Matt Jefferies original shuttle design

[Timo]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

However, the TOS shuttle has its apparent impulse nozzles way above the center of mass rather regardless of whether the nacelles are very massive, or less dense than the cabin. Apparently, thrust lines just don't matter all that much in TOS - let alone post-TOS, such as with the Reliant. They thus might not be relevant in pre-TOS, either.

However, the center of visual gravity does move adversely IMNSHO if this nacelle droop is effected...

I wonder if the original simplistic Jeffries model of a single-arm (or at most two-arm) aft landing leg wouldn't be the best approach here? There is a lot of straight length available on the underside of that aft section, to stow a straight single-piece leg. Such a construct wouldn't take up much room inside the aft section, which probably is crammed full of vital machinery anyway. The solution would also echo the TOS shuttle aft leg, for visual continuity.

Then again, I'm really curious to see how this accordion-leg model turns out.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Warped9]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

I've always imagined this as the "real" Aquashuttle.

I've heard others say this as well. Unfortunately we get into the size problem again. Something this big would have to be a loaner and that's if it would even fit on the hangar deck which I doubt.

But the '60s were a great time for SF gadgetry.

Actually, as much as I love these cheesy old 60s sci-fi shows, I just could never accept the Seaview's "flying sub" concept. It's neither aerodynamic nor hydrodynamic.

There's a reason that REAL submarines, and aircraft for that matter, try to keep their forward profile to a minimum. The drag seen by the craft (in whatever medium it's traveling through) is proportional to the projected area. So this is a high-drag design, and it's also inherently unstable (meaning that, like the B-2 bomber, it will require thousands of computer-control corrections every second just to be able to fly straight... while more conventional air- or sea-craft are inherently stable and, if left alone, tend to keep going in a straight line).

Yes, virtually nothing in Star Trek (or Star Wars or any other pop sci-fi show) really meets this criteria... Oh, I'd LOVE to see someone actually try to fly a TIE fighter in an atmosphere! ) meets this criteria either. But my perspective is... when in doubt... at least TRY to make it plausible.

Then again, if I were in charge of Trek, the design staff would be bigger than the writing staff.

What is practically never addressed in TOS (or most other SF in the visual mediums) is how these craft fly in atmospheres. But in TOS at least there have been references to antigrav technologies. From that we can make a reasonable assumption that many have these vehicles have antigrav systems that allow them to hover, lift off and land as well as fly without much concern for aerodynamics. I comment on this very thing in my notes for my own TOS shuttlecraft project.

In SF, if it isn't stated otherwise, then we can reasonably assuming that new materials as well as antigrav technologies and sciences are at work to allow these craft to function as we see them.

 

[Timo]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

In that regard, one might try to arrange the various auxiliaries we see in a chronological order by the degree of aerodynamics on them.

That is, the ENT shuttlepods would be closely followed by the sleek shuttle-shaped shuttle designed for Phase II, and Starfleet would slowly proceed through some of Jeffries' more aircraftlike designs to the eventual TOS model that farts in the general direction of aerodynamics. Thus, the spacedock shuttle from ST6:TUC would probably predate the auxiliary craft of ST5:TFF...

Nevertheless, antigravity or inertia manipulation probably plays a significant role from the ENT days already, so that these silly little things can do SSTO. There just happens some sort of a further tech leap between the subject shuttle of this thread, and the TOS box.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Santaman]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Doesn't it maybe also depend on how much time the shuttle is expected to spend time in an atmosphere? I think the streamlined shuttle used inTUC would be most likely have that shape because its hauling ambasadors and captains and who knows more from spacedock to Earth and back while the TOS shuttle was maybe expected not to fly in an atmosphere much but maximised its usable volume by making it so boxy.

 

[Timo]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Good point. Or at least the older optimally transatmospheric designs would survive in that role relatively long, while other shuttle categories such as starship auxiliaries would move on to newer types that had some other feature (such as compactness) optimized to the most modern standards.

Really, if we accept the aesthetic of Star Trek shuttles in general, I think all the designs (including these doodles that never made it on screen) are both aesthetically pleasing and relatively logical by the rules of that universe. There's a niche for every one of them there. Except, I must argue, the TNG shuttlepods. The shoestring budget and cardboard aesthetic really shows on those...

But then again, a completely unaerodynamic, thoroughly miniaturized, almost featureless design is the logical endpoint of the development that gave us the bricklike TOS shuttle.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

What is practically never addressed in TOS (or most other SF in the visual mediums) is how these craft fly in atmospheres. But in TOS at least there have been references to antigrav technologies. From that we can make a reasonable assumption that many have these vehicles have antigrav systems that allow them to hover, lift off and land as well as fly without much concern for aerodynamics. I comment on this very thing in my notes for my own TOS shuttlecraft project.

In SF, if it isn't stated otherwise, then we can reasonably assuming that new materials as well as antigrav technologies and sciences are at work to allow these craft to function as we see them.

Which is all entirely valid, but has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Drag is the resistance you encounter as you push air out of your way as you fly though it. The amount of air you have to push out of your way is related to the projected area as viewed from straight ahead.

Stability is also unrelated to that. Stability is the tendency of an object, when not under "controlling influence" to remain in a constant state (ie, flying in a straight line in this case). This, also, is based upon air resistence (or water resistence in the case of seacraft). The basic idea is that you have a a higher-drag area near the rear, so that if the object (missile, plane, sub, etc) is traveling in a direction other than along its axis, this drag tends to pull it back into line.

Some aircraft (the F-117, for instance) are not inherently stable... and thus rely on extraordinarily complex computer systems to make constant correction (not under pilot control) to compensate for the natural instability of the aircraft. This is UNDESIRABLE, but is considered an acceptable tradeoff, in this case, so that you can fly these guys in and take out the air defenses, so that the heavier combat craft (which are far more stable) can then go in and do the real job of warfighting without having to worry about being shot down by enemy air defenses.

The presence, or lack, of antigravity has nothing to do with drag, nor with stability, which were my two points.

The only way that Trek ships could be stable would be to have some aerodynamic forcefield "exterior" which we can't really see... not hard to envision, really.

But we've seen Trek ships go in "unpowered" a few times... no control, no power... in those circumstances, in real life, these things would simply be ROCKS... no better. THUD!!!

 

[Timo]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

...Of course, many of today's aircraft accept that fate, too. So Trek designs could plausibly depend on the constant availability of antigravs and forcefield envelopes.

And perhaps such dependence is justified - after all, a ship that had all her crew knocked out and her systems in a state of chaos managed to fly perfectly straight and level deep in Earth's atmosphere in "Tomorrow is Yesterday". The redundancies in the magical atmospheric flight equipment seem to be, eh, sufficient...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Warped9]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

In that regard, one might try to arrange the various auxiliaries we see in a chronological order by the degree of aerodynamics on them.

That is, the ENT shuttlepods would be closely followed by the sleek shuttle-shaped shuttle designed for Phase II, and Starfleet would slowly proceed through some of Jeffries' more aircraftlike designs to the eventual TOS model that farts in the general direction of aerodynamics. Thus, the spacedock shuttle from ST6:TUC would probably predate the auxiliary craft of ST5:TFF...

Nevertheless, antigravity or inertia manipulation probably plays a significant role from the ENT days already, so that these silly little things can do SSTO. There just happens some sort of a further tech leap between the subject shuttle of this thread, and the TOS box.

Timo Saloniemi

This is the usual assumption in SF, that science and technology has advanced sufficiently to exploit principles as yet unrealized and/or unknown to contemporary science. It's the "gimme" that allows one to fashion very unlikely looking hardware with the rationalization that this is sci/tech far beyond our current understanding.

This notion isn't wholly without merit. In the real world we take for granted science and technology that would look like sheer and impossible magic to our ancestors. To anyone from eras past up to early 20th century many of today's machines would seem the equivalent of a far future starship as much if not more so than much of SF's hardware may seem to us.

The irony is that there are aircraft today that look very aerodynamic and flight worthy yet cannot even glide without any sort of propulsive thrust and cannot fly with any stability without constant computer assist to make adjustments to control surfaces. Even a helicopter looks very unlikely until you understand how it's supposed to work.

That said I still appreciate SF imaginings that make at least effort some to appear credible.

If I were designing a fictional far future re-entry spacecraft vehicle (and I am) then I would likely try for something that looks at least passably areodynamic--even with antigrav available--and with control surfaces that mighn't be obvious yet are there nonetheless. This could be done by employing materials that are pliable and can change shape and return to their original form, much like birds do with their wings. This is already being experimented with. It has certainly already been done in SF literature, the first example I read of was referenced in Greg Bear's novel Slant that is easily something like fifteen years old.

 

[Wingsley]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Alright, I want somebody to call the Cops on this joker.

It must be a crime to post THAT on the internet. It belongs forgotten back in the mid-70's.

 

[Warped9]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

In that regard, one might try to arrange the various auxiliaries we see in a chronological order by the degree of aerodynamics on them.

That is, the ENT shuttlepods would be closely followed by the sleek shuttle-shaped shuttle designed for Phase II, and Starfleet would slowly proceed through some of Jeffries' more aircraftlike designs to the eventual TOS model that farts in the general direction of aerodynamics. Thus, the spacedock shuttle from ST6:TUC would probably predate the auxiliary craft of ST5:TFF...

Nevertheless, antigravity or inertia manipulation probably plays a significant role from the ENT days already, so that these silly little things can do SSTO. There just happens some sort of a further tech leap between the subject shuttle of this thread, and the TOS box.

Timo Saloniemi

This is the usual assumption in SF, that science and technology has advanced sufficiently to exploit principles as yet unrealized and/or unknown to contemporary science. It's the "gimme" that allows one to fashion very unlikely looking hardware with the rationalization that this is sci/tech far beyond our current understanding.

This notion isn't wholly without merit. In the real world we take for granted science and technology that would look like sheer and impossible magic to our ancestors. To anyone from eras past up to early 20th century many of today's machines would seem the equivalent of a far future starship as much if not more so than much of SF's hardware may seem to us.

The irony is that there are aircraft today that look very aerodynamic and flight worthy yet cannot even glide without any sort of propulsive thrust and cannot fly with any stability without constant computer assist to make adjustments to control surfaces. Even a helicopter looks very unlikely until you understand how it's supposed to work.

That said I still appreciate SF imaginings that make at least effort some to appear credible.

If I were designing a fictional far future re-entry spacecraft vehicle (and I am) then I would likely try for something that looks at least passably areodynamic--even with antigrav available--and with control surfaces that mighn't be obvious yet are there nonetheless. This could be done by employing materials that are pliable and can change shape and return to their original form, much like birds do with their wings. This is already being experimented with. It has certainly already been done in SF literature, the first example I read of was referenced in Greg Bear's novel Slant that is easily something like fifteen years old.

Additionally, I've often heard some fans reference the notion that in Trek they could possible use shields to create an aerodynamic form around the shuttle. My recurring response to that is

Energy doesn't work that way. And even if it could it sounds like a far more complicated solution to a problem than just making the vehicle in an aerodynamic form.

 

[Timo]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Oh, I don't know about that. If it is possible to create a forcefield of a certain shape (other than trivial ones, such as spheres around a point, or planes inside frames), it would be very convenient indeed to have the aerodynamic shape of a vehicle be dictated by a forcefield rather than by physical forms. That way, the shape could easily be changed for different flight regimes, probably requiring much less mass and complexity than if the hull were built of moving parts and extending and contracting sections.

And it does seem that forcefields of different shapes are possible in the Trek universe; at least we see various ovoids in addition to the trivial shapes. And these forcefields indeed have the well-established property of preventing the passage of physical matter such as air, so they would make for very nice aerodynamic "bodies".

Timo Saloniemi

 

[aridas sofia]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

After lots of blood, sweat and tears the basic assembly of my rear landing gear are done.

I really wanted to come up with something different and compact so I came up with this (not detailed or textured yet, just want to get the articulation right):

It doesn't look like much until you watch the video of it in action:

Divx:
http://www.redspar.com/shuttlevid/geartestdivx.avi

Xvid:
http://www.redspar.com/shuttlevid/geartest_xvid.avi

Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyIN2EznK0s&fmt=6

Let the gear debate insue!

Impressive. Not exactly what I envisioned (I saw something more akin to Galileo's stern gear) but this looks like it would work. have you made any progress with the hull textures?

 

[RedSpar]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Well since my gear design doesn't seem to be very popular, I'll go back and just make a simple swing arm gear design similar to the drawing.

I haven't had a chance to even touch my model since the last update, I've just been terribly busy with real life - ugh. I will try to get back on it this weekend.

 

[QuasarVM]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

This thing you call "real life"...what is that? I may have heard of it once.

 

[Warped9]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Well since my gear design doesn't seem to be very popular, I'll go back and just make a simple swing arm gear design similar to the drawing.

There can be room to veer from the "established" at times. The aft landing plate for my TOS shuttlecraft plans is not the same as what was actually there onscreen. I changed it because I simply couldn't accept the bare bones plate that was the actual thing--it just looked totally wrong in my eyes. Because I had to make some compromises as I was integrating all three versions of the shuttlecraft into one then I took it upon myself to design a new and clean looking aft plate that looked aesthetically consistent with the rest of the vehicle. I think I succeeded for the most part because very few people remarked on it.

This design you're working on was never finalized. It never got beyond the conceptual stage. To that end this gives you some measure of creative freedom particularly with things that are not obvious or clearly established in intent.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Agreed with Warped9's comments, above.

It's not necessary to "stick with what we know," as long as what you come up with in an improvement and doesn't lose the "core" of "what we know."

I have no problem with, as Warped9 says, his "tweak" of the landing pads on the TOS shuttle. When I look at that, what I'm seeing is "what it really looked like," while what we saw on-screen was a simplified representation of that.

Make sense?

 

[USS Triumphant]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

What the two posts above me said, plus: I'm not sure how I feel about your design for the gear, but I know I don't like the swing arm in the original concept drawing. It looks ... uncomfortable ... with that bend in it, at that angle. This goes against the materials argument I was trying to pick with Cary L. Brown earlier in the thread , but to me, it just doesn't look efficient for supporting weight with it like that.

 

[aridas sofia]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

I like this landing gear. I think it looks functional. I would also like a landing gear that looks like it was made from some futuristic material -- that looks incapable of doing what it is being shown doing unless it is something contemporary materials science cannot do. That was what I was trying to hint at in the concept I illustrated. But it is perfectly reasonable for a landing gear from the future to look like something from today. After all, the wheel on my car is just as round as one on a chariot.

 

[TIN_MAN]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

BTW if your still interested, I found Reverend's Jeffries shuttle over at "The Journal for Applied Treknology", its in the history section under the 23 century.

 

[Timo]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Indeed. The aft leg that Kirs drew doesn't look like it could retract into the hull, though - it would be more like the TOS shuttle leg in that respect. I'm not sure I like that interpretation, as the leg isn't optimally configured for taking the vertical stresses, either. I'd much prefer something that can either optimally cushion and retract, or then at least optimally cushion.

But there's something to be said for Reverend's horizontal pylons that don't go all the way down before meeting the vertical section that holds the leg and the nacelle...

Timo Saloniemi