only way to be sure.


----------



## Chrisisall




----------



## scifimodelfan

I just found in my stash of unbuilt models the shuttle, bridge, original K-7, two Space 1999 Eagles an original Galactica and so much more. I need to look more at what I have instead of buying and putting it away. I also found I have the refit enterprise first run and now I want the second run with the base. I need to get a grip. I will probably get another shuttle....lol


----------



## Chrisisall

scifimodelfan said:


> I also found I have the refit enterprise first run and now I want the second run with the base.


I have a STV refit with base, wanna trade?


----------



## scifimodelfan

Chrisisall said:


> I have a STV refit with base, wanna trade?


O I would but I should have mentioned it is the 1/350th scale refit.


----------



## Blufusion

1/32 scale . How big would that actually be in height, lenght and width in inches?


----------



## Chrisisall

scifimodelfan said:


> O I would but I should have mentioned it is the 1/350th scale refit.


Oh, gotcha. A little big for my house- 22" is as big as I'll go with this one.


----------



## Warped9

Blufusion said:


> 1/32 scale . How big would that actually be in height, lenght and width in inches?


All depends on what R2 decides is the actual length of a real shuttlecraft. Somewhere between 9-12 inches in length.


----------



## Chrisisall

Blufusion said:


> 1/32 scale . How big would that actually be in height, lenght and width in inches?


Slightly bigger than the old 1:35 AMT kit *staring at me* now, that is about 7.6" long. 4.5" wide, & 2.5" or so in height, give or take.



> Warped9 said:
> Somewhere between 9-12 inches in length.


Really?


----------



## scotpens

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Personally on a styrene kit I would design the lower half of the wing itself(not the parts that attach below it) as attached to the bottom half of the hull with an engraved line.
> 
> Then the top small piece of the wing I would design as a seperate piece to be glued on the bottom half.
> 
> Then I would cast the top half of the craft with no wing, but designed to fit right on and around the piece that glues on to the bottom horizontal half of the wing.
> 
> That would make most of both the top and bottom halves of the kit easy to cast in one piece, and the wing seams would end up looking just like the ones seen on the exterior mockup.


The way the sides extend up past the roof and curve inward, I don't see how the top half could be molded in one piece without using an expensive and complex multi-part tool, like the ones used to mold single-piece car bodies.


----------



## Four Mad Men

Hey Chuck, do you remember these? Dug them out of the storage loft in my shop.


----------



## Zombie_61

Chrisisall said:


> Really?


I'm sure someone more knowledgeable about this will correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC the stated scale for the AMT Galileo Shuttlecraft kit was based on the blueprints for the "full-sized" mock-up, which was actually undersized. Using your own length measurement of 7.6", a full-sized shuttlecraft based on the AMT kit would only be slightly over 22' in length.


----------



## Proper2

I would have much preferred a bigger Galileo from R2, 1/24 minimum... about a foot long.


----------



## Warped9

Proper2 said:


> I would have much preferred a bigger Galileo from R2, 1/24 minimum... about a foot long.


If they decide the "real" shuttlecraft should be about 32ft. then a 1/32 scale model will indeed be about 12in. Long


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Four Mad Men said:


> Hey Chuck, do you remember these? Dug them out of the storage loft in my shop.


I forgot I had sent you those! 

I really need to work on my set once I get a couple of hundred dollars for some RTV and more resin. 

Ever since Katrina I've mostly either been working my but off and not had enough time to get anything done, or been broke. 

Feast or famine. Currently famine. 

I'm still thinking I might have to cast the stabilizer wings/outrigger parts in some form of low temperature metal to hold the weight of the resin bottom.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Four Mad Men said:


> Hey Chuck, do you remember these? Dug them out of the storage loft in my shop.


BTWay,

I remember you told me that you had altered the exterior of your 3D model in some way in order to get the total length down to a bit under 30 feet.

Do you remember how you did that?

I'm not seeing a big difference in the 2D drawings and your final model, proportion wise. I know we trimmed the wall sections down to 42" wide,
but that I think was done fairly early and seems to be already done(not any narrower) on your 30 foot version.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

scotpens said:


> The way the sides extend up past the roof and curve inward, I don't see how the top half could be molded in one piece without using an expensive and complex multi-part tool, like the ones used to mold single-piece car bodies.


It all depends on how the top is molded.

I didn't mean to really suggest that it had to be molded 100% complete.
Sorry if I did.

The way I approached my uncompleted resin version, was to have the top designed with flat front sides and top(and a little tape placed behind the front windows.

Then you place the front, side and top curved parts over the box like structure.

There is also a seam on the exterior stage mockup's fore to aft roofline, where I'm going to place a "cartridge" style engine block. Also the front top half of the seam I designed piece I designed to be picked up and removed so the interior would be visible from above, but I don't see R2 showing the inside that way.

That way you could cast the upper half as one piece and ad the curvy parts later.

Sorry if this description is either too sketchy or quickly done, but I'm about to rush out the door as I type this.

Hope it explains what I'm talking about to some degree.

See FourmadMen's pic above and that may help.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

scotpens said:


> The way the sides extend up past the roof and curve inward, I don't see how the top half could be molded in one piece without using an expensive and complex multi-part tool, like the ones used to mold single-piece car bodies.



Part Deux,

Basically I reduced the upper half to a 
flat infrastructure to serve two purposes.

First to make it and the other parts to be attached to it easily recastible with simple two part molds.

Secondly, each curved item I added served a purpose, the sides with the curve-tipped wings really being the final pieces.


The roofline, for example is curved and slopes downward as you go back towards the engine.

There is a very visible port to starboard seam on the top of the roof as seen in The Galileo Seven.

I designed a removable panel that starts there and goes forward to right behind the front curved part of the upper forward hull. It's removable so that after the model is finished you could take off the top and see down into the interior; as if you were looking down through the light fixtures. I also planned on having the whole upper half lift off too.

Then on the front of the ship I have a curved panel that glues onto the box-like upper hull skeleton after inserting a clear strip of plastic. That way the windows are sandwiched between the outer and inner hulls negating the need to glue a visible strip of plastic to the inside of the hull, or getting perfect cutouts and possibly having glue visible. Plus the top part of the curving front outer hull is cut on a 45 degree angle(along with forward part of the "pop off" hull).

Finally the part of the roof aft of the visible roof seam will be made like a cartridge that plugs into the top and also encloses the triangular shaped engine section.

The back panel you see in FourMadMen's photo will be glued to the bottom half of the ship and extend up past the horizontal centerline to meet just below the engine section.

Also then, the sides of the upper hull with the curved top trim can simply be glued on.

In this way, the main structure of the top can be cast in one flat surfaced shot using a simple two part mold(even a metal one for styrene casting). As well as all the other curved attachments then also can be cast in simple, cheap, two part molds themselves.


Just cheap, old fashioned, simple, heavy duty reliable two part molds could do it all. 

No needlessly expensive and complicated multi-part mold toolings necessary.


----------



## John P

Slide molds are not uncommon these days.
Or the sides could be molded as separate pieces, attaching to the roof and belly. easy enough to do the curved sections then.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

John P said:


> Slide molds are not uncommon these days.
> Or the sides could be molded as separate pieces, attaching to the roof and belly. easy enough to do the curved sections then.


That's the approach I'm going with on my resin 1/24th version. Assuming I don't die before I have the money and/or time to finish her. 

The top is molded in one box-like piece, with the curved front bow, top front roof, and top rear engine pieces molded seperately as well.

If they also did it that way they could use simple two part molds. 

Considering the problems they have had with some of their mold pieces being warped on more then one kit,

I would expect R2 to want to keep the molds as simple as humanly possible - not to mention cheap.

I would personally suggest they do a few extra two part moldings on two part die sets rather then try anything more complicated.

They can probably get a few different, if not all, of the kit's moldings cut out on one or a couple of two part dyes.

When your production people are an ocean away, the simpler the better, even if it makes for a slightly higher part count.

The simpler the castings the better. I'm personally willing to glue a few more pieces together to avoid them having to use more difficult to operate molds.

Not to mention they would probably be cheaper and more durable, on top of being several times simpler to operate for the production workers who will be far far away from the direct supervision of R2.

I agree that slide molds are not uncommon. But to me, the simpler to operate the better.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Proper2 said:


> I would have much preferred a bigger Galileo from R2, 1/24 minimum... about a foot long.



As Warped9 said, at 1/32nd scale the ship would be 12 inches long if they scaled her to be 32 feet long.

As for a range, the kit could likely end up being between 11.25" to 13.35 inches, or a craft somewhere between 30-35.6 feet long.

I don't expect the ship to end up being more then a hair or two below 30 feet at most. And it's extremely unlikely it will end up 35.6 feet long.

My money is on the ship ending up scaled at 30 to 33 feet long depending on the compromises Gary Kerr ends up feeling comfortable with.

But until one plugs in a finished interior it will be impossible for anyone, even Gary himself, to decide.

But I'm comfortable whatever decisions he makes integrating her it will work out beautifully in the end.

Again, for me, R2 and Gary need not turn out two(or even one) totally tricked out cabins.

As long as they are precise about how big the inner cavities should be at 32nd scale and do a good helm, chairs and aft cabin door wall,

and an uncompromised exterior,

98% of us *should* be happy.



So to summarize a range for you other then the wide one of 11.25" to 13.35 inches, 

I think the kit is likely to end up in the range of 11.25" to 12.375" long at 32nd scale, give or take a hair at either end of that most likely range.

Even if it comes in at 11.25" it will still be darn close to a foot, as 12.375" would also be.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Zombie_61 said:


> I'm sure someone more knowledgeable about this will correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC the stated scale for the AMT Galileo Shuttlecraft kit was based on the blueprints for the "full-sized" mock-up, which was actually undersized. Using your own length measurement of 7.6", a full-sized shuttlecraft based on the AMT kit would only be slightly over 22' in length.


I kinda-maybe-sorta understand what you are trying to calculate here,

but the fatal flaw is trying to use the AMT kit to infer anything.

You really can't get there from here, if you are trying to calculate the length of a full-sized as-seen-onscreen craft with the as-seen-onscreen interior shoehorned(however tightly or comfortably) into an upsized exterior.

The AMT kit is a totally different design then the final mock-up.

I've been meaning to mention it since MGagen kindly posted this link image a couple of pages back:



MGagen said:


> M.


Other then the ideas expressed so well by MGagen alongside it,

something struck me immediately that I totally forgot to mention.

Even though AMT made the mock-up and the filming miniature,

it is clear to me that it's likely a totally different third party designed
the AMT plastic model kit.

Whoever was told to go build the kit was apparently just handed the totally off and non-final blueprints seen in The Making of Star Trek.

I don't see how the person who designed the kit even showed it to or talked to whoever built the filming miniature,

as the two are a significantly different design.

It made zero sense to me, then I remembered that the Galileo kit, and I may be wrong about this - but I'm 98% sure, didn't come out until after the series was over.

So it appears likely that they were just handed The Making of Star Trek plans above,

and the guy who finished the design didn't bother to flesh out or correct any details by watching the series. 

Though in his defense, at the time he probably would have had to have his company buy him The Galileo Seven on 16mm film. 

Which IIRCorrectly was only available that way until the very late 70's at a cost of over $200 per episode of Trek. 

Not to mention if your projector got stuck it would burn a hole through your $275 dollar reel of Trek film and you would have to get to splicing it back together!!! 

Now you can download both the old and new versions of any Trek episode for less then $6 online.

The things we take for granted these days! :freak:


----------



## kenlee

Removed by Author.


----------



## Proper2

Chuck_P.R. said:


> As Warped9 said, at 1/32nd scale the ship would be 12 inches long if they scaled her to be 32 feet long.
> 
> As for a range, the kit could likely end up being between 11.25" to 13.35 inches, or a craft somewhere between 30-35.6 feet long.
> 
> I don't expect the ship to end up being more then a hair or two below 30 feet at most. And it's extremely unlikely it will end up 35.6 feet long.
> 
> My money is on the ship ending up scaled at 30 to 33 feet long depending on the compromises Gary Kerr ends up feeling comfortable with.
> 
> But until one plugs in a finished interior it will be impossible for anyone, even Gary himself, to decide.
> 
> But I'm comfortable whatever decisions he makes integrating her it will work out beautifully in the end.
> 
> Again, for me, R2 and Gary need not turn out two(or even one) totally tricked out cabins.
> 
> As long as they are precise about how big the inner cavities should be at 32nd scale and do a good helm, chairs and aft cabin door wall,
> 
> and an uncompromised exterior,
> 
> 98% of us *should* be happy.
> 
> 
> 
> So to summarize a range for you other then the wide one of 11.25" to 13.35 inches,
> 
> I think the kit is likely to end up in the range of 11.25" to 12.375" long at 32nd scale, give or take a hair at either end of that most likely range.
> 
> Even if it comes in at 11.25" it will still be darn close to a foot, as 12.375" would also be.


I would be happy with anything approaching 12". The bigger the better, of course. But anything less than 10" would be kinda disappointing.


----------



## Zombie_61

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I kinda-maybe-sorta understand what you are trying to calculate here,
> 
> but the fatal flaw is trying to use the AMT kit to infer anything...


Oh, I understand that. My comment was a direct response to Chrisisall's comments in post #265 in which he was trying to estimate the size of the upcoming Round 2 Shuttlecraft kit by using the AMT kit and it's stated scale as a frame of reference. In that regard, your comments support the point I was trying (and apparently failed) to make, that being the AMT kit is so inaccurate that you can't use it as a frame of reference for _anything_. 

BTW, according to Memory-Alpha.org, the AMT "Galileo 7" kit was first issued in 1974. So, yes, about five years after the series ended.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Zombie_61 said:


> Oh, I understand that. My comment was a direct response to Chrisisall's comments in post #265 in which he was trying to estimate the size of the upcoming Round 2 Shuttlecraft kit by using the AMT kit and it's stated scale as a frame of reference. In that regard, your comments support the point I was trying (and apparently failed) to make, that being the AMT kit is so inaccurate that you can't use it as a frame of reference for _anything_.
> 
> BTW, according to Memory-Alpha.org, the AMT "Galileo 7" kit was first issued in 1974. So, yes, about five years after the series ended.


Thanks for the clarification and especially the info on when the AMT kit was first released. :thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

kenlee said:


> The only way economically to do it that I can think of would be to make the roof and front section with the three windows as one piece, the sides and rear bulkhead as separate pieces.


That might work too, though the front bulkhead with the windows would need to be at least two pieces unless you want to end up with a clear panel(or three) that would be visible from the inside. I'd like to see them sandwich a panel that would fill all three windows between two inner and outer pieces rather then glue it on from the inside the way the later AMT kits I believe do.

I like the idea of having the upper structure reduced to a box and then having the parts with curves that go at right angles molded to then glue on to that.

If for no other reason then to make it a bit stronger. Having multiple long parts of the model - an entire half of the ship - only held together like cards glued together at the edge scares me a little.

There are more then a couple of ways to do the model economically, I believe.

I would just like them to stick to simple two part molds and do the parts in as structurally sound a way as possible at the same time.

With the headaches due to the issues of warpage of parts R2's factory people have caused them in the past . . .

as simple as they can design their molds - without sacrificing the structural strength of the model kit - the better.

I'd like to see them be able to reliably crank these suckers out for many years to come without the molds causing production problems or loosing their durability too soon. 

I'm sure they will skin this cat, though. However they choose to do it. :thumbsup:


----------



## StarshipClass

Has anyone heard anything about this lately?


----------



## djnick66

At the last show (Wonderfest?) they had a poster saying "Future" or something of the sort. Was discussed here at the time, somewhere.


----------



## Opus Penguin

I doubt we will hear much for awhile. The kit is not expected until late 2014 or, most likely, early 2015.


----------



## Gary K

I'm still plugging away on the plans, but the extra time has been put to good use, and the plans will be more refined and accurate than they would have been otherwise. The decals of the hull markings will be generated from the same PDF files that I created for the restoration of the Galileo mock-up. Thanks to information provided by Will Smith and Petri Blomqvist, I just purchased a surplus Honeywell chart recorder. What's that, you may ask? If you check out the scene in 'The Galileo Seven' where Scotty is shocking the attacking ape monsters, on the wall behind him is a black panel with a large round dial. That's a chart recorder, used to record weather data. You may rest assured that the panel, which will measure a whopping 7/16" x 9/16" on the model, will be represented most accurately. 

Gary


----------



## Fozzie

Gary K said:


> You may rest assured that the panel, which will measure a whopping 7/16" x 9/16" on the model, will be represented most accurately.
> 
> Gary


You are certainly THE MAN, Gary. :thumbsup:


----------



## Proper2

Opus Penguin said:


> The kit is not expected until late 2014 or, most likely, early 2015.


That's beginning to push it in terms of my lifetime...


----------



## jheilman

Proper2 said:


> That's beginning to push it in terms of my lifetime...


Well that sounds dire. Sorry if it really is.


----------



## Gary K

Fozzie said:


> You are certainly THE MAN, Gary. :thumbsup:


Well thanks, but I don't know if I'd go THAT far! 

One problem I'm having with the Honeywell recorder is that nobody in my inner circle can come up with a screen cap (even Blu-ray) that's clear enough to decipher the writing on the white label they made to cover the "Honeywell" name. It won't matter at 1/32 scale, but for sake of completeness I'd like to know what it says. If any of you eagle-eyed Hobby Talkers have any hi-res references, please sing out!

Gary


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Gary K said:


> Well thanks, but I don't know if I'd go THAT far!
> 
> One problem I'm having with the Honeywell recorder is that nobody in my inner circle can come up with a screen cap (even Blu-ray) that's clear enough to decipher the writing on the white label they made to cover the "Honeywell" name. It won't matter at 1/32 scale, but for sake of completeness I'd like to know what it says. If any of you eagle-eyed Hobby Talkers have any hi-res references, please sing out!
> 
> Gary



I believe it has slightly grayish border with a white insert that reads "1294."

Not 100% sure though I'm going to see if I can find a higher res version of a screen grab I made.

But it almost definitely appears to be a four digit number.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Hmmmm . . .

Don't have the high def version of the Galileo Seven.

If any does and can do a screen capture, the part of the episode most
likely to give you a clear screenshot begins at about 34:50 into the episode.

Sorry I couldn't help more.


----------



## Gary K

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Hmmmm . . .
> 
> Don't have the high def version of the Galileo Seven.
> 
> If any does and can do a screen capture, the part of the episode most
> likely to give you a clear screenshot begins at about 34:50 into the episode.
> 
> Sorry I couldn't help more.


Will Smith checked the Blu-ray version and even he couldn't decipher the lettering, so you know it's gotta be tough. They show an oblique view of the panel when Scotty is putting the cover back on "sparky", and you can *almost* make out the lettering, but not quite. If only they'd taken a publicity shot of Jimmy Doohan with those props....

Gary


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

So do we know it was definitely a Honeywell device? 
Model number known etc?

Not that it matters, just intellectually curious.

About four days ago, a similar type device showed up
in a thrift store about 3 blocks from my house.

What's the odds?

Definitely wasn't Honeywell and it wasn't the same device,
just a similar one.

Weird, huh!?!


----------



## Gary K

Chuck_P.R. said:


> So do we know it was definitely a Honeywell device?
> Model number known etc?
> 
> Not that it matters, just intellectually curious.
> 
> About four days ago, a similar type device showed up
> in a thrift store about 3 blocks from my house.
> 
> What's the odds?
> 
> Definitely wasn't Honeywell and it wasn't the same device,
> just a similar one.
> 
> Weird, huh!?!


I never realized that there were so many types of chart recorders. The model no. is 602P1-D-81-III-74-Q-H 602P1D81III74QH, and as far as I can tell it's identical to the one in the screen caps - even down to using the same format of round graph paper. I think you could choose different options, such as various snap-on recording pens and different recording capabilities, but certainly the external case is the same as Scotty's, and that's what matters.

Gary


----------



## John P

Gary K said:


> I'm still plugging away on the plans, but the extra time has been put to good use, and the plans will be more refined and accurate than they would have been otherwise. The decals of the hull markings will be generated from the same PDF files that I created for the restoration of the Galileo mock-up. Thanks to information provided by Will Smith and Petri Blomqvist, I just purchased a surplus Honeywell chart recorder. What's that, you may ask? If you check out the scene in 'The Galileo Seven' where Scotty is shocking the attacking ape monsters, on the wall behind him is a black panel with a large round dial. That's a chart recorder, used to record weather data. You may rest assured that the panel, which will measure a whopping 7/16" x 9/16" on the model, will be represented most accurately.
> 
> Gary


We actually have some of them lying around in surplus piles at work. At least we used to.


----------



## John P

I see 4 something something 4 3.


----------



## Fozzie

Is the second character a "K"?


----------



## TrekFX

I can't do blu ray caps on my Mac (and after updating my OS three days ago my bullet-proof HP 4000 printer has been a paperweight...) But I digress.

If someone can shoot me three or four sequential frames of that scene, I might be able to coax (or pummel) some extra resolution out of it.


----------



## Nova Mike

[/IMG]Looks like .. 4NK42 or 3


----------



## Gary K

Here's something else to add to the equation: they showed the red panel in the center of the mock-up's aft bulkhead in two episodes ('Galileo Seven' and 'Metamorphosis'). The first time it was plain, and they added 3 horizontal bars for its 2nd appearance. Both times, though, they added embossed lettering to it that was apparently made on adhesive-backed plastic tape with one of those hand-held label makers. Off the top of my head, I believe they used the larger 1/2" tape. You can more easily see the embossed lettering when they set off the pyro charges as the Companion zaps Spock in 'Metamorphosis' .

I've been looking at a number of shots of Scotty in the aft compartment, and I *think* I can see the faint outline of the tape on the larger white rectangle - plus some reflections on the shiny tape, too. Or I may be crazy.  Check the sequence out for yourselves, and if it's true, maybe it'll help our brains make sense of the lettering.

Gary


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

I believe there are some very good captures of it from the two-part episode they made from The Cage.

They should be in those bundles of files I sent you.

Have only a second to type this as I'll be busy the next couple of days,
but if you can't find the necessary info I'll get back in touch with you soon.

Everybody have a great weekend!

Chuck


----------



## Mr. Wabac

Since this is supposed to be part of the electrical system - could it be the mystery letters are "KW" as in kilo watts ?


----------



## mach7

I've looked on my BluRay and I can't make it out.


----------



## LGFugate

It looks to me like it says 4KN43.

Larry


----------



## Richard Baker

Anybody check the hi-res photos of the newly restored exterior prop on display? They were trying to get that as accurate as possible and the only 'fudge' I am aware of is using old motherboards in the stern equipment access bay...


----------



## Havok69

Any updates on this? Also, did they decide if they were going to include figures? One way or another I'm going to fully crew my model...


----------



## Richard Baker

Since the reworked Bridge kit has some figures specifically named after the characters in 'The Galileo Seven' my guess is that the parts tree was planned on being included with this new kit.


----------



## Gary K

A few quick comments...

Yes, the restored prop has some motherboards on the fold-down panel, but so did the original. Check out 'Metamorphosis'.

Figures are a definite possibility for the kit.

I talked to Gene Winfield last week and got the full scoop on what was *supposed* to have been in the twin "vent" holes in the bow. The kit will probably include this option.

The exterior design of the ship is finished and I'm plugging away on the annotated & dimensioned final sheets. Slow going, though, as there are a LOT of sheets to draw. One more tweak and I can start on the final interior drawings.

Gary


----------



## Opus Penguin

Fantastic update! Thanks Gary!


----------



## Trekkriffic

*OH BOY THIS IS GOING TO BE GREAT!!!*


----------



## Proper2

Very exciting, count me in!!!


----------



## jaws62666

Trekkriffic said:


> *OH BOY THIS IS GOING TO BE GREAT!!!*


You got that right Flounder


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Gary K said:


> A few quick comments...
> 
> Yes, the restored prop has some motherboards on the fold-down panel, but so did the original. Check out 'Metamorphosis'.
> 
> Figures are a definite possibility for the kit.
> 
> I talked to Gene Winfield last week and got the full scoop on what was *supposed* to have been in the twin "vent" holes in the bow. The kit will probably include this option.
> 
> The exterior design of the ship is finished and I'm plugging away on the annotated & dimensioned final sheets. Slow going, though, as there are a LOT of sheets to draw. One more tweak and I can start on the final interior drawings.
> 
> Gary



Kewl Beans!!! :thumbsup:

If you get to see him in person, get him to sign your copy of "The Ships of Star Trek."

Have you had a chance to take a trip to NASA yet?

Don't forget your camera!


----------



## Dr. Brad

yes, thanks for the update, Gary. Really looking forward to this kit!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Don't forget the Scotty Potty door with the detachable toolcase/step in
front of it that Phil Broad came up with.

Where the heck is Phil Broad anyway?

Hope you are okay and doing well my friend!


----------



## WOI

You seemed to forgetten,the Galileo Shuttlecraft was also seen in
The Doomsday Machine and The Immunity Syndrome.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Might want to paste in a quote or a post number, WOI, just to make it easier
to tell which post you are replying too.

Just a suggestion, not a criticism.


----------



## Seaview

"It's only a model."


----------



## Trekkriffic

Galileo, Galileo figaro Magnifico


----------



## Gary K

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Don't forget the Scotty Potty door with the detachable toolcase/step in
> front of it that Phil Broad came up with.


Since I have a prostate the size of a canteloupe, there's no way I'd forget to include the potty! A design of my own that slides out of the wall.

Gary


----------



## ClubTepes

^^^^

WAY TOO MUCH INFORMATION.

:freak:


----------



## Gary K

ClubTepes said:


> ^^^^
> 
> WAY TOO MUCH INFORMATION.
> 
> :freak:


Oh, there's MUCH more. Be thankful I stopped with the prostate! 

Gary and his prostate


----------



## John P

We must've gotten our prostates at the same supplier.


----------



## Havok69

Thanks for the update Gary. Hopefully we can get all seated crew members for the Galileo, or perhaps an option to have them standing as well.

And Happy Thanksgiving to you, your family and your prostate.

:jest:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Gary K said:


> Oh, there's MUCH more. Be thankful I stopped with the prostate!
> 
> Gary and his prostate



I'm taking BPressure meds that has me going twice an hour and waking up three times a night to go,

so even though it's a different source for the problem I feel your and John P's pain!

They say if you are a male and you live long enough you are eventually going to get that problem.

It's like aging in general - it sucks getting old - but it's better then the alternative!!!


----------



## John P

Sometimes I wonder about that. :lol:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

John P said:


> Sometimes I wonder about that. :lol:


May you never learn the answer to that question, my friend! :thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

BTWay, Gary - you've got mail!!!!


----------



## eagledocf15

*Exciting*

I can't wait to get one of these kits!!! This is a big project and looks like a fair amount of research going into the kit!
Any estimate on time of arrival? Thanks

As long as we are open to TMI
Medications for BPH - Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy - The big prostate
Alpha-1–Receptor Blockade - Excellent success with these: Tamsulosin,silodosin (Rapaflo), doxazosin, and terazosin (Hytrin)
Phosphodiesterase-5 enzyme inhibitors: significant symptomatic improvements have been reported for patients with BPH receiving tadalafil.
5-Alpha reductase inhibitors: Finasteride (Proscar) One third of men treated with this agent exhibit improvements in urine flow and symptoms. Another one is Dutasteride (Avodart) 
The alpha-1-receptor blockers provide rapid relief, while the 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors target the underlying disease process.
I wish you success!


----------



## ClubTepes

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I'm taking BPressure meds that has me going twice an hour and waking up three times a night to go,
> 
> so even though it's a different source for the problem I feel your and John P's pain!
> 
> They say if you are a male and you live long enough you are eventually going to get that problem.
> 
> It's like aging in general - it sucks getting old - but it's better then the alternative!!!


Perhaps someone can start a prostrate thread and then get it stickied somewhere to discuss everything prostrate.

But I think first someone would have to build a model of one.

Gary, to ensure accuracy, you do the drawings.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

ClubTepes said:


> Perhaps someone can start a prostrate thread and then get it stickied somewhere to discuss everything prostrate.
> 
> But I think first someone would have to build a model of one.
> 
> Gary, to ensure accuracy, you do the drawings.


GREAT IDEA!

I have a "Visible Woman" model. Where should I look to find her prostrate?

On another note . . .

Don't know who else would be doing Gary's drawings but Gary. . .

. . . Except for . . . Never mind . . .

. . . We've gone a bit off topic already even if it was just in good natured fun . . .
On that at least we can agree. :thumbsup:


----------



## Zombie_61

Chuck_P.R. said:


> ...I have a "Visible Woman" model. Where should I look to find her prostrate?


Just build it with the figure lying face down. That way, _everyone_ will find her prostrate.


----------



## KUROK

There was no potty on the shuttlecraft. They had a special transporter that would beam the stuff out of your body into space!!


----------



## Chrisisall

KUROK said:


> There was no potty on the shuttlecraft. They had a special transporter that would beam the stuff out of your body into space!!


Dangerous if you twitch...:drunk:


----------



## wjplenge

Chrisisall said:


> Dangerous if you twitch...:drunk:


Which is why it's a good thing that in space no one can hear you scream.


----------



## Chrisisall

wjplenge said:


> Which is why it's a good thing that in space no one can hear you scream.


An alien concept.


----------



## robn1

KUROK said:


> There was no potty on the shuttlecraft. They had a special transporter that would beam the stuff out of your body into space!!


If it malfunctions it will split your poo in two, one good and one evil.


----------



## BWolfe

robn1 said:


> If it malfunctions it will split your poo in two, one good and one evil.


And the good and evil can only be differentiated by odor.


----------



## KUROK

:thumbsup:




robn1 said:


> If it malfunctions it will split your poo in two, one good and one evil.


----------



## Zombie_61

KUROK said:


> There was no potty on the shuttlecraft. They had a special transporter that would beam the stuff out of your body into space!!


It was initially developed by the Starfleet Medical Division as preparation for colonoscopies, and soon became known as "the Colyte Maneuver". It didn't take long for them to figure out it couldn't be used on politicians and/or lawyers because they're so full of the stuff that their bodies would collapse like a deflated Macy's parade balloon.


----------



## Paulbo

robn1 said:


> If it malfunctions it will split your poo in two, one good and one evil.


To misquote Ficus Panderotta: there is no good or evil poo. There is just poo.


----------



## Chrisisall

Paulbo said:


> To misquote Ficus Panderotta


OMG- QUARK lives!


----------



## Paulbo

Yup! Bought the DVDs the day they came out. And a good thing, too ... my dupes of a buddy's original airing tapes were on their last legs.

Back in the day I did a trailer for Quark: The Motion Picture. Really must transfer that to digital.


----------



## John P

Only 6 episodes, and my wife bailed after the first two. :lol:


----------



## Nektu

okay.. what happened to this thread? Way off course...


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Nektu said:


> okay.. what happened to this thread? Way off course...


Just happily killing time until literally - the man with the plan - aka Gary - has another update.

I'm really looking forward to this kit!

and have every faith that this will be executed properly,
at least on Gary and R2's side.

The chinese factory's interpretation of how the plans are
executed are the only possible problems that might occur.

I'm hoping Gary and R2 break her down into very simple to
mold pieces even if it means the part count goes up. 
Thereby leaving less complicated pieces for the factory to screw up.

I've got faith this will be an awesome kit! It's a shame they are
missing the holiday selling season, but even if it takes until next
September to come out it will be worth the wait! :thumbsup:


----------



## Opus Penguin

If it looks like this will come with figures (and Gary seems to indicate this will be likely), then it would be cool to include Decker, Kirk, Spock, and Commodore Mendez as well as Latimer and Gaetano.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

John P said:


> Only 6 episodes, and my wife bailed after the first two. :lol:


http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=164618&d=1353903470


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Here is a take I came up with on the Scotty Potty!

It's made to go behind a door that was designed on
the unseen back port side of where the cylinders are
by Phil Broad. He drew a door on that back wall about
the size of a port-a-potty door, and had as a step up
the metal toolbox seen outside the shuttlecraft in the
Galileo 7.

I wanted to include a link to Phil Broad's interior drawings
to show the front view of the rear cabin's back wall
that I designed my "Scotty Potty" to go behind,

But Phil's website is down.

Also, he hasn't been on Hobbytalk for almost a year now!

I'm getting a bit worried and hope he is okay.

Anyone here contacted Phil recently? Or knows if he's okay?

Inquiring minds wanna know!


http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=14457&d=1090003942


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Opus Penguin said:


> If it looks like this will come with figures (and Gary seems to indicate this will be likely), then it would be cool to include Decker, Kirk, Spock, and Commodore Mendez as well as Latimer and Gaetano.


Don't forget the brunette chick from Galileo 7!!!

And one of those 12-16 foot primates with a big rock in his hand wouldn't 
be a bad idea too!

Of course, adding all this stuff assumes that R2 has an unlimited budget on this kit . . .

which I'm pretty sure would be a false assumption on my part.

A good interior with a few major characters would be all I would expect, personally.

The rest of the figures, etc would be purely gravy - and I'm sure there would be at least one or two aftermarket guys who could provide those kinds of details and help R2 from going way over budget.

Just getting an accurate shuttlecraft with a believable integrated interior would in and of itself be a tremendous accomplishment! :thumbsup:


----------



## Chrisisall

Chuck_P.R. said:


> http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=14457&d=1090003942


Very nice. I will take that as new cannon.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Phil Broad, who goes by X15-A2 here, deserves the credit for sparking the idea with his rear cabin door and magnetic toolbox/step. He may even have suggested it might make a good place for a toilet too. It's been so long that several of us discussed it in the "Bob Villa" Galileo thread that I'm not even sure.

At the very least I know I would have never drawn it without first seeing his second cabin rear-wall door and toolbox/step.

So main credit goes to Phil Broad, wherever he might be! :thumbsup:

Also, it is conviently located right in front of the rear exhaust vents on the port side of the back of the Galileo!


----------



## Opus Penguin

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Don't forget the brunette chick from Galileo 7!!!
> 
> And one of those 12-16 foot primates with a big rock in his hand wouldn't
> be a bad idea too!
> 
> Of course, adding all this stuff assumes that R2 has an unlimited budget on this kit . . .
> 
> which I'm pretty sure would be a false assumption on my part.
> 
> A good interior with a few major characters would be all I would expect, personally.
> 
> The rest of the figures, etc would be purely gravy - and I'm sure there would be at least one or two aftermarket guys who could provide those kinds of details and help R2 from going way over budget.
> 
> Just getting an accurate shuttlecraft with a believable integrated interior would in and of itself be a tremendous accomplishment! :thumbsup:


The "brunette chick" is already included in the new Bridge model, along with Lt. Boma. So I had assumed she would also be included. However, since I mentioned Kirk and Spock, I probably should have mentioned those two as well to clarify they should be included. Also would need to include Scotty and McCoy.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Not to get too deep into the realm of "cosmic caca", but a toilet in the back would make sense. The space shuttle used a design that technically would deep freeze the feces to be cleaned out after it landed. Urine would be passed out through vents into space. So I could see the shuttlecraft using a similar design. My curiosity would be where they would sleep on a long journey? Also there seems to be no raw storage for a replicator for food. Needless to say there is little to store on a vessel of this type unless it is only meant for very short range trips. It will be interesting to see if Gary uses some dramatic license to add these features.


----------



## bane-7

Boma, Latimer, and yeoman Mears are all included in the NEW bridge set.
I don't think it's to far fetched to assume they're included with the intention of going with the shuttle, since they're the same scale as the shuttle will be1/32, and also those chacters only appeared in one ep that involved the shuttle.
I would say the intent of adding those figures is pretty clear.
And of course the Spock, Scotty, and Mccoy figures are there to, so we have the whole Galileo 7 crew.
THANK YOU R2!!!!!

Can't wait!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Proper2

bane-7 said:


> Boma, Latimer, and yeoman Mears are all included in the NEW bridge set.
> I don't think it's to far fetched to assume they're included with the intention of going with the shuttle, since they're the same scale as the shuttle will be1/32, and also those chacters only appeared in one ep that involved the shuttle.
> I would say the intent of adding those figures is pretty clear.
> And of course the Spock, Scotty, and Mccoy figures are there to, so we have the whole Galileo 7 crew.
> THANK YOU R2!!!!!
> 
> Can't wait!! :thumbsup:


Fantastic! Any links to the info?


----------



## Gary K

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Just happily killing time until literally - the man with the plan - aka Gary - has another update.
> 
> I'm really looking forward to this kit!
> 
> and have every faith that this will be executed properly, at least on Gary and R2's side.
> 
> The chinese factory's interpretation of how the plans are executed are the only possible problems that might occur.
> 
> I'm hoping Gary and R2 break her down into very simple to mold pieces even if it means the part count goes up. Thereby leaving less complicated pieces for the factory to screw up.
> 
> I've got faith this will be an awesome kit! It's a shame they are missing the holiday selling season, but even if it takes until next September to come out it will be worth the wait! :thumbsup:


Okay - here's your update: the entire planet and "real life" are conspiring to keep me away from working on the plans. Petri Blomqvist took a hi-res photo of the shuttle's interior set that I acquired, and he used it to completely accurize his Lightwave model of the set. Besides ham & turkey, it sounds like a lot of tweaking of plans is on my menu. The interior of the original shuttle was nothing more than a bare-bones box for the actors to sit in, with no space for engines, support equipment, storage, etc. I've got a lot of ideas and would *love* the opportunity to help design a realistic update of the 1960s shuttle, but this model will represent the "as seen on TV" original. It should be a customizer's dream, though. Everybody should buy several! 

Gary


----------



## Fernando Mureb

Gary K said:


> Okay - here's your update: the entire planet and "real life" are conspiring to keep me away from working on the plans. Petri Blomqvist took a hi-res photo of the shuttle's interior set that I acquired, and he used it to completely accurize his Lightwave model of the set. Besides ham & turkey, it sounds like a lot of tweaking of plans is on my menu. The interior of the original shuttle was nothing more than a bare-bones box for the actors to sit in, with no space for engines, support equipment, storage, etc. I've got a lot of ideas and would *love* the opportunity to help design a realistic update of the 1960s shuttle, but this model will represent the "as seen on TV" original. *It should be a customizer's dream, though*. Everybody should buy several!
> 
> Gary


Well, for me this is not a problem at all.

Thanks Gary! :thumbsup:


----------



## Fernando Mureb

Opus Penguin said:


> Not to get too deep into the realm of "cosmic caca", but a toilet in the back would make sense. The space shuttle used a design that technically would deep freeze the feces to be cleaned out after it landed. *Urine would be passed out through vents into space.* So I could see the shuttlecraft using a similar design. My curiosity would be where they would sleep on a long journey? Also there seems to be no raw storage for a replicator for food. Needless to say there is little to store on a vessel of this type unless it is only meant for very short range trips. It will be interesting to see if Gary uses some dramatic license to add these features.


*Please, do not pollute outer space!*


----------



## Opus Penguin

Fernando Mureb said:


> *Please, do not pollute outer space!*


 I won't, but ya gotta tell NASA that


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Gary K said:


> Okay - here's your update: the entire planet and "real life" are conspiring to keep me away from working on the plans. Petri Blomqvist took a hi-res photo of the shuttle's interior set that I acquired, and he used it to completely accurize his Lightwave model of the set. Besides ham & turkey, it sounds like a lot of tweaking of plans is on my menu. The interior of the original shuttle was nothing more than a bare-bones box for the actors to sit in, with no space for engines, support equipment, storage, etc. I've got a lot of ideas and would *love* the opportunity to help design a realistic update of the 1960s shuttle, but this model will represent the "as seen on TV" original. It should be a customizer's dream, though. Everybody should buy several!
> 
> Gary


No doubt that will happen!

So did Winfield give you more details about the stuff the studio never added?

Inquiring minds wanna know!


----------



## Zombie_61

Opus Penguin said:


> I won't, but ya gotta tell NASA that


And you have to invent a time machine, because astronauts have been venting "water waste" into space since we first learned how to get up there.


----------



## TrekFX

I am *so* glad I've stuck with History Channel. I got a 4.0 in my college logic course, and what did it get me? Now, I can use their "new logic" methodology and arrive at earth-shattering conclusions.

So screw the Academy... I'd like to thank the members here. Without this forum, I would have been lost, because here I found the missing keys to the puzzle, and some simple extrapolation led me to the thunderous truth, the nature of things once considered nothing more than the product of great clouds of gas adrift in the vast cosmos. If one further ponders the underlying truths, it also hints at man's search for his origins and early fascination with myths like those of Sirius, the "Dog Star," and how natural canine habits (now frowned upon in our "civilized" cities and parks to the point of being punishable offenses... what are they trying to hide?) may actually have inspired this unearthly connection.

It all starts with pee. Pee is mostly water. Water freezes in space. Frozen water is ice. Comets are mostly ice. Ice comes from pee. Comets are made pee. It would take a lot of pee to make a comet. The next logical connection, regarding solids... For the sake of brevity I'll jump right to the royal straight flush of all ancient alien theories:

A race of Giant Ancient Aliens is responsible for comets and assteroids. We can take that further to cover the birth of our world and ultimately, our own very nature.


I suppose that also explains the gas.


Where's *my* freakin' Nobel Prize? :hat:





So.. how 'bout that shuttlecraft!


----------



## bane-7

Proper2 said:


> Fantastic! Any links to the info?


SORRY...no link or info.
I bought the kit from Cultman, and all the extra figures are there, and named in the instructions, Boma. Latimer, Mears etc....
Bodies are much improved as well, just an F.Y.I


----------



## Opus Penguin

bane-7 said:


> SORRY...no link or info.
> I bought the kit from Cultman, and all the extra figures are there, and named in the instructions, Boma. Latimer, Mears etc....
> Bodies are much improved as well, just an F.Y.I


Agreed. I have the kit as well. All the figures mentioned are there.


----------



## Richard Baker

Gary K said:


> Okay - here's your update: the entire planet and "real life" are conspiring to keep me away from working on the plans. Petri Blomqvist took a hi-res photo of the shuttle's interior set that I acquired, and he used it to completely accurize his Lightwave model of the set. Besides ham & turkey, it sounds like a lot of tweaking of plans is on my menu. The interior of the original shuttle was nothing more than a bare-bones box for the actors to sit in, with no space for engines, support equipment, storage, etc. I've got a lot of ideas and would *love* the opportunity to help design a realistic update of the 1960s shuttle, but this model will represent the "as seen on TV" original. It should be a customizer's dream, though. Everybody should buy several!
> 
> Gary


Due to the modular nature of Federation equipment, I can see customized versions of the shuttle- long range (with replicator and sleeping but smaller crew), scientific and tactical. IIRC the only variant we saw was some added scientific equipment (normally scene on table tops) when Spock went to visit the big space amoebe.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Richard Baker said:


> Due to the modular nature of Federation equipment, I can see customized versions of the shuttle- long range (with replicator and sleeping but smaller crew), scientific and tactical. IIRC the only variant we saw was some added scientific equipment (normally scene on table tops) when Spock went to visit the big space amoebe.



There were a couple of interior variants to the basic Galileo 7 version as well.

The best documentation of which can be seen in Trekist's - aka David Winfrey's - blueprints.

His was the first serious attempt I know of to create an integrated exterior/interior that closely matched what was seen of each onscreen.

He did make one decision that I didn't care for in that he shrunk the door.

But as has been discussed in a couple of different threads - the doorway
is one of the most problematic points in the integration/upscaling of the 
shuttlecraft.

Shrinking the door is not the way I would do it, but it's a legitimate
way to solve the problem. Neither shrinking the door or enlarging how
it would look from the inside when upscaling are perfect solutions though.

I'll see if I can find a link for you to view his blueprints,
he's given both Phil Broad and FourMadMen permission
to post them for download on their sites.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Here you go:

http://www.fourmadmen.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=25


It's an incredible set of blues. Especially considering he originally 
started working on them in the '80's using VCR tapes that couldn't
really even be paused and allow a steady still image!

Basically using little more then a great eye for detail,
and as Spock would put it - "stone knives and bear skins."


----------



## Gary K

Chuck_P.R. said:


> So did Winfield give you more details about the stuff the studio never added?
> 
> Inquiring minds wanna know!


Seems like the studio couldn't afford to spend another dime to light their very expensive prop. I learned from another source that the nacelle domes were wired for lighting, but as we know, the domes were never lighted. Petri Blomqvist used his Lightwave model of the shuttle to conduct an analysis of the shadows on the impulse vents, and I did it the old-fashioned way with a light bulb and cardboard templates. It appears that the stage crew simply leaned a sheet of white something-or-other inside the back end of the mock-up to block the view through the vent holes.

Gary


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Gary K said:


> Seems like the studio couldn't afford to spend another dime to light their very expensive prop. I learned from another source that the nacelle domes were wired for lighting, but as we know, the domes were never lighted. Petri Blomqvist used his Lightwave model of the shuttle to conduct an analysis of the shadows on the impulse vents, and I did it the old-fashioned way with a light bulb and cardboard templates. It appears that the stage crew simply leaned a sheet of white something-or-other inside the back end of the mock-up to block the view through the vent holes.
> 
> Gary


I saw a pic somewhere recently of a guy holding what he said was the original black plexiglass vent piece. Can't remember where though . . .

I remember what Winfield said was supposed to be behind those front vents
in the Ships of Star Trek interview. But I'm puzzled by why there would only
be one of the same size on one side. 

I always assumed the shuttlecraft was supposed to perhaps even have spinning nacelles, as it looks like they even have the silver tapering 
"wedges" similar to those on the TOS E production model.

Did your other source mention whether they were intending to have them
spinning too as well as lighted?


----------



## Gary K

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I saw a pic somewhere recently of a guy holding what he said was the original black plexiglass vent piece. Can't remember where though . . .
> 
> I remember what Winfield said was supposed to be behind those front vents
> in the Ships of Star Trek interview. But I'm puzzled by why there would only
> be one of the same size on one side.
> 
> I always assumed the shuttlecraft was supposed to perhaps even have spinning nacelles, as it looks like they even have the silver tapering
> "wedges" similar to those on the TOS E production model.
> 
> Did your other source mention whether they were intending to have them
> spinning too as well as lighted?


The vent piece is actually a dark, smoked Plexiglas. There are two openings on the port side of the bow, and each would hold 2 landing lights. I'm assuming that asymmetrical headlights were a "cool" concept to a car designer. Since the 1.5" domes on the shuttlecraft miniature were too small for a spinning light effect using 1960s technology, I'm assuming they wouldn't have had it on the mock-up, either, but who knows?

Gary


----------



## Carl_G

^I never knew how much I wanted to light up the shuttle kit until now.


----------



## Fernando Mureb

Me too! :thumbsup:


----------



## mach7

I always knew it!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Here is the thread I was referring to, Bane-7. You might want to subscribe to it. Then whenever there is a new posting you will automatically get an email.


----------



## Carl_G

*bump*

Any news?


----------



## Gary K

Carl_G said:


> *bump*
> 
> Any news?


As a matter of fact, last night I emailed 104 PFD files of Galileo plans (53 for the exterior & 51 for the interior) to Polar Lights. Those numbers don't include the files for the decals, which won't be needed for a number of months. This is almost as many drawings as I made for the 3 versions of the 1:350 scale TOS Enterprise model. Now the ball is in China's court.

Gary


----------



## Opus Penguin

Awesome!


----------



## Chrisisall

Gary K said:


> As a matter of fact, last night I emailed 104 PFD files of Galileo plans (53 for the exterior & 51 for the interior) to Polar Lights. Those numbers don't include the files for the decals, which won't be needed for a number of months. This is almost as many drawings as I made for the 3 versions of the 1:350 scale TOS Enterprise model. Now the ball is in China's court.


Gary, have we told you recently that you ROCK?!?!?!?!?!:thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Quite awesome indeed!

Now if we can only get Jamie to have you crank out another 3 to 6 kits this year . . .

[ducks, covers, and runs from room . . . ]

^^^ Hey, at least I used the Oxford comma. :devil:


----------



## starseeker

Gary K said:


> As a matter of fact, last night I emailed 104 PFD files of Galileo plans (53 for the exterior & 51 for the interior) to Polar Lights. Those numbers don't include the files for the decals, which won't be needed for a number of months. This is almost as many drawings as I made for the 3 versions of the 1:350 scale TOS Enterprise model. Now the ball is in China's court.
> 
> Gary


Can I get copies?

And what Chuck P R said...


----------



## eagledocf15

Gary K said:


> As a matter of fact, last night I emailed 104 PFD files of Galileo plans (53 for the exterior & 51 for the interior) to Polar Lights. Those numbers don't include the files for the decals, which won't be needed for a number of months. This is almost as many drawings as I made for the 3 versions of the 1:350 scale TOS Enterprise model. Now the ball is in China's court.
> 
> Gary


I would love a set of those plans


----------



## Gary K

starseeker said:


> Can I get copies?
> 
> And what Chuck P R said...


Say no more! Here they are. 

Gary


----------



## Proper2

Gary K said:


> Say no more! Here they are.
> 
> Gary


Such a tease... can't see a thing...


----------



## Gary K

Proper2 said:


> Such a tease... can't see a thing...


It's unfortunate that I can't post any higher res samples, but there are some parasites out there in cyberspace who'd steal the results of my hard work and use it to make a profit. It's happened before, and I don't want to see it happen again.

Gary


----------



## jheilman

Gary K said:


> Say no more! Here they are.
> 
> Gary


----------



## Chrisisall

Gary K said:


> there are some parasites out there in cyberspace who'd steal the results of my hard work and use it to make a profit. It's happened before, and I don't want to see it happen again.


100% understood sir!:thumbsup:


----------



## John P

Damn those people from Paris!!


----------



## Richard Baker

Gary K said:


> Say no more! Here they are.
> 
> Gary


Even if I cannot make out any details- it looks like you covered everything with your typical exactitude. 
One question- I remember one of the big problems was trying to fit the interior as shown into the 'full scale' exterior prop- how did that go?


----------



## Havok69

John P said:


> Damn those people from Paris!!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Gary K said:


> It's unfortunate that I can't post any higher res samples, but there are some parasites out there in cyberspace who'd steal the results of my hard work and use it to make a profit. It's happened before, and I don't want to see it happen again.
> 
> Gary


Understood. Plus if I know you at all, I think it's more about people claiming your work as theirs then anything else.

What about a win-win?

There was a 1701 club that gave members a T-shirt and allowed them to pre-order and get the kit a little earlier.

Personally I would be happy to pay $50 bucks - a chunk more then the cost of the kit,

to both be one of the first to get the kit,

and perhaps instead of a t-shirt we could be enticed by receiving a set of blueprints?

Perhaps in 11 x 17 format like the old Trekkist ones, if not in 24 x 36 format?

It wouldn't be too expensive for Jamie to print them in 11 x 17 format,

they would generate both demand and profit,

plus you would never need to worry about someone stealing credit for your work, as they would have your name rightfully right on the blues.

No worry about pirating, and yourself and R2, as well as your Galileo sales, all win.

To a smaller degree it's been done by AMT before, with special release posters like the one included with the Cutaway 22" TOS Enterprise.


----------



## starseeker

Gary, thanks! Printed those out at 1,121,640 dpi and have been examining them under the microscope. They look really, really good. One comment, tho: on the center diagram of the details and dimensions of the bow, I think you've got the object near the center right just a little too far to the right. I wouldn't mention it at all, but you know what rivet counters some people can be, and you'll hear nothing but grief about if for months.
Otherwise, amazing work, as always. Your attention to detail and just the level of commitment is nonpareil. Can hardly wait to see what these turn into in three dimensions and what surprises might await us. A whole world of modellers lucky to have you. 
Re-charge, if possible, and can't wait to see what your next project will be. Actually, I can't wait to get my hands on your last project, let alone this one, let alone your next. 
Did I mention: Amazing work? Thanks again!


----------



## sapper36

Sorry - Sarcasm detector may need calibration but your joking right?



starseeker said:


> Gary, thanks! Printed those out at 1,121,640 dpi and have been examining them under the microscope. They look really, really good. One comment, tho: on the center diagram of the details and dimensions of the bow, I think you've got the object near the center right just a little too far to the right. I wouldn't mention it at all, but you know what rivet counters some people can be, and you'll hear nothing but grief about if for months.
> Otherwise, amazing work, as always. Your attention to detail and just the level of commitment is nonpareil. Can hardly wait to see what these turn into in three dimensions and what surprises might await us. A whole world of modellers lucky to have you.
> Re-charge, if possible, and can't wait to see what your next project will be. Actually, I can't wait to get my hands on your last project, let alone this one, let alone your next.
> Did I mention: Amazing work? Thanks again!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Sounds like a harmless good natured joke to me.


No sarcasm detector necessary.

If you had a facetious detector, that would be going off.

But I didn't read anything sarcastic in starseeker's statement.


----------



## starseeker

Chuck_P.R. said:


> If you had a facetious detector, that would be going off.


That's the problem with buying things on EBay from Asia. I did order what was supposed to be a facetious detector once, but all it does is flash its lights every time a short fat bald person with even a vague resemblance to Mussolini goes by. But on the plus side, my mother-in-law can't sneak up on me any more.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

starseeker said:


> That's the problem with buying things on EBay from Asia. I did order what was supposed to be a facetious detector once, but all it does is flash its lights every time a short fat bald person with even a vague resemblance to Mussolini goes by. But on the plus side, my mother-in-law can't sneak up on me any more.


Sounds like it was worth the money after all!


----------



## starseeker

But the reason I just returned to this thread:
Gary, it just occurred to me that you have at least two books waiting to be published now. I know that you've got - what?? - 15 or 20 years of research and measurements and drawings of the Enterprises, and now you've produced what will probably remain as the standard for all-time for documenting the Galileo. For Moebius, you've documented the Jupiter 2 to the smallest detail, plus who knows what other Allen projects you've worked on/are working on. 
And I know the details you've documented don't always end up being represented in the finished kits, due to the realities and economics of tooling molds for a reasonable cost. And I have a pretty good understanding of the amount of work you've put into these, too, having spent at least 40 hours researching and drawing my own decals for just the Space Pod alone. 
There are precedents. There are things like Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise and the Apogee books on the Jupiter 2. PL and Moebius already own rights to produce the kits. It would be a truly amazing this if they could be convinced to join with specialty publishers and produce books like Mr. Kerr's Guide to the Enterprise or The Jupiter 2 Walk-around. I would line up for something like these - in fact it would be second only to having the kits as an all-time modelling dream come true. A huge benefit for those wishing to correct the kits and/or super detail. And maybe even make you (albeit a small pittance per hour given the truly uncountable number of hours) some mightily-deserved royalties.
See, I've got ideas for you that would take up all the spare time of a second one of you.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Spare time . . .

What is this "spare time" of which you speak?

Gary, do you know anything of this "spare time" of which he speaks?


----------



## Havok69

Chuck_P.R. said:


> What about a win-win?
> 
> There was a 1701 club that gave members a T-shirt and allowed them to pre-order and get the kit a little earlier.
> 
> Personally I would be happy to pay $50 bucks - a chunk more then the cost of the kit,
> 
> to both be one of the first to get the kit,
> 
> and perhaps instead of a t-shirt we could be enticed by receiving a set of blueprints?
> 
> Perhaps in 11 x 17 format like the old Trekkist ones, if not in 24 x 36 format?
> 
> It wouldn't be too expensive for Jamie to print them in 11 x 17 format,
> 
> t


I would so be down with that - the blueprints would look awesome framed next to the completed model! (I would prefer the 11x17 size though - it would be more "in scale" to the model if displayed.)


----------



## starseeker

Oh, Gary's artwork framed would be awesome! What a plan! Be a fantastic display with or without the model. 

You know, the Other Gary. The one we're always talking to is the workaholic. The Other Gary that I was referring to is his lazy clone who spends all day in the hammock drinking beer and eating natchos. Or, wait a minute, maybe that's me. 
Nope, just checked, he's taller than me.


----------



## Hunch

If there is a club release for this, I'm all in...but I'll take it any way I can get it!
Good times (as far as modeling is concerned).:thumbsup:


----------



## Havok69

starseeker said:


> You know, the Other Gary...


You mean transporter accident Gary?


----------



## Carl_G

Glad to see progress has been made, thanks!


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Havok69 said:


> You mean transporter accident Gary?


No. That's our original, now extra-crispy, Gary . . . 

after reading about all the new kits we want him to design when he just got the blueprints for the Galileo done a day ago. 

If I know him at all next I imagine he's going to head for Scotty's quarters and swig down a bottle of his best Saurian Brandy and pass out on the couch . . .

Have a stiff drink and don't worry about us babbling nerds.

You deserve a break! :thumbsup:


----------



## Havok69

Chuck_P.R. said:


> You deserve a break! :thumbsup:


But only if the decal files are done...


----------



## Gary K

Havok69 said:


> But only if the decal files are done...


Well, all the files of the *full-scale* exterior markings are done, and the markings are on the restored shuttlecraft in Houston. We'll have to hold off on some of the interior decals until we can see whether or not the Chinese can duplicate the tiny lights on various control panels. Btw, I have a hi-res scan of an original decal sheet for the 22" miniature, so we can duplicate the script version of the "Columbus" name. There's the possibility of including optional decals of a few features that were designed for the interior, but were not installed, doubtlessly due to time & budget issues.

If you want another kit from Trek kit from Polar, last fall I blueprinted the original hangar bay set for the folks at 'Star Trek Continues'. Just sayin'...

Thanks to everybody for the kind words, and not to worry - I'm not going anywhere.

Gary


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Havok69 said:


>



Only question that remains now is . . .

Which Gary should receive the peace, quiet, and rest associated with a phaser set on stun?

Like many of the questions I face in everday life I feel compelled to ask . . .

"What would Spock do?"


----------



## Gary K

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Only question that remains now is . . .
> 
> Which Gary should receive the peace, quiet, and rest associated with a phaser set on stun?
> 
> Like many of the questions I face in everday life I feel compelled to ask . . .
> 
> "What would Spock do?"


Stun both Garys and ask questions later.

Gary


----------



## CaptCBoard

Okay. I just plowed through this entire topic. There is nothing but speculation here, but since Gary has just delivered the drawings that R2 is going to use to make the kit, I just have to ask--

Gary, what is the length of the Galileo? Now that the plans are finished, it would seem to me that is an easy question to answer, though you may be under NDA to not reveal that information.

With the length of the FX model at 22 inches and the 'Kirk Stated' length of 24 feet, at 1:32 scale the model would be between 8.25 and 9 inches long. I'm not interested in something that is a compromise in order to fit an acceptable interior. If that is the case, we still won't have an accurate model. If a compromise is to be made, it should be the same compromise as seen on screen, with a rudimentary interior seen only through the open door of the full-size mockup.

Scott


----------



## John P

Scott, I believe Gary made it 11" long. Yes, he compromised to fit the interior and ignores Kirk's 24-foot comment. He also has the word of the guy who built the 22-foot prop that it was meant to be 3/4 scale.


----------



## Proper2

CaptCBoard said:


> I'm not interested in something that is a compromise in order to fit an acceptable interior. If that is the case, we still won't have an accurate model. If a compromise is to be made, it should be the same compromise as seen on screen, with a rudimentary interior seen only through the open door of the full-size mockup.
> 
> Scott


I tend to agree with Scott, here. I would much prefer an "accurate" exterior, as seen on-screen, with a rudimentary interior cabin. I personally do not intend on displaying this model "open-faced," if that will be an option, so the interior is very much secondary to me. But whatever the case will end up being, I will accept that and be happy with a well-engineered, hopefully well-built model.


----------



## ClubTepes

CaptCBoard said:


> Okay. I just plowed through this entire topic. There is nothing but speculation here, but since Gary has just delivered the drawings that R2 is going to use to make the kit, I just have to ask--
> 
> Gary, what is the length of the Galileo? Now that the plans are finished, it would seem to me that is an easy question to answer, though you may be under NDA to not reveal that information.
> 
> With the length of the FX model at 22 inches and the 'Kirk Stated' length of 24 feet, at 1:32 scale the model would be between 8.25 and 9 inches long. I'm not interested in something that is a compromise in order to fit an acceptable interior. If that is the case, we still won't have an accurate model. If a compromise is to be made, it should be the same compromise as seen on screen, with a rudimentary interior seen only through the open door of the full-size mockup.
> 
> Scott


As a counter voice, and a consumer, I disagree.
What is the point of a whole rudimentary intruder......

What your describing seems to be part of the 'studio scale' mentality.
Which is fine if you're into that.
But that is a sub-group, of a sub-group, of a sub-group.
(not sure if it is three or four sub-groups deep).

Also, then by what your saying, the model should be based entirely on one example of the shuttle. Either the 3/4 sized 'full scale' set piece. Or the 22' model.
To go further, if it were based on only the 22 model, then there should be NO interior at all, as there was no interior in the model.

I'm going to paraphrase JohnP's perfect statement of "Its a model of the Enterprise. Not a model, of a model of the Enterprise"
In this case, simply switch out Enterprise for Galileo.

I really hope this doesn't digress into another whole 'grid line' debate.

IF, the size of the exterior doesn't jive with an individuals predetermined notion of what the size SHOULD be, regardless of its source, but the shape is correct, then you DO have an accurate representation of the subject, but the scale is open to the modeler to determine.

If the size/scale doesn't meet ones personal expectations, don't build the interior OR model your own interior.
Scott, I know your abilities, (which I will say are great) this may be your opportunity to model a 'rudimentary interior' kit to whatever scale you think the shuttle is.


----------



## Trek Ace

Perhaps at 11" long, the model could be either 1/32 or 1/24 scale (based on the prop exterior) to satisfy both camps.


----------



## Proper2

ClubTepes said:


> What your describing seems to be part of the 'studio scale' mentality.
> Which is fine if you're into that.
> But that is a sub-group, of a sub-group, of a sub-group.
> (not sure if it is three or four sub-groups deep).
> 
> I'm going to paraphrase JohnP's perfect statement of "Its a model of the Enterprise. Not a model, of a model of the Enterprise"
> In this case, simply switch out Enterprise for Galileo.


"Sub-group, of a sub-group, of a sub-group" or not, I for one am exactly of the studio scale mentality. John's statement is his preference and applies to him and those who agree with that mentality. For me, it *is* a model of the studio model of the Enterprise and of the Galileo. Re-creating the studio model as it may have appeared in the studio is my preference. This is why I am setting up my 1/350 E with the 1/350 Botany Bay against a "giant blue-screen" backdrop and a "blue-screen tarp floor" and not a black star-field backdrop. I am attempting a simplified "diorama" of the studio scene. This type of set-up seems more "real and satisfying to me. That's just my mentality.


----------



## Gary K

Let's everybody take a deep breath and not get all exercised about what the Galileo model does or doesn't look like until Polar Lights gets an estimate from the factory in China and green lights the project. That being said, here's what I can say about the model, as it is currently designed.

In 1992, I stopped at an airport near Akron, Ohio, and Lynne Miller, the mock-up's owner at the time, allowed me to document it. Lynne said that Matt Jefferies had told her that the "full-size" mock-up was actually 3/4 scale, a common practice with "full-size" replicas in Hollywood - witness the subscale replicas of Disney's Nautilus, the Jupiter 2, the original Battlestar Galactica Vipers, the Red October submarine, etc. Being inside the mock-up is akin to being inside a wide minivan, and there is no way that you could consider the mock-up to be full-sized. I disregarded the 24 ft length of the shuttle that was mentioned in one episode - even though *Captain Kirk* said it - since I'd take Matt Jefferies' word over one line in a script typed by a harried writer. Likewise, there is no room for a magical back door in the aft compartment through which crew members could have entered the ship in "The Galileo Seven". Trust me. Considering the haste under which the series was filmed, I'm surprised that we don't see more egregious blunders. 

Consider the circumstances under which the original series was filmed. If you've read THESE ARE THE VOYAGES, TOS: SEASON ONE, you'll realize that every week it was a race between the budget, time, re-re-rewrites of the scripts, behind-schedule spfx, etc to put *something* on the air. Everything you see on the screen was originally filmed on a tight budget and was meant to be viewed once - or maybe a 2nd time in reruns - on low-res television sets, maybe even "in living color"; therefore, the sets & spfx only had to look good in relatively brief glimpses. I seriously doubt that anybody connected with the show could have imagined that fans would be analyzing high-res images of the show frame-by-frame nearly a half-century later. The Galileo, inside and out, was simply a prop created on a limited budget to facilitate the telling of a story, and it was NOT an engineering treatise on 23th century starship technology. You just do the best you can, given a finite amount of time and money. I'm sure that a Hollywood veteran like Matt Jefferies fully realized this. 

I am convinced that the mock-up was designed to use forced-perspective to create the appearance of its being larger than it was. If you enlarge the straight-sided 22" miniature by a factor of 12, the width of the two vehicles is the same at the aft end, but the front end of the mock-up is noticeably narrower. Note that the majority of shots favored the aft end, and the bow was only shown in far shots.

When I was designing the Polar Lights model my Prime Directive was to preserve the lines of the mock-up as much as possible, while subtly distorting the interior set in order to fit inside. The mock-up had no bottom, simply an exposed metal framework, so I grafted the lower hull of the miniature onto the model. I also straightened the nacelles to match those on the miniature. The aft ends of the mock-up's nacelles both flared out and drooped as part of the forced-perspective design, and while you didn't notice this on TV, it would definitely look a little weird on a model. Lastly, I straightened the wings and made them level. The connecting spars between the mock-up's wings and hull were too short, and that allowed the heavy hull to sag, giving the wings a dihedral & rotating the nacelles. The connection between the wings & hull was considerably beefed up in last year's restoration.

With the able assistance of Petri Blomqvist in Helsinki, I designed the outer hull to match the mock-up as closely as possible, and next I recreated the interior set. Then came the fun part - shoehorning the interior set into the outer hull. I enlarged the exterior drawings by 4/3 to create the intended size of the shuttle, between 29 and 30 ft, and then reduced it to 1/32 scale. The interior set was simply reduced to 1/32 scale. Surprisingly, the parallel-sided interior set fit inside the hull with fewer problems than I'd anticipated. The length of the passenger compartment remained unchanged, and was widened by just a couple scale feet. The ceiling HAS to slope because of the sloping roof on the exterior. 

The aft compartment, with its 10 ft ceiling, required the most changes. This room is Star Trek's equivalent of the ludicrous "power core" set on the Jupiter 2. Not only was it too tall to fit inside the shuttle, but in every shot the aft walls were moved forward & aft, and well as shifted sideways, in order to enhance the particular scene being filmed. Nevertheless, I've retained the essence of the aft compartment - and I even bought a surplus Honeywell chart recorder so I could duplicate the one seen on the wall of the set. Most importantly, I added a toilet & coffee maker, tastefully stowed away in the unseen left wall of the compartment.

The decals match the original markings as best I could recreate and will have left-right symmetry, although I did correct a mistake on the unseen right side of the mock-up caused by the studio's painters flipping the painting template incorrectly, resulting in the Starfleet arrowhead's pointing the wrong direction. The kit's decals will use the same PDF files that were used to apply the markings to the restored shuttlecraft in Houston - reduced in scale, of course.

The final model should be just over 11" long and 7" wide. That represents a 1/32 scale model of the almost-30' "real" shuttle, or a 1/24 scale model of the mock-up. I've talked with Gene Winfield, who built the mock-up, and as a result kit should include a few *optional* parts that Gene intended to be on the shuttle, but which were not installed at the studio, presumably thanks to the bean-counters in Finance. There might be a few more surprises included in the kit. If having a bottom on the model bothers the studio scale purists, you can always cut it out & add a metal framework. I know that Jamie Hood at Polar Lights wants to give modelers the most bang for their buck, so let's wait to see what Polar Lights says after the factory gives them an estimate.

Gary


----------



## Proper2

Gary, thank you for taking the time to post all this! We are all passionate about our Trek toys and so we voice our preferences, but I for one will definitely be very happy with whatever resolution is deemed best. Hopefully the parts will be engineered and executed to come together well. That's the most important thing since I'm sure the design and specs will be as accurate as is humanly possible. Count me in for at least one if not two kits!


----------



## Chrisisall

This looks like it'll be a hit with the Trek crowd... I know I'll need one.


----------



## Fozzie

Thanks, Gary. Always love it when you post here.


----------



## Gary K

Chrisisall said:


> This looks like it'll be a hit with the Trek crowd... I know I'll need one.


Only ONE?? 

Gary


----------



## StarshipClass

Gary:

Thanks for the explanation of your design philosophy. I like it very much and look forward to getting at least one of the kits depending on my budget. 

I really appreciate your emphasis on the mock-up (vs. the miniature) and think that was definitely the wisest way to go considering the fact that it was so prominent during the show.

Thanks very much for your work on this and other Star Trek projects. It is very much appreciated by us long time fans and modelers. You're really making our dreams come true.


----------



## Chrisisall

Gary K said:


> Only ONE??


Sorry Gary, I don't mean to offend, but I don't have a basement or an attic or a garage or even a spare room... any time I make more than _one_ of a particular model it's for a client.... I need a real house.:freak:


----------



## Gary K

Chrisisall said:


> Sorry Gary, I don't mean to offend, but I don't have a basement or an attic or a garage or even a spare room... any time I make more than _one_ of a particular model it's for a client.... I need a real house.:freak:


That was a joke, Son! A joke!

Foghorn Kerr


----------



## Chrisisall

Gary K said:


> That was a joke, Son! A joke!
> Foghorn Kerr


_Hey, was that a chicken, Pop?_ :lol:


----------



## ClubTepes

Gary,

Thanks for coming forward with such a detailed description of the design philosophy.

It is pretty much dead on, with what I was hoping you would do.

You know, that I saw your comments on FB about the 1/32 1/24 sizing, but didn't feel it was my place to speak for you here.

This should be good news for the people hoping for a larger 1/24 scale shuttle.
I'm sure someone will come out with 1/24th scale people to fill that demand.
And like I said, someone can also do things to replicate that rudimentary interior at 1/24 as well. If studio scale is your thing.

This is one of the few kit compromises that really could satisfy almost everybody.


----------



## Chrisisall

ClubTepes said:


> This is one of the few kit compromises that really could satisfy almost everybody.


Yes, this one's got delicious possibilities on every level.


----------



## SteveR

Gary K said:


> The final model should be just over 11" long and 7" wide. That represents a 1/32 scale model of the almost-30' "real" shuttle, or a 1/24 scale model of the mock-up.


Geeeenius. :thumbsup:


----------



## CaptCBoard

My concerns over the 'size versus scale' issue have nothing to do with a 'studio-scale' point of view. And obviously, since this is a 'model of the Galileo', it needs to have a bottom to it. My only concern is the proportions of the ship remain faithful to what was seen in the show and that a 6-foot figure standing next to the ship scales out to 6-feet instead of 4.5-feet. Gary addressed my concern by simply saying that the scale of the model can be thought of as being either 1:32 or 1:24, depending on the scale of the figure standing next to it. 

Which means there is a real paradox to think about.

If the interior is scaled to 1:32, then any figures will have to be to the same scale. But, if any of these figures are used on the exterior, they are 25% too small. Think of this: A 6 foot person on the inside would only be 4.5 feet tall on the outside.

As has been suggested by someone here, it is true that a solution to this problem would be for an aftermarket kit of more correctly scaled items to put on the inside, so the view through the doors of the interior would reflect what was seen through the doors in the show. I would say that if R2 was making that as an option then I'd be a happy camper since I always thought this model should be 1:24 scale in the first place! And I can also point out that at 1:24 scale, the model would be 1/2 studio scale.

So now we come to the question of those doors. What scale are they. Are the doors scaled to the interior, so the figures will appear correct, or are the doors scaled to match what was seen in the show. If they are, the the true proportions of the exterior have not been compromised, but any figure included with the kit that can be seen through the doors will appear to be very undersized.

The issue of the doors and actors going in and out of them is the only reason the actual scale of the model matters. Matt Jefferies may have intended for the set piece to be 3/4 scale and filmed from certain angles so that the shuttle appeared larger than it really was, but you can't fake the size of the actor next to it or going through the doors, unless the production had used short people in the shots of the exterior, which they did not. 

The idea Jefferies expressed that the ship was built to 3/4 size for forced perspective purposes had more to do with making the size of the guys throwing the rocks look larger, than anything else. That was the first episode using the Galileo, so it had to be built that size to get the story to work. Once built, it still worked at that size. It just made for a more compact set piece and no one gave it a second thought.

It should also be noted that any of the 1:32 interior that is seen from the outside, through the open doors, will appear 25% too small. Keep in mind that those chairs mounted to the wall were undersized to begin with and set low to the floor.

My preference is to have the exterior proportions visually correct. I want to see what I saw in the show.

The end of this is my suggestion that R2 do the reverse of what was suggested in an earlier post. I say, make the exterior to 1:24 scale, which is what Gary has designed, but to make the interior as seen through the open doors in the show-- and completely accurate to what was done for the show. This way the whole thing is one scale, instead of two. And then let someone else make the 1:32 interior as the aftermarket kit, with appropriately scaled figures. For R2, this version is less expensive to produce since some of the tooling is eliminated, and that translates into a less expensive kit. 

I really do applaud your work, Gary. And I'm really glad that R2 wants to get things right. You chose the compromise that works for most and in the end guys like me can find a way to make things work for our particular brand of pickyness. You should be glad R2 is not doing the Aries 1-B. Not only is the flight deck a whopper of a compromise, but there is simply nowhere to put the galley!!

Scott


----------



## pagni

I have to say I am (a bit) more excited about the release of this than I am of the 350 Enterprise....Heresy, perhaps. But I've always loved the Galileo and the AMT kit was
really, really lacking.


----------



## Chrisisall

pagni said:


> the AMT kit was
> really, really lacking.


I made one just as good from cardboard when I was 10.


----------



## SteveR

CaptCBoard said:


> The end of this is my suggestion that R2 do the reverse of what was suggested in an earlier post. I say, make the exterior to 1:24 scale, which is what Gary has designed, but to make the interior as seen through the open doors in the show-- and completely accurate to what was done for the show. This way the whole thing is one scale, instead of two. And then let someone else make the 1:32 interior as the aftermarket kit, with appropriately scaled figures.


So, basically, Scott, you're saying that R2 should reproduce the _mockup_ (with an interior scaled to the chairs seen through the mockup's open doors), not the _comfortable interior set_.

This would look correct (or familiar) with 1/24 figures placed outside the ship with the door open (as you wrote), but those figures would be cramped if we lifted the roof and placed them inside the model. But if we wanted things to look correct _inside_ the ship, we'd have to get the 1/32 aftermarket kit with 1/32 figures. Or R2 could make a supplementary interior kit.

So it comes down to this: do we want to display the thing with crew outside or inside the ship? If the choice has to be made, my money's now on "crew outside".


----------



## robn1

CaptCBoard said:


> So now we come to the question of those doors. What scale are they. Are the doors scaled to the interior, so the figures will appear correct, or are the doors scaled to match what was seen in the show. If they are, the the true proportions of the exterior have not been compromised, but any figure included with the kit that can be seen through the doors will appear to be very undersized.
> 
> The issue of the doors and actors going in and out of them is the only reason the actual scale of the model matters. Matt Jefferies may have intended for the set piece to be 3/4 scale and filmed from certain angles so that the shuttle appeared larger than it really was, but you can't fake the size of the actor next to it or going through the doors, unless the production had used short people in the shots of the exterior, which they did not.


This is the kind of thing I try to ignore, just as I try to ignore the microphone shadow on the briefing room wall. Otherwise I'd have to accept that the Enterprise has 1960's era microphones hanging from it's ceilings. 

Undersized shuttlecraft, mics, matte lines etc. are just artifacts of film/TV production. I prefer a model of the Galileo, not the undersized set piece. If the designer intended the ship to be 30' then that's what should be modeled. Modding the kit from idealized to set scale is fairly easy, modding the other way would be much more work for the builder.


----------



## LARSON DESIGNS

robn1 said:


> This is the kind of thing I try to ignore, just as I try to ignore the microphone shadow on the briefing room wall. Otherwise I'd have to accept that the Enterprise has 1960's era microphones hanging from it's ceilings.
> 
> Undersized shuttlecraft, mics, matte lines etc. are just artifacts of film/TV production. I prefer a model of the Galileo, not the undersized set piece. If the designer intended the ship to be 30' then that's what should be modeled. Modding the kit from idealized to set scale is fairly easy, modding the other way would be much more work for the builder.



Right on !! :thumbsup:


----------



## John P

I hope a case doesn't cost too much.
Let's see, one as the Galileo in flight; one as the Columbus in a planetside diorama with naked native cavewomen attacking with my Andrea Miniatures Kirk scowling at them; one in UPS markings; one in FedEx markings; one in Partridge Family bus markings, one done up as a hippie VW bus...


----------



## Havok69

Gary K said:


> Most importantly, I added a toilet & coffee maker, tastefully stowed away in the unseen left wall of the compartment.


So will there be a seated crew member with a newspaper that can be put on the toilet?


----------



## ClubTepes

John P said:


> I hope a case doesn't cost too much.
> Let's see, one as the Galileo in flight; one as the Columbus in a planetside diorama with naked native cavewomen attacking with my Andrea Miniatures Kirk scowling at them; one in UPS markings; one in FedEx markings; one in Partridge Family bus markings, one done up as a hippie VW bus...


You forgot Family Truckster.


----------



## SteveR

John P said:


> Let's see, one as the Galileo in flight; one as the Columbus in a planetside diorama with naked native cavewomen attacking with my Andrea Miniatures Kirk scowling at them; one in UPS markings; one in FedEx markings; one in Partridge Family bus markings, one done up as a hippie VW bus...


Dodge Caravan with Mactac wood panelling?
Pan Am livery?
Refurbed Rebel Alliance with greeblies and open panels?
Prudhomme & McEwen Snake & Mongoose?


----------



## Trekkriffic

Proper2 said:


> I tend to agree with Scott, here. I would much prefer an "accurate" exterior, as seen on-screen, with a rudimentary interior cabin. I personally do not intend on displaying this model "open-faced," if that will be an option, so the interior is very much secondary to me. But whatever the case will end up being, I will accept that and be happy with a well-engineered, hopefully well-built model.


I think I can guarantee that it will be well built.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

CaptCBoard said:


> My concerns over the 'size versus scale' issue have nothing to do with a 'studio-scale' point of view. And obviously, since this is a 'model of the Galileo', it needs to have a bottom to it. My only concern is the proportions of the ship remain faithful to what was seen in the show and that a 6-foot figure standing next to the ship scales out to 6-feet instead of 4.5-feet. Gary addressed my concern by simply saying that the scale of the model can be thought of as being either 1:32 or 1:24, depending on the scale of the figure standing next to it.
> 
> Which means there is a real paradox to think about.
> 
> If the interior is scaled to 1:32, then any figures will have to be to the same scale. But, if any of these figures are used on the exterior, they are 25% too small. Think of this: A 6 foot person on the inside would only be 4.5 feet tall on the outside.
> 
> As has been suggested by someone here, it is true that a solution to this problem would be for an aftermarket kit of more correctly scaled items to put on the inside, so the view through the doors of the interior would reflect what was seen through the doors in the show. I would say that if R2 was making that as an option then I'd be a happy camper since I always thought this model should be 1:24 scale in the first place! And I can also point out that at 1:24 scale, the model would be 1/2 studio scale.
> 
> So now we come to the question of those doors. What scale are they. Are the doors scaled to the interior, so the figures will appear correct, or are the doors scaled to match what was seen in the show. If they are, the the true proportions of the exterior have not been compromised, but any figure included with the kit that can be seen through the doors will appear to be very undersized.
> 
> The issue of the doors and actors going in and out of them is the only reason the actual scale of the model matters. Matt Jefferies may have intended for the set piece to be 3/4 scale and filmed from certain angles so that the shuttle appeared larger than it really was, but you can't fake the size of the actor next to it or going through the doors, unless the production had used short people in the shots of the exterior, which they did not.
> 
> The idea Jefferies expressed that the ship was built to 3/4 size for forced perspective purposes had more to do with making the size of the guys throwing the rocks look larger, than anything else. That was the first episode using the Galileo, so it had to be built that size to get the story to work. Once built, it still worked at that size. It just made for a more compact set piece and no one gave it a second thought.
> 
> It should also be noted that any of the 1:32 interior that is seen from the outside, through the open doors, will appear 25% too small. Keep in mind that those chairs mounted to the wall were undersized to begin with and set low to the floor.
> 
> My preference is to have the exterior proportions visually correct. I want to see what I saw in the show.
> 
> The end of this is my suggestion that R2 do the reverse of what was suggested in an earlier post. I say, make the exterior to 1:24 scale, which is what Gary has designed, but to make the interior as seen through the open doors in the show-- and completely accurate to what was done for the show. This way the whole thing is one scale, instead of two. And then let someone else make the 1:32 interior as the aftermarket kit, with appropriately scaled figures. For R2, this version is less expensive to produce since some of the tooling is eliminated, and that translates into a less expensive kit.
> 
> I really do applaud your work, Gary. And I'm really glad that R2 wants to get things right. You chose the compromise that works for most and in the end guys like me can find a way to make things work for our particular brand of pickyness. You should be glad R2 is not doing the Aries 1-B. Not only is the flight deck a whopper of a compromise, but there is simply nowhere to put the galley!!
> 
> Scott


I really don't see the problem here.

From what I've been following here and elsewhere, the only compromises made in the exterior have been to reconcile some engineering flaws in the mockup,
and he removed the slight toe-in of the 22 foot mockup's nacelles - which matches how it was done on the filming miniature, and should be done for 
the design of the craft to make sense.

Gary went with the hull contours of the 22 foot exterior mockup, with the exception of fixing the connection point of the wings as the mockups poor original connections allowed them to twist and tilt.

The only other difference between the exterior of Gary's model and the mockup's exterior is that he grafted the design of the small filming miniature's hull bottom and made the nacelle's that connect to his model's wedge shaped hull parallel - which they weren't on the mockup.

However until I started studying the Galileo in depth, the slight tow-in of the stage mockup was not something noticible - at least on screen.

So the model is faithful to the 22 foot's exterior, with the exception of fixing a couple of engineering problems, that caused the mockup to sag in places, plus the nacelle's slight toe-in has been made parallel just as the miniature's were.

More fixes then compromises from what I can see.

(There is even a scene in TOS where Spock steps onto the shuttlecraft,
and do to the poorly designed wing connections, _the whole shuttle main body moves! _ )

So the model looks like it will be faithful to the exterior of the 22 foot mock up.

Having an interior included, even a rudimentary one, does not seem like a negative.

The front windows will probably be thin, like the mockup's. So not much compromise there.

And yes, you are 100% right that a properly scaled exterior door will mean a too-large interior door.

In the Bob Villa Galileo thread, six to eight Hobbytalk members including myself, FourMadMen, Trekkist, Phil Broad, MGagen, Peter Bloomquist(sp?), and others spent hundreds of posts dealing with the door integration issue.

(almost all of which were deleted when Captain Locknar and Thomas Sasser decided to both cut up the original thread at the same time without telling one another they were about to do it. :freak: And yes, I'm still pissed . . . )

There are three different ways to deal with it.

Gary seems to have gone with the least objectionable method of dealing with it, based on what I've seen.

His solution to the windows and the door should easily allow people to modify the interior cabin however they want.

There are a couple of things I might have done differently on an interior of my own.

But then doing it the way I would have liked it to see done would have required about a 32 foot Galileo,

And a few people, as expected, are going to be upset with a 29.x foot exterior.

I could only imagine the complaints one scaled to 32 feet would have received! 

So I believe in the end we will see an accurate exterior.

And if you don't like the interior, it's just plastic, it can be cut it out.


Heck, you might even make a few duckets selling an aftermarket kit for it.

But I don't see a better solution for Gary's door integration that would in
any way be possible to improve apon and stay more (key word _more_) accurate and still come close to agreeing with the interior set as seen onscreen. 

Of the three ways to go on the door issue, Gary's is the least objectionable.

But there is no way you can have the door made accurately as seen from the outside contain an interior whose open/opening door looks the same as the door seen on the interior set. Can't be done.

The inner/outer hull thickness as seen onscreen, as well as the method seen onscreen for the door opening from the interior doesn't allow it without using Tardis technology, and I don't think that is in the tooling budget.

_"Ya cannot change the laws of physics, Captain!"_ :thumbsup:


----------



## John P

ClubTepes said:


> You forgot Family Truckster.


I didn't forget it if I don't know what it is.


----------



## robn1

John P said:


> I hope a case doesn't cost too much.
> Let's see, one as the Galileo in flight; one as the Columbus in a planetside diorama with naked native cavewomen attacking with my Andrea Miniatures Kirk scowling at them; one in UPS markings; one in FedEx markings; one in Partridge Family bus markings, one done up as a hippie VW bus...


And the Mystery Machine.


----------



## Havok69

And the SpaceBalls RV!


----------



## Chrisisall

John P said:


> one in Partridge Family bus markings


C'mon get happy!:thumbsup:


----------



## Buc

how I read this thread...

blah...blah....blah...PHOTOs!!! blah...blah... next page...blah...blah...MORE PHOTOS....


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Having mulled this door issue over for many many moons,

something just occurred to me.

Different sized scribed lines representing the doors from the inside and outside of the model!!!!!!

The only drawback is that you would have to make the windows on both the outside and inside of the door opague - perhaps with some paint behind clear plastic. 

Plus you would not be able to have opening doors unless you wanted to design the smaller inner door to look different from the outside as seen onscreen when opening.

And I'm not suggesting this as a redesign by Gary or R2.

I'm sure that someone out there could easily make an interior wall that could be grafted to the kit with the smaller door outlines and windows cut and scribed as an after market kit - or scratchbuilt by anyone interested.

To me the door being bigger then seen-onscreen from the viewpoint of the interior isn't a big issue anyway - 

- I don't think my big butt will fit inside of it anyways.


----------



## nightspore

All I want to say is that I am SO happy that Gary is involved at the level he is. I hope all goes well with the pricing and I look forward to hear about 'the green light'.


----------



## MGagen

Gary,

Regarding the toilet and the coffee maker: I _hope_ you didn't put in one of those crappy, low-flow commodes. And it the coffee maker is one of those Keurig Cup ones, _I ain't buying it! _
:tongue:

Just kidding! I can't WAIT for this kit! The outline of your design choices sounds perfect.

M.


----------



## Gary K

MGagen said:


> Gary,
> 
> Regarding the toilet and the coffee maker: I _hope_ you didn't put in one of those crappy, low-flow commodes. And it the coffee maker is one of those Keurig Cup ones, _I ain't buying it! _
> :tongue:
> 
> Just kidding! I can't WAIT for this kit! The outline of your design choices sounds perfect.
> 
> M.


Not to worry. I am not an authority on 23rd century toilets or cookware, so the slide-out facilities are safely tucked into a wall, and the cookware is stowed behind a roll-up cover. Saves on tooling costs, which makes Polar Lights happy.

Gary


----------



## ClubTepes

John P said:


> I didn't forget it if I don't know what it is.


Clark Griswald's station wagon from 'National Lampoons Vacation'.

Don't worry, I'll cover that one.


----------



## Gary K

A quick update...

Last night I emailed 18 PDFs of preliminary artwork for the Galileo kit to Polar Lights.

Gary

PS: I told you it was a quick update!


----------



## John P

Man, can you ever just get to the point!?


----------



## Carl_G

John P said:


> Man, can you ever just get to the point!?


His next update will be delivered in sonnet form just to screw with you. He might even spend a couple of paragraphs invoking the Muses.


----------



## SteveR

Haiku, please!


----------



## Dave in RI

Will this be the first time we've ever seen a toilet in the Star Trek Universe?
What will a Starfleet toilet look like? Will it flush or simply beam out? :tongue:


----------



## RSN

Dave in RI said:


> Will this be the first time we've ever seen a toilet in the Star Trek Universe?
> What will a Starfleet toilet look like? Will it flush or simply beam out? :tongue:


Kirk sat on a toilet while in the brig in "Star Trek V"!!! :thumbsup:


----------



## SteveR

Dave in RI said:


> Will this be the first time we've ever seen a toilet in the Star Trek Universe?
> What will a Starfleet toilet look like? Will it flush or simply beam out? :tongue:


... or be recycled in the replicators?


----------



## phicks

SteveR said:


> ... or be recycled in the replicators?


Yum! Yorkshire pudding tonight!


----------



## Gary K

Dave in RI said:


> Will this be the first time we've ever seen a toilet in the Star Trek Universe?
> What will a Starfleet toilet look like? Will it flush or simply beam out? :tongue:


Don't get too excited. The toilet is retracted flush into the wall (no pun intended), so you'll be on your own when you create your "Kirk on the pot" diorama.

Gary


----------



## Proper2

So, to get a little more serious for a moment, any clue as to the earliest possible release year?


----------



## Zombie_61

Gary K said:


> ...you'll be on your own when you create your "Kirk on the pot" diorama...


----------



## SteveR

This was the scuttlebutt (He said "butt!") in December:

http://treknographics101.prophpbb.com/topic290.html


----------



## Opus Penguin

Oh my. Quite a difference from the miniature to the mock up. Which version is being produced?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Opus Penguin said:


> Oh my. Quite a difference from the miniature to the mock up. Which version is being produced?


Read backwards a few pages . . .


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

SteveR said:


> This was the scuttlebutt (He said "butt!") in December:
> 
> http://treknographics101.prophpbb.com/topic290.html


No need to talk scuttlebutt when Gary is directly answering questions.

Everything is done and sent in now.

He's mentioned earlier that they are waiting on a quote in order
to decide how detailed an interior they can include and then will
go from there.

If it isn't done by the end of this year I can wait a bit longer. 

This year. Next year. The more important thing is that it is done correctly.

I'd love to see them make the Christmas season so that their sales will
be higher, but I can wait a few more months if that is what it takes.

We've waited over four decades for an accurate Galileo model,
what'a a few extra months?


----------



## SteveR

Chuck_P.R. said:


> No need to talk scuttlebutt when Gary is directly answering questions.


Of course, Gary might say that the December 2013 estimates still hold, but he might not be free to make a new estimate. 

Apologies if I spoke out of turn.

BTW, I'm not in a rush for this or any kit. I've got plenty of kits to work on until I kick the bucket.  I agree: get it right.


----------



## Gary K

SteveR said:


> Of course, Gary might say that the December 2013 estimates still hold, but he might not be free to make a new estimate.
> 
> Apologies if I spoke out of turn.
> 
> BTW, I'm not in a rush for this or any kit. I've got plenty of kits to work on until I kick the bucket.  I agree: get it right.


The original estimate went out the window when I had some personal responsibilities that required my full attention for a year, and when PL's annual tooling budget was negatively impacted by R2's acquisition of the Hawk & Lindberg lines. Everything is back on track again, but I can't speak to any release estimates since there are a number of variables that I'm not privvy to. I'm sure that Jamie Hood may have some words of wisdom to offer on the kit's timeline by the time WonderFest rolls around, if not sooner.

Gary


----------



## fluke

1/32nd..... I thought it was going to be closer to 1/24th?

Don't get me wrong....even if it is close to the same scale
a better and more accurate TOS Galileo is just fine with me!

Nice to see its still in the works.


----------



## scotpens

fluke said:


> 1/32nd..... I thought it was going to be closer to 1/24th?
> 
> Don't get me wrong....even if it is close to the same scale
> a better and more accurate TOS Galileo is just fine with me!


Read Gary's posts upthread. 1/32 is the scale for a model of the hypothetical "real" shuttlecraft. If you want a model of the studio mockup, just omit the interior and call it 1/24 scale. So it works either way.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

SteveR said:


> Of course, Gary might say that the December 2013 estimates still hold, but he might not be free to make a new estimate.
> 
> Apologies if I spoke out of turn.
> 
> BTW, I'm not in a rush for this or any kit. I've got plenty of kits to work on until I kick the bucket.  I agree: get it right.


You didn't speak out of turn at all. 

The only point I was trying to make was that Gary mentioned 
they may need to make some adjustments once the reds build
the model in 3D and they see how the parts need to be broken
down. There is no way of being sure whether or not 
there will be another delay in the event the reds find some 
complication or difficulty in tooling.

Even with good blueprints the Chinese in the past still have found ways
to mess up models and test shots have had to be sent back
and forth countless times. Sometimes with them ignoring 
and/or not understanding the changes that needed to be 
made.




I very much hope that does not happen.
I'm hoping they end up going with a full interior,
and don't run into tooling or test shot issues.

Those who aren't interested in an interior don't have
to use the one included.

But I'm pretty sure most people want one.


----------



## John P

Then you'll see someone post "Why should I have to pay for the interior parts too when I'm not going to use them!?" :freak: as if no model ever came with optional parts before.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

John P said:


> Then you'll see someone post "Why should I have to pay for the interior parts too when I'm not going to use them!?" :freak: as if no model ever came with optional parts before.


Would not be surprised.

There are those that pick the nit all the time.


----------



## Chrisisall

I want a great photo from the series on the box! If not, then it's not worth it.


----------



## Trek Ace

I would be happy with even the original _Galileo_ kit box art, which I rather liked.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Trek Ace said:


> I would be happy with even the original _Galileo_ kit box art, which I rather liked.


I've got a long box version, and I have to agree the artwork is nice.

Shame all they did was rip the Galileo page out of The Making of Star Trek,
hand it to the kit designer, and said "Go make this."


----------



## veedubb67

Chrisisall said:


> I want a great photo from the series on the box! If not, then it's not worth it.


Hard to tell if you're kidding, but *SERIOUSLY*?

You wouldn't buy a new Galileo kit because of the box art?

Rob
Iwata Padawan


----------



## Chrisisall

veedubb67 said:


> Hard to tell if you're kidding, but *SERIOUSLY*?
> 
> You wouldn't buy a new Galileo kit because of the box art?


Gotcha.:lol:

But ya never know; some fans are kinda crazy that way.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

veedubb67 said:


> Hard to tell if you're kidding, but *SERIOUSLY*?
> 
> You wouldn't buy a new Galileo kit because of the box art?
> 
> Rob
> Iwata Padawan


Sheldon, why are you using veedubb67's monicker?


----------



## Zombie_61

Trek Ace said:


> I would be happy with even the original _Galileo_ kit box art, which I rather liked.


I like that box art, but I think too many uninformed modelers would see the box, think Round 2 just reissued the old kit again, and leave it on the shelf, resulting in fewer sales. I think "new kit, new box art" would be better for Round 2.


----------



## veedubb67

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Sheldon, why are you using veedubb67's monicker?


Hey - I resemble that comment!

(knock, knock, knock) Galileo , (knock, knock, knock) Galileo , (knock, knock, knock) Galileo 

Rob
Iwata Padawan


----------



## JeffBond

I agree, there's no way R2 would go with the original Galileo kit artwork, especially since so many modelers were dissatisfied with that model. They would really be shooting themselves in the foot--and I can't think of an example (at least of a sci-fi kit) where a new tool has been packaged with artwork from an earlier kit of the subject. It would definitely be bad business...


----------



## Gary K

JeffBond said:


> I agree, there's no way R2 would go with the original Galileo kit artwork, especially since so many modelers were dissatisfied with that model. They would really be shooting themselves in the foot--and I can't think of an example (at least of a sci-fi kit) where a new tool has been packaged with artwork from an earlier kit of the subject. It would definitely be bad business...


There was the 1/128 scale mini-Spindrift from Moebius. It was a corrected, all-new tool, but unfortunately was packaged with the original artwork - including astronaut figures in the upper bubble. If you went to an online hobby shop - the only choice for many people - all you saw was a thumbnail image that made people believe that the model was simply a repop of the original.

Gary


----------



## phicks

And R2 recently repopped the Ktinga with zero mold changes. I think most people expected they would at least provide a new top for the cobra head becasue it gets an extended closeup in STTMP. No such luck.


----------



## Richard Baker

Too many repops in the last couple of years with just a minor adjustment and a new decal sheet, along with a price jump from what people remember the kit selling for before.
I could see a new box art but using a photo of the new kit buildup in the same pose. Something that is an homage to the original release but clearly a new product as seen in a thumbnail.


----------



## ClubTepes

Richard Baker said:


> Too many repops in the last couple of years with just a minor adjustment and a new decal sheet, along with a price jump from what people remember the kit selling for before.
> I could see a new box art but using a photo of the new kit buildup in the same pose. Something that is an homage to the original release but clearly a new product as seen in a thumbnail.


Price increases are to be expected as part of natural inflation.

A basic rule of thumb is that everything doubles every 10 years.

So a kit that sold for $10.00 (10 years ago) would go for $20.00 today.

$20.00 is now $40.00, etc.

Old Revell kits that used to sell for $1.95 at Walgreen's now are $19.95.

There are calculators on some sites where you can put in a dollar figure and a year (1936 for example) and see what the equivalent is today.

I was at Ford world headquarters recently.
They have an example of the first car they produced in the lobby.
The description plate talks about how the car sold for $850.00 in 1903.
I ran it through the calculator site and in todays dollars, that car cost the equivalent of $40,000.00.


----------



## Chrisisall

In MY world, I'd outlaw inflation.:thumbsup:
But then again, in MY world we wouldn't use money.


----------



## scotpens

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Trek Ace said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would be happy with even the original _Galileo_ kit box art, which I rather liked.
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a long box version, and I have to agree the artwork is nice.
> 
> Shame all they did was rip the Galileo page out of The Making of Star Trek,
> hand it to the kit designer, and said "Go make this."
Click to expand...

Is that really what happened? Well, that would explain the strange "coffin" shape in plan view, and why they left off the recessed rear section and the side extensions that curl over the roof.


----------



## Trek Ace

What I meant to impart with my statement about using the original box art was in response to an earlier post from an individual who stated that he would not buy the new kit if the box art did not meet with his specific expectations. I was stating that I would be happy with even the original Galileo kit box art - that I would buy the new kit regardless of how the box art was rendered. 

I realize that this kit is a Polar Lights release and not AMT, and will undoubtedly carry new packaging as a result. However, I did (and still do) very much like the original AMT kit artwork. It reminds me of the many James Blish adaption book covers in it's style and execution.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

scotpens said:


> Is that really what happened? Well, that would explain the strange "coffin" shape in plan view, and why they left off the recessed rear section and the side extensions that curl over the roof.


It sure looks like it. The person they put in charge of it certainly had no knowledge of the subject.

So I don't know where else he would have gotten his plans from.

Which was really really weird, considering AMT built _both_ the filming miniature _and _the mockup.


----------



## Richard Baker

My guess is two separate divisions.
Considering that back then 'close enough' was perfectly acceptable for SciFi kits and how much extra tooling it would take to have the hull shapes correct (the sides would need to be separate for that top curl), I am not surprised they just went with the basic plan views and let it roll...


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Richard Baker said:


> My guess is two separate divisions.
> Considering that back then 'close enough' was perfectly acceptable for SciFi kits and how much extra tooling it would take to have the hull shapes correct (the sides would need to be separate for that top curl), I am not surprised they just went with the basic plan views and let it roll...


They were definitely two seperate divisions. I almost mentioned that but didn't think it necessary.

Mainly because the kit resembled neither the mockup nor the filming miniature. There was little to no effort put into it.

I'm guessing part of it is due to the fact that it wasn't built until about 1974 if I remember correctly. And AMT probably didn't want to put a lot into it.

But still, there is little excuse for what they came up with.

There was source material out there, even if they lost their
blueprints for the filming miniature, they could have at least
gotten a 16mm reel of the Galileo 7, which was being legally
sold back then for about 300 bucks, as well as many 8x10's.

Instead they just went with something that didn't come
close to the filming miniature, or even the mockup.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Now that this kit is going to be a reality,

while he didn't have any part in the design of Gary and R2's kit,

I'd nonetheless like to give a word of praise to David Winfrey, 
who goes by the monicker Trekkist here I believe.


Way back in the '80's he spent a couple or more years I believe pouring
over multiple VHS tapes of not just the Galileo 7 but several other episodes.

He's the first guy I know of who quite seriously worked on blueprinting a Galileo
with an integrated interior/exterior.

While I would not have gone with the door solution he chose - he shrunk the door
to match the interior's door, which would have to be either smaller or larger then
the exteriors' 

- his solution is still a valid one, and the other details in his blueprints are more
then stunning. Especially when you consider what he had to work with! 

The guy couldn't even pause the tape and get a stable image, and spent
hundreds of hours drawing, pausing, rewinding, redrawing, etc. ad infinitum.

His blues are still pretty impressive to this day - at least to me.

Especially considering he was working with what Spock would probably
describe as "stone knives and bear skins" for reference material and
tools.

He gave permission to both Phil Broad and Fourmadmen to post copies
for viewing by anyone who is interested. Phil Broad's website is currently 
down. FourMadMen's is up but if you haven't already been granted access
you may not be able to get to them, at least not without Fourmadmen having 
to perhaps grant a ton of people access one permission at a time 
- which could be a pain for him to have to do.

However, I just the other day noticed a copy has been posted on LCARS.

I doubt David would mind me posting a link for you guys to be able to see
them,

even if LCARS didn't contact him about them. (Maybe they did. Don't know
one way or the other.)

As I said, they are quite impressive. He even did a couple of variations as seen in different episodes.

And again, is the first guy I know to tackle this, many moons ago, using little
more then some very simple tools, an excellent eye for details, an incredible
amount of patience, and an obvious love for the subject.

Check them out!

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/class-f-shuttlecraft.php


----------



## Opus Penguin

Those are nice and quite detailed. It leaves much to the imagination regarding where a toilet would be. Very cramped even with the inflated size of the craft. The ambiguous aft external airlock will always be of much debate. I prefer to just not believe it exists and see it as a mistake on the filmmakers side. An example, IIRC, was when the cast leaves the briefing room in a scene of "Turnabout Intruder" where there was established an obvious wall earlier. They just walked off the set in that direction.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

Phil Broad's take on the rear cabin interior gave me an idea of where to place what I call a "Scotty Potty." 

It would require a shuttle a bit under two feet longer then Gary's take on the shuttle though. So many will balk at it.
I don't think it would fit in Gary's version that is right at or a bit under 30 feet. His slide-out version makes more
sense for a 30 foot craft.

Can't imagine how much people would be complaining if he made his shuttle that long! :freak:

Credit for inspiring the idea should go to Phil Broad, who originally drew an unlabeled door to the right of the rear 2nd wall's canisters. He even integrated the mylar toolbox we saw sitting on the wing of the Galileo as a step up into the room. While crampt, it is no smaller then your average port-a-potty.

Credit to FourMadMen, as we spent countless hours emailing one another back and forth what started out as fairly rough drafts,
which after probably hundreds of hours of tweaking back and forth and adjusting this and that, he turned into an incredible 3D model. :thumbsup: 
The wirelines you see the Scotty Potty drawn into are from his model, though I believe in the end he revised it to right near a 30 foot craft as well.
This is fit into an older 31.6 foot design, if I remember the dimensions correctly. 


Here's the "Scotty Potty"


Take a look:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=14457&d=1090003942


----------



## RMC

wake me up when there is a test shot of the Galileo........zzzzzzzzz


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

RMC said:


> wake me up when there is a test shot of the Galileo........zzzzzzzzz


Just activate "subscribe to thread."

You won't even have to bookmark or go into the thread manually
to see what's new. 

Easy-peasy. :thumbsup:


----------



## Four Mad Men

Chuck_P.R. said:


> He gave permission to both Phil Broad and Fourmadmen to post copies
> for viewing by anyone who is interested. Phil Broad's website is currently
> down. FourMadMen's is up but if you haven't already been granted access
> you may not be able to get to them, at least not without Fourmadmen having
> to perhaps grant a ton of people access one permission at a time
> - which could be a pain for him to have to do.


Yes, major Kudos to Dave!

The images on my site are open to anyone who wants to look at them (and account is only needed to post pictures). I also believe the resolution is higher.

Dave Winfrey's awesome prints


----------



## Proper2

The latest dated April 10, 2014: 

JamieH says:	

"We are close to getting it started. Gary Kerr recently finished his plans for the ship and we are starting early stages of development."

See more at: http://www.collectormodel.com/polar...el-kits-galileo-shuttle/#sthash.Z8dw97Le.dpuf

:roll:


----------



## pagni

Is that post or additional info buried somewhere ? because I don't see any thing new in your link


----------



## Proper2

pagni said:


> Is that post or additional info buried somewhere ? because I don't see any thing new in your link


That link just serves as the source of the latest info, if you scroll toward the bottom of it.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Definitely looking at a 2015 release then. I would bet around summer. Not that I am complaining. Lord knows I have a lot on my plate when it comes to models so I can wait on this. Just knowing it is coming is great! Also in another thread on this board, Gary confirmed it would be a little over 11" and will have full interior.


----------



## Paulbo

I can't wait to see how many pages this balloons up to once R2 has something to show :wave:


----------



## Chrisisall

I guess it's something folks want...

(yes, I'll be getting one)


----------



## eagledocf15

*News ???*

Any news on this project? !


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

I wouldn't expect any until after the holidays. I'd give it a month or two until R2 has a solid grip on what their holiday sales and profits look like.

They have canceled a few projects lately. I don't think this will be one of them, but I wouldn't see them deciding to go with a decked out full interior or something less ambitious until they have a better idea how much money is in the coffers.

That's just a semi-educated guess on my part though, based on official statements that have already been made by R2 and a little deductive reasoning.

But who knows?

Maybe Jamie will come up with a statement before then.

My guesses have been completely wrong before.


----------



## starmanmm

On the other hand... I would like to see what projects they have shelved for now.


----------



## Opus Penguin

IIRC Jamie stated the Galileo is still being worked on. It is still in the planning stages.


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

BTWay, congrats to Gary K for his being on the board to revamp the 11 foot E!
:thumbsup:


----------



## hal9001

Opus Penguin said:


> IIRC Jamie stated the Galileo is still being worked on. It is still in the planning stages.


Most excellent news!:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
Carl-


----------



## Opus Penguin

Looks like it may be out this month!


----------



## mach7

Nice!


----------



## irishtrek

They also updated their blog this week.


----------



## krlee

The Space:1999 Lab Pod Eagle was in the April video but did not arrive until mid May so I am expecting the Galileo to be in around mid August, looking forward to it.


----------



## mach7

Cult is saying probably August


----------



## StarshipClass

irishtrek said:


> They also updated their blog this week.


Yep! I got the good news on the Youtube video update.

Hard to believe it's really going to be here


----------



## alpink

good things come to those who wait patiently


----------



## Zombie_61

alpink said:


> good things come to those who wait patiently


*PATIENTLY???







*


----------



## edge10

Unboxing video that was posted over at Starship Modeller:


----------



## Steve H

"Here's the back window.."

um.


----------



## John P

Yay, a 15 minute video that could have been a dozen photos I could scan in a couple of minutes and get on with my morning!


----------



## JeffBond

John P said:


> Yay, a 15 minute video that could have been a dozen photos I could scan in a couple of minutes and get on with my morning!


Yeah, I continue to just not get unboxing videos--I can read and look at photos in a fraction of the time...


----------



## Milton Fox Racing

Here to help! Just let me know who it is that is forcing you watch a 15 minute time waster of a video for you.


----------



## alpink

ruh roh


----------



## SteveR

Milton Fox Racing said:


> Here to help! Just let me know who it is that is forcing you watch a 15 minute time waster of a video for you.


Nobody forced you to read his post or comment on it.


----------



## Milton Fox Racing

Lighten up Francis!


----------



## alpink

t'was a 15 minute advertisement.
I began to watch and realized that I really don't need a tutorial about how to get items out of packaging boxes.
correct, no one was forced to watch the video all the way through and no one was forced to comment on another's post regarding same.
please !!!!! ..... let us all take a moment, .... a deep breath in, out through the nose and relax.
there are more important things to express our disappointment and/or anger about.
these are supposed to be fun relaxing hobbies and fun discussions about same.
I know that I some times post up an acrid thought or two. maybe more? .... LOL !
after all I have been suspended quite a few times.
but, at the end of the day, I am still here
and
you are still there
and we still have something in common that bonds us beyond petty differences.
some guy who got tar beat out of him, responding to all the riots in his '_honor_' once said ......
.... "can't we all just get along?" ....


----------



## krlee

JeffBond said:


> Yeah, I continue to just not get unboxing videos--I can read and look at photos in a fraction of the time...


It is a youtubers way of getting more views. There are people who may not watch a full build video but may watch an unboxing video, just to get a look at what is in the box before they buy the kit. I did not watch the full video, I just skipped to the section that showed off the actual kit parts to get a feel for the size and how it will go together.


----------



## mach7

I never understand all the love for video's. They take too much time! 
As others have said, just give me the photo's. 

Like krlee, I skipped to the good parts!

Anyway, It looks mostly like I expected. I think it will build into a nice shuttle.


----------



## edge10

For goodness sake.

The kit isn't out yet and I thought someone might enjoy seeing it, while waiting for it to be available. Not my video, I don't create videos, for any platform.

As Barbra Billingsley once said: Chump don't want no help, chump don't get no help. Bunch of jive turkeys ain't got no brains anyway.


----------



## mach7

I don't like videos of unboxing, but Thanks for posting it. 
As I said I skipped to the good parts.


----------



## John P

edge10 said:


> For goodness sake.
> 
> The kit isn't out yet and I thought someone might enjoy seeing it, while waiting for it to be available. Not my video, I don't create videos, for any platform.
> 
> As Barbra Billingsley once said: Chump don't want no help, chump don't get no help. Bunch of jive turkeys ain't got no brains anyway.


I know you didn't make it, and I do appreciate the thought. No shade on you, just on these silly videos in general.

Wife: What the heck are you watching?
Me: A 15-minute video of a guy taking model parts out of the box.
Wife: Okaaayy - when are you going to clean the bathroom?
Me: After I see what the clear parts look like, dammit! _sigh_ Now I have to go back and see what I missed while you were talking to me!
😄


----------



## spock62

Watched the video, and yeah it would have been better just to show photos of the parts, but it's typical of must unboxing videos. 

One thing I noticed is Round 2 continues to use generic paint names for their color call outs. I wish they'd give specific call outs, using a manufacturers paint name/number, like they do in their 1/350 kits.

Having just a colored square on a box side, that you have to try and match to a color shown on a manufacturers website is problematic at best, since the resolution of your computer screen may not show the color correctly. 

Not a deal breaker, I'll be purchasing the kit, it's just that I'm used to how kit manufacturers of military kits do it, giving manufacturers paint names/numbers. There's a big difference between saying a cockpit is dark green and opposed to saying it's U.S. Bronze Green, for example.


----------



## JeffBond

I have no issue with the people who make the videos or the execution, and yes, I fully understand this is a way to generate views on youtube. I'm simply saying I'd rather read a review and look at photos. Everything can proceed as normal.


----------



## krlee

edge10 said:


> For goodness sake.
> 
> The kit isn't out yet and I thought someone might enjoy seeing it, while waiting for it to be available. Not my video, I don't create videos, for any platform.
> 
> As Barbra Billingsley once said: Chump don't want no help, chump don't get no help. Bunch of jive turkeys ain't got no brains anyway.


I enjoyed the video, I just skipped to the parts that interested me.


----------



## Steve H

spock62 said:


> Watched the video, and yeah it would have been better just to show photos of the parts, but it's typical of must unboxing videos.
> 
> One thing I noticed is Round 2 continues to use generic paint names for their color call outs. I wish they'd give specific call outs, using a manufacturers paint name/number, like they do in their 1/350 kits.
> 
> Having just a colored square on a box side, that you have to try and match to a color shown on a manufacturers website is problematic at best, since the resolution of your computer screen may not show the color correctly.
> 
> Not a deal breaker, I'll be purchasing the kit, it's just that I'm used to how kit manufacturers of military kits do it, giving manufacturers paint names/numbers. There's a big difference between saying a cockpit is dark green and opposed to saying it's U.S. Bronze Green, for example.


 It's understandable and makes sense what you say, but realistically, there is no telling just what brands of paint might even be available to a purchaser..There is no clear promise of any brand being easily available. This kit will likely appear at Hobby Lobby. What good would Gunze-Sangyo or Tamiya or (old school now) Humbrol paint numbers do? Heck, last time I checked even the Testors Model Masters rack was reduced in stocking.with many military colors gone.

Here in the U.S. plastic kit building is pretty dead. Real local hobby shops are few and far between. Putting color chips on the box at least tells a customer "buy colors that look like this" even if all there is are Krylon rattle cans and tiny Valleo eyedropper bottles. 

Japan in particular appears to have quite a robust hobby shop infrastructure, with Gunze-Sangyo in particular crafting special 'color sets' for new releases. Sadly this can't be duplicated here in the U.S, 

I have no idea what the state of things in Europe and England are hobbyshop-wise but Humbrol seems to still be chugging along.


----------



## Trek Ace

I enjoyed watching the video. He did a nice job showing the box art and displaying the parts layout.
I hope that these kits are released soon. I'm not getting any younger!


----------



## JGG1701

Trek Ace said:


> I enjoyed watching the video. He did a nice job showing the box art and displaying the parts layout.
> I hope that these kits are released soon. I'm not getting any younger!


So say we all!
-Jim G.G.


----------



## JGG1701

spock62 said:


> Watched the video, and yeah it would have been better just to show photos of the parts, but it's typical of must unboxing videos.


Here is some pics.
( Color s may vary😋)







































-Jim G.G.


----------



## NTRPRZ

You know, I saw the posting inviting me to watch the video. I could have skipped it but decided not to. I could have stopped the video any time, but didn't. I enjoyed it, even though I may not get the kit (I'm 65 years old and have ten times that number of kits in my stash). It's all a matter of choice.


----------



## Captain Han Solo

Nice to see the kit before I actually get my hands on one and build it. Very nice. The kit offers a lot of possibilities.


----------



## whiskeyrat

Can't wait for this one, large scale, all the detail is there (except the interior of course), and faithfully reproduced. At last! And it's only been, what, five decades or so...


----------



## John P

Yeah, I write PL every once in a while and remind them that the sooner they get all the most-desired Trek kits out, the better for sales, because it's not going to be long before all us TOS fans are going to die of old age.


----------



## Steve H

JGG, I have to say, that back window on the shuttlecraft looks AMAZING! The unboxing video just did not do it justice! 😁

Seriously, nice pics. clean build. It really shows the surprisingly complex shapes on what otherwise is a very basic form that had to be easy and inexpensive for a custom auto shop to fabricate.

I didn't notice, are there separate window covers or are you meant to just paint over the clear part if you want them 'up'?


----------



## StarshipClass

John P said:


> Yay, a 15 minute video that could have been a dozen photos I could scan in a couple of minutes and get on with my morning!


Meh. A few more than a dozen but then it's probably because my OCD took over:


----------



## StarshipClass




----------



## StarshipClass




----------



## StarshipClass




----------



## StarshipClass




----------



## spock62

Steve H said:


> It's understandable and makes sense what you say, but realistically, there is no telling just what brands of paint might even be available to a purchaser..There is no clear promise of any brand being easily available. This kit will likely appear at Hobby Lobby. What good would Gunze-Sangyo or Tamiya or (old school now) Humbrol paint numbers do? Heck, last time I checked even the Testors Model Masters rack was reduced in stocking.with many military colors gone.
> 
> Here in the U.S. plastic kit building is pretty dead. Real local hobby shops are few and far between. Putting color chips on the box at least tells a customer "buy colors that look like this" even if all there is are Krylon rattle cans and tiny Valleo eyedropper bottles.
> 
> Japan in particular appears to have quite a robust hobby shop infrastructure, with Gunze-Sangyo in particular crafting special 'color sets' for new releases. Sadly this can't be duplicated here in the U.S,
> 
> I have no idea what the state of things in Europe and England are hobbyshop-wise but Humbrol seems to still be chugging along.


Round 2 would have to use brands that are readily available to modelers here in the USA, that leaves out Testors as their parent company is doing away with the paints, as you mentioned. I wouldn't base the choice on what's available at Hobby Lobby since a) they have a limited number of paints and b) I think most people purchase their paints online. I haven't been to a Hobby Lobby in over 3 years, but their website shows a very limited amount of Testors (small enamel bottles) and Vallejo (Model Color), so anyone buying a kit there will probably look elsewhere for the paint they need. Unfortunately, many people, such as myself, don't live near to a hobby shop and if they do, their hobby shop has a limited supply of brands/colors. But, almost any brand/color of paint can be purchased through online hobby shops or eBay. Personally, I think Round 2 should use Tamiya and Vallejo for their paint call outs. Both are readily available in the USA (though Tamiya is currently having issues with their paint manufacturer, making it difficult to get their paint here at the moment) and Vallejo in particular, has a vast amount of colors to chose from, making finding just the right color, that much easier. If a modeler has a different brand preference, there are many sites of model paint conversions that allow you to find matches to a brands color.


----------



## LGFugate

I have an airbrush, but hate using it, (too much work!) so I'd rather see Round 2, if they were to specify brands for paint, give equivient colors in Rustoleum or other such available rattle-can spray paint brands. When I'm building a kit, I don't want to have to put on a mask to go to HobbyLobby, or have to wait a few days for a paint order from MegaHobby or CultTVMan arrive in the mail. I can get Krylon or Rustoleum cans delivered same day from WalMart or Menards if I want.

Larry


----------



## Trek Ace

The AST build video has been posted:


----------



## spock62

LGFugate said:


> I have an airbrush, but hate using it, (too much work!) so I'd rather see Round 2, if they were to specify brands for paint, give equivient colors in Rustoleum or other such available rattle-can spray paint brands. When I'm building a kit, I don't want to have to put on a mask to go to HobbyLobby, or have to wait a few days for a paint order from MegaHobby or CultTVMan arrive in the mail. I can get Krylon or Rustoleum cans delivered same day from WalMart or Menards if I want.
> 
> Larry


I can see your point and wouldn't be opposed to your idea, as long as they also provide Tamyia and/or Vallejo brands for those of us who airbrush.


----------



## Trek Ace

Another build video on YouTube. This time from hpiguy. Yet another monotone color scheme.


----------



## JGG1701

[QUOTE) yet another monotone color scheme.

[/QUOTE]
Is there another way?
-Jim G.G.


----------



## edge10

JGG1701 said:


> Trek Ace said:
> 
> 
> 
> yet another monotone color scheme.
> 
> 
> 
> Is there another way?
> -Jim G.G.
Click to expand...

According to Gary Kerr, from the Star Trek Model Kit Previews above:



> 4) The Galileo should have a 2-tone paint scheme. Long story, but the upper hull is the same color as the gray markings under the front ends of the nacelles on the Enterprise model, while the underside is the same color as the impulse deck & nacelle recesses on the Enterprise.


----------



## JGG1701

edge10 said:


> Is there another way?
> -Jim G.G.


According to Gary Kerr from the Star Trek Model Kit Previews above:
[/QUOTE]
Thanks.
-Jim G.G.


----------



## MartyS

The 2 tone look Kerr mentions is how I did my 3D printed one, following the color scheme of the restored big prop. Plan to do the same on the Round 2 kit when I get one.


----------



## mach7

This:



















Light grey top/pylons and mid grey bottom and nacelles.


----------



## JeffBond

I can't wait to get mine but i anticipate doing a LOT of swearing while putting this together...it's just the way I roll...


----------



## FlyingBrickyard

Looks good. This one's going on the list. Gonna hold off for now though at the price - which isn't unreasonable, but it gets increasingly difficult to justify (especially at the moment) when I think of my current backlog of probably some 60 or so kits. 

I'm afraid to actually do a count and put a solid number on it. 

(And the 3D printer isn't helping, as I can now (and do) conjure up additional projects out of thin air).


----------



## JGG1701

JeffBond said:


> I can't wait to get mine but i anticipate doing a LOT of swearing while putting this together...it's just the way I roll...


Isn't that the "fun" part of model building?


----------



## John P

FlyingBrickyard said:


> Looks good. This one's going on the list. Gonna hold off for now though at the price - which isn't unreasonable, but it gets increasingly difficult to justify (especially at the moment) when I think of my current backlog of probably some 60 or so kits.
> 
> I'm afraid to actually do a count and put a solid number on it.


Amateur. Wait till you hit two or three thousand, then complain.


----------



## mach7

John P said:


> Amateur. Wait till you hit two or three thousand, then complain.


John, 

I think you need to be honest. You don't have a stash, you have your own private hobby store!

Truly impressive!


----------



## edge10

The one who dies with the most kits wins. Right?


----------



## FlyingBrickyard

John P said:


> Amateur. Wait till you hit two or three thousand, then complain.


I still have a Testors 1/48 SR-71 to finish. Got about halfway through decaling it and then sort of got distracted by other things. That was (as I recall) 1990. 

But it's still here, covered with a plastic sheet to keep the dust off, sitting on top of the bagged decal sheet. I'll get around to finishing it any day now... any day...


----------



## JGG1701

edge10 said:


> The one who dies with the most kits wins. Right?


What do they win?
-Jim G.G.


----------



## edge10

JGG1701 said:


> What do they win?
> -Jim G.G.


The *honor *of having their collection sold on eBay.

I've never seen a hearse dragging a uHaul.


----------



## John P

FlyingBrickyard said:


> I still have a Testors 1/48 SR-71 to finish. Got about halfway through decaling it and then sort of got distracted by other things. That was (as I recall) 1990.
> 
> But it's still here, covered with a plastic sheet to keep the dust off, sitting on top of the bagged decal sheet. I'll get around to finishing it any day now... any day...


I can't even count how many I have like that!
I had a Hasegawa Stuka that I was building in the 90s. I didn't feel like masking that greenhouse canopy, so I put it back in the box, unfinished except for the canopy and some detail work. In 2017 I finally decide to finish it, after about 20 years. I finished it, took pictures, and accidentally dropped it on the way to the display shelf. It landed upside-down and smashed the canopy. :/


----------



## John P

mach7 said:


> John,
> 
> I think you need to be honest. You don't have a stash, you have your own private hobby store!
> 
> Truly impressive!


If it was a store, I'd be selling things!


----------



## alpink

John P said:


> It landed upside-down and smashed the canopy


oops.
bummer
at least you got pictures first


----------



## JGG1701

John P said:


> I can't even count how many I have like that!
> I had a Hasegawa Stuka that I was building in the 90s. I didn't feel like masking that greenhouse canopy, so I put it back in the box, unfinished except for the canopy and some detail work. In 2017 I finally decide to finish it, after about 20 years. I finished it, took pictures, and accidentally dropped it on the way to the display shelf. It landed upside-down and smashed the canopy. :/


Bummer.


----------



## Trek Ace

Our very own *feek61* had a hand in designing the decal sheet for the soon-to-be-released Round 2 Galileo kit from a scan of one of the original decal sheets for the studio model.









TOS Graphics and Bridge Displays - Information


TOS Graphics and Bridge Displays




www.tapatalk.com


----------



## alensatemybuick

That’s interesting, but the font of the registry on the decal sheet in the kit appears different than the decal sheet used for the miniature, most notably in the shape of the “dogleg” on the “R”, which was more rounded on the miniature. I think the font was also more “vertically compressed“ on the miniature. And the yellow “deltas” were thinly outlined in red on the miniature. But I was happy to see that the Columbus was recognized as shuttle number 3 In the kit, which I think is something only confirmed (for most of us) when some spare original decal sheets were offered for sale a few years back.

Anyway the kit seems to favor the mockup more so than the miniature, so it stands to reason the decals would too.


----------



## StarshipClass

alensatemybuick said:


> Anyway the kit seems to favor the mockup more so than the miniature, so it stands to reason the decals would too.


Personally, since we as viewers got up close and intimate with the stage prop, I'd have been happy if it perfectly replicated the the mock-up.


----------



## mach7

Cult's hobbyshop says that the Galileo will be shipped to him this week. 

No request for payment yet.

I wonder what I'll get 1st, The Galileo or The Invaders UFO with the clear top?


----------



## StarshipClass

I, too, wait upon a message from the Man of Cult. 



mach7 said:


> Cult's hobbyshop says that the Galileo will be shipped to him this week.
> 
> No request for payment yet.
> 
> I wonder what I'll get 1st, The Galileo or The Invaders UFO with the clear top?


----------



## mach7

With the new one imminent, I guess it's time to wrap up the old one I'm working on!


----------



## krlee

Got the payment notice from Steve Iverson at culttvman and just paid for my Galileo., they should be shipping by the end of the week!


----------



## mach7

Same here!

I picked up the Dragon Apollo 17 Last lunar mission also. 

It seems every time I finish a kit I buy another. I'll never get through my stash like this!


----------



## Milton Fox Racing

Sounds like a nice problem to have! 🤙


----------



## StarshipClass

Should be here soon!


----------



## krlee

Just got the notification that the Galileo is on the way! UPS indicates delivery tomorrow!


----------



## mach7

Great!

I haven't gotten my notification yet.


----------



## StarshipClass

I haven't gotten my notification yet, either. Maybe later today?


----------



## JGG1701

I got my notification earlier this week. Mine says "processing"
-Jim G.G.


----------



## mach7

I got the notification, Paid, But no notification that it has shipped.


----------



## krlee

My UPS tracking was just updated with an estimated delivery of Monday instead of today due to "operational delays". It will still make it here faster than the USPS can deliver it. The last package I got from Cult that came USPS took 10 days to travel the slightly more than 300 miles to me!


----------



## JGG1701

mach7 said:


> I got the notification, Paid, But no notification that it has shipped.


Ditto!
-Jim G.G.


----------



## JeffBond

I've had good luck with Cult and the USPS but under current circumstances I went with UPS...


----------



## mach7

No complaints with Cult. Usually he ships very fast. I wonder just how many pr-orders he has for this?

I'm guessing a lot! This is a Holy Grail kit for so many.


----------



## edge10

mach7 said:


> No complaints with Cult. Usually he ships very fast. I wonder just how many pr-orders he has for this?
> 
> I'm guessing a lot! This is a Holy Grail kit for so many.


From CultTVMan's site:



> August 14: Shipping update. We've been packing and shipping since the kits arrived Wednesday afternoon. We're running a couple days behind, but should have most everything out the door by Monday. We appreciate your patience. Please don't email asking when your order will ship. I'd rather be packing orders than answering emails.


----------



## krlee

No problem at all with Cult, the last several packages that came via USPS took over a week. One package was shipped, the tracking indicated two days later it was in Columbia, where I live, at the regional distribution center. Instead of being sent on to my local post office to be delivered it was sent back to Atlanta where it bounced around 3 distribution centers over 3 days and then was sent back to the Columbia center where it sat for three more days before it made it to my local P.O. and then delivered after two more days. The USPS is definitely broken.


----------



## StarshipClass

I got my notification late yesterday. It's at the regional distribution center in Columbia. Hopefully it will be delivered at work Monday.



krlee said:


> No problem at all with Cult, the last several packages that came via USPS took over a week. One package was shipped, the tracking indicated two days later it was in Columbia, where I live, at the regional distribution center. Instead of being sent on to my local post office to be delivered it was sent back to Atlanta where it bounced around 3 distribution centers over 3 days and then was sent back to the Columbia center where it sat for three more days before it made it to my local P.O. and then delivered after two more days. The USPS is definitely broken.


----------



## JGG1701

I got my notification today!
Tracking number included!👍
-Jim G.G.


----------



## mach7

Mine has shipped!
USPS so who knows how long it will take.


----------



## Pygar

I'm hoping for a printable interior and maybe even a Galileo Bonker figure!


----------



## mach7

Rumor is that R2 will release a separate kit of the interior if this kit sells well. If Cult TV's pre-orders are any indication, it is!

A card stock interior should not be hard to come up with.

I'm converting Moebius's Kogar into a Mugato while also working on the old Galileo kit. I'll have to get my hands on my new kit, but I think Kogar might be the perfect size to make the Taurus 2 ape creature. A re-done face and a basic shawl might be all thats needed.


----------



## StarshipClass

mach7 said:


> Rumor is that R2 will release a separate kit of the interior if this kit sells well. If Cult TV's pre-orders are any indication, it is!
> 
> A card stock interior should not be hard to come up with.
> 
> I'm converting Moebius's Kogar into a Mugato while also working on the old Galileo kit. I'll have to get my hands on my new kit, but I think Kogar might be the perfect size to make the Taurus 2 ape creature. A re-done face and a basic shawl might be all thats needed.


That's a great idea  I've got an extra LIS cyclops figure I was thinking of converting but I'm not sure of its being the proper scale or not.


----------



## mach7

Tracking says it's "In Transit, arriving on time" for a USPS priority package I would expect it tomorrow or Wednesday as it was shipped Saturday.

krlee, Has yours shown up?


----------



## alpink

mach7, don't hold your breath !
that could mean it has gone to Alaska enroute to Guam before getting correctly sorted to your Post Office.

not only has the newly Trump appointed Post Master General cut all overtime, the workers are just not giving their all in response.
in addition, he has removed First Class envelope sorting machines from many facilities so that is going to require more manual sorting of that mail !

hopefully this gets straightened away soon.


----------



## Captain Han Solo

Yes!

Looking forward to the build!


----------



## JGG1701

I got mine today!!!
-Jim G.G.


----------



## krlee

Mine came today, it will be a while before I start it, I want to finish this first:


----------



## krlee

mach7 said:


> Tracking says it's "In Transit, arriving on time" for a USPS priority package I would expect it tomorrow or Wednesday as it was shipped Saturday.
> 
> krlee, Has yours shown up?


UPS dropped it off about 10:30 this morning.


----------



## krlee

Pygar said:


> I'm hoping for a printable interior and maybe even a Galileo Bonker figure!


I believe the extra figures created for the AMT USS Enterpise Bridge are in scale with the Galileo. I think the original intent was to use the new tooling for the figures along with the Galileo model. Scratchbuilding an interior and using those figures should not be that difficult.


----------



## Pygar

PerfesserCoffee said:


> That's a great idea  I've got an extra LIS cyclops figure I was thinking of converting but I'm not sure of its being the proper scale or not.


Buck Maffei played both creatures. FWIW The Taurus II "Bonkers" were supposed to be 10-12' tall. Several good images on Google Pics. He was 7'1"...
I'll have to see if I have a Bridge kit and if it's 1/32. What scale was the AMT Galileo?


----------



## jkirk

> Mine came today, it will be a while before I start it, I want to finish this first:


 Hey, nice ship! Good self control when something new and shiny comes out!


----------



## mach7

krlee said:


> Mine came today, it will be a while before I start it, I want to finish this first:


Nice!

Are you going to call it a Hagle?

Or maybe the Meta-Hawk?

Anyway, I love it!


----------



## John P

krlee said:


> I believe the extra figures created for the AMT USS Enterpise Bridge are in scale with the Galileo. I think the original intent was to use the new tooling for the figures along with the Galileo model. Scratchbuilding an interior and using those figures should not be that difficult.


You're right about the figures.
I don't know how you would scratch build those curvy chairs.


----------



## StarshipClass

My shuttlecraft must be caught in a USPS transporter loop. Still not here.


----------



## mach7

PerfesserCoffee said:


> My shuttlecraft must be caught in a USPS transporter loop. Still not here.


Same here. :-(


----------



## StarshipClass

Pygar said:


> Buck Maffei played both creatures. FWIW The Taurus II "Bonkers" were supposed to be 10-12' tall. Several good images on Google Pics. He was 7'1"...
> I'll have to see if I have a Bridge kit and if it's 1/32. What scale was the AMT Galileo?


Wow! I did not realize that about Maffei. 

I think the AMT kit is c. 1/35th or smaller. The bridge figures are too big for it, IIRC.


----------



## StarshipClass

John P said:


> You're right about the figures.
> I don't know how you would scratch build those curvy chairs.


The chairs are the only really complicated item seen through the windows. A simple scratchbuilt rear bulkhead with a door and the chairs and, as long as you're not opening the door, you've got all you need for a simple interior.


----------



## Pygar

... and the chairs, and even the knobs, are on Thingiverse, ready for rescaling...


----------



## krlee

mach7 said:


> Nice!
> 
> Are you going to call it a Hagle?
> 
> Or maybe the Meta-Hawk?
> 
> Anyway, I love it!


I call it the Eagle Probeship, I have started painting it, looks good so far.


----------



## krlee

I couldn't stop myself, this is an hour and a half into it. I am going to leave the roof lose incase I decide later to do an interior.


----------



## StarshipClass

Mine just arrived. Came priority 2-day.


----------



## Opus Penguin

mach7 said:


> Rumor is that R2 will release a separate kit of the interior if this kit sells well. If Cult TV's pre-orders are any indication, it is!
> 
> A card stock interior should not be hard to come up with.
> 
> I'm converting Moebius's Kogar into a Mugato while also working on the old Galileo kit. I'll have to get my hands on my new kit, but I think Kogar might be the perfect size to make the Taurus 2 ape creature. A re-done face and a basic shawl might be all thats needed.


I sure hope an interior comes out. I am holding onto mine just in case.


----------



## Pygar

I'll keep my eyes open for a 3.75 to 4.5" figure to convert or something. There's an EXCELLENT resin figure of him I found on Yeggi, but it's only waist up... $3.


----------



## Trek Ace

Glad to see that folks are starting to receive their kits. I'm on the west coast, so I won't see my order of kits for a few days yet.
I think it would be fun to model one as a 1/24 "derelict" version complete with a padlock and heavy weathering. It used to make me sad to drive by it and see it in that state, but now I think it would make for an interesting subject.


----------



## mach7

Pygar said:


> I'll keep my eyes open for a 3.75 to 4.5" figure to convert or something. There's an EXCELLENT resin figure of him I found on Yeggi, but it's only waist up... $3.


Or you can get the Moebius Kogar kit, and modify the human head. He's a little tall at about 5 inches, but I bet he would work.


----------



## Tiberius Kirk

Got my kits early last week and am excited to see what comes next!


----------



## John F

My Galileo was shipped to my old address !!
But now the tracking says "forwarded" hopefully they won't loose it.


----------



## mach7

The tracking on mine just says "In transit, arrival on time" It's said that for 3 days with no updates. Going from Georgia to Massachusetts, it's probably in Hawaii now.....


----------



## mach7

Now the post office says it's out for delivery. 

I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## Trek Ace

It looks as though we may be getting the interior kit sooner than later, as CultTVMan stated in an email that his entire first shipment of the Galileo kit has sold out and is now out of stock until the arrival of the next shipment. I imagine other online retailers are experiencing as brisk of sales. I think Round 2 may have another best-seller on their hands.


----------



## edge10

Part 1 of Lou's build:


----------



## mach7

It appears Randy Cooper is selling an interior for $70


----------



## John F

John F said:


> My Galileo was shipped to my old address !!
> But now the tracking says "forwarded" hopefully they won't loose it.


Got it yesterday.


----------



## Pygar

My net-source was wrong... the Cyclops was played by a football player named Lundy (?). Mea culpa; bring out the dish-rack and comfy chair... But the Cyclops is built enough like Bonker to make a good conversion kit... I figure, 3D print the Bonker's top half to the same scale, fake up the rest as best I can from screensnaps, unless someone turns up something better (HINT HINT), then use Phiz, when it comes in, to make a 3D model. I can't post it as the top half is a paid model, but if I do a good job maybe he'll post it with his.


----------



## Scott1768

krlee said:


> I believe the extra figures created for the AMT USS Enterpise Bridge are in scale with the Galileo. I think the original intent was to use the new tooling for the figures along with the Galileo model. Scratchbuilding an interior and using those figures should not be that difficult.


Yes, but where to find them?


----------



## mach7

The figures?

Shapeways has some available.









Tosbridgecrew Figurines - Shapeways Miniatures


Shop for tosbridgecrew Figurines in the Shapeways 3D printing marketplace. Find unique gifts and other personal designs in Shapeways Miniatures.




www.shapeways.com





But they are pricy.


----------



## Captain Han Solo

When I spoke to Gary Ker he mentioned that when Round 2 Releases the interior kit, It will have at least three figures.


----------



## mach7

Interesting that you say "when".

I always figured this was Jamie's plan.


----------



## Captain Han Solo

mach7 said:


> Interesting that you say "when".
> 
> I always figured this was Jamie's plan.


Sorry I didn't actually speak to Jamie...I did with Gary. I don't know whose Idea it is/was/will be and I couldn't care less.
Just looking forward to additional parts/kits for the Galileo.


----------



## mach7

I meant that Jamie seems to have a plan of getting kits to market, even if he has to compromise to get them out.

I'm sure Gary has an idea of R2's plans.

And like you, I don't really care how it gets done. I just an happy when it gets done! And things seem to be getting done!


----------



## mach7

Well Randy Cooper has posted on his facebook page that R2 has asked him NOT to sell his interior kit.

Apparently R2 has plans....


----------



## Captain Han Solo

mach7 said:


> Well Randy Cooper has posted on his facebook page that R2 has asked him NOT to sell his interior kit.
> 
> Apparently R2 has plans....


...Which They relayed to the model buying public from day one.


----------



## mach7

Yes, I watched the video.

My point was, from what you posted about your conversation with Gary AND R2 asking Randy to not sell his resin interior, it appears that R2 is seriously considering releasing the interior kit. 
I also had an online conversation recently with the gentleman who did the decals for the new kit, He said that he also did the decals for R2 for the interior.

I have seen this from R2 before. Way back when R2 bought AMT and got all the old molds, the UFO mystery ship was one of the 1st re-popped. Jamie had said that they were looking into doing a Leif Ericsson version. 
A guy (Modelnutz?) started offering clear red resin engine inserts for the kit. I was lucky and got a set. Then R2 asked him to stop. Shortly after that the Leif was released.

This does not mean that an interior kit is coming soon, but things seem to be lining up for one at some point.
Jamie has said publicly that if the new shuttlecraft sells well, we could see an interior kit.

That is all we know at this point.

Anyway, Keep posting your builds and your videos! I love them!


----------

