Matt Jefferies original shuttle design

[aridas sofia]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

if you are interested in doing covers for the spacetime attractors, check out Vektor's work on my Kiaga design:

http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=58577&highlight=kiaga

Towards the end of the thread, he developed ingenuous covers for this pre-TOS design. Something similar might work for this ship.

 

[Hyperspace05]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Nice work, *BUT* I don't think you should smooth it out more than the original design was... That would make it stand out as very different against existing ST designs. Sure, the TOS/TMP Enterprises have rounded edges, but as with most realistic designs there are also lots of sharp hard edges.

For example, smoothing out the horizontal 'edge' that stylistically connects the nacelles in front of and below the cockpit windows is a mistake. The hard ridge adds character to a design that would otherwise look like a blob.

 

[TIN_MAN]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Looks great so far! I was hopeing someone would get around to this someday. You might want check out Reverend's version over at The 'Journal of applied Treknology'
via Ex Astris Scientia's 'Feet Yards' index, for another take on this design?

 

[RedSpar]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

if you are interested in doing covers for the spacetime attractors, check out Vektor's work on my Kiaga design:

http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=58577&highlight=kiaga

Towards the end of the thread, he developed ingenuous covers for this pre-TOS design. Something similar might work for this ship.

That is along the lines I was thinking, just able to be full enclosed without looking clunky (which is the hard part)... I'll have to ponder it awhile.

 

[RedSpar]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Nice work, *BUT* I don't think you should smooth it out more than the original design was... That would make it stand out as very different against existing ST designs. Sure, the TOS/TMP Enterprises have rounded edges, but as with most realistic designs there are also lots of sharp hard edges.

For example, smoothing out the horizontal 'edge' that stylistically connects the nacelles in front of and below the cockpit windows is a mistake. The hard ridge adds character to a design that would otherwise look like a blob.

Yeah I'll edge it up a bit more when I get to detailing. But I want to keep the wings smooth (after all they are wings)

 

[RedSpar]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Looks great so far! I was hopeing someone would get around to this someday. You might want check out Reverend's version over at The 'Journal of applied Treknology'
via Ex Astris Scientia's 'Feet Yards' index, for another take on this design?

Do you have a link? I looked around but I couldn't find it.

 

[ncc74302]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

It's very strange how much that last design resembles what ended up being the shuttlepods from TNG...

 

[RedSpar]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Engine update:

I tried not to go nuts with the TOS nacelle, but add just enough detail over stock to make it interesting. I think I will add a bit more detail work on the middle section.

One thing this design lends itself to is quickly swapping engines out. Starfleet could mount different nacelles or even weapon pods depending on the mission. I'm going to make a small mount similar to a inverted bomb rack or wingtank on a jet fighter for this (it will be small and hardly noticeable)

 

[TIN_MAN]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Sorry no linky, I tried but it didn't work. I also looked and didn't see it so maybe it's been taken out or something? With any luck maybe Reverand will do us the honor of a visit and post a pic?

 

[Hyperspace05]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Very nice progress...

One thought though... When I first saw the design I assumed that the nacelles actually were folded up for landing (revealing landing gear), and that they would be pointing down during flight. I think that would look cool, but I assume you want to follow the original design.

 

[BolianAuthor]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

This is frakking awesome. I can't wait to see this when it's completed. I'll be watching this thread!

 

[trekkerguy]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

I think his original sketch is much more graceful and makes much more sense since a shuttle needs to be aerodynamic for going in and out of the atmosphere.

I've never really understood this logic with the advanced propulsion and
shielding applied in the show, so I have always favored the "boxier" designs
for shuttlecraft. Very cool design though.

 

[Psion]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Very nice work, Redspar. My only worry -- not even a criticism -- is that the engines and pylons are spaced too wide. This would take up a lot of space in the hangar facilities. I think the "problem" originates, with all due respect, in Aridas' original orthogonals. Jeffries' sketch shows what appears to be a tighter configuration that wouldn't use quite so much space.

 

[aridas sofia]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

I think his original sketch is much more graceful and makes much more sense since a shuttle needs to be aerodynamic for going in and out of the atmosphere.

I've never really understood this logic with the advanced propulsion and
shielding applied in the show, so I have always favored the "boxier" designs
for shuttlecraft. Very cool design though.

I think different shapes would mean different jobs. After all, sports cars and eighteen-wheelers have different shapes. In this case, I'd think that the boxier shuttlecraft would be primarily designed for space-to-space travel, while the aeroshuttles would be designed to travel through an atmosphere. Either could do the other's job, just not as well.

 

[trekkerguy]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

I think his original sketch is much more graceful and makes much more sense since a shuttle needs to be aerodynamic for going in and out of the atmosphere.

I've never really understood this logic with the advanced propulsion and
shielding applied in the show, so I have always favored the "boxier" designs
for shuttlecraft. Very cool design though.

I think different shapes would mean different jobs. After all, sports cars and eighteen-wheelers have different shapes. In this case, I'd think that the boxier shuttlecraft would be primarily designed for space-to-space travel, while the aeroshuttles would be designed to travel through an atmosphere. Either could do the other's job, just not as well.

I think they could. The only reason we got "sleeker" designs was so that
they would look "cooler". With the shielding and deflectors and propulsion
that is used in Trek I doubt areodynamics would be an actual issue.

The only, only thing that bothered me about Nemesis was that the Argo
had those stabilizer fins on it. Again with the propulsion technologies that
doesn't seem to be of use.

 

[RedSpar]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

I think they could. The only reason we got "sleeker" designs was so that
they would look "cooler". With the shielding and deflectors and propulsion
that is used in Trek I doubt areodynamics would be an actual issue.

The only, only thing that bothered me about Nemesis was that the Argo
had those stabilizer fins on it. Again with the propulsion technologies that
doesn't seem to be of use.

That is until said propulsion and or deflectors break down or damaged in combat and you need to dead stick land the ship or reenter from orbit. [*See episode Galileo 7]

 

[RedSpar]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Very nice work, Redspar. My only worry -- not even a criticism -- is that the engines and pylons are spaced too wide. This would take up a lot of space in the hangar facilities. I think the "problem" originates, with all due respect, in Aridas' original orthogonals. Jeffries' sketch shows what appears to be a tighter configuration that wouldn't use quite so much space.

Thanks Psion!

Well if you look at Matt's front view sketch, it looks about the same width as what I have.

There is 2 ways to look at it.. 1, yes it is wider...2, sure is nice to keep radiation from the nacelles away from the passengers as much as you can!

I still wouldn't say it is excessively wide. Same as an F-18 on a flight deck lets say

 

[USS Triumphant]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

(cool pic - snipped)
Absolutely fantastic design. It blends the aerodynamic elements of Jefferies' original shuttles with his boxy little shuttle to come up with something that is arguably better than any of them, including Galileo. And it feels true to what Jefferies would have done had he had the budget.

It also reminds me a lot of a Visitor spacefighter from V. Which is cool - I always liked those little ships.

Very nice work, Redspar. My only worry -- not even a criticism -- is that the engines and pylons are spaced too wide. This would take up a lot of space in the hangar facilities.

Hangar space might not be as big a deal, anyway, if you remember to take artificial gravity and the lack of a real "up" in space into account. There's no real reason one of those bad boys couldn't be parked on the hangar "floor", another on the "ceiling" and maybe even a couple on the walls. One would assume there would have to be either clamps or some sort of emergency protocol for having the shuttles take over maintaining their own position and orientation in the event of an artificial gravity failure, anyway - even for the ones on the "floor", because without art. grav., they're going to bang around the hanger just like any others.

 

[aridas sofia]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Very nice work, Redspar. My only worry -- not even a criticism -- is that the engines and pylons are spaced too wide. This would take up a lot of space in the hangar facilities. I think the "problem" originates, with all due respect, in Aridas' original orthogonals. Jeffries' sketch shows what appears to be a tighter configuration that wouldn't use quite so much space.

Jefferies switches between a narrow-body concept with one forward window, and one that widens to the front (with at least two forward windows). His front view is of a very wide bow, as RedSpar has noted.

I intended this design to supplement the butter dish shuttlecraft, not replace it. So, it is meant to be bigger and only carried when absolutely needed. (A TOS version of his later Phase II aeroshuttle is the standard atmospheric shuttle in my 1701 cross section.)

While Jefferies never (to my knowledge) indicates these pylons/nacelles can fold/unfold, it was definitely my intent to portray it as having that ability. The connection of this shuttle to a WW2 fighter like the F4-U Corsair was just too good to pass by, and would have been very much in keeping with Jefferies' WW2 co-pilot sensibilities. And anyway, I needed to get the big thing up through the floor of the flight deck.

 

[RedSpar]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

OK I am going to go work on the main hull some more. Aridas, what are the 2 long rectangles that go down the top of the hull? Railings of some sort? (I'm trying to figure out how to go about modeling it) And on top of the roof there is some parallel lines close together...Are those vents or louvers or something?

Any input from others would be great too on this.