TOS Enterprise Shuttle Storage?

[Timo]

There is also the possibility that the turntable isn't an elevator at all. Heck, perhaps it is not even a turntable!

I mean, in the forced perspective scale model, it is a mechanism used in rotating the shuttle scale model. But basically it's just a yellowish circle painted on the deck inside a red square. If we discard the idea that it rotates or moves the shuttle, we can treat it as a mere marker (painted on a solid floor without moving parts) for the point where shuttle pilots are supposed to rotate their craft after landing. After which they can back it into one of the side-by-side elevators at the forward end of the landing bay (as later seen in ST:TMP and ST5:TFF, "naked" in the former, but with a bulkhead and rolling doors in the latter), and use those to ride down one or two decks. Straight down, and without inconveniencing other traffic. After which the pilot nudges the shuttle out of the lift and parks it in a further circle on the (upper or lower) hangar deck, and any Vulcan dignitaries onboard may step out.

...And march towards the bow of the ship, to a corridor situated neatly between the two lifts. Although that detail may be adjusted as we please, to create the best possible fit. Hey, we might even be able to fit the forced-perspective section of the engineering set between the two lifts at the uppermost, landing bay level somehow. Say, by using lifts that move an angled path, coming closer to each other as they move down.

Timo Saloniemi

[Albertese]

Timo, I had never thought of that but it seems like a good idea to me. It's worth experimenting with...

--Alex

[Timo]

We may of course opt to discard only the elevator functionality and keep the turntable. That would already remove many unnecessary geometry constraints regarding the putative lower decks or the depth of the landing bay.

But if the shuttles really require a turntable to turn around, then it becomes rather implausible that they could move around the flight deck and the hangar decks on their own, into and out of the suggested forward elevators. And I don't really see why the shuttles could not hover to accomplish this, either on their propulsive systems, or then on dedicated antigravs, of the type familiar from many TOS episodes but now mounted on the landing pads.

I'd thus much rather do away with the turntable as well. Shuttles in all other Trek incarnations do appear to take care of themselves in this respect, despite lacking wheels.

Timo Saloniemi

[Mytran]

Given how static shuttles appear (in all incarnations of Trek) I've always just assumed that they were dragged around the shuttlebays by manual antigravs or tractor beams.

[Robert Comsol]

Timo wrote:

---

There is also the possibility that the turntable isn't an elevator at all. Heck, perhaps it is not even a turntable!"

Sorry, the official drawing in The Making of Star Trek (page 180 in my edition) is very clear about the circular shuttlepad being a turntable which is part of an elevator:
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars...er-sheet-4.jpg

What we see in TOS is the shuttlecraft being turned until the launching (or landing) rails are in a launch position:http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/2x...hinehd1197.jpg (notice the top of the picture and the end of the miniature set)

The shuttlecraft also use a tailhook that seems to already come in use during catapult take-off. Very unfortunately, rather than to give us a fast catapult launch, the people in charge of TOS-R revised the entire original (and visible) intention and turned the shuttlecraft into some kind of chopper.

[blssdwlf]

I see the turntable more as a convenience than a necessity, plus it lines the shuttle up nicely with the launch/landing rails.

I kinda see where Timo is going with his thinking. It looks like he is basing it on "The Final Frontier" where there is a circular "turntable" like structure in the middle of the flight deck, just ahead of the parked shuttles. (And the parked shuttles are just ahead of the two elevators with sliding doors.)

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/a.../tffhd1109.jpg

Looking back to TMP, it's hard to tell if a circular area was there on that flight deck.

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/a.../tmphd0391.jpg

Although we can make out a rectangular area in the middle with lines in the middle leading out to the open shuttlebay doors (like the launch rails).

It's worth trying that idea out - although it will lead to a longer flight deck since the elevators at the end will add length. I do like the combined elevator and turntable though as it seems simple and retro compared to the elevators seen in TMP.

As to the differences between TOS and TOS-R, I put them in different continuities since the VFX is pretty different. TOS-R is more likely to come from the TNG+VOY+ENT-universe while TOS is it's own. For me it keeps the confusion down and simplicity up

[Timo]

Very unfortunately, rather than to give us a fast catapult launch, the people in charge of TOS-R revised the entire original (and visible) intention and turned the shuttlecraft into some kind of chopper.

I'd say the TOS-R people put right what once went very, very wrong.

After all, the shuttle clearly is a chopper, as soon as it gets out of the mothership. It definitely has no use for catapult launches when planetside, is capable of hovering and maneuvering at hover, and can land with pinpoint accuracy between the most challenging styrofoam rocks or papier-mache trees. Why would it stop being a chopper when it again enters the bowels of the Enterprise? There never was any story logic to that, and the shuttlebay "turntable" and "catapult" design made no sense except as an extremely clumsy means of achieving motion with miniatures but without classic (and unconvincing-looking) stop-motion techniques.

The transporter somewhat mirrors the illogic. Machinery is required at one end, but not at the other - what's with that? But at least the transporter is magical. The shuttle is just a chopper that flies in space, intuitively familiar to the audience in all its characteristics.

Now, things could of course have gone differently. Had the shuttle been more like Jeffries' original aircraft-like designs, there would have been artistic merit to treating it like the auxiliary aeroplanes of 1930s-40s warships, with largish hangars, complex arrays of rails, switches, turntables, and a launching catapult. Hopefully, planetside action would have reflected the inability of the shuttle to land or take off vertically, too. But that's not what happened. Instead, we got a shuttle that by design has no use for turntables or catapults. Which is perhaps artistically less interesting, but makes for better scifi and cheaper production.

it will lead to a longer flight deck since the elevators at the end will add length

The thing we can do with a long shuttlebay is to divide the secondary hull functionally into lengthwise segments, rather than chop it up like a sausage. That is, the long shuttle facilities would take up the middle, while engineering would be atop (in TMP style, although various partitions make this "fact" difficult to see in TOS) and cargo systems below the shuttle section.

As to the differences between TOS and TOS-R, I put them in different continuities since the VFX is pretty different.

That's probably mandatory, alas. Each take has some pretty good ideas and some less interesting ones. I particularly like how TOS-R treated the ion pod...

Timo Saloniemi

[blssdwlf]

Timo wrote:

---

I'd say the TOS-R people put right what once went very, very wrong.

After all, the shuttle clearly is a chopper, as soon as it gets out of the mothership. It definitely has no use for catapult launches when planetside, is capable of hovering and maneuvering at hover, and can land with pinpoint accuracy between the most challenging styrofoam rocks or papier-mache trees. Why would it stop being a chopper when it again enters the bowels of the Enterprise? There never was any story logic to that, and the shuttlebay "turntable" and "catapult" design made no sense except as an extremely clumsy means of achieving motion with miniatures but without classic (and unconvincing-looking) stop-motion techniques.

If it is "wrong", the idea of a guided rail landing path is repeated in TMP for the flying trams. The TMP Enterprise even carries those 3 rails on the flight deck visible on the exterior model.

I'd argue that the TOS-R FX pushed too hard for a "TNG" vision and ignored alot of the visual cues that even persisted in the TOS Movies.

As to why they'd need a launcher in TOS it could be for important reasons:

1. Save fuel on launches. Those TOS shuttles had a limited fuel supply.
2. Safety during launch as the Enterprise can continue to maneuver while the launch rails prevents the shuttle from accidentally floating into a wall on departure.

[Mytran]

Robert Comsol wrote:

---

P.S. Does anybody know what the white text sign (?) on the port side of the flight deck says? (the one between the cargo container chutes or whatever these are).

P.P.S. Found this link with some unbelievably neat stuff and original VFX flight deck shots (including the text of the signs!):
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=34793
It also - in a multiple sense - puts the flight deck in perspective.

I was sure I had these signs (WARNING FIRE etc) on my hard drive somewhere, but I've not been able to find them and now I see they've dissapeared from that thread you mentioned as well! Anyone got any copies?

And that's a great thread too BTW, some lovely pics!

[Timo]

the idea of a guided rail landing path is repeated in TMP for the flying trams

Which is weird in its own right, but at least these "trams" (or "limos"?) do not demonstrate the ability to hover, nor do they have landing pads in evidence. It's just weird weird, not blatantly illogical weird. Much like San Francisco in general.

The TMP Enterprise even carries those 3 rails on the flight deck visible on the exterior model.

Interesting - could you point to a shot featuring these? Are they on the flight deck floor just inboard of the clamshell doors or something?

1. Save fuel on launches. Those TOS shuttles had a limited fuel supply.

If we're already assuming the shuttle is too clumsy to survive without a turntable, then there must be some sort of an invisible tractor beam to assist in its recovery already. Why bother with a mechanical catapult in addition to that? Plus, it's not as if the launch would consume any appreciable amount of fuel, according to "The Galileo Seven": an empty fuel tank gets the shuttle to orbit, which is about a million times harder than floating out of the door.

...Okay, perhaps that was a bit inaccurate. Ten trillion times harder might be closer to the mark.

Safety during launch as the Enterprise can continue to maneuver while the launch rails prevents the shuttle from accidentally floating into a wall on departure.

This does make great sense, considering how wobbly the TOS-R landings and takeoffs tend to be - and how wobbly the one takeoff we witnessed in TOS, that on the planet in "The Galileo Seven", was. So, a RAST system for a space helicopter, then, rather than a catapult for a space aeroplane?

Timo Saloniemi

[blssdwlf]

@Timo

You can see an idea of lines where the old rail lines were on the flight deck when Kirk looks sorta that way when he boards the Enterprise in TMP.
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/a.../tmphd0391.jpg

Which we see the lines (which are very thin) in TWOK:
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/a...twokhd0447.jpg

And a clearer view of the actual model taken as reference shots:
http://www.galileo2.net/gallery/disp...album=2&pid=98

You can think of it as ST version of the RAST system. It could be a line of tractor beams designed to grab tight the shuttle to either guide it in or or out of the flight deck.

[Timo]

I'm not sure I see anything in the matte painting, but the model lines are clear in the TWoK shot. Thank you!

Then again, the TFF set had various lines on the floor as well, and what looked like dark rails turned out to be "runway lights" for two parallel shuttlebay approach/taxiing paths. Or then fancy glowing antigrav catapults, for all we know... Plenty of possibilities there.

Timo Saloniemi

[B.J.]

Robert Comsol wrote:

---

The shuttlecraft also use a tailhook that seems to already come in use during catapult take-off.

Er, WHAT tailhook? You mean the rear landing pad, that isn't a hook at all?

[Robert Comsol]

Timo wrote:

---

This does make great sense, considering how wobbly the TOS-R landings and takeoffs tend to be - and how wobbly the one takeoff we witnessed in TOS, that on the planet in "The Galileo Seven", was. So, a RAST system for a space helicopter, then, rather than a catapult for a space aeroplane?"

Good thing we can hopefully all agree on that. Just have one of these typical bumpy situations aboard the TOS Enterprise and imagine a simultaneous shuttle launch in progress...besides, the unobstructed opening to space is the widest at the bottom of the flight deck.

There is one recurring idea I have to disagree - That of both the flight deck and the hangar deck lead to a vast open space like in TMP.

First, there is the official production drawing which indicates a bulkhead where the shuttlebay VFX miniature ends: http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars...er-sheet-3.jpg

Second, the Enterprise is supposed to be 40 years old (same for the shuttlecraft design?) by the time of TOS. There are no pressure containment screens like in Star Wars or - obviously - TMP. The entire shuttlebay area needs to be pressurized and depressurized as shown in TOS.

Third, we have seen in TOS a noticable amount of corridors and rooms that are on the same level as and lead to the hangar deck. All those are gone in TMP; whatever decks and corridors used to be there have been torn out and made way - for an empty space whose purpose evades the imagination (well, at least mine).

Recently at an airshow I talked to the pilots of a C-17 Globemaster whether they did use the remaining empty space above the freight pallets. Well, they don't but that's 21st Century technology we were talking about.

It almost seems in TMP a starship of exploration has become a starship of (cargo) transportation. If you were to reassemble the essential elements now remaining in the engineering hull, the Reliant would be a possible design outcome.

Bob

P.S. Just found this original Matt Jefferies design for the "TMP" Enterprise, please note the dimensions of the shuttlebay area: http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicl...rd_Profile.jpg

[Robert Comsol]

Mytran wrote:

---

"I was sure I had these signs (WARNING FIRE etc) on my hard drive somewhere, but I've not been able to find them and now I see they've dissapeared from that thread you mentioned as well! Anyone got any copies?"

Anyone, please! It was pretty frustrating () to notice there had been pictures with the signs and now these have gone. Mytran, do you recall if "WARNING FIRE" was the big sign on the port side?

Bob