Matt Jefferies original shuttle design

[Ptrope]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Nice looking model! And even though I realize it's based largely on aridas's orthographics, I have to agree that it looks too wide - Jefferies's drawings show it being pretty much two-seats-wide, with maybe some console space between them - this design looks like it could actually be the 'next step up,' more of a yacht than a shuttle. No reason why the two couldn't co-exist. I've always thought of Jefferies's original design being mostly tubular in cross-section - kind of like a more advanced version of the shapes in the Buck Rogers/Flash Gordon serials.

Nice evolution on the gear, too.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

USS_Triumphant, based on the wording of your post, you get the "friendly warning" part of this post - do this again, and you get a real one.

My post was a wee bit smartass, but that was mainly because it seemed like Cary was being critical of excellent art that I feel it is pretty cool that RedSpar is sharing with us, period, and from the other thread, it was starting to seem to me like playing the Tellarite is his thing here, so I decided to try to Vulcan him.

I was trying to make a serious point, though: the tensile strength of the material would make a difference in some parts of what Cary was talking about. Without knowing what that material is and its attributes, some of this would be hard to speak to. And who knows what 200+ years of material science research will bring us?

But I'll acknowledge that based on later posts, it does seem that he was trying to be helpful rather than critical, and he just flat seems to know more than I do about architecture. (I really wasn't thinking about the load-bearing / leverage aspects of the whole thing.) I'll bear it in mind. Sor-ree.

Oh, and to reiterate the most important thing: These are some sweet illustrations you've got going here, RedSpar. But I'm short of credits. Is gp-latinum okay?

 

[RedSpar]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

In this case, that "scissor" element is used to keep the piston from over-extending.

One question.. I know you're basing this in large part upon the Space 1999 Eagle landing pads, but have you considered the purpose and function of the little "scissor/hinge" piece at the front? These never made a whole lot of sense with the Eagle, but at least in that case they seemed to be, potentially, able to apply small forces to the pad to ensure that it touched the ground parallel (or as nearly so as possible) to the ground's surface.

Real aircraft (or spacecraft) landing gear often have something somewhat similar, but those elements are quite a bit different, and are generally part of the shock-absorbtion scheme.

Here's the best example of a real-world version which I could find in a quick internet search. (again, not gonna hotlink, so just click the link)

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1296050/L/

In this case, the wheel is actually ON the "scissor" element, which also intersects the main vertical strut. But there's a second shock-absorbing strut at the front, attached to the other end of the "scissor" element. This makes for excellent gear articulation and the maximum shock-absorbtion while still maintaining a very rigid (at the maximum deflection of the scissor element) structure, very difficult to collapse.

I'm afraid you're both wrong here... The scissor element is called a torque arm and is used to stop the gear from rotating about the shaft... It is common on most larger retractable landing gear.

Thanks for the compliment Triumphant..

 

[SonicRanger]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Large: http://www.redspar.com/shuttle/newshuttle4.png

I don't care if it seems a bit wide -- that is one fantastic-looking craft!

 

[RedSpar]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Nice looking model! And even though I realize it's based largely on aridas's orthographics, I have to agree that it looks too wide - Jefferies's drawings show it being pretty much two-seats-wide, with maybe some console space between them - this design looks like it could actually be the 'next step up,' more of a yacht than a shuttle. No reason why the two couldn't co-exist. I've always thought of Jefferies's original design being mostly tubular in cross-section - kind of like a more advanced version of the shapes in the Buck Rogers/Flash Gordon serials.

Nice evolution on the gear, too.

Yeah, I debated on the width for a bit but I liked the look of Aridas orthos better as some of the other sketches made it look too tubular aka "Flash Gordon" rocket ship like. I like the semi-Romulan look it has now.

We could just re-designate this a heavy shuttle or small yacht. Like Aridas said before it is only a big shuttle when compared to the Enterprise's shuttles.. I'm sure some Fed ships have/should have much larger shuttlebays. Size wise it is probably comparable to a modern V-22 Osprey, maybe a bit smaller.

Besides, it is way past the point where I can go back and change it!

 

[Hyperspace05]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Very nice!!!

I do have to add my voice to the "too wide" chorus, however. If you reduce the width of the whole thing by 1/3rd to 1/4th, I think it would hit the sweet spot for overall proportions.

But it undeniably looks very retro-sweet!

 

[RedSpar]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

 

[USS Triumphant]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

I like the semi-Romulan look it has now.

Maybe this is the 23rd century version of the Romulan scout ship? Turn the nacelles green, slap a bird decal on her, and consider her sold!

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Nice looking model! And even though I realize it's based largely on aridas's orthographics, I have to agree that it looks too wide - Jefferies's drawings show it being pretty much two-seats-wide, with maybe some console space between them - this design looks like it could actually be the 'next step up,' more of a yacht than a shuttle. No reason why the two couldn't co-exist. I've always thought of Jefferies's original design being mostly tubular in cross-section - kind of like a more advanced version of the shapes in the Buck Rogers/Flash Gordon serials.

Nice evolution on the gear, too.

Yeah, I debated on the width for a bit but I liked the look of Aridas orthos better as some of the other sketches made it look too tubular aka "Flash Gordon" rocket ship like. I like the semi-Romulan look it has now.

We could just re-designate this a heavy shuttle or small yacht. Like Aridas said before it is only a big shuttle when compared to the Enterprise's shuttles.. I'm sure some Fed ships have/should have much larger shuttlebays. Size wise it is probably comparable to a modern V-22 Osprey, maybe a bit smaller.

Besides, it is way past the point where I can go back and change it!

I love this as a TOS-era yacht... I can easily imagine one of these sitting in Flynt's garage...

 

[EmperorKalan]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Count another for the design.

Regarding the forward landing gear, what do you think of the idea that its actual internal structure might be hidden from view? A flexible skirt or retractable casing might descend with the gear, helping to keep dust and debris out of the gear well.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

I'm afraid you're both wrong here... The scissor element is called a torque arm and is used to stop the gear from rotating about the shaft... It is common on most larger retractable landing gear.

Okay, then... if that's the case, then the top portion needs to be affixed to some stationary part of the ship's structure, either directly or by some other rigidly-oriented component.

B.J. isn't "wrong," by the way, and neither am I... that's why I asked what you intended for this to be, rather than just tossing out an answer.

For instance, on the Eagle, this would provide an extensibility limitation, and I know, from personal involvement, how the E-2C's front gear (which BJ found a great image of) works... and in case you guys have never experienced it, a carrier landing is something you can't really quite "get" until you've done it (albeit, I was sitting in the back of a Hawkeye, not in the cockpit, and was trying to run a data-acquisition system during the landing, specifically to measure specific impulse (or "shock") at the piece of hardware I was working on!)

You're talking about a very complex piece of hardware... and "anti-rotation" is one possible function for that sort of device, but not the ONLY one. And, in fact, in most cases a device will serve multiple functions. Articulation? Maybe, on a spacecraft flat-pad landing foot (not so much for a rolliing-wheel aircraft landing gear). Part of the shock-absorption system? Absolutely (see the Hawkeye... carrier landing are VERY high-shock!). Extension-limiter? Almost certainly that will be, at the very least, a secondary roll (in case the primary strut limiter fails).

By the way, Redspar... I get that you know something about this sort of thing... or else you have an intuitive grasp that means maybe you OUGHT to be doing stuff like this. Mind if I ask what you do?

I know what BJ does... it's listed in his profile. And what I do is in mine as well. We've both worked on this sort of thing, though there are many people who know more about landing gear design than I do (my exposure to it has all been secondary in nature; I've never been the guy responsible for any aspect of its creation!)

 

[RedSpar]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Okay, then... if that's the case, then the top portion needs to be affixed to some stationary part of the ship's structure, either directly or by some other rigidly-oriented component.

It's because I haven't attached it to the top tube yet - I want to work out the final gear extension height first (haven't done that yet)

By the way, Redspar... I get that you know something about this sort of thing... or else you have an intuitive grasp that means maybe you OUGHT to be doing stuff like this. Mind if I ask what you do?

I'm a web/graphic designer currently, but I used to be a private pilot and race cars for many years. I used to build race motors so engineering generally comes pretty natural to me.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Okay, then... if that's the case, then the top portion needs to be affixed to some stationary part of the ship's structure, either directly or by some other rigidly-oriented component.

It's because I haven't attached it to the top tube yet - I want to work out the final gear extension height first (haven't done that yet)

By the way, Redspar... I get that you know something about this sort of thing... or else you have an intuitive grasp that means maybe you OUGHT to be doing stuff like this. Mind if I ask what you do?

I'm a web/graphic designer currently, but I used to be a private pilot and race cars for many years. I used to build race motors so engineering generally comes pretty natural to me.

Ah, that makes sense... hard to put an engine together... much less a transmission... if you don't have basic mechanical sense.

 

[aridas sofia]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

I think one important thing to remember is just how much the exterior and interior need to reflect one another. This thing has a large impulse assembly aft -- much more realistic in its size allotment than the tiny amount of space alloted on the Galileo. If much of the narrow aft body is consumed with rockets and life support, then the front needs to be larger to accommodate any more than a pair of passengers. This looks like a TOS warp shuttle, so I think it makes sense to design it to fit at least as many people as Galileo.

After all, making one wide body craft doesn't preclude the possibility of other narrow bodies floating around.

 

[Ptrope]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Am I the only one here who thinks that the joint where the nacelle supports meets the wing could be an actual joint, and that they swing down and lock in flight, to then swing up for landing so the ship isn't wayyy the heck off the ground? That might look pretty interesting. And don't think I don't like it as the wide body - it's a sweet-looking ship, especially in the 'sunlight.'

 

[USS Triumphant]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Am I the only one here who thinks that the joint where the nacelle supports meets the wing could be an actual joint

Mary Jane?!

I was thinking something similar earlier while looking at it, but I couldn't make my mind's eye make it look right doing it.

 

[Kagan]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Large: http://www.redspar.com/shuttle/newshuttle4.png

I don't care if it seems a bit wide -- that is one fantastic-looking craft!

Since ships are oft compared to women, I like mine a little wide in the hips.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

May I recommend a registry prefix of NAP, denoting a civilian personal spacecraft of Federation registration.

 

[Timo]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

I in turn might suggest that this craft is significantly older and more primitive than the TOS hardware, and that the bulk of the propulsive machinery (as well as the aerodynamic smoothness) is a technological necessity of the era...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Warped9]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Although I still think the main hull is too wide I like what I'm seeing here. It's very interesting. I could easily see this as an earlier design predating even the Pike era perhaps. I'm seriously going to consider doing schematics of this along with my own Class F, Class H, Pike era design and others.

I will say that after living with the Class F design for these forty some years it's hard to envision this as the design MJ originally had in mind. As Timo suggests it just doesn't gel with the TOS as we know it.