Creative types can be temperamental. So hold on to your hats, folks, because I’m seriously considering jettisoning my Class H design.
Why? Because I’m less than enamored with it. I first envisioned it way back in the mid ‘70s when I was in my mid teens and I’ve long held a fondness for it. But now the more I look at it the more dissatisfied I feel despite a measure of lingering sentiment. Evermore it just looks like something rather fanboyish that lacks distinctiveness and an overall design integrity. Okay, I may be overstating it some. I’m just wondering if I can do better and I think I can
Whatever one thinks of the Class F it has design integrity. All its elements work together and look like they’re exactly where they’re supposed to be—such as the access hatch works credibly as designed because the warp nacelles are positioned to support it. But by shifting the nacelles drastically rearward (as I did) then the access hatch really needs to be wholly redesigned to work properly. I’m also unsatisfied with the look of the stabilizer and support pylons in conjunction with the nacelles—it just doesn’t look right. I now feel that my design simply perpetuates the basic approach first seen when (and perhaps even before) FJ gave us new ship designs that were really just elements of the TOS Enterprise rearranged in a different way—something many fans have been doing ever since in every incarnation of Trek.
But a truly credible and successful design would look like it is aesthetically consistent with everything else in TOS while still looking fresh and well integrated unto itself. I think my Class H design looks aesthetically consistent, but I think it’s lacking in overall design integrity. I’m skeptical MJ would have done it that way.
To that end I’m left with three options:
- Forget about the whole thing and just assume/accept that in the “real” live-action world of TOS the Copernicus was simply a reused Class F. Of course, this is the simplest approach assuming TAS’ “The Slaver Weapon” had been filmed live-action. It would also make my project somewhat smaller in scope and much more near completion. Furthermore, there is no reference whatsoever in “The Slaver Weapon” that even suggests the Copernicus was anything other than a standard shuttlecraft, other than its appearance and the fact that TAS never showed us a familiar Class F. Not even Alan Dean Foster’s adaptation of the episode in his Star Trek Log series says anything about the Copernicus being something unusual. The only reference to a scout type shuttle is in ADF’s adaptation of “Mudd’s Passion” and it is only a quick reference with no specifics. For all we know the scout idea was wholly ADF’s and all these years many fans (including myself) have simply assumed the reference applied to the rakish looking craft seen in “The Slaver Weapon.” But there is nothing at all to support that assumption other than speculation. Likewise there’s nothing in the episode “Mudd’s Passion” that references the stolen shuttlecraft as anything special either. Only ADF refers to Mudd’s stolen vehicle as a heavy lander. For both “The Slaver Weapon” and “Mudd’s Passion” a Class F shuttlecraft would have fulfilled the story needs perfectly well. In fairness there’s a little more wiggle room regarding the shuttlecraft in “Mudd’s Passion” because ADF’s adaptation specifies that’s what Mudd hijacked and thus connects with what we saw onscreen. We’re then left to decide how much weight can be given to ADF’s printed reference. Only the aquashuttle from “The Ambergris Element” is truly inconsistent with what had already been established in TOS. The idea of the scoutship and the heavy lander fall into the category of fan acceptance or “fanon” much as the acceptance of James Blish’s references to the Earth/Romulan conflict in Trek history in his adaptation of “Balance Of Terror” regarding continuity. The printed references were largely consistent with what was established onscreen and so we eagerly accepted these extra worldbuilding details to flesh out the Star Trek universe. They became so entrenched in collective acceptance that it was no wonder ENT aroused so much heated debate—but I don’t want to get that debate started again here.
- Taking a step away from hard reality, imagine the TOS producers manage to tweak their shuttlecraft mockups to have a shuttlecraft variant. Budget wise, and if TOS had lasted another season, then this just might have been feasible. And it’s something I can very easily do without violating the overall design integrity of the Class F. This was essentially my initial idea for the Copernicus until I reached into the past of youthful enthusiasm, and it’s still my fall back option failing my final alternative. The design would be consistent with the TOS aesthetic and the design would have its own overall integrity. And this option makes the most sense in terms of real world credibility. If Starfleet could wring more performance out of an existing and proven design with a little tuning to suit its requirements then that would be more cost effective than contracting for an entirely new vehicle. My view, though, is this wouldn’t be a whole new class of shuttlecraft but simply a variant. Perhaps a Class F3. I also have what could be one tiny tenuous clue to support this idea. When Kirk and (the phantom) Mendez set off after Spock in “The Menagerie” you’d think Kirk would grab the fastest thing at hand even knowing nothing available would catch the Enterprise if Spock made a race for it. Of course we know the real reason is the TOS producers could only use what they had at hand: the Class F model. But if you’re willing to stretch you could say that it just happened that not only were there not any starships at Starbase 11 but no scout (or runabout) type shuttlecraft were either. And so Kirk took the next best thing: an extended range type shuttlecraft, a Class F3… Okay, it’s flimsy, but it’s a morsel of rationalizing.
- Start with a clean sheet. Let’s assume TOS had had a fourth season and resources became available to build another shuttlecraft variant. This, of course, is the most fun option, but it involves a lot of thought and is really little more than assumption and fan speculation. If you’re going to envision a Starfleet shuttlecraft for TOS that has to exist alongside the familiar Class F within the confines of the Enterprise’s hangar facilities then there will be design constraints, particularly if you want to incorporate elements of the TAS scoutship to evoke at least some visual kinship with it. And so the next step would be establishing design parameters. Not only must the design look like it belongs in the TOS universe (very important), but it cannot exceed 29ft. in length (preferably less) and must be approximately the same overall size as the Class F design in width and height. This point is pretty much non-negotiable if you want the craft to be accommodated with the Enterprise’s hangar facilities. It also dictates that the TAS design as is isn’t going to work. That’s okay because I’m going to adapt that later anyway into a Starbase based shuttlecraft.
Now I’ve been sketching out some ideas and it appears I just might be able to render something that bridges the Class F and the TAS concept, with some compromises, of course:
- The Class F will serve as a basic template, but the new design will diverge overall while still retaining a recognizable TOS aesthetic. In conjunction with appearance this also means it must look like something that could have been reasonably feasible to construct as a fullsize mockup during series production, in much the same way the original shuttlecraft mockup was meant to represent a larger and more refined “real” spacecraft, which is what I’m trying to render.
- On the TAS ship the warp nacelles were fixed on the upper part of the craft and set aftward. In my sketches this might be doable and still end up looking credible. However, to some extent this might mean rethinking the access hatch arrangement as seen on the Class F.
- The TAS ship had its access hatch at the rear of the craft. This is also doable, but it means rethinking the impulse engine setup. Note that the TAS design didn’t appear to have impulse engines. In my forthcoming adaptation of the TAS scoutship I’ve addressed this by planning to have the impulse engines incorporated into the sides of the main hull, something I might also be able to do similarly in a new TOS design. Also, this arrangement consequently allows for more flexibility in interior space for crew.
- The TAS design had a pronounced bow section (indeed all the TAS shuttles did). This is an impossibility for a TOS design intended to be starship based because it severely compromises interior space and overall size constraints, except perhaps if you’re willing to accept a severely cramped interior for a long range vehicle which isn’t my preference. By severely I mean no more interior room than an average fullsize car or maybe a minivan—far too cramped for an extended range vehicle.
- The TAS ship had a large panoramic forward viewport. While it wouldn’t be impossible to incorporate this design element I don’t think it works within the context of TOS. Starfleet design in TOS shows that starships and shuttlecraft are flown primarily by instrumentation and that any views of the outside are easily addressed primarily with sophisticated monitor displays. I’m convinced a panoramic viewport would just look really out of place.
- The TAS craft had large stabilizer/landing supports. I think it’s quite possible to incorporate something of that look into a TOS design. This isn’t completely unprecedented since MJ’s original concept for the TOS shuttlecraft had something quite similar.
- A standing interior. With more flexibility regarding interior space then it might be possible to have a ceiling higher than the 5’-10” I have for my Class F design—it certainly wouldn’t be less. One possible option would be to have the pilot and navigator in a sort of cockpit with a lower ceiling. This would help to give the exterior a lower profile in the craft’s fore section and help in reaching a more rakish and streamlined look.
- A rakish look. After all is said and done a new design has to have some sort of coolness factor to it, in that it must have some measure of visual dynamic. This basically boils down to the craft not looking dorky or truly awkward in any way. Now fitting the warp engines to the upper part of the craft could really look odd if they’re set too far forward, and yet it might lengthen the design too much in size if set too far aft. A compromise could be that the nacelles could slide forward for shipboard storage much as aircraft have folding wings for storage aboard today’s aircraft carriers. For TOS this wouldn’t have been a serious issue because they never showed any shuttlecraft actually berthed below decks. We always saw the ships either launching, landing, in flight or landed on a planet surface. What this comes down to is creating an illusion—making a somewhat short and stubby vehicle look sleek and streamlined nonetheless, much like the Class F only perhaps more so.
One of the reasons this project has become rather protracted (besides the regular intrusion of real life) is my focus on detail. I’m referring not only to the inclusion of elements that often go unnoticed by the eye (and there can be plenty), but also aspects that many might not be conciously aware of, such as what things look like when you’re not seeing them straight on. If an object or detail is on a surface that curves or angles away from your point of view, even if just slightly, then it’s visible profile is changed. And to be accurate I’m trying to acknowledge those subtleties wherever possible. Visual shorthand can (and often is) employed in schematic type drawings (I’ve done it often myself), but if you really want to represent things properly then you have to patiently sweat the tedium of getting fine details as correct as you can.
I’m also trying to use line work in a creative way, by varying line thickness depending upon what surface or edge it denotes I’m endeavouring to convey some limited measure of 3D effect to a 2D rendering. I’m trying to impart a little more artistry beyond a straightforward schematic type of drawing. This is one step short of adding lighting effects and shadows or even colour to a purely orthographic view. Even 3D models can be presented without perspective to interesting effect.
Stay tuned.
Why? Because I’m less than enamored with it. I first envisioned it way back in the mid ‘70s when I was in my mid teens and I’ve long held a fondness for it. But now the more I look at it the more dissatisfied I feel despite a measure of lingering sentiment. Evermore it just looks like something rather fanboyish that lacks distinctiveness and an overall design integrity. Okay, I may be overstating it some. I’m just wondering if I can do better and I think I can
Whatever one thinks of the Class F it has design integrity. All its elements work together and look like they’re exactly where they’re supposed to be—such as the access hatch works credibly as designed because the warp nacelles are positioned to support it. But by shifting the nacelles drastically rearward (as I did) then the access hatch really needs to be wholly redesigned to work properly. I’m also unsatisfied with the look of the stabilizer and support pylons in conjunction with the nacelles—it just doesn’t look right. I now feel that my design simply perpetuates the basic approach first seen when (and perhaps even before) FJ gave us new ship designs that were really just elements of the TOS Enterprise rearranged in a different way—something many fans have been doing ever since in every incarnation of Trek.
But a truly credible and successful design would look like it is aesthetically consistent with everything else in TOS while still looking fresh and well integrated unto itself. I think my Class H design looks aesthetically consistent, but I think it’s lacking in overall design integrity. I’m skeptical MJ would have done it that way.
To that end I’m left with three options:
- Forget about the whole thing and just assume/accept that in the “real” live-action world of TOS the Copernicus was simply a reused Class F. Of course, this is the simplest approach assuming TAS’ “The Slaver Weapon” had been filmed live-action. It would also make my project somewhat smaller in scope and much more near completion. Furthermore, there is no reference whatsoever in “The Slaver Weapon” that even suggests the Copernicus was anything other than a standard shuttlecraft, other than its appearance and the fact that TAS never showed us a familiar Class F. Not even Alan Dean Foster’s adaptation of the episode in his Star Trek Log series says anything about the Copernicus being something unusual. The only reference to a scout type shuttle is in ADF’s adaptation of “Mudd’s Passion” and it is only a quick reference with no specifics. For all we know the scout idea was wholly ADF’s and all these years many fans (including myself) have simply assumed the reference applied to the rakish looking craft seen in “The Slaver Weapon.” But there is nothing at all to support that assumption other than speculation. Likewise there’s nothing in the episode “Mudd’s Passion” that references the stolen shuttlecraft as anything special either. Only ADF refers to Mudd’s stolen vehicle as a heavy lander. For both “The Slaver Weapon” and “Mudd’s Passion” a Class F shuttlecraft would have fulfilled the story needs perfectly well. In fairness there’s a little more wiggle room regarding the shuttlecraft in “Mudd’s Passion” because ADF’s adaptation specifies that’s what Mudd hijacked and thus connects with what we saw onscreen. We’re then left to decide how much weight can be given to ADF’s printed reference. Only the aquashuttle from “The Ambergris Element” is truly inconsistent with what had already been established in TOS. The idea of the scoutship and the heavy lander fall into the category of fan acceptance or “fanon” much as the acceptance of James Blish’s references to the Earth/Romulan conflict in Trek history in his adaptation of “Balance Of Terror” regarding continuity. The printed references were largely consistent with what was established onscreen and so we eagerly accepted these extra worldbuilding details to flesh out the Star Trek universe. They became so entrenched in collective acceptance that it was no wonder ENT aroused so much heated debate—but I don’t want to get that debate started again here.
- Taking a step away from hard reality, imagine the TOS producers manage to tweak their shuttlecraft mockups to have a shuttlecraft variant. Budget wise, and if TOS had lasted another season, then this just might have been feasible. And it’s something I can very easily do without violating the overall design integrity of the Class F. This was essentially my initial idea for the Copernicus until I reached into the past of youthful enthusiasm, and it’s still my fall back option failing my final alternative. The design would be consistent with the TOS aesthetic and the design would have its own overall integrity. And this option makes the most sense in terms of real world credibility. If Starfleet could wring more performance out of an existing and proven design with a little tuning to suit its requirements then that would be more cost effective than contracting for an entirely new vehicle. My view, though, is this wouldn’t be a whole new class of shuttlecraft but simply a variant. Perhaps a Class F3. I also have what could be one tiny tenuous clue to support this idea. When Kirk and (the phantom) Mendez set off after Spock in “The Menagerie” you’d think Kirk would grab the fastest thing at hand even knowing nothing available would catch the Enterprise if Spock made a race for it. Of course we know the real reason is the TOS producers could only use what they had at hand: the Class F model. But if you’re willing to stretch you could say that it just happened that not only were there not any starships at Starbase 11 but no scout (or runabout) type shuttlecraft were either. And so Kirk took the next best thing: an extended range type shuttlecraft, a Class F3… Okay, it’s flimsy, but it’s a morsel of rationalizing.
- Start with a clean sheet. Let’s assume TOS had had a fourth season and resources became available to build another shuttlecraft variant. This, of course, is the most fun option, but it involves a lot of thought and is really little more than assumption and fan speculation. If you’re going to envision a Starfleet shuttlecraft for TOS that has to exist alongside the familiar Class F within the confines of the Enterprise’s hangar facilities then there will be design constraints, particularly if you want to incorporate elements of the TAS scoutship to evoke at least some visual kinship with it. And so the next step would be establishing design parameters. Not only must the design look like it belongs in the TOS universe (very important), but it cannot exceed 29ft. in length (preferably less) and must be approximately the same overall size as the Class F design in width and height. This point is pretty much non-negotiable if you want the craft to be accommodated with the Enterprise’s hangar facilities. It also dictates that the TAS design as is isn’t going to work. That’s okay because I’m going to adapt that later anyway into a Starbase based shuttlecraft.
Now I’ve been sketching out some ideas and it appears I just might be able to render something that bridges the Class F and the TAS concept, with some compromises, of course:
- The Class F will serve as a basic template, but the new design will diverge overall while still retaining a recognizable TOS aesthetic. In conjunction with appearance this also means it must look like something that could have been reasonably feasible to construct as a fullsize mockup during series production, in much the same way the original shuttlecraft mockup was meant to represent a larger and more refined “real” spacecraft, which is what I’m trying to render.
- On the TAS ship the warp nacelles were fixed on the upper part of the craft and set aftward. In my sketches this might be doable and still end up looking credible. However, to some extent this might mean rethinking the access hatch arrangement as seen on the Class F.
- The TAS ship had its access hatch at the rear of the craft. This is also doable, but it means rethinking the impulse engine setup. Note that the TAS design didn’t appear to have impulse engines. In my forthcoming adaptation of the TAS scoutship I’ve addressed this by planning to have the impulse engines incorporated into the sides of the main hull, something I might also be able to do similarly in a new TOS design. Also, this arrangement consequently allows for more flexibility in interior space for crew.
- The TAS design had a pronounced bow section (indeed all the TAS shuttles did). This is an impossibility for a TOS design intended to be starship based because it severely compromises interior space and overall size constraints, except perhaps if you’re willing to accept a severely cramped interior for a long range vehicle which isn’t my preference. By severely I mean no more interior room than an average fullsize car or maybe a minivan—far too cramped for an extended range vehicle.
- The TAS ship had a large panoramic forward viewport. While it wouldn’t be impossible to incorporate this design element I don’t think it works within the context of TOS. Starfleet design in TOS shows that starships and shuttlecraft are flown primarily by instrumentation and that any views of the outside are easily addressed primarily with sophisticated monitor displays. I’m convinced a panoramic viewport would just look really out of place.
- The TAS craft had large stabilizer/landing supports. I think it’s quite possible to incorporate something of that look into a TOS design. This isn’t completely unprecedented since MJ’s original concept for the TOS shuttlecraft had something quite similar.
- A standing interior. With more flexibility regarding interior space then it might be possible to have a ceiling higher than the 5’-10” I have for my Class F design—it certainly wouldn’t be less. One possible option would be to have the pilot and navigator in a sort of cockpit with a lower ceiling. This would help to give the exterior a lower profile in the craft’s fore section and help in reaching a more rakish and streamlined look.
- A rakish look. After all is said and done a new design has to have some sort of coolness factor to it, in that it must have some measure of visual dynamic. This basically boils down to the craft not looking dorky or truly awkward in any way. Now fitting the warp engines to the upper part of the craft could really look odd if they’re set too far forward, and yet it might lengthen the design too much in size if set too far aft. A compromise could be that the nacelles could slide forward for shipboard storage much as aircraft have folding wings for storage aboard today’s aircraft carriers. For TOS this wouldn’t have been a serious issue because they never showed any shuttlecraft actually berthed below decks. We always saw the ships either launching, landing, in flight or landed on a planet surface. What this comes down to is creating an illusion—making a somewhat short and stubby vehicle look sleek and streamlined nonetheless, much like the Class F only perhaps more so.
One of the reasons this project has become rather protracted (besides the regular intrusion of real life) is my focus on detail. I’m referring not only to the inclusion of elements that often go unnoticed by the eye (and there can be plenty), but also aspects that many might not be conciously aware of, such as what things look like when you’re not seeing them straight on. If an object or detail is on a surface that curves or angles away from your point of view, even if just slightly, then it’s visible profile is changed. And to be accurate I’m trying to acknowledge those subtleties wherever possible. Visual shorthand can (and often is) employed in schematic type drawings (I’ve done it often myself), but if you really want to represent things properly then you have to patiently sweat the tedium of getting fine details as correct as you can.
I’m also trying to use line work in a creative way, by varying line thickness depending upon what surface or edge it denotes I’m endeavouring to convey some limited measure of 3D effect to a 2D rendering. I’m trying to impart a little more artistry beyond a straightforward schematic type of drawing. This is one step short of adding lighting effects and shadows or even colour to a purely orthographic view. Even 3D models can be presented without perspective to interesting effect.
Stay tuned.
And I must say I'm quite satisfied with the results. The detailing is much better and I've corrected numerous small flaws that had crept into the earlier versions. My own worst enemy is periodic impatience where I must force myself to slow down or even walk away to avoid glossing over something rather than taking the the care to get it right.
).
). Here is a slightly cleaned up version of that same sketch.
