Shuttlecraft - curved edges on top?

Discussion in 'Star Trek - The Original & Animated Series' started by MarsWeeps, Oct 6, 2012.

  1. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    ...With various Starfleet and UFP symbology on them, too. Let's see if I can figure out how to link to another thread...

    http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=149571

    It doesn't appear that the standard TOS shuttlecraft would have been much involved in providing Khan with his hut. Nor would any of the craft seen in TAS have been much good in that respect, unless we go for the external carriage idea. But we could just as easily postulate that a workbee train can be equipped with a tug more substantial than a workbee, and perhaps with clip-on wings as well, for deploying this package.

    The simplest answer to the delivery question might be dropping, of course. Orbital velocity of the package could be killed by the starship, after which the package would drop at a relatively slow pace, slowed down further by small rocket engines or antigravs. It would then reach the denser parts of the atmosphere and continue to decelerate (or maintain slow rate of descent) with parachutes or, again, antigravs. No need for complexities like heat shielding or aerodynamics, then.

    We don't really know how a TOS shuttle lands, either. Obviously, physical parachutes are never seen, but possibly antigravity is key to those landings as well. Aerodynamics could still be a concern whenever the shuttle engages in forward flight.

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  2. Albertese

    Albertese Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 3, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Tractor beams.

    --Alex
     
  3. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Indeed, from DS9 "The Ship", we learn that tractor beams are a perfectly good way to lift an entire spacecraft from surface to orbit. But this makes one wonder...

    When transporters and shuttles fail, why doesn't Starfleet use tractor beams as a standard method for extracting or inserting landing parties? Just step into this cabin-free elevator in your spacesuit, call for a "beam-down", and float gently from orbit all the way down to the porch of the local Governor or Ataman or Quangoner or whatnot. If he proves to be the standard antagonist type, call for "beam-up" and float just as gently out of the reach of his henchmen, all the way back up to the starship.

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  4. Forbin

    Forbin Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Location:
    I said out, dammit!
    That would work, but I think it would take quite a while unless you don't mind traveling a few thousand MPH.

    Let's say the ship is in synchronus orbit over the area and tractors a person to orbit. That's 29,000 miles to travel! I hope the spacesuit has a pee tube! :)
     
  5. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    The visuals suggest an orbital height more like 1,000 km, though. And they further suggest that "standard orbit" involves tight turns, rather than the insignificantly small attitude changes during a camera pass that would result from a freefall orbit at that height. So we're probably witnessing the ship flying figure-eights over the landing party...

    But yeah, a thousand klicks would probably take the better part of an hour, with initial subsonic speeds. Although it doesn't seem as if the victim of a tractor beam would be subject to much acceleration in the general case, and might be safely whisked from zero to high speed in a short time.

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  6. SeerSGB

    SeerSGB Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2003
    Location:
    RIP Leonard Nimoy
    Like the rollbar on DS9 Runabouts? Not a bad ideal. And makes the TOS shuttles more handy for long-range exploration starships like the Enterprise.
     
  7. MacLeod

    MacLeod Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Location:
    Great Britain
    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.
     
  8. Albertese

    Albertese Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 3, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Perhaps tractor beams are too rough for guys in simple spacesuits. Recall that the tractor beam was responsible for smashing a vintage 1960's jet fighter. you'd need a pretty robust space suit to beat the structure of a jet.

    --Alex
     
  9. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Good point. But building an elevator cabin that differs from the standard shuttle by omitting all power plants, engines and their fuel is still an attractive idea... Or, if one isn't stingy with tractor power use, one could tractor the shuttles down and back up as a default, and only use their onboard engines in emergencies. Who knows, it might even save an ounce or two of antimatter overall.

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  10. Patrickivan

    Patrickivan Fleet Captain Newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    That's exactly what I always believed since I first saw the movie... Also in part because it looked older than anything seen in TOS or TWOK.
     
  11. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    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
     
  12. Forbin

    Forbin Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Location:
    I said out, dammit!
    So it could be, oh, say, 29,000 miles for another planet. ;)
     
  13. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    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.

    [​IMG]
     
  14. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    ...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
     
  15. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    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.
     
  16. scotpens

    scotpens Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    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.