Is the bridge at a funny angle?

Yes. It wasn't the largest image, as presented, but it was a direct scan of the artboard when it was put up for auction. Here is a cleaned up version:

I should point out that Phil was unable to make any direct measurements. Those amazing drawings which he made of the Shuttlecraft were based on photographs and his own memories of having seen it as a kid (and, I believe, climbed around on/in) when it rested in a neighboring yard. At the point when he made the drawings, the whereabouts of the Shuttle were still unknown. They are an amazing effort, but should not be looked on as definitive data about the actual artifact.

He also intended his drawings to be a "warts-and-all" version of the set piece, not an idealized version of the "real" Shuttle.

 

Thanks for the scan and explanation of why the image in the book was distorted. I always wondered why that was the case!

Phil Broad's website was one of the first places which I found that had such detailed measurements from the sets built for the show so I will always remember it fondly. Good to hear the backstory behind his research, too

My interest is more in the actual props as built than in the "idealised" versions so I'm under no illusions there. And while some of Phil's measurements could be off, I think the margin in of error is close enough for my quick'n'dirty Fight Deck comparison.

I wonder - did anyone else ever take measurements of the shuttle, perhaps when it went in for the recent renovations?

 

Gosh, the image presented above sure looks how I remember from the book. (And the side of the AMT box iirc.)

What got changed in the book's rendering of it?

 

It was compressed lengthwise - this is evident by the fact that the saucer isn't circular:

 

I'm confused by the shuttle miniature in "The Lonely Among Us" and its two separate photos in this thread. It doesn't look at all like the shuttle in the original fx hangar deck scene. The original fx version is missing the hyphen after NCC, while the miniature we're seeing has the hyphen but is missing the "/ 7" after 1701. And along with the the door being missing on the miniature, the long red stripe is completely different.

If this is the same model, what is our theory? Was the model repainted by a TNG employee who was completely indifferent to accuracy? Like he took the barest glance at the original, and slapped his own paint job version on the model?

 

I am as well. Is there documentation that supports it being the original? Because I am skeptical. Especially when you have someone like Greg Jein around (though I would expect any model of his to sport the correct paint job.)

 

Thanks!

 

I never would have caught that.

D-7 get squished too?

 

It looks to be as if compression is due to the artwork not be photographed from exactly 90° perpendicular.

 

Unfortunately the D7 lacks any decent sized circles to verify that and I don't have the original artwork

Excellent questions but I just posted the photos in my collection! I likely got them from Cloudster's website, now archived:
https://web.archive.org/web/2007020...m/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/GalileoTop.htm
It does appear to be about the right size though and if the front panel was mislaid over the years (as shown by the lens cap photo) then it might suggest that the model wasn't very well looked after in the intervening years, hence the need for a more stylised repaint for its TNG appearance.


EDIT:
Here is a useful extract from that site:

The filming miniature is of wooden construction as is typical of models from that period. Unfortunately it suffered quite badly after the show was canceled as it was later discovered broken in half and sitting in a pile of debris at the studio. Fortunately for us it was members of the Star Trek Next Generation staff which rescued it and later restored it. It is in this restored condition that you see it above. Some parts are missing such as the front bulkhead (here replaced with smoked Plexiglas) and the corrugated wrappers around the rear of each engine pod. However, restoring it to its original configuration was never the intent, it was to appear as a model of a "standard type" Shuttlecraft seen in the background of one of the sets. The lens cap seen here being used as a make shift photographers scale is 2 3/8 inches in diameter.​

 

It just occurs to me...I bet the front panel was detachable in order to get into the model to switch out the light bulb.

 

These are some of the reasons I like the "secondary-hull as an enhanced nacelle" approach. That is to say that the secondary hull is one of the "pods".

In my thinking the nacelles do not detach from the pylons easily, but the saucer can detach in an emergency, leaving the three cylindrical parts of the ship behind. The dialogue issues here are then resolved. In "The Apple" Kirk's usage of both "nacelles" (plural) and "antimatter pod" (singular) fits, and the idea of Scotty talking about jettisoning the pod, but seeming to be working on a central engine fits with the idea that he is suggesting to separate the (presumably evacuated) secondary hull from the saucer.

The reason I was asking about the clearance for the pylons into the secondary hull, then, was to determine if there was any room for some kind of power transfer conduit to run from the secondary hull to the nacelles. Somewhere near these conduits would the place that Scotty is working in the "crawl-way."

Jefferies made various comments about the Engine room, as he originally conceived of outboard engines, but it seems to me that a long trunk of "pipes" running from the base of the deflector, through the secondary hull, and up to the nacelles rectifies the issues. We could imagine that the inside of the nacelle looks like this, too, connecting the spikes (antennas/sensors?) at the front of the nacelles with whatever is going on the middle of them, and then progressing to the "balls" or "vents" at the back. TAS sort of gives that impression. Thus the nacelles and the secondary hull would have some different equipment, but be largely similar.

 

^^Jefferies also spoke of the nacelles as quick change units, that if one was damaged you would swap it out with a new one.
http://bbc.adactio.com/cult/st/interviews/jefferies/page3.shtml

 

Based on these new photos of the filming model and that the lens cap was only 2-3/8", the length of the shuttle was only about 21.6" (my red lines put on photo for measures). I wonder if a 2-3/8 inch lens cap has a different outside diameter than 2-3/8 inches? If 2.5", then the shuttle model is about 22.78". An average is about 22".

 

I’m thinking that whole top came off like a lid, leaving the bottom very like those John-boat type cement mixing troughs made of metal—-that might have inspired the look.

Now, you decompressed the Enterprise drawing by X amount...do that with the D-7 drawing and see what that looks like, please?

 

Right. But when he says "quick change," I am thinking more like something that happens in a few days at dry dock, not something that happens while on duty. How long did a "quick change" nacelle on a plane take? I don't know, but I would assume something about that length of time not something you could jettison in a 10 minute emergency procedure.

I suppose another way to say it is that the secondary hull can be separated form the saucer in an emergency, but the engine components inside the secondary hull are connected in such a way that they are "not" quick-change, because they are more complicated, while the nacelles are basically just dedicated engine and service access space. The secondary hull has a more spohistacted sensor and has living space, but is still basically a long engine in a cylinder, whereas the nacelles are functional and not full of any amenities.

 

@Mres_was_framed! The point is that the nacelles would not be so integrated that they can't be removed separately and would be interfaced for removal. Providing additional mechanics for emergency ejection seems possible, especially if they contain M/AM reactors.

 

You would have a minimum clearance of the width of the observation decks overlooking the flight deck.

 

The text on that page says:

The lens cap seen here being used as a make shift photographers scale is 2 3/8 inches in diameter​

so we can probably just take the size as stated

The shuttle would have been a little longer than 21.6" because of the rear landing leg, but not by much.
The distance between the centres of the nacelles (in my earlier pic) would work out at 12.3"

I'd forgotten how much great info was on that website!

 

Not quite. The observation decks are partially cantilevered out past the flight deck's inner walls. The clearance between the outer and inner hull looks to be about half the width of the observation galleries.