RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 147,597
Posts: 5,835,390
Members: 26,154
Currently online: 402
Newest member: shirlehue

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Elogium
By: Michelle Erica Green on Aug 28

Trek Swype Keyboard
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Meaney In Talks For McGuinness Role
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Stewart And Son To Act Together
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Quinto: If I Wasn’t An Actor…
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Star Trek Beyond Update
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Red Shirt Diaries Returns Next Month
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

ISS Astronaut May Join Trek Fan Film
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Quinto Sports New Trek Uniform
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Star Trek: Renegades Released Early
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Fandom > Fan Art

Fan Art Post your Trek fan art here, including hobby models and collectibles.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 29 2014, 07:31 PM   #166
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: TOS in the 29th century...

Owen E Oulton wrote:
One thing I've never understood is why people insist that you should be able to stand erect in a shuttlecraft and therefore the interior set was more correct in size. You don't stand up in a minivan or many small aircraft, after all. The only reason they built the Galileo interior larger was to get the CAMERAs into the set - the actors were secondary. Since you're designing a new shuttle from scratch, you have the option of making the ceiling 2 metres high or whatever you think is best, but there's no need for people to bastardise the Galileo like many fans do.
My thought was that shuttlecraft should be able to have ranges that could involve up to several days or even a week or so in duration. Hence the desirability of a standing interior. My starship design should also allow for such a larger vehicle, and a larger shuttlecraft should offer more versatility in terms of use.


Here you can get a general drift of where I'm going. This is, of course, a rough approximation of the configuration and layout. When I get more detailed then I'll propbably expand the interior a bit more, but this should give you the general parameters of what I have in mind. The crewman figure is supposed to be 6ft. so the ceiling in the aft section would be about 6.5-7ft.



Like its TOS predecessor this craft is multi-purpose and can be refitted for a variety of missions. It can be used to transport up to eight or so personnel or with fewer personnel aboard and more equipment or cargo.

My other notion is that while certainly not as fast as the starship this smallish craft are comparatively swift for their class which enhances their versatility.

To enter and exit the craft a section of the access hatch swings down (similar to an executive jet) as a gangway.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?

Last edited by Warped9; May 29 2014 at 11:13 PM.
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2014, 02:44 PM   #167
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: TOS in the 29th century...

I started modelling the shuttlecraft last night (after the disappointing loss of the Habs to the Rangers--bummer), but it wasn't working. Today I will have to tweak the design (not drastically) to make it work and start again. Sometimes things in 2D don't translate into 3D the way you expected.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31 2014, 02:32 AM   #168
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: TOS in the 29th century...

The beginnings of the main hull. I had to make a few tweaks as I progressed, but it seems to be working out so far. It might look deceptively simple, but there are quite a few compound curves in this design. And having rounded edges on curves that intersect is not the easiest thing, at least not in SketchUp.



I still like the names Galileo and Copernicus, but the names for the other two shuttlecraft are still undetermined.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?

Last edited by Warped9; May 31 2014 at 02:58 AM.
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2014, 02:55 PM   #169
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: TOS in the 29th century...

Some definite progress. All the major elements are now in place and now to begin detailing and finessing some of the elements. For example the stabilizers are supposed to merge into the main hull with a connecting radius rather than an abrupt angel--that'll take a bit of work. I've had to make some minor alterations to the design as I translated it from 2D to 3D, but the changes were minor. The important thing is that I kept the integrity of the concept intact.



__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2014, 03:59 PM   #170
B.J.
Rear Admiral
 
B.J.'s Avatar
 
Location: Huntsville, AL, USA
Re: TOS in the 29th century...

Nice! I really like the lines of this shuttle. The main hull looks more like "modern" Trek in front, merged with the classic shuttle in back, but you managed to pull it off really well!
__________________
B.J. --- bj-o23.deviantart.com
B.J. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2014, 12:40 AM   #171
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: TOS in the 29th century...

It took a few days, but finally smoothed the stabilizers into the main hull. I also added some nacelle details. Those white parts will eventually light up.

__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2014, 02:17 AM   #172
aalenfae
Commander
 
aalenfae's Avatar
 
Location: Pennsylvania
Re: TOS in the 29th century...

Looking awesome! I'm excited to see what you'll do with the window. And I'm secretly hoping for a more-futuristic 3-window look, and not just one big windshield like later Treks.
__________________
A bold new Star Trek fan film thriller! PACIFIC 201
Pacific 201 on Facebook
My personal website
aalenfae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2014, 02:26 AM   #173
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: TOS in the 29th century...

aalenfae wrote: View Post
Looking awesome! I'm excited to see what you'll do with the window. And I'm secretly hoping for a more-futuristic 3-window look, and not just one big windshield like later Treks.
There won't be any windows, not in the conventional sense. I'm taking an idea from the TMP shuttlecraft design. The forward interior bulkhead of the craft will be a sophisticated display that will mimic a window (if and when desired) as well as display anything else needed at a given moment. It's very much like the Enterprise's main viewscreen only more sophisticated. On the outside of the ship instead of viewports there will be some physical detailing on the forward exterior hull.

Imagine the curved forward bulkhead looking like some oversized three-dimensional monitor whose usual desktop image is a moving starfield or whatever else is just outside the vehicle. Onto this display you can all up anything else you need to look at. If you turn everything off it looks just like a blank wall.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2014, 04:30 AM   #174
aalenfae
Commander
 
aalenfae's Avatar
 
Location: Pennsylvania
Re: TOS in the 29th century...

Ahhh, clever! I guess that makes a lot of sense, though there should probably be a viewport SOMEwhere on the craft, just in case everything breaks, and you need to look out. But sounds pretty awesome. Should make for a very sleek-looking design.
__________________
A bold new Star Trek fan film thriller! PACIFIC 201
Pacific 201 on Facebook
My personal website
aalenfae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2014, 03:00 PM   #175
Mytran
Commodore
 
Mytran's Avatar
 
Location: North Wales
Re: TOS in the 29th century...

Even the TMP shuttles had a small viewport, from what I recall. But I like the idea of a windscreen-less shuttle very much, it seems a very logical progression.
Mytran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2014, 03:29 PM   #176
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: TOS in the 29th century...

Mytran wrote: View Post
Even the TMP shuttles had a small viewport, from what I recall. But I like the idea of a windscreen-less shuttle very much, it seems a very logical progression.
The TMP viewports were not forward facing so obviously they had nothing to do with piloting the craft.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2014, 10:25 PM   #177
Albertese
Commodore
 
Albertese's Avatar
 
Location: Portland, OR
Re: TOS in the 29th century...

I think they had windows on both sides. This makes sense as an emergency measure. Let's assume you crash and your power is out, If all you have is a viewscreen, you might be outta luck. But a window can't lose power. One on both sides makes sense too. If you have just one, then, sucks to be you if your crash-landed shuttle lands on that side.

--Alex
__________________
Check out my website: www.goldtoothstudio.squarespace.com
Albertese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2014, 10:51 PM   #178
Mytran
Commodore
 
Mytran's Avatar
 
Location: North Wales
Re: TOS in the 29th century...

I just checked Mr Scott's Guide and there were indeed windows both sides. The forward facing porthole I was thinking of is actually labelled as a "visual location beacon". I always assumed it was something like an emergency window or something, but the side windows would do that just as well
Mytran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2014, 03:05 PM   #179
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: TOS in the 29th century...

So here are more exact measurements for the shuttlecraft with a 7 ft. ceiling.

L.O.A. = 37.17045 ft. (11.32955 m.)
W.O.A. = 23.0945 ft. (7.0392 m.)
H.O.A. = 11.32509 ft. (3.45188 m.)


And here's a quick size comparison.




The shuttlecraft names I'm inclined to go with at this point:

Galileo NCC-1701/1
Armstrong NCC-1701/2
Copernicus NCC-1701/3
Magellan NCC-1701/4
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?

Last edited by Warped9; June 7 2014 at 10:58 PM.
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 8 2014, 08:31 PM   #180
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: TOS in the 29th century...

Slowly working in the details. I decided to try keep the exterior cleaner and not go with a large version of the registry, opting to go with a simpe singular number. You can see the addition of the red and green running lights on the support pylons as well as the white landing lights on the forward end of the nacelles. There are landing lights on the aft end of the nacelles as well. The blue striping on the nacelles simply indicates those strips will be lighted as bright blue/white (white with a tinge of blue to them). You can also see the nav deflector housing on the underside of the forward section.

I'm still working on working up the script for the shuttlecraft's name.

__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?

Last edited by Warped9; June 9 2014 at 03:45 AM.
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:02 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.