Matt Jefferies original shuttle design

[B.J.]

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.

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...

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).

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!)

Everyone learns something new every day! I didn't know what that component was called, but Cary's right about it having multiple functions, depending on what type of gear it's on. BTW, I've also never designed any part of the landing gear, but I've been involved with just about every type of structure around it!

 

[Cary L. Brown]

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.

On the other hand, it's quite easy to envision Raquel Welch climbing aboard, then the whole thing being shrunk down and injected into someone's body, isn't it?

 

[RedSpar]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Ahh, you mean these other wide beauties:

Anyways, be patient for an update...I'm working on the rear landing gear right now and it's quite complex. If I can get it working correctly it will be a thing a of mechanical beauty.

 

[USS Mariner]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Ahh, you mean these other wide beauties:

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

 

[Timo]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

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 could easily see a continuum of sorts here: this shuttle would be a stablemate to the tiny Phase II atmospheric shuttle, which also looks more like pre-TOS than post-TOS. A few years later, the functionalities would be combined to produce the "heavy lander" of TAS "Mudd's Passion" fame, with awkward multi-level internal layout and curved pseudo-aerodynamic shapes. A few years more, and Starfleet would learn how to do without any sort of aerodynamics, giving us the TOS shuttle and the TAS "Slaver Weapon" long range shuttle. And all the time, the ratio of payload volume to machinery volume would go up, up, up.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[RedSpar]

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!

 

[Hyperspace05]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Since you asked for feedback yes I think it has too many joints.

- The front gear is much simpler, and for the rear 'tripod leg' I would have expected a longer straight gear that folds down/forward from the rear. (Where it either is flush against the hull or behind a panel) I think that would fit the retro look better.
- You could also have it telescope out, like the front gears/pads.
- Since front pads are rectangular in shape, it looks a bit odd to have a circular footprint for the rear gear. I'd suggest make it rectangular, but larger than the front ones.

But do as you wish.

 

[Warped9]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Ahh, you mean these other wide beauties:

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.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

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!

Okay, feedback...

(1) The topmost segment is curved. It's axiomatic that a curved segment is always weaker than a similar-cross-section straight element. I see why you took this approach, of course... clearance for the pneumatic cylinder. But there are better ways to accomplish the same thing (say, making that upper segment a C-channel or even having it be a "fork" rather than a bar).

(2) Having this many segments isn't necessarily wrong... but (as I've brought up in another thread recently) you need to keep in mind "KISS"... "keep it simple, stupid"... one of the most fundamental engineering principles. Or, in Scotty-ese... "the more complicated the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain." SO... do you have a size constraint that prevents you from having a less-complex version (perhaps two primary segments instead of three, but with each being larger)?

(3) The footpad itself seems quite... well, honestly, flimsy... compared to the remainder of the structure. And there's no articulation feature that controls it. So, unless what you have there... specifically related to the pad, not the entire leg... is intended to be "fill in" and will be actually detailed and worked out in greater detail later... I think you might want to revisit that. It APPEARS that the pad is simply dangling from the leg, and that little pin that attaches the foot to the leg is clearly the weak point... and thus the point of failure... for this particular design.

Finally... since you've got nice, rectalinear pads forward, just as a stylistic choice I'd probably try to make the aftmost pad be similar in configuration (the rectangular bucket idea, in other words) rather than the circular pad you have here now.

That said... still a pretty cool piece of work. I'm assuming that this is done via "inverse kinematics" (found in most animation packages... I know Maya's is quite powerful). If so, making tweaks shouldn't be too difficult... and rendering might take longer than the tweaks.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Ahh, you mean these other wide beauties:

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.

 

[Timo]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Regarding structural issues, it could be argued that future materials allow very flimsy structures to bear the required loads, and that other factors call for large-diameter segments here and there. Perhaps something the thickness of one's finger would suffice for holding up the butt of this shuttle, but something the thickness of one's arm is necessary for housing the related wiring, or the built-in refueling lines, or other such systems?

We have little idea of the strength of materials used in TOS, save for the thicknesses we see on the three landing pad legs of the TOS shuttle. Those look like simple enough mechanical parts that wouldn't be any thicker than absolutely necessary, and would make the best possible use of the materials of the time. But even then, we lack data on how much the shuttle actually weighs. Is it just a futuristic glassfiber shell with some ultra-lightweight rockets attached, for a total mass of no more than a similarly sized automobile, or even considerably less? Or does it haul along warp coils that weigh as much as a main battle tank each? Would the thing sink unless it landed on bedrock?

I'm not arguing against the evaluation of relative things, of how the various elements of the landing gear should be arranged or how their diameters should compare. I'm more worried about the absolutes here: are we micromanaging something that by other evidence already has to be so frighteningly strong that Starfleet engineers would never bother to go for a strength-optimized configuration?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Santaman]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

There's a reason that REAL submarines, and aircraft for that matter, try to keep their forward profile to a minimum. .

Some real submarines actually have a saucer shape like the diving saucer Cousteau used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diving_saucer
Not every submarine is required to go fast.

Also there's a real aircraft thats saucer shaped which actually performed quite okay and was incredibly strong structually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_V-173

Maybe this plane is the fault of the whole UFO thing starting.

 

[QuasarVM]

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!

I like the landing gear you created originally...it looked more like what was in the original drawings.

This one does not look stable...

When are we gonna see the completed ship with maps and decals applied? Looking very good...

 

[sojourner]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

I get the impression Redspar did this to get the motions to work and a more detailed version will most likely tweak all the elements to make the gear look more "correct" to our sensibilities.

"the more complicated the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain." ---True. think I will go back to using an outhouse.

 

[Ptrope]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Not so sure I like the new version (although I do like the animation!). With no central support, it seems it would fold like a cheap suit.

Here is a quick sketch of what I was talking about with making the joint between 'wing' an nacelle 'stub' and actual joint, with the gear attached to the stub, such that as the stub folds upward, a gear door under the wing would open and the gear itself would rotate downward, with its base solidly attached to the stub. Sorry for the crude sketch - all I have at work is a ballpoint pen and no time to really be doing this .

 

[RedSpar]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Wow this got turned into design by committee really fast!


Remember this gear is for the rear of the ship. It doesn't bear the brunt of holding the majority of weight that the front gear does. It is essentially a kickstand, so it doesn't need to be built like the Pillars of Hercules. Another great thing about this design it has a large flexibility in height for different terrain and it is compact so it doesn't hog up a huge amount of space in the hull and avoids having to use large gear bay doors.

Ptrope, I do like your idea but I don't want to stray too far off Jefferies design. Maybe I could do it in a later version (otherwise I'll be making revisions forever and won't get this done)

Cary - the landing pad was just a quick and dirty placeholder, as I said earlier I didn't detail any of it. Just call it a functional prototype.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Wow this got turned into design by committee really fast!

Well, isn't that why you're posting this here? I know that when I post stuff on here, it's because I'm actively soliciting feedback... and while I get to make the final calls, I've always appreciated the (constructive) feedback I've gotten. It's only the "Dood, that sucks, you're a loser, I'm cooler than you!" posts that annoy me. ESPECIALLY when what I've done is thought out in excruciatingly complete detail (did you ever see any of my three ship projects so far? I've done a ship for the "Titan contest" that has since evolved into what I'd dare suggest may be the most thoroughly-planned-out ship done to date... I mean, I know where the freakin' plumbing runs in the ship would go! I've done a pretty detailed take on the "Ringship Enterprise," and a less-complicated "shapes only" taken on the Bonaventure... plus several embarked craft for each of those).

FYI... on my own "Ringship" design, I planned to do a take on the "original Jeffries shuttle" (which you're doing now) as the shuttle carried by that ship. I also took the original Jeffries "workpod" and made it into something nearly-fully-realized, and planned to also take the "cargo sled" element he came up with (sort of an open-bed "space pickup truck" more than anything else. I MIGHT want to "borrow" your ship for that, once done. In fact, I think it would probably fit very well into this ship... since my "shuttlecraft bay" is (as far as I can tell from your model so far) almost exactly the right shape.

Not wanting to hijack your thread, but in case you're interested, here's my take on the "ringship." You can see that there are several bays on the main vertical support (between the central engineering hull and the habitation ring). The smaller ones are off of the cargo bays, with each having a workpod and each having a cargo sled. But the two bays nearest the engineering hull.. the bigger ones... are for, well... for the shuttle you're doing now, to be blunt.

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/733/ringshiplarge912061wn7.jpg
(imageshack is acting up so I can't do a thumbnail for this one for some reason... go figure!)

And the workpod (along with the Jefferies sketch I used as my sole reference). I never QUITE finished this (the slots in front are basically a "swiss army knife" of cutters, welders, etc, and there are two more manipulator arms on the side, besides the front "gripper arm" I mostly completed here).

 

[Mysterion]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

There's a reason that REAL submarines, and aircraft for that matter, try to keep their forward profile to a minimum. .

WWSZD?

(What Would Steve Zissou Do?)

 

[RedSpar]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

Oh I'm not upset, I just think it is funny.
I just don't want my ship to end up like the Homer-mobile

Pods look great Cary, very reminiscent of 2001's work pods.

 

[GodThingFormerly]

Re: Matt Jeffries original shuttle design

I suggest that dropping the nacelles in such a manner would move the shuttle's center of mass below the impulse engine thrust line. Although this could be compensated for by vectoring the impulse exhaust, the two hinge mechanisms would also add mass to the structure thus negatively impacting upon the vehicle's mass ratio for impulse maneuvering.

TGT