Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...
Here is the VOY "speedboat" shuttle... the Type 9.
Here is the VOY "speedboat" shuttle... the Type 9.
My TOS shuttlecraft (continued)...
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...
^^ Oh, yeah, I've seen that somewhere. No I won't be doing anything like that.
I could never stomach watching VOY much and so I'm not that familiar with everything they might have done tech wise. Besides which this is a TOS/TAS/TMP era centric project where I'm not bringing in latter Trek influences.
In a way I'm rewinding the clock back to 1979.
^^ Oh, yeah, I've seen that somewhere. No I won't be doing anything like that.
I could never stomach watching VOY much and so I'm not that familiar with everything they might have done tech wise. Besides which this is a TOS/TAS/TMP era centric project where I'm not bringing in latter Trek influences.
In a way I'm rewinding the clock back to 1979.
Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...
Hey, i agree with you on VOY... I was in no way saying u should do something like this... I just pointed out that the role of such a small shuttle/vehicle might be similar to the function that the VOY one filled.
Hey, i agree with you on VOY... I was in no way saying u should do something like this... I just pointed out that the role of such a small shuttle/vehicle might be similar to the function that the VOY one filled.
Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...
I actually think that the guy that interpreted that VOY shuttle in TOS terms hit it dead on. His is one of the very best, and most "Jefferies-like" designs I've seen:
Here is the VOY "speedboat" shuttle... the Type 9.
I actually think that the guy that interpreted that VOY shuttle in TOS terms hit it dead on. His is one of the very best, and most "Jefferies-like" designs I've seen:
Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...
One of the things that does bother me with a lot of Trek (and other sci-fi) tech is that even though it might look kinda cool I often don't think it's well thought out. One of the reasons FJ's work in the '70s impressed me is because he thought of showing things like toilets and other mundane but highly necessary things. Pretty much every shuttle or runabout I've seen in Trek really comes across as a short range vehicle because we never get the impression it has the facilities to support a mission lasting several days, even though onscreen references suggests otherwise.
And so when I try to design something I try to envision how the craft is supposed to function and subsequently what does it have to have to fulfill its role. To that extent I feel that the work I'm seeing by aridas, Shaw, CRA and others in regards to the E's interior layout is surpassing what FJ did because they are bringing a level of thought to the work that wasn't there before.
I didn't mean to make it sound as if I were biting anyone's head off. Sorry if I came across that way. I was having a not-so-great day, but that's no excuse.
One of the things that does bother me with a lot of Trek (and other sci-fi) tech is that even though it might look kinda cool I often don't think it's well thought out. One of the reasons FJ's work in the '70s impressed me is because he thought of showing things like toilets and other mundane but highly necessary things. Pretty much every shuttle or runabout I've seen in Trek really comes across as a short range vehicle because we never get the impression it has the facilities to support a mission lasting several days, even though onscreen references suggests otherwise.
And so when I try to design something I try to envision how the craft is supposed to function and subsequently what does it have to have to fulfill its role. To that extent I feel that the work I'm seeing by aridas, Shaw, CRA and others in regards to the E's interior layout is surpassing what FJ did because they are bringing a level of thought to the work that wasn't there before.
Last edited:
Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...
Yet, it doesn't make it any easier to adapt and flesh out. I love going back to Jefferies' concept art, and develop what I can into something fun and believable. The ballships are a wealth of inspiration for me, hence my Monticello class carrier, and more to come certainly.
Yet, it doesn't make it any easier to adapt and flesh out. I love going back to Jefferies' concept art, and develop what I can into something fun and believable. The ballships are a wealth of inspiration for me, hence my Monticello class carrier, and more to come certainly.
Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...
I do have to say the joy is almost all gone for me in regards to Trek outside of my specific interests. I participate in very few discussions anymore beyond perhaps the tech stuff. I have zero interest in pondering the merits (or lack thereof) of references from much of post '79 Trek. The last three series and most of the films have been near total bust for me and I have no confidence or enthusiasm whatsoever for the forthcoming film. So much of it has become one huge steaming pile of crap.
The tech stuff is easier to focus on because I can easily say, "Don't bother me with irrelevant contemporary Trek crap" and get away with it. But try saying that in a regular discussion forum and you become a target and basically pariah. So basically why bother going there anymore?
Star Trek has been ruined by an oversaturation of mediocrity. Its heydey was during TNG (and we then thought that was overdoing it), but now it's just so fragmented and bloated and, and...
Aw, just fuck it!
I do have to say the joy is almost all gone for me in regards to Trek outside of my specific interests. I participate in very few discussions anymore beyond perhaps the tech stuff. I have zero interest in pondering the merits (or lack thereof) of references from much of post '79 Trek. The last three series and most of the films have been near total bust for me and I have no confidence or enthusiasm whatsoever for the forthcoming film. So much of it has become one huge steaming pile of crap.
The tech stuff is easier to focus on because I can easily say, "Don't bother me with irrelevant contemporary Trek crap" and get away with it. But try saying that in a regular discussion forum and you become a target and basically pariah. So basically why bother going there anymore?
Star Trek has been ruined by an oversaturation of mediocrity. Its heydey was during TNG (and we then thought that was overdoing it), but now it's just so fragmented and bloated and, and...
Aw, just fuck it!
Last edited:
Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...
There's plenty of room aft for a toilet in the new "dirty" shuttle.
(There better be if it's carrying two dozen people around!)
There's plenty of room aft for a toilet in the new "dirty" shuttle.
(There better be if it's carrying two dozen people around!)
Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...
Wow... you basically just hit the nail on the head with that... especially about Trek's heyday being with TNG... I wholeheartedly agree with what you've said here. But for various reasons. For me, it was one, the ignoring of established canon when it came to VOY and ENT, and how those shows threw almost all canon out the window whenever it suited them. Two, I'll admit it... nuBSG ruined Trek for me.
I have been and will always be a hardcore TNG fan... that show raised me. But after I saw the glory and high caliber of product that was the new BSG, I could not look back. After seeing how real and serious BSG is, and treats sci fi, I look back on Trek and see storylines that are in retrospect silly, and campy. YES, TNG and DS9 had some dark and heavy stuff, but it all seems so fake now, in some areas.
I enjoy seeing stuff like what you're doing, Warped9... digging deep into the seldom-seen aspects of TOS, and trying to breathe new life into them. It's the obscure things of Treks old that I'm interested in seeing now, and so far, you're doing a wonderful job. Please continue. Who know, maybe even Forbin could model some of these obscure shuttles, based off your drawings? That would rock. Anyway, keep up the cool work.
I do have to say the joy is almost all gone for me in regards to Trek outside of my specific interests. I participate in very few discussions anymore beyond perhaps the tech stuff. I have zero interest in pondering the merits (or lack thereof) of references from much of post '79 Trek. The last three series and most of the films have been near total bust for me and I have no confidence or enthusiasm whatsoever for the forthcoming film. So much of it has become one huge steaming pile of crap.
The tech stuff is easier to focus on because I can easily say, "Don't bother me with irrelevant contemporary Trek crap" and get away with it. But try saying that in a regular discussion forum and you become a target and basically pariah. So basically why bother going there anymore?
Star Trek has been ruined by an oversaturation of mediocrity. Its heydey was during TNG (and we then thought that was overdoing it), but now it's just so fragmented and bloated and, and...
Aw, just fuck it!
Wow... you basically just hit the nail on the head with that... especially about Trek's heyday being with TNG... I wholeheartedly agree with what you've said here. But for various reasons. For me, it was one, the ignoring of established canon when it came to VOY and ENT, and how those shows threw almost all canon out the window whenever it suited them. Two, I'll admit it... nuBSG ruined Trek for me.
I have been and will always be a hardcore TNG fan... that show raised me. But after I saw the glory and high caliber of product that was the new BSG, I could not look back. After seeing how real and serious BSG is, and treats sci fi, I look back on Trek and see storylines that are in retrospect silly, and campy. YES, TNG and DS9 had some dark and heavy stuff, but it all seems so fake now, in some areas.
I enjoy seeing stuff like what you're doing, Warped9... digging deep into the seldom-seen aspects of TOS, and trying to breathe new life into them. It's the obscure things of Treks old that I'm interested in seeing now, and so far, you're doing a wonderful job. Please continue. Who know, maybe even Forbin could model some of these obscure shuttles, based off your drawings? That would rock. Anyway, keep up the cool work.
Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...
Warped9, your Class J Shuttle looks just fine in design. I really appreciate the fact that you put a great deal of thought in your designs and they make a great deal of sense. Some people like to just throw things together and expect the craft or starship to fly. I my book all your space vehicles fly.
Keep up the great work and I am looking forward to more of your work.
Warped9, your Class J Shuttle looks just fine in design. I really appreciate the fact that you put a great deal of thought in your designs and they make a great deal of sense. Some people like to just throw things together and expect the craft or starship to fly. I my book all your space vehicles fly.
Keep up the great work and I am looking forward to more of your work.
Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...
And in that light I'm reconsidering my take on the scoutship to the extent of modifying my design.
Actually I think that looks awkward. I tried it in sketches.
I try. Although I think the TAS designs are awkward I do go back and reconsider how they could be made to work. Sometimes it means rejecting long held assumptions and trying to envision them in a new way. It's a matter of seeing the shapes in a new way and understanding that these are simplistic drawings that may look one way yet are really trying to convey something else.Warped9, your Class J Shuttle looks just fine in design. I really appreciate the fact that you put a great deal of thought in your designs and they make a great deal of sense. Some people like to just throw things together and expect the craft or starship to fly. I my book all your space vehicles fly.
Keep up the great work and I am looking forward to more of your work.
And in that light I'm reconsidering my take on the scoutship to the extent of modifying my design.
Last edited:
Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...
Warped9, this is really coming along nicely. I like your concept for the Scoutship very much, both aesthetically and as a way to base TAS more in the "real world", so to speak. In spite of the changes made (the main dish antenna really needed to go), it is immediately recognizable as the nuts-and-bolts model of the stylised version shown onscreen.
However, you repeat mentioning that it will be too large for regular duty on the Enterprise, although the episode implies it. This is based on your basic assumptions, that it should have standing room and an airlock. I can see, how you arrived at those assumptions, looking at the interior views seen in “The Slaver Weapon (TSW)”.
But I would propose an approach that you yourself have taken on the TOS shuttlecraft, namely creatively re-interpreting the interior in order to shrink the exterior to the necessary size. (I know, I am not original here, Cary L. Brown and others have proposed similar things, I just want to re-emphasize the idea.)
In any technical development, you start with a set of requirements that cannot be negotiated and then develop your design accordingly, resulting in - sometimes hurtful - compromise (I was about to quote Odo on the topic of “compromise”, but as you are no fan of DS9, I will forego that). Therefore, if overall size is important, other things will have to take second place. (That is, by the way, the reason that the Airbus 380 has an unbecoming stub nose and a wing with an aspect ratio that is sub-optimal.)
So, if Star Fleet has decided to put a long-range scoutship upon its Constellation class ships - and there is good reason to have something of that kind - and in order to fit the facilities, it must not exceed eight meters in length, five in width and three in height, then it will be built in such a way that it fits and some things that might have been nice, will go overboard.
The first thing that comes to mind will be the head clearance. Did we see a high ceiling in the episode? Yes – just as we did see it inside the TOS shuttle numerous times. Would a real TOS shuttle accommodate for it? No, nor would it need to. Exactly the same applies here. While it may be nice for extended excursions, to be able to stand up, one will have to go without if it cannot be helped. Most modern business jets can fly really long hours, yet have no large cabin diameter. So, think about fold back sleeping seats.
Then we get shown the utility area/cargo hold (maybe airlock) in TSW. It seems there will be some space for it in the rear, even if reduced in size. It is, however, of no value story-wise and for a three-man craft it does not make much sense, as the TOS-shuttle for a crew of seven did not have one either (Apollo had no airlock, the Space Shuttle has one, when needed). And if our Starfleet personnel gets a small toilet, they are much better off than many 20th century astronauts.
Also, I want to second Wingsley with regard to moving the nacelles further forward (and, unfortunately, my 2 €c are currently worth more than 2 $¢). At least, give us an idea, how it would look, maybe we then agree with you. But remember, looks are not everything.
Re-reading all this, I am afraid I come over very arrogantly. I am well aware this is your project so you are certainly entitled to dismiss all this, quoting Kirk’s “I’ll keep that in mind, Mister Bailey, - when this becomes a democracy”.
But as you put it yourself: “Sometimes it means rejecting long held assumptions and trying to envision them in a new way. ... And in that light I'm reconsidering my take on the scoutship to the extent of modifying my design.” So, I am keeping my fingers crossed and look forward to more good things to come.
Warped9, this is really coming along nicely. I like your concept for the Scoutship very much, both aesthetically and as a way to base TAS more in the "real world", so to speak. In spite of the changes made (the main dish antenna really needed to go), it is immediately recognizable as the nuts-and-bolts model of the stylised version shown onscreen.
However, you repeat mentioning that it will be too large for regular duty on the Enterprise, although the episode implies it. This is based on your basic assumptions, that it should have standing room and an airlock. I can see, how you arrived at those assumptions, looking at the interior views seen in “The Slaver Weapon (TSW)”.
But I would propose an approach that you yourself have taken on the TOS shuttlecraft, namely creatively re-interpreting the interior in order to shrink the exterior to the necessary size. (I know, I am not original here, Cary L. Brown and others have proposed similar things, I just want to re-emphasize the idea.)
In any technical development, you start with a set of requirements that cannot be negotiated and then develop your design accordingly, resulting in - sometimes hurtful - compromise (I was about to quote Odo on the topic of “compromise”, but as you are no fan of DS9, I will forego that). Therefore, if overall size is important, other things will have to take second place. (That is, by the way, the reason that the Airbus 380 has an unbecoming stub nose and a wing with an aspect ratio that is sub-optimal.)
So, if Star Fleet has decided to put a long-range scoutship upon its Constellation class ships - and there is good reason to have something of that kind - and in order to fit the facilities, it must not exceed eight meters in length, five in width and three in height, then it will be built in such a way that it fits and some things that might have been nice, will go overboard.
The first thing that comes to mind will be the head clearance. Did we see a high ceiling in the episode? Yes – just as we did see it inside the TOS shuttle numerous times. Would a real TOS shuttle accommodate for it? No, nor would it need to. Exactly the same applies here. While it may be nice for extended excursions, to be able to stand up, one will have to go without if it cannot be helped. Most modern business jets can fly really long hours, yet have no large cabin diameter. So, think about fold back sleeping seats.
Then we get shown the utility area/cargo hold (maybe airlock) in TSW. It seems there will be some space for it in the rear, even if reduced in size. It is, however, of no value story-wise and for a three-man craft it does not make much sense, as the TOS-shuttle for a crew of seven did not have one either (Apollo had no airlock, the Space Shuttle has one, when needed). And if our Starfleet personnel gets a small toilet, they are much better off than many 20th century astronauts.
Also, I want to second Wingsley with regard to moving the nacelles further forward (and, unfortunately, my 2 €c are currently worth more than 2 $¢). At least, give us an idea, how it would look, maybe we then agree with you. But remember, looks are not everything.
Re-reading all this, I am afraid I come over very arrogantly. I am well aware this is your project so you are certainly entitled to dismiss all this, quoting Kirk’s “I’ll keep that in mind, Mister Bailey, - when this becomes a democracy”.
But as you put it yourself: “Sometimes it means rejecting long held assumptions and trying to envision them in a new way. ... And in that light I'm reconsidering my take on the scoutship to the extent of modifying my design.” So, I am keeping my fingers crossed and look forward to more good things to come.
Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...
^^ I'm already recconsidering the interior space in terms of being similar to what I did with the Class F and H shuttlecraft. But in regards to the TAS shuttlecraft it still won't make enough of a difference for them to be ship based vehicles. You can only shrink the interior just so much but you still have to consider the exterior shape of the vehicles
Try to imagine my version of the TAS scoutship with its nose chopped off and ripping off the nacelles. What's left would still be roughly equal in size to my Class H design at about 29ft. And that doesn't address the width of the craft either. And that's with a ceiling height similar to my TOS shuttlecraft. The heavy lander design is the same problem as will be the aquashuttle.
If the TAS episodes had been filmed live-action then they likely would have just used the already established Class F design (with the exception of the aquashuttle which couldn't have been filmed). From that perspective it would be just easier to ignore the TAS designs as meaningless in a "real world" context. But I'm trying to rationalize the TAS designs in some way to justify their existence even though they still won't be exactly as we saw onscreen.
For the scoutship I'm even toying with an odd idea. On aircraft carriers since almost the beginning aircraft have had folding wings for storage. Consider: what if the scoutship's nacelles slide forward for temporary onboard berthing and then slide back into normal position for normal flight?
^^ I'm already recconsidering the interior space in terms of being similar to what I did with the Class F and H shuttlecraft. But in regards to the TAS shuttlecraft it still won't make enough of a difference for them to be ship based vehicles. You can only shrink the interior just so much but you still have to consider the exterior shape of the vehicles
Try to imagine my version of the TAS scoutship with its nose chopped off and ripping off the nacelles. What's left would still be roughly equal in size to my Class H design at about 29ft. And that doesn't address the width of the craft either. And that's with a ceiling height similar to my TOS shuttlecraft. The heavy lander design is the same problem as will be the aquashuttle.
If the TAS episodes had been filmed live-action then they likely would have just used the already established Class F design (with the exception of the aquashuttle which couldn't have been filmed). From that perspective it would be just easier to ignore the TAS designs as meaningless in a "real world" context. But I'm trying to rationalize the TAS designs in some way to justify their existence even though they still won't be exactly as we saw onscreen.
For the scoutship I'm even toying with an odd idea. On aircraft carriers since almost the beginning aircraft have had folding wings for storage. Consider: what if the scoutship's nacelles slide forward for temporary onboard berthing and then slide back into normal position for normal flight?
Last edited:
Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...
I think that's a Viable option
Just have to think outside the box so to speak 
Keep up the great work
I think that's a Viable option
Just have to think outside the box so to speak Keep up the great work
Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...
Adapting these designs will inevitably lead to something different from the TAS versions. All three designs will be somewhat smaller than what is suggested onscreen even though they won't be small enough to be ship based vehicles. The scoutship won't be as long and wide and flat looking as I'm thinking in terms of a space going Lear or Challenger jet type vehicle. I'm also working on nacelles that will be generally cylindrical but different in overall look than the standard type nacelles seen in TAS.
The heavy lander stikes me as something more utilitarian and being almost bug like in general appearance. I'm even thinking in terms of something of an aircraft like fuselage hull modified into something of the shape shown onscreen.
And the aquashuttle will be somewhat more aqua dynamic. The flat nose of the TAS version will be modified into an arrangement of lights for underwater external illumination. The nacelles on the side will be discarded entirely although the final shape will evoke the general shape of the original. I'm also thinking of intakes on the underside of the craft for water jet propulsion. For flight mode the craft will be powered by antigravs since this is strictly a surface-to-orbit vehicle.
I'm often sketching out my ideas whenever I have a free moment on scraps of paper, looking at the craft from different angles and at various parts until I get the shapes I'm aiming for.
Adapting these designs will inevitably lead to something different from the TAS versions. All three designs will be somewhat smaller than what is suggested onscreen even though they won't be small enough to be ship based vehicles. The scoutship won't be as long and wide and flat looking as I'm thinking in terms of a space going Lear or Challenger jet type vehicle. I'm also working on nacelles that will be generally cylindrical but different in overall look than the standard type nacelles seen in TAS.
The heavy lander stikes me as something more utilitarian and being almost bug like in general appearance. I'm even thinking in terms of something of an aircraft like fuselage hull modified into something of the shape shown onscreen.
And the aquashuttle will be somewhat more aqua dynamic. The flat nose of the TAS version will be modified into an arrangement of lights for underwater external illumination. The nacelles on the side will be discarded entirely although the final shape will evoke the general shape of the original. I'm also thinking of intakes on the underside of the craft for water jet propulsion. For flight mode the craft will be powered by antigravs since this is strictly a surface-to-orbit vehicle.
I'm often sketching out my ideas whenever I have a free moment on scraps of paper, looking at the craft from different angles and at various parts until I get the shapes I'm aiming for.
Last edited:
Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...
Warped9, now that is quite a nice co-incidence (see below).
I think the concept of sliding nacelles is a very reasonable one (if we can come up with a good reason for it besides better looks). On the Enterprise, they are pretty far removed from the habitable areas, maybe for good reason. Then again, on the TOS shuttle there seems to be no problem with them sitting right under the seats, so to speak. Also, in our day and age it would be a total headache, designing a system that allows the propulsion units to move forward when powered down but to keep them closely locked in their aft position when in operation and wanting badly to push forward. But as these are no reaction units but “mere” space-time-continuum warp field generators, I see no problem there. The Enterprise pylons sure don’t have to endure much bending moment from the look of it. So that idea is o.k
What it now takes is to rescale the fuselage to three-quarters of your previous size to fit the 8 m box. According to my rough guess, that leads to a cabin height of around 1.35 m. (I like how you have scaled your drawings in metrics, just like as was decided back when Star Trek was conceived. 1.35 m may not sound like much – it’s how tall my middle son is at the age of 10. But if you actually compare it to the size of the next car outside the house, you might be surprised. Searching for comparisons, I found 1.35 m is the required ceiling height for utility vehicles for the fire brigades in Germany, both in the cabin and in the cargo section. These are based on mini vans like the GM/Opel Vivaro:
Warped9, now that is quite a nice co-incidence (see below).
I think the concept of sliding nacelles is a very reasonable one (if we can come up with a good reason for it besides better looks). On the Enterprise, they are pretty far removed from the habitable areas, maybe for good reason. Then again, on the TOS shuttle there seems to be no problem with them sitting right under the seats, so to speak. Also, in our day and age it would be a total headache, designing a system that allows the propulsion units to move forward when powered down but to keep them closely locked in their aft position when in operation and wanting badly to push forward. But as these are no reaction units but “mere” space-time-continuum warp field generators, I see no problem there. The Enterprise pylons sure don’t have to endure much bending moment from the look of it. So that idea is o.k
What it now takes is to rescale the fuselage to three-quarters of your previous size to fit the 8 m box. According to my rough guess, that leads to a cabin height of around 1.35 m. (I like how you have scaled your drawings in metrics, just like as was decided back when Star Trek was conceived. 1.35 m may not sound like much – it’s how tall my middle son is at the age of 10. But if you actually compare it to the size of the next car outside the house, you might be surprised. Searching for comparisons, I found 1.35 m is the required ceiling height for utility vehicles for the fire brigades in Germany, both in the cabin and in the cargo section. These are based on mini vans like the GM/Opel Vivaro: