Shuttlecraft - curved edges on top?

[MarsWeeps]

I'm curious about the TOS shuttle design and why there are curved areas on the sides that extend above the actual ceiling of the shuttle? Why such a design? Why not have the roof of the shuttle flush?

See pics for better explanation.

[Forbin]

It looks interesting?
Trying to make a shoebox a little less bland?

[MarsWeeps]

I thought maybe those curved edges act like some sort of rails to allow the shuttle to "hang" for storage. The only in-universe explanation that I could think of.

[Timo]

Those shapes are there in the earliest concept drawings of the shuttle - that is, once TPTB realized they could not afford a shape other than simple shoebox. Probably a sort of "we can't do wings on this budget but these are their futuristic equivalent" thing.

It isn't completely unrealistic that such curving would have a beneficial aerodynamic effect. I mean, in reality this specific type of curvature probably won't, but curves like that do reduce power-wasting vortices in modern airfoils. Add a bit of artistic license and there you have it: a flying brick made more stable and fuel-efficient in atmospheres because the curves redirect the airflow at the all-important corners.

Timo Saloniemi

[R. Star]

Because every great utility vehicle has a roof rack option.

[Maurice]

The curves are on the bottom back, too.

[scotpens]

Timo wrote:

---

Those shapes are there in the earliest concept drawings of the shuttle - that is, once TPTB realized they could not afford a shape other than simple shoebox. Probably a sort of "we can't do wings on this budget but these are their futuristic equivalent" thing.

That's probably the basic explanation. The curved extensions of the hull sides make a simple, boxy craft a little less boxy, and they look as if they could have some sort of aerodynamic function for atmospheric flight.

[T'Girl]

Zombie Redshirt wrote:

---

Because every great utility vehicle has a roof rack option.

Hadn't though of that, but that might be exactly what it is. Like a picatinny rail on a gun, or the clamps that mount a cargo container to a flat bed.

You could attach phasers, torpedo launcher, sensors, fuel tanks, skis, or just boxes of supplies to the roof.

The ones on the bottom the same deal. The shuttle could take off, land on top of a cargo container, grab on, and take off again.

Starting to like this idea Zombie Redshirt.

[SchwEnt]

I don't buy the idea of the edges being used as hitches or grapple structures. I like it, but I don't buy it.

The curved edges are too subtle for such a purpose.
If they were real rail-like structures for mounting uses, I think they'd be more pronounced, more substantial, more solid.

As they are, they do seem more like an airfoil or aerodynamic feature rather than a grapple rail of some kind.

[Robert Comsol]

Trannie~sylvania wrote:

---

"The ones on the bottom the same deal. The shuttle could take off, land on top of a cargo container, grab on, and take off again."

But since the bow is flat, the shuttle would have to slide onto a container in "R".

I just wondered today how they moved the cargo containers for Khan & company down to Ceti Alpha V and how a TOS cargo container transporter would have looked like for these containers (http://ottens.co.uk/forgottentrek/de...-shuttle-bays/). Like a Galileo shuttlecraft with an open middle capable of holding 4 containers?

I don't buy any aerodynamic feature for the curved edges. With the angled in ceiling of the cabin a hangar transport holding plate would slide in nicely.

Bob

[Maurice]

My Son the Vampire wrote:

---

That's probably the basic explanation. The curved extensions of the hull sides make a simple, boxy craft a little less boxy, and they look as if they could have some sort of aerodynamic function for atmospheric flight.

That sketch is much sexier than the craft we got. The proportions are much better.

[Timo]

I just wondered today how they moved the cargo containers for Khan & company down to Ceti Alpha V

Unlikely as it seems, they might have been flown down in the configuration we saw used for space maneuvering, with a flimsy "spine" connecting the pods and with a workbee clamped at the bow.

That is, the set was built with the "spine" in place, up to and including the mounting for the (missing) workbee!

It does stretch credibility, though, that the "workbee train" would be capable of such feats. So perhaps we should once again politely but firmly ignore author intent and decide that the bunch of six containers (or, rather, three double-width ones) was beamed down with a cargo transporter, but with the "train" system attached for some unknown reason. Perhaps it distributes power to the containers, and was considered handier than a bunch of cables in that task even planetside? Or perhaps its supposedly feeble maneuvering thrusters can still move the containers across short distances, and Kirk decided to give Khan the option of relocating his camp later.

We are probably supposed to ignore the fact that Khan's containers are slightly larger than the ones seen in ST:TMP. Perhaps the greater interior height can be explained by Khan kicking out the bottom plates and digging pits in the ground, then placing the bottomless containers over the pits (a fairly standard way to build huts in general)?

A dedicated cargo shuttle would probably be a wholly enclosed craft, not placing the "rolling door" corrugated surfaces at the mercy of the elements during atmospheric flight...

Timo Saloniemi

[mos6507]

Maurice wrote:

---

That sketch is much sexier than the craft we got. The proportions are much better.

Yeah. It almost looks like something for 2001 or the shuttle that brought Kirk to Starfleet HQ in TMP. It might have been a little too sexy compared to what we did see in TOS, though. TOS was a very utilitarian aesthetic, but at least it was stylistically consistent.

[gastrof]

Timo wrote:

---

Unlikely as it seems, they might have been flown down in the configuration we saw used for space maneuvering, with a flimsy "spine" connecting the pods and with a workbee clamped at the bow.

That is, the set was built with the "spine" in place, up to and including the mounting for the (missing) workbee!

It does stretch credibility, though, that the "workbee train" would be capable of such feats. So perhaps we should once again politely but firmly ignore author intent and decide that the bunch of six containers (or, rather, three double-width ones) was beamed down with a cargo transporter, but with the "train" system attached for some unknown reason. Perhaps it distributes power to the containers, and was considered handier than a bunch of cables in that task even planetside? Or perhaps its supposedly feeble maneuvering thrusters can still move the containers across short distances, and Kirk decided to give Khan the option of relocating his camp later.

We are probably supposed to ignore the fact that Khan's containers are slightly larger than the ones seen in ST:TMP. Perhaps the greater interior height can be explained by Khan kicking out the bottom plates and digging pits in the ground, then placing the bottomless containers over the pits (a fairly standard way to build huts in general)?

A dedicated cargo shuttle would probably be a wholly enclosed craft, not placing the "rolling door" corrugated surfaces at the mercy of the elements during atmospheric flight...

Timo Saloniemi

It seems the structures seen in Star Trek II came, not from the Enterprise (any version), but from the Botany Bay itself.

That was how Chekov realized who they'd encounter if they didn't get out of there fast. He saw what looked like a seatbelt with the words "Botany Bay" on the buckle.

[MacLeod]

SchwEnt wrote:

---

I don't buy the idea of the edges being used as hitches or grapple structures. I like it, but I don't buy it.

The curved edges are too subtle for such a purpose.
If they were real rail-like structures for mounting uses, I think they'd be more pronounced, more substantial, more solid.

As they are, they do seem more like an airfoil or aerodynamic feature rather than a grapple rail of some kind.

How solid they are as a structural feature would depend on what the hull is made of.

And if they may just be there to guide and align an attachedment on the top, which is then magnatised to the hull.