Matt Jefferies original shuttle design

[aridas sofia]

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?

We don't know what he intended, of course. But in my mind, the center, recessed area is devoted to the impulse engine and heat dissipation. The five port to starboard lines were meant to represent louvers. Aft of the louvers I planned something reminiscent of the doo-dad above the impulse engines on the 1701. Something like this:

Jefferies also has the recessed area extend back beyond the aft of the main body -- something I didn't do because it didn't seem to fit any functional purpose.

 

[RedSpar]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

WOW Aridas, now that is how to answer my question!

I wonder what the purpose of the inset grooves along the top of the hull would be for? (almost the opposite of the top of the TOS box shuttle, where there is a lip at the top)

Many thanks... I'll try to post another update tonight or tomorrow, I gotta spread my time around on other things ATM.

 

[Psion]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

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.

Even assuming this is the case for 23rd century craft, it would require a greater expenditure of power to provide "forcefield streamlining" whereas a more efficient design would provide such a benefit simply by its very nature.

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

Fair enough and excellent point about the radiation -- I doubt the shielding on a shuttlecraft is as complete as that on a larger vessel.

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.

True, but that's one of those conceptualizations some of us earthbound mortals might have trouble with -- it's damned counter-intuitive. I'm more comfortable with a folding-wing solution than sticking the things on the wall like 23rd century refrigerator magnets.

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.

Understood ... carry on. It's always dangerous to butt-in on the work of talented artists, but I appreciate your reasoning and interpretations. I'll go back to my lint inspection duties now.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

It would have looked better if the nacelles were right on the wing tip. In other words the wing would go straight out, there would be no raised pylon -- just the nacelle.

Now that would be totally badass

 

[Herbert1]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

It would have looked better if the nacelles were right on the wing tip. In other words the wing would go straight out, there would be no raised pylon -- just the nacelle.

Now that would be totally badass

I disagree, I like the raised pylon on the design.

 

[RedSpar]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

I agree Herbert, the raised pylons are one of the really cool aspects of this design IMO.

Well, here is a full body shot for the first time as I put the 2 halves together.

Front cockpit windows (no glass yet) and clam shell hatch installed (I can't tell you how hard that was to get right on that curved hull! )

Sharpened the edges on the hull in a few spots, mainly around the belt line but letting it blend into a smooth wing shape as it hits the front.

Top "luggage rack" notched out awaiting greebly goodies that aridas sketched out for me.

Tons more left to do
- impulse engine (going to put a lot of detail there) goes inbetween the top and bottom halves of the hull in the rear
-Install landing gear and make it articulate
-rig the hatch doors to articulate and model interior steps
-fine detailing on the hull

Too tired to do more than one render tonight, I'll show some more views tomorrow.

 

[trekkerguy]

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]

Or the ship's hull material can withstand the friction like the heatshields of
a Space Shuttle. Whatever the case, I simply prefer the aesthetics of the
TOS and early TNG shuttles and the technology of Trek is sufficient enough
to explain them working fine. The type-6 from TNG will always be the best
design in my opinion.

A very functional design without losing it's character in favor of being flat.

 

[Hyperspace05]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Very nice work!!!

 

[Wingsley]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Wow. I love the artwork in this thread.

Is this shuttlecraft supposed to be a "Cage" era or pre-"Cage" model of the Starfleet-issue Class F design?

Oh, I hope none of you throw rocks at me for saying this, but if it supposed to be 2250's or earlier, I say give the back end some tail fins to make 'em stand out.

[ runs and ducks ]

 

[FalTorPan]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

RedSpar, that 3D rendering looks awesome. I wasn't fond of this Jefferies design until I saw the latest rendering. Wow!

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

WOW Aridas, now that is how to answer my question!

I wonder what the purpose of the inset grooves along the top of the hull would be for? (almost the opposite of the top of the TOS box shuttle, where there is a lip at the top)

Many thanks... I'll try to post another update tonight or tomorrow, I gotta spread my time around on other things ATM.

About those grooves...

Remember, MJ originally envisioned the shuttles being deployed and recovered by a sort of crane, off of rails on the roof of the shuttle. This idea was abandoned for many years, but was brought back for "Enterprise," by the way.

Now, many people look at shuttlecraft and think about "how would this be used with this particular ship?" But you don't want a craft tied to just one docking/landing/whatever circumstance, do you?

So... I look at the "inwards-bent lips" on the final TOS shuttle as being tied to something like that. And, on the "original concept" you're working on, I'd treat those grooves as rails for a launch/recover crane as well, though a somewhat different version obviously.

 

[lennier1]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

You could always just call some of those details on top "maglock hardpoints" for such a crane and be done with it.

 

[sojourner]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Beautiful work. Question, is that crease at the nose intentional, an artifact of building just half and mirroring, or an optical illusion? I ask, because it does not show up in the plan views. Yes, Jeffries did show a line in one of the small isometrics, but I think that is merely there to help visualize the curve of the hull, not to represent a crease.

On a broader note, while I love the graceful lines of the fuselage on Jeffries design, the wings/nacelles just scream "awkward" to me. I think if he had pursued this design a more elegant answer would have been found.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

This design always struck me as more fitting as something of a 23rd Century Lear jet kind of ship. Something Flint might have been zipping around in before he bought that planet and settled down to his life of seclusion.

 

[RedSpar]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

This design always struck me as more fitting as something of a 23rd Century Lear jet kind of ship. Something Flint might have been zipping around in before he bought that planet and settled down to his life of seclusion.

I could definitely see that. Maybe we all here could come up with a place for this shuttle in pseudo fan canon. Being a bit larger than the standard TOS shuttle it could be used for different mission requirements. Maybe the Enterprise would carry one of these and the other 3-4 shuttles would be the standard type.

It's probably blasphemous, but when I am done I think I will make a fighter or at least armed variant

Beautiful work. Question, is that crease at the nose intentional, an artifact of building just half and mirroring, or an optical illusion? I ask, because it does not show up in the plan views. Yes, Jeffries did show a line in one of the small isometrics, but I think that is merely there to help visualize the curve of the hull, not to represent a crease.

On a broader note, while I love the graceful lines of the fuselage on Jeffries design, the wings/nacelles just scream "awkward" to me. I think if he had pursued this design a more elegant answer would have been found.

The crease is there because I just slapped the halves together real quick just to see how it looks complete. Once I finalize it, I can get rid of it, although, I kinda like it as it breaks up the excessive smoothy-ness of the ship. We'll see what I end up doing.

I think when you see the landing gear on it, it won't look so awkward (But personally I like the look of the winglets)

WOW Aridas, now that is how to answer my question!

I wonder what the purpose of the inset grooves along the top of the hull would be for? (almost the opposite of the top of the TOS box shuttle, where there is a lip at the top)

Many thanks... I'll try to post another update tonight or tomorrow, I gotta spread my time around on other things ATM.

About those grooves...

Remember, MJ originally envisioned the shuttles being deployed and recovered by a sort of crane, off of rails on the roof of the shuttle. This idea was abandoned for many years, but was brought back for "Enterprise," by the way.

Now, many people look at shuttlecraft and think about "how would this be used with this particular ship?" But you don't want a craft tied to just one docking/landing/whatever circumstance, do you?

So... I look at the "inwards-bent lips" on the final TOS shuttle as being tied to something like that. And, on the "original concept" you're working on, I'd treat those grooves as rails for a launch/recover crane as well, though a somewhat different version obviously.

Sounds great, and I'll try to model something to that effect.

Wow. I love the artwork in this thread.

Is this shuttlecraft supposed to be a "Cage" era or pre-"Cage" model of the Starfleet-issue Class F design?

Oh, I hope none of you throw rocks at me for saying this, but if it supposed to be 2250's or earlier, I say give the back end some tail fins to make 'em stand out.

[ runs and ducks ]

It's funny, while it does look very 'retro' it also looks very modern to me at the same time. There is a lot of B-2 stealth bomber to its looks.

I definitely could see some tail fins on it, I may slap some on later just to see how it looks.

 

[Bernard Guignard]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Very nice work there

 

[Warped9]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

RedSpar, very interesting project. I'm looking forward to seeing how this evolves. I'm most interested in seeing how you scale this craft since the entry/exit hatch looks rather small and the craft looks rather wide.

If I were doing this (and I've contemplated it) then I'd lean towards making the vehicle a bit more narrow.

Even so I like what you're doing and I can see this as a predecessor or even a contemporary to the Ptolemy design I sketched out.

When I see work like this I feel even more disparaging towards the stuff done in ENT.

 

[RedSpar]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

I think this shuttle was intended to be larger than the current TOS shuttle. Although some of his sketches conflicted with each other, some showing it very wide and others showing it narrow. At any rate, I think the TOS universe could use a slightly larger shuttle IMO.

-ENT... Ugh. Such opportunity lost.

BTW, I love all your work on TOS shuttles Warped9. Incredible amount of depth and detail you have done.

 

[Warped9]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Larger shuttlecraft are nice, but keep in mind that these vehicles need to fit within the existing hangar deck facilities.

If you want some idea as to how much work goes into scaling these craft to fit with the existing hangar deck areas then feel free to refer to My TOS Shuttlecraft threads to see what I went through to get my Class F and Class H shuttlecraft the right size. When I look back over those threads it makes for some interesting reading where you can see that you must consider things you might have never thought would matter.

 

[aridas sofia]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Larger shuttlecraft are nice, but keep in mind that these vehicles need to fit within the existing hangar deck facilities.

Not all ships would be the same, and not all hangar facilities would be the same. In fact, it is arguable that a ship and its hangar facilities would be designed specifically with its intended shuttle complement foremost in mind.

So, a ship intended to carry this shuttle would have different hangar facilities than the Enterprise. If Enterprise needed to rendezvous with such a large shuttle, it would either bring it onto the flight deck and not take it below, or if too large to bring inside, simply bring it alongside and use beaming (or external docking) for transmission of people and cargo.

BTW, I see several of this style of shuttle in service. One might be small and more narrow, with one forward window. Another might be midsized, with two forward windows. Finally, this one might be the biggest of the bunch, perhaps not even meant to be brought aboard any but the largest of ships.