TOS in the 29th century...

Discussion in 'Fan Art' started by Warped9, Mar 24, 2014.

  1. FatherRob

    FatherRob Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Warped9,

    I rarely get on the BBS anymore, but I wanted to log in and say that, while this isn't how I envision my twenty-ninth century Starfleet reboot, and while I had serious brain fatigue when I saw the original 2d sketch, I think you have pulled this off marvelously.

    A few details in particular that I like:

    1) I love your font choice It harkens back to the TOS font while being subtly futuristic.

    2) The Saucer is a particularly effective design. I enjoy the window configuration you have done, and like your superstructure.

    3) The aft view coming into the hangar that you posted upthread was very effective, for me at least, on selling the design.

    4) Like others, I probably find the secondary hull to be the hardest element to fully grasp, but I have really warmed up to it.

    5) I definitely love your lower nacelle placement. Very effective, and suggestive of sleekness and speed.

    Outstanding work!

    Rob+
     
  2. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    Thank you for your gracious feedback.

    I wish I still had the concept perspective sketches I did of this design so many years ago. it's those that really helpedme work out the shapes and proportions I settled on and gave me an idea of what the design could look like in three dimensions.

    As critical as others can get it must be said that I, too, can be quite critical of my own ideas. I can second guess myself. I can try things and then jettison them as not being what I thought they'd be. I also realize that there really is no such thing as a perfect design. Every good work has imperfections to it. And while I like my overall concept here I do have reservations about certain elements only I'm challenged to think of a better solution. Sometimes when I'm not totally satisfied with something I walk away and come back later to look at it again with rested eyes.

    In some respects it would be much easier to start with a completely clean sheet and design something that is a complete departure from someone else's work. In that exercise you're unhindered by association. This kind of exercise is a challenge because you're chllenging other people's perspectives and interpretations as well as your own.

    The TNG designs owes nothing to the MJ original other than basic concept. And in fairness that's not a bad thing because they were trying to be evolutionary as well as trying to establish their own identity. The TMP design was also meant to be evolutionary and in overall execution it has much more in common with the MJ original particularly in its proportions.

    This exercise is somewhat different. It's not meant to be evolutionary in the sense of being in universe. It's meant to be a reinterpretation of the original work from a more contemporary perspective. For example, for me, the shape of the saucer was very important. The only thing that might be exactly the same as the original (or close enough) is the angle of the saucer's outer rim. everything else is a modification of the original lines and elements.

    A real world analogy of this could be the current designs of certain cars that are thoroughly modern yet meant to evoke the originals: the VW Beetle, the Mini, the Ford Mustang, the Chevrolet Camaro, the Dodge Challenger, the Jeep Wrangler and for a while the Chrysler PT Cruiser and Chevrolet HHR (each were of the last two were meant more to evoke an idea rather than a specific model).

    The essential MJ concept has been reinterpreted repeatedly in Trek, but never in a way that really evokes the original design. And that's okay in the sense of needing to depict something evolutionary and not really meant to be remotely similar. But if someone were to genuinely reboot TOS for television you are faced with two choices (as I see it):

    - Hew very closely to the original design and aesthetic with minor tweaks. While valid I think this would also signal that you're not really going to change much in the reboot. You're essentially trying to recapture as much as you can of the original "loghtning in a bottle" even though so much has changed since the original was produced, particularly general audience perspectives as well as those of devoted fans (even if we mightn't realize it).
    - Make radical changes with the barest hint of familiarity. In many respects this is the route TNG took. Except in certain episodes there really isnt much in common between TNG and TOS other than being set in (purportedly) the same universe.

    For what it's worth I think JJ Abrams tried to straddle the distinction between two approaches I've cited. He wanted to make Trek something other than what it was yet with a facade of being similar to the original. Regarding his success your mileage will vary.

    In a sense I, too, envision straddling between the two. I envision evoking the original in terms of look (and potentially character and storytelling) yet otherwise pushing the ideas forward to feel more in tune with current perspectives. And just as MJ's original design was meant to represent the series overall in which it was featured I tried to envision a new Enterprise to represent what a new TOS inspired series could potentially be like.

    Regarding this exercise your mileage will vary.
     
  3. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    What the raw model looks like before rendering.

    [​IMG]
     
  4. Kaiser

    Kaiser Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Location:
    Boyertown, PA as of July 2011
    Looks good :)
     
  5. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    I'll be coming back to the ship, but presently I'm working out the shuttlecraft. When that's established then I can do the hangar facilities in more detail.

    The shuttlecraft will try to answer some of the issues that vexed the TOS design. Firstly the exterior and interior will be integrated from the get-go. It will be larger and have a standing interior that will fit in its exterior, but it likely won't be runabout sized. It's design will be conceptually reminiscent of the TOS design, but only two design elements will really evoke the original (the fin like design of the aft end and two nacelles slung on each side of the ship). Right off I can tell you the design suggests speed and a smallish nod to aerodynamics. It will have warp nacelles, but like the Enterprise design its impulse sublight drive is antigravity--so no visible exhaust ports in the familiar sense. The antigrav system will be housed on the craft's underside and personnel will enter/exit the vehicle from the rear.

    A nod to the TMP shuttlecraft designs: no conventional viewports. I'm trying the idea of an interior system that can simulate having a large viewport without there actually being one. My idea comes from reading speculative science and technology ideas. When turned off the forward and side bulkheads would look just like walls, but activated they would look like actual transparencies. I'm going with this because it allows me to have a cleaner exterior. It also looks futuristic and a lot of folks can wonder, "How the hell can they see?" Well, how is a starship piloted given the Bridge's main viewscreen is not a window but a really a computer display? Same basic idea, but pushed further. Because the shuttlecraft's bulkhead is actually a sophisticated display it can be used for displaying other things besides the immediate view outside the craft.

    I can also say there is another departure from TOS where the shuttlecraft's nacelles were simplified versions reminiscent of the Enterprise's much larger warp drive units. This shuttlecraft's nacelles will not resemble the starship's engines, but the craft's overall aesthetic will be in line with the thinking behind the starship's design.
     
  6. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

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

    [​IMG]

    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.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2014
  7. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    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.
     
  8. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

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

    [​IMG]

    I still like the names Galileo and Copernicus, but the names for the other two shuttlecraft are still undetermined.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2014
  9. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

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

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  10. B.J.

    B.J. Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Location:
    Huntsville, AL
    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!
     
  11. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

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

    [​IMG]
     
  12. aalenfae

    aalenfae Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    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.
     
  13. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

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

    aalenfae Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    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.
     
  15. Mytran

    Mytran Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Location:
    North Wales
    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.
     
  16. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    The TMP viewports were not forward facing so obviously they had nothing to do with piloting the craft.
     
  17. Albertese

    Albertese Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 3, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    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
     
  18. Mytran

    Mytran Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Location:
    North Wales
    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
     
  19. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

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

    [​IMG]


    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
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2014
  20. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

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

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2014