Thanks. I sat there for about five minutes trying to decide if I was going to fix all the errors I spotted in the 2013 shuttle model or let ‘em slide, and was staring at all the subtle compound curves and remembering what a giant PITA it was to create a model with all the WRONG choices eight years ago, many of which I made because I couldn’t figure out how to do it the “old” way. I decided that if I was going to advance as a modeler (and not spend forever redoing the shuttle) I’d better bite the bullet and rebuild it as a true sub-D’ed model. Besides, it’s basically a flying butter dish, so it’d make a good starter subject to model this way. And holy hell, it was SOOOOO much faster to do it this way. Even allowing for time to create the edge loops and such, I got this far in one (longish) evening session. I never model things that quickly!
p.s. Since the original project eight years ago I’ve learned that Matt Jefferies didn’t design the Galileo, Gene Winfield (93 years young and still going strong!) did. I intend to address this oversight at some point in the near future.
Thomas Kellogg of Raymond Loewy’s design firm was brought on, possibly by Winfield, to do the design. Winfield did the construction. And it DID begin with an alternate concept by Jefferies for a bus-like shuttlecraft not terribly unlike the final refined design. Jefferies’ concept was the starting point https://www.collectormodel.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/3-Space-Dock-utility-craft.jpg Kellogg’s design https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net...ision/latest?cb=20130913203135&path-prefix=en Winfield then gave us what we got, possibly at Jefferies’ direction. https://64.media.tumblr.com/c1b8469e6cfe2709e0e3cd29296fe3d4/tumblr_nr2qyhiBah1riaymvo3_1280.jpg
Ah, thank you for the further clarification. Yes, very much an admirer of the gorgeous (and sadly, impractical for AMT to economically build) Art Deco shuttle. I had thought, though, that in addition to building it on contract to AMT, Gene Winfield was the person who designed the ultimate simpler-to-build version of the exterior. I’m not sure that I have heard of Thomas Kellogg before now. ETA: Well, chalk this one up to COVID brain. I had completely forgotten about the wonderful scifiairshow.com website and the article devoted to Thomas Kellogg’s sleek Avanti-like shuttle, the design ancestor of our beloved Galileo. Messrs. Kellogg and Winfield will definitely get their due in my project, as well as the genius of Matt Jefferies (who did design the shuttle interior). Thanks guys!
Hey @Warped9 and you other shuttlecraft Galileo experts out there: How many "teeth" or "ridges" did the studio prop originally have on that corrugated cowling at the aft end of each warp nacelle? I've studied the screencaps from "The Galileo 7" and "Metamorphosis" and it looks like about 72, but when I model it like that the ridges look too close together compared to the real-life prop.
I think this is what you need. https://www.collectormodel.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/23-Cowling_9769.jpg
Aw hell, there IS a slight S-curve in the profile of the cowling. Rats... I thought they made the damn thing straight to make it easier to build. That’s gonna make this a little harder. But yes, that’s exactly the type of reference photo I needed... thanks!
I don't know, I think that if you unwrapped your straight cut as you would a UV map, the shapes would be similar.
Not quite. It’s very close, but there definitely is a very slight S-curve defined in the side profile. If it was a straight edge you’d be able to lay that tape measure along the other edge and it would follow the angled edge perfectly, but this photo clearly shows that the angled (trailing) edge of the cowling has a slight bend in the middle. But hey, at least it looks like my count of 72 ridges was accurate! I just need to make the ridges less tall between each S-curve that they define in the rear profile, I think. ETA: one other nice thing about this photo is that it confirms the trailing edge of the warp nacelle has a circumference of 57 inches, which translates to a radius of 9.07 inches / 230.4 millimeters. My model’s warp nacelle casing has a trailing edge radius of 230 mm exactly, which is close enough that the difference isn’t going to be noticeable.
Oh how NOW brown cow, now this is quite a find! I was curious about the photo @aridas sofia posted, so I traced back to the web article it came from: https://www.collectormodel.com/roun...ief-history-of-the-shuttlecraft-galileo-pt-5/ I was saddened and angered—especially on donor Adam Schneider’s behalf—that the jerks at Space Center Houston aren’t displaying the Galileo because it doesn’t fit their “vision” . But Great Bird of the Galaxy, LOOK AT THIS! The 22” Galileo miniature had scribed panels on its roof! Now I’m torn. I went to a lot of trouble to rebuild my model with a perfectly, gorgeously, aerodynamically smooth roof, because that’s what the life-size prop had. But now we can see that the 22-incher had faint lines scribed in its surface. Another difference between the miniature and the human-scale prop.
Going by the images you posted I think that your ridges are a little too deep and a little too sharp. But that might just be the angle of your render and my own assumptions. Me? I'd add the roof panels. But I can absolutely see why you wouldn't.
If the nacelle cap looks like a straight cut in profile*, the unrolled shape should be a bell curve not a straight line. A toilet paper core will unroll with a straight line along the seam but a careful examination will show that the seam is not straight in profile when unrolled rolled. *(meaning that if you were drawing the right side of the shuttle you would use a ruler to draw that edge.) edit: I just realized I might be confusing people with rolled and unrolled because I was thinking of the action to do it and not the status of the roll. So I've edited my posts so that rolled = cylinder and unrolled = flat.
I don't know what kind of weird-ass toilet paper you're using but that can't be right! So I went to the trash to look for a chucked TP roll (thank you for making me look thru my trash btw ) to see for myself: That looks like a straight edge to me. And wouldn’t a barber’s pole also be similar? That’s also a straight edge on the diagonal, isn’t it?
And when you look at it in profile unrolled rolled the seam is not straight but an s-curve: edit to add: unrelated but those upper surface scribings look similar to the upper surface of the black and red concept art seen here: https://forgottentrek.com/building-the-shuttlecraft-galileo/ edit 2: I just realized I might be confusing people with rolled and unrolled because I was thinking of the action to do it and not the status of the roll. So I've edited my posts so that rolled = cylinder and unrolled = flat.
72 was my read long before finding that photo, so I’m with you. As for the top surface, I’m with Tallguy- I’d follow the 22” since that follows Kellogg. I doubt if the 3/4 size was ever supposed to be seen from above. i really can’t believe that damned shuttlecraft has been taken off display. What a tortured history of love and neglect that thing has. I wish it would just be adopted by Udvar Hazy where it would (hopefully) be in good hands.
HAH! I had to run out and buy an eero to fix my craptastic WiFi, and while I was standing in line at MicroCenter I realized that’s what you meant. When you unwrap a barber pole the red, white, and blue stripes will be straight-edged. But when you wrap them around the pole, from the side the stripes appear diagonal in the middle but at the edges they appear curved as the straight lines wrap around the cylinder. The Galileo corrugated warp nacelle aft cap is just the opposite. When attached to the warp nacelle, the side profile of the cap is a fairly straight diagonal line on its trailing edge. In other words, something has to compensate on the upper and lower edges for what would otherwise be curving like you see on the barber pole stripes. To achieve that straight-ish edge, the corrugated cap would have to be gently S-curved on that edge when unwrapped and laid flat. Those curves would compensate for the wrapping effect described above for the barber pole… and that’s exactly what we see in the photo. And thank the maker for that! I figured out how to achieve a curved side profile and had started to modify one of the caps, and it was going to be an exercise in tortuous tedium fixing all of the polys to subdivide properly at render time. Nooooo thank you. As for everything else: In Gary Kerr’s excellent article (which you really should go read it; it’s fascinating), he interviewed Gene Winfield, who said that the two rectangular holes on the port side front lower half of the ship (roughly in front of the feet of the pilot) were supposed to be landing lights with an aerodynamic cover. (The final studio prop and the 22” miniature lacked this feature, presumably for budget reasons.) I’ve seen “headlights” a few times before on other models and liked ‘em, so I’ll incorporate those. Gene Winfield also said he wired the warp nacelle domes for lights—something we definitely never saw onscreen. It would make sense that if you have things that look like Enterprise warp nacelles attached to the shuttle that they’d have a similar lighting scheme, so I’m adding that as well. I am not, however, adding those scribed lines. Every model of a science fictional vehicle that doesn’t exist in real life is going to at some point be the artist’s interpretation of his or her subject. Thing is, there is a real-life Galileo (sort of) and we know what she looks like, and that human-scale beauty has a smooth top. So even though the 22” miniature had them, my model will not. I will not be adding the four little wires that held up the 22” miniature during VFX filming.
@Professor Moriarty - that makes sense. Those panel lines do not appear to be visible in any of the aired footage so it's totally up to you whether you model them or not