Shuttlecraft - curved edges on top?

[Timo]

The cargo containers weren't intended to come from the Botany Bay, as they were painted with UFP and Starfleet symbols and shaped like the Starfleet containers seen in the previous movie.

However, the actual movie shots don't exactly reveal the UFP symbols on the outer surfaces, or the fact that the containers are attached to a workbee frame. All we see (vaguely at that) is that they are shaped like the Starfleet containers, and that they have Starfleet symbology on the inside. But that symbology is just writing on the wall, and those particular pieces of interior wall might have been patches installed by Khan using Starfleet materials. So perhaps there's some room for argument there.

Timo Saloniemi

[Forbin]

MacLeod wrote:

---

I hate to picky put that's not correct. It's actually ~36 000km (22 000 miles) from the surface of the Earth. The 29 000miles ( 42 000km) is from the centre of the Earth.

Also the height of the geosynchronous orbit would vary from planet to planet.

So it could be, oh, say, 29,000 miles for another planet.

[Warped9]

I've always really liked the TOS shuttlecraft, and anyone who's ever really studied it, drawn it and tried to make propr models (3D or physical) know it's far from being a simple shoebox. It has all sorts of subtle curves and odd shapes. The "full-size" (actually closer to 4/5) mock-up of the exterior is an awesome replica in its own right and despite some of its production shortcuts it's a far more interesting and complex design than any of the shuttle mock-ups TNG started out with.

[Timo]

...Which is sort of weird. Why did AMT opt for such an intricate shape for, say, the lower part of the body, something the cameras would never be able to show? The shape was largely theirs to decide, after all - Jeffries in practice only provided general suggestions on what to build.

Timo Saloniemi

[Warped9]

The full-size mock-up had a simpler bottom side than the miniature because, of course, it would never be seen onscreen. What you see above is the full-size mock-up with just a few of the miniature's details adapted into it to make it a more integrated design. The most notable detail of the miniature was its more distinctive underside which could have been shown onscreen if they had chosen to do so.

[scotpens]

Timo wrote:

---

. . . Why did AMT opt for such an intricate shape for, say, the lower part of the body, something the cameras would never be able to show? The shape was largely theirs to decide, after all - Jeffries in practice only provided general suggestions on what to build.

As you may know, Matt Jefferies originally designed a bullet-shaped, aircraft-like shuttle that would have been way too complex and costly to build full size. The shuttlecraft that ended up being built was the creation of Thomas Kellogg, who was also primarily responsible for the design of the Studebaker Avanti. Jefferies' contribution consisted of designing the interior and adding a pair of engine nacelles to visually connect the shuttle with its mothership.