# A "Galileo" thought



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

Some years back, I passed up some suggestions I attempt an update the to "Class F" shuttlecraft blues I drafted in the '90s -- kindly hosted here at present:

http://www.fourmadmen.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=25

Little did I realize that in so doing I might in some small part catalyze MUCH (and far superior) work by Phil Broad and others…let alone that, years later, Round 2 would be well en route to releasing a kit blueprinted by Gary Kerr (in re: whom my admiration is adulterated only by envy).

Having just reviewed this thread

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=373835&page=34

but seeing it lacking updates since April, I thought it better to post here than there a few thoughts on what might've been (and someday soon, with luck, will be) incorporated into my own shuttle plans update:

1)Exterior enlarged by precisely 4/3, per Matt Jeffries' comment to Lynn Miller that the soundstage exterior was built to 3/4 scale.

2)Incorporation of a screen-accurate interior into that exterior. Which is to say, an inside significantly narrower than the ship's overall width.

3)Result: inner and outer walls, allowing for 
a)two sets of doors (differing in size), 
b)'tween-hulls space for machinery and 
c)an AIRLOCK and space suit storage

4)2nd result: front wall slant as per interior, with resultant space between interior and exterior f'wd walls

5)and yes, a damned toilet. And sonic shower. And (in a draft I in fact drew for this very update set long ago) the "aft compartment" ("Gaetano's body is back there," "The Galileo Seven"), which I envisioned as including two coffin-shaped stasis boxes mounted just f'wd of the impulse engines/"vents" (said boxes serving in a pinch for corpses, but otherwise used to ship/store perishables and/or samples). 

As those who've wrestled with the interior/exterior issue(s) have observed, no resolution is possible without compromise. Being as much a purist as a trekkist, my personal idea of such is…*"Never compromise! Not even in the face of Armageddon!"* 

Ahem.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Would be very interesting to retroactively reconcile the insides and outsides of the shuttlecraft. It's GOT to be easier than the Jupiter II!


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

Hey, J-2's a breeze:freak: Pod-dropper used a pod half-sized (relative the Jupiter), as revealed in The Saucer Fleet. This yields a diameter of 96 feet, big enough for 2 decks (plus the power core interior, IIRC), surrounding machinery spaces (including assembled chariot and ramp), and a pair of pods (J-2A and J-2B, per my personal conceit that no vessel carries but a single auxiliary). Reworking deck 2 a bit can produce five cabins (one each for the kids and Don, plus the Robinsons' stateroom…giving Smith a single once the girls [or later, Don & Judy:thumbsup:] double up.


----------



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

Your work, Trekkist, was and is a true inspiration to everyone who participated in the "Bob Villa" Galileo thread. 

I myself was inspired to create and pour over dozens apon dozens of 2D artwork othographs,

All of which started with both your and Phil Broad's originals. Even Petri Blomquist - the man who converted Gary Kerr's 2d drawings into 3D models helped a bit at the beginning of the project, not to mention MGagen and countless other long time Hobbytalk/Trek fans.

Most notably among them FourMadMen.

Without his 3D programming skills none of the awkward 2D work I did would have come to anything of much note.

I can't begin to tell you how many hours he spent answering questions as we passed 2D and 3D versions of the Galileo and it's components back and forth via email.

The 2D stuff alone that we both tweeked and corrected amounts to about 50GB's of drawings.

A member was even kind enough to send me some very precise measurements/pics that was used to create drawings and a model for the phaser cabinet.

But you were the first, the one who started this all off, working from old VHS tapes decades ago that couldn't even be paused without distorting the image.

Or as Spock would describe it . . . "stone knives and bear skins."

We finally were able to shoe horn in everything you describe with little compromise as to what was seen onscreen.

She came in as a few inches under 32 feet.

FourMadMen wasn't happy with that length, and brought his 3D model down a bit further then that. Not sure what he finally ended up with,
but if I remember his exterior correctly it was at 29 feet something inches, though he said he still wanted to tweek the sizing of some of
the interior components some more.

I think real world stuff has intruded into his Trek life. So he hasn't been corresponding with me much lately.
Either that, or I just got too annoying!
I get that way from time to time. Some might say most of the time. 

I know some would balk at a 32 foot length, but in order to create a fully functional integrated ship right at 32 feet was about as close as I could get,
at least without having at least one of the two cabin ceilings require you to squat to walk around in. Even at 32 feet, my and FourMadmen's ceilings
were definitely lower then seen on the interior set, though still high enough so even Spock wouldn't hit his head when fully upright.

It is possible to do it at as small as 30 feet, which I believe Gary Kerr's Galileo is scaled at, and the compromises in the integration not be noticeable. 

Which also helps placate fans who are, if not rabid about the shuttle needing to be 24 feet(impossible, no matter what Kirk said), may be rabid about keeping the TOS Enterprise at 947 feet long.

Personally - though there are those who would call me a heretic for saying so - I don't see the need to believe the TOS E was 947 feet long either.


The one screen shot that established that as supposedly canon could have been of an earlier constitution class craft design that was changed.

But again, I digress. When it comes to getting a believably integrated Galileo - whether in blues to us now being on the cusp of a new kit - as well as having a much more accurate portrayl then the original AMT kit,

you Trekkist, got Trek fans thinking about this a long long time ago!

Kudos! :thumbsup:


----------



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

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Would be very interesting to retroactively reconcile the insides and outsides of the shuttlecraft. It's GOT to be easier than the Jupiter II!


 The biggest most difficult issue issue when upsizing the exterior to contain the interior is reconciling the interior and exterior doors.

Trekkist solved the problem by shrinking the door when growing the exterior.

That's one way to go.

I prefer either enlarging the door all the way through to the interior.

There is a third option, it's a bit contrived, but also could serve to provide the ship with a door configuration that might make it more serviceable as docking port type door.

I'll let you'll mull that over awhile.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> There is a third option, it's a bit contrived, but also could serve to provide the ship with a door configuration that might make it more serviceable as docking port type door.
> 
> I'll let you'll mull that over awhile.


For some reason, your suggestion makes me want to do a cross between the J2 and the Millenium Falcon. :drunk:


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

I was chagrined after posting to actually READ one of the posts I'd printed, and to there find most of what I'd "suggested" (stock interior width, differing front wall slant). Ah well.

You guys have flattered the hell out of me over the years on account of what was a modest (albeit enormously time consuming) work, since -- I'm not being self-deprecating -- eclipsed by use of computers. Would that but ONE of you could be so moved and be a *girl*:roll eyes:

32 ft bugs me not on some arbitrary level but because the driving issue of enlargement is, how difficult does the enlargement make it to board the ship? At 29-odd ft or less, it's one BIG (calf/thigh right angle) step onto the nacelle drop-down step, then another equally big step onto the porch…kind of like climbing into a high-frame pickup truck. Could Yeoman Mears board without help a 32 ft Galileo? If not, she (ship, not girl) is too big for rock n' roll.

Back when, I altered the outer door (which decision always bugged me). Today, I'd stay prototypical inside and out. To debark, one opens the inner door (NOT equipped with a drop-down "porch"), steps into the 'tween-hulls space, and opens the outer door (having first shut the inner, if faced by vacuum or toxic atmosphere). To one's left on exiting (i.e., toward the tail) is storage for seven (or more) space suits. 

I'd have to check, but I don't _think_ I lowered the inner ceiling much if any on my plans (though I may have put the outer hilltop higher than in actuality for lack of reference as to its outline). 

Those who cling to 947 ft as law are…I'll say "mistaken." After all:

1)the Connie/Klingon comparison bears a scalebar marked off in FEET (likely readable now in HD, inferable since '68 due its appearance in Making of Trek). Since the Feds use metric, NO indication of size is thus established.

2)a 947 ft ship cannot contain the hangar deck as depicted (the measurements of whose miniature reveal it NOT to have been built in forced perspective, a myth with legs as long as the 1970s one of shuttles being non-warp-capable). Put an enlarged-to-fit interior shuttle into THAT hangar yields a larger ship.

3)a 1000-odd ft refit cannot contain the Rec Room as depicted, nor a pair of side-by-side torp bays (size known due to being K'tinga refits). Nor does one such bay feed two torp tubes, given the bay as seen has but a single travel pod docking bay.

4)Matt called the shuttle soundstage prop 3/4 scale. Since the "real" Galileo's size has become PRECISELY known, its 4/3 "full size" dimensions are determinable. Grow the Connie by the same 4/3, and it and its refit become capable of containing the aforementioned sets as depicted. TOS-R's shrunken hangar isn't just unattractive; it's contradictory to two other full-sized sets.

5)Enlarged by 4/3, the "1/1000" Connie, refit and Excelsior kits come VERY close to being in scale with the larger (1/1400, IIRC) Ent-C & Ent-D kits. And as for the wouldn't-a-1/700-Connie-be-nice [to display with naval ship kits) issue, the cutaway Connie, enlarged 4/3, is VERY close to 1/700.

6)4/3 enlargement also does away with any and all Connie bridge location issues…not that ANYone cares about THOSE. 

7)4/3 enlarged, the Johnny Lightning Galileo is a minute fraction off 1/100th scale. 

8)at 1/100, a 4/3 enlarged Connie comes to 12.626 feet long (a BIT larger than "studio scale":tongue


----------



## hal9001 (May 28, 2008)

Trekkist, there's a reason why: _"You guys have flattered the hell out of me over the years..."_
The work you've done is on something so many of us *LOVE* and you've brought it closer to life for most of us with your drawings. And *THAT* is why you've been praised!

One of the lesser noticed things I like about your drawings is the long legged beauty standing in from of the Galileo's profile drawing!! 

Now if _someone _will actually bring this thing into the physical world.....in styrene.....:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

*HINT, HINT, HINT, HINT*, etc., etc., etc.......

Carl-


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

Anyone models the 5.5 ft figure(s), PLEASE credit AND [at least] gift the designer, huh? 1/48 preferred (being as how the old AMT _Galileo_ scales out to that).

My original intent was to place different figures ("which provide an easily understood sex--ah, _scale_ element" -- a paraphrase of some piece of description whose origin I've long forgotten) alongside each and every shuttle [drawing] -- which in the event, saw print only in the armored variety featured in this (sole extant) set:

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/star-trek-modelers-blueprints.php

(thought I completed prep drawings of the aqua shuttle (WHY in the world does autocorrect on THIS board divide such a word into two?!) and the "long range" _Copernicus_ of the animation, I never turned either into final products)

With the usual hobbyist's art of over thinking/investing in the job, I've amassed quite a collection of "shuttle babes" over the years…as well as wasting a certain amount of thought on color prints replete with…what's the term for the hot girls seen standing alongside cars in show rod magazines? Advertisements…"adult" blueprints…one of these days I've got to get around to teaching myself some sort of graphics program...


----------



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

SusieQ, check your PMs please.

I accepted your offer on the TOS Romulan model.

Will need some info from you, when you get a chance. :thumbsup:


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

WTF? Should my ears be burning? Ought I to post my birthday?


----------



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

hal9001 said:


> Trekkist, there's a reason why: _"You guys have flattered the hell out of me over the years..."_
> The work you've done is on something so many of us *LOVE* and you've brought it closer to life for most of us with your drawings. And *THAT* is why you've been praised! . . .


What he said! :thumbsup:

Plus a few other reasons.

Considering the drawing tools at your disposal, plus the source material you had to work with was extremely difficult and time consuming to use accurately, which you did a tremendous job of doing. While I think you published the final version a bit later, I believe you had worked on them for years - if I remember an email and/or PM we shared correctly.

Even if you had not started them earlier then the date on the blues,
for me it they were still done near a time I remember to be a golden age of Star Trek fandom.

There were fans all over producing blueprints that were quite impressive, as well as all kinds of fanfiction, slides, props, etc.

And while they may not have had the same spit and polish that some of the later* officially* produced TOS and other Trek products, they were done with a love and zeal for the original series that I don't think even Roddenberry had before he sold his rights away late '70's.

Some of the fan fiction I found to be as good as anything officially produced. 

So not only were your blueprints incredible in and of themselves, you were the first person I know of who attempted a believable solution to the conflict between the interior and exterior sets and filming miniature.

And you did it as a labor of love, executed with incredible skill.

That's another couple of reasons why we have come to love your blues. :thumbsup:


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

The "golden age" (which I gather I shared [at 55] with a number of you) was damn interesting. Trek's return to TV was so exciting I found myself cassette-taping the episodes with a hand-held mike (one one occasion, in a department store TV section). My grandparents' SX-70 camera was invaluable in making off-the-screen photos of technical "set details."

Conventions were a different breed of cat back then…fan-run, dealers rooms full of (mostly) fan produced items. I met Michael McMaster at one, shortly before his death (long before I began drafting myself). I met Allen Everhart at another, and was impressed to near-speechlessness when he said he'd blueprinted but one side of the _Galactica_ because he lacked reference for the other (asymmetrically-detailed) side. I'd sure like to hear from anyone who knew either of these guys more than casually; though I'd not claim to be anything other than an in-passing contemporary of theirs, their professionalism and attention to detail served as my example. Everhart's _Grissom_-class blues included the angle and flight-path of the fatal torpedo, for Ghu's sake! 

Geoffrey Mandel -- to my knowledge the first blueprinter of any great volume of works -- was inspirational in another way. Throughout the '70s (and indeed later), only the most crude and inaccurate shuttle blues existed. None attempted an interior/exterior resolution; whether Galileo's, or the others, few took great pains towards screen accuracy. Franz Joseph's may have been accurate as to exterior (I wrote him about this, hoping to borrow his data, and received a…I'll say "gruff" letter in response; no insult to him, as I must have across the one millionth know-it-all fanboy to take him to task), but followed the AMT interior sizing. 

Lacking dimensional hard data, construction plans, or screen captures (though I did have fairly decent freeze-framing, and by that time, fair off-the-screen 35 mm photography), I made (as I've said before, and may be observed) some compromises. I studied -- though mostly omitted data drawn from -- the AMT kit. I stretched the interior laterally, ruining its lines, to retain the as-depicted thin walls (my unpublished revision did otherwise). A high point in research (absent from other than the unpublished revision) involved a convention sighting of a close-up slide of the hatch, from which I had the present read out (to his considerable amusement) the "illegible" numbers beside it on the outer hull (imagine my chagrin on noting, years later, those selfsame numbers recorded by Franz Joseph in his Tech Manual). 

What I did (as you guys remind me) was and is the proof of principle of research over technique. I was a self-taught draughtsman with a homemade light table and parallel bar, commercial xeroxing, and an IBM Selectric for text, minutely studying small photos, grainy slide projections, low-pixel freeze-frames and off-the-screen photos…but attention to detail paid off for me psychologically when Phil Broad's _Botany Bay_ drawings, produced with access to the SFX model, cited an overall length within a fraction of an inch of that I'd (non-mathematically, with only the crudest comprehension of the laws of perspective) guessed at from studying a soundstage photo of her and the Big E. 

Back then, it bugged the crap out of me that published accounts (fannish and not) insisted shuttlecraft were sunlight, despite aired data to the contrary (even to the "antimatter trail" of "Metamorphosis"). These days, I'm dumbfounded that nearly all online (and all published) images of a DY-100 feature the selfsame five modules carried by the _Botany Bay_, despite the ship's up-to-sixteen carriage thereof being observably derivable since first airing, and confirmed by original intent with the 1997(!) publication of the Solows' Star Trek Sketchbook. 

Online fandom is the biggest boon to community and data-sharing since a couple of fans self-published the Star Trek Concordance -- but for all the minute attention to issues such as the ships of Wolf 359, the vertical and angular placement of a Connie's bridge, we sometimes fail to see (or recognize, or accept) the forest for the trees. The (to my knowledge) FIRST examination of Trek technology, Star Trek: An Analysis of a Phenomenon in Science Fiction (1968), observed that the warp factor cubed velocity formula was inconsistent with the ship's on-screen performance…but you'll look in vain for much (if any) online belief that Kirk's Enterprise was (far) faster than Picard's, according to EVERY citation of distance versus time cited in TOS. Each and every series (possibly excluding *Enterprise*, to which I gave but passing technical attention) includes aired evidence of impulse's being hyper light-capable…but I've been called a troll on raising such online. Certain questions go weirdly unaddressed -- e.g., what the hell is "standard orbit," and how is it that Kirk's ship invariably began to fall from it upon loss or diversion of power? 

I've drifted from (possibly) interesting reminiscence to old-fart curmudgeonhood, for which I apologize…but the way I see it, we are all we have. Sure, there'll be another movie CALLED "Star Trek," by and by…but realistically, canonical fandom is today consigned to the same wilderness as in the years between TOS and the animation & the animation and TMP. Save, of course, for the REAL Trek of today, which lives and grows and prospers in such marvelous guises as fan film productions, IDW's non-JJverse comics (anyone reading the adaptation of Ellison's original "City" script?), and (I presume) some of the novels (which I buy only irregularly these days what with the gafiation of such authors as Diane Duane and the Reeves-Stevens, and some awful piece of "writing" which in the first few pages INTRODUCED the main TOS characters and DESCRIBED HOW AN INTERCOM WORKED ["This book should not be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force" -- Dorothy Parker]). 

Pardon my reprinting elsewhere my own musical thoughts on the subject, posted of late elsewhere on this board:


_*The Good Old Trekkist*_

Music by: Major Innes Randolph

I am a good old trekkist, that is just what I am
For all new casts that followed I give but half a damn
I’ll ne’er see that thing of darkness but the once I did
And wish all but cels and Khan’s wrath had from my eyes been hid 

I hate the damned lens flares, the reboot comics too
I hate the toss-R’s reworks of spaceships I once knew
I hate what J.J. Abrams inflicted on his trust 
And the cussed term of “franchise,” I hate it worse and worse

I hate the diminutions of allegories spun
Gorbachev-nee-Gorkon was a story cosmic dumb
Compare mugatos leaping on the very week of Tet
To me, naught shot since ’68 has near that standard met

I followed old Gene Rod’by for four year near about
Though stung by third season shows and cartoons fostering doubt
I nearly died of boredom first three years of Next Gen
But I stoked my faith with novels that I wish would have been filmed

Just sixty-five point eight three were all the hours made
Seventy-nine old programs before it was put paid
All full of vim and hubris, against long odds shot
And I wish it was six hundred, instead of what we got

Say what’s called “Original” had run for every year
Sixty-six to 1990, and no sequels to fear
Imagine allegories made of women’s rights, and gays’
A program growing with the years, missions worth its day 

I’d put a third its stories ‘fore any eyes today
Can that boast be said of Next Gen, DS9 or, say, 
Voyager, Enterprise, pretenders roiling stardust
Cast off James Kirk’s stout nacelles back when all fights were just

They can’t take up their phasers and fight ‘em off no more
Even Billy Shatner might be signin’ on next tour
But I won’t bear an insult to what I was and am
To death’s door a staunch trekkist without a tinker’s damn


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

trekkist said:


> Exterior enlarged by precisely 4/3, per Matt Jeffries' comment to Lynn Miller that the soundstage exterior was built to 3/4 scale.


What is the source of this statement? I've heard the 3/4 scale bandied about for years, but I've never found where it comes from.

M.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

MGagen said:


> What is the source of this statement? I've heard the 3/4 scale bandied about for years, but I've never found where it comes from.
> 
> M.


In 1992, the Galileo's former owner, Lynne Miller, told me that Matt Jefferies had told her that the Galileo mock-up was 3/4 scale. Once you start comparing accurate plans of both, the size disparity between the interior set and the exterior mock-up becomes ludicrous, and there's no way for the two to coexist in normal, Euclidean geometry; however, enlarging the exterior by 4/3 does allow for a full length passenger cabin (with a sloped ceiling) and a truncated aft compartment. In plan view the larger exterior allows the full-size, parallel-sided interior set to fit inside without a lot of tweaking, and the increased thickness of the hull toward the rear of the cabin allows the phaser drawer to fit into the wall.

I simply adopt the real-world reason for the size disparity and don't worry about it. The simple truth is that in Hollywood they almost always make the interiors larger than the exteriors because it looks better, and a smaller exterior set saves $$ in building the prop & also makes it easier to move and store. These people are in the business of telling visual stories on a budget & usually on a tight schedule, not to make spaceship documentaries, and whatever looks better onscreen usually trumps dimensional accuracy. Just accept it and don't sweat it.

Gary


----------



## CaptCBoard (Aug 3, 2002)

Just accept it and don't sweat it.

Unless you want to build a model of it and look inside when you're done.

Scott


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Gary K said:


> I simply adopt the real-world reason for the size disparity and don't worry about it. The simple truth is that in Hollywood they almost always make the interiors larger than the exteriors because it looks better, and a smaller exterior set saves $$ in building the prop & also makes it easier to move and store. These people are in the business of telling visual stories on a budget & usually on a tight schedule, not to make spaceship documentaries, and whatever looks better onscreen usually trumps dimensional accuracy. Just accept it and don't sweat it.
> 
> Gary


I agree. Nicely said.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

It only becomes a problem when you try to show both at the same time- thus the Slammer Jupiter 2 kit had a different scaled lower deck while the Moebius kit ignored the lower deck entirely.

As far as I am concerned, as long as you can look through the open door and see part of the interior I'm good.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Richard Baker said:


> It only becomes a problem when you try to show both at the same time- thus the Slammer Jupiter 2 kit had a different scaled lower deck while the Moebius kit ignored the lower deck entirely.
> 
> As far as I am concerned, as long as you can look through the open door and see part of the interior I'm good.


I agree, but then there's the issue of looking through the front windows. But I think I wouldn't mind looking at an inaccurately proportioned interior as long as the exterior proportions are right. Another reason why I would opt for a model without a "removable top."


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

I'd like to have a magical unicorn that farts glitter, but that ain't gonna happen. Likewise, as you can see below, you're not going to be able to squeeze the full-size set of the Galileo's interior inside a 22 ft mock-up - no matter how much you want to. The graphic shows Petri Blomqvist's full-scale interior set, a 6 ft man, and a cross-section through the 22 ft mock-up. (The interior & cross-section are aligned at floor level, in the center of the door.) I been inside the mock-up. It's like being in a very wide minivan. Ignore the side fins, which make the mock-up appear larger than it is, and look at the available space inside the hull. The interior set is simply too tall and too long to fit into the mock-up. Trust me!

BUT, if you assume that the mock-up was 3/4 scale, as Matt Jefferies said, and enlarge the mock-up to its theoretical actual size, then you CAN fit a pretty darned good facsimile of the interior set into the shuttle with a minimum of distortion. Polar Lights displayed a good graphic of the interior inside the full-size shuttle at the last WonderFest. 

If somebody still thinks they can put the interior set into a 22 ft mock-up without major changes - well, bless their heart.  

Gary


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

If one wants a model of a 22' craft, simply close the doors and put some 1/24 scale people next to it. Problem solved.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Maybe 1/24 aftermarket console and seats might be useful for those who want to leave the doors open?

(Personally, I'm fine either way.)


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Since the exterior can be represented as either 1/24 or 1/32 scale, I don't see a problem with it either way.


----------



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

SteveR said:


> Maybe 1/24 aftermarket console and seats might be useful for those who want to leave the doors open?
> 
> (Personally, I'm fine either way.)



Just buy this one! Problem solved! 



Chuck_P.R. said:


> Here are some pics of the TOS Galileo with fully integrated interior included!


 http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=173965&d=1367442541


----------



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

I know a lot of you guys will balk at this, but in this version, Fourmadmen and I got it down to 31' 5" before doing any major compromises. FourMadMen's final version got it down to a bit under 30 feet, I believe.

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=14442&d=1083190791


----------



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

Other side . . .

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=14443&d=1083190791


----------



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

Mess of a paste job, but you get the idea . . .

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=14455&d=1089688512


----------



## CaptCBoard (Aug 3, 2002)

It is said that the model being planned can represent either 1:32 scale or 1:24 scale. The only way that works is if the doors are left to be the same proportion they are to the 22-foot exterior set. That way, if I want to call my build 1:24, then any figures I use will appear proportionally correct for what was seen on TV. Those same doors will allow 1:32 figures to have more headroom as they go in and out.

As long as the model looks exactly as it did on screen, I'm there. If they futz with anything to get an interior to fit, I'm not a customer.

By the way, I'd like to point out something that no one has addressed. It doesn't matter if Matt Jefferies told someone the Galileo mock up was 3/4 scale. The first time it appeared on screen with people climbing in and out, it became 1:1 scale. Its like the house from Psycho. It was designed to be 4/5 scale. They built it and filmed it with the actors standing on the porch and going in and out the front door, making it 1:1 scale. You can't fit any of the interior sets into it, either, but no one notices this. Jefferies did what he did so they could load the thing onto a flat-bed truck and take it to location. Hitchcock did what he did so the actors seemed to be smaller inside the house and the exterior itself would not seem to be imposing.

Scott


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

CaptCBoard said:


> The only way that works is if the doors are left to be the same proportion they are to the 22-foot exterior set.
> Scott


Close enough?

Gary


----------



## CaptCBoard (Aug 3, 2002)

Gary-- Thanks for posting that drawing. It looks accurate to me, but I'm not familiar enough with the subject to know just by looking. I know you are the foremost authority on these things, so I am left to assume it is accurate. 

Scott


----------



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

CaptCBoard said:


> It is said that the model being planned can represent either 1:32 scale or 1:24 scale. The only way that works is if the doors are left to be the same proportion they are to the 22-foot exterior set. That way, if I want to call my build 1:24, then any figures I use will appear proportionally correct for what was seen on TV. Those same doors will allow 1:32 figures to have more headroom as they go in and out. . . .


One issue FourMadMen and I addressed many moons ago, and has either long since been forgotten, or was the victim of the "Bobba Villa" thread accidental purge of about 400+ or so posts,

is that, if you grow the exterior to fit the interior as seen onscreen, it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to leave the interior door controls over the door.

Which is why in both FourMadMen's 29 foot .xx version, and my own 31' 5" .xx version, we decided to move the interior door controls from _above the door, to alongside the center_ of the door.


----------

