My TOS shuttlecraft (continued)...

[Warped9]

The original thread for this subject was getting rather long and so I'm taking advice to start it again. Go here: http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=31724 to visit the original thread.

This project was undertaken to create a realistic vehicle that integrated the three disparate version of the TOS shuttlecraft seen onscreen: the fullsize exterior mockup, the fullsize interior set and the "flying" filming miniature. The goal was not to create an exhaustively faithful recreation of filming sets but a believeable "whole" ship.

This is where the project stands at present:

Of course TAS shuttlecraft are also being considered:

As well as possibly a Pike era shuttlecraft:

 

[Warped9]

Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...

Some shuttlecraft inspired photoshoping.

 

[Warped9]

Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...

I neglected to add what remains to be completed (already in progress) or done.

To be completed:
-deck and ceiling plans of Class F Shuttlecraft

To be done:
- fore and aft cross-section views of Class F
- port and starboard cross-section views of Class H
- fore and aft cross-sections of Class H
- deck and ceiling plans of Class H

Planned and conceptualized yet not started:
- Class D Shuttlecraft ("The Cage" era)
- TAS long range scoutship
- TAS heavy lander
- TAS aquashuttle
- TOS era utility pod
- TMP era shuttlecraft (including TFF shuttlecraft)

Note that the TAS and TMP era shuttlecraft will be undertaken as separate projects.

Furthermore I'm still on the fence as to whether I should bother doing plans for the TOS era hangar deck. The great work done by aridas, Shaw, CRA and others in regards to the deck layout of the TOS E has shown that there is sufficient room to accommodate my planned shuttlecraft complement even if I may envision something a bit different in detail from their proposals.

 

[Sarvek]

Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...

You have always done great work Warped9. I really appreciate your originality and accuracy in the representation of all the craft that you have designed. Being able to see the Aquashuttle as it would appear in the original series will be fantastic and I see your point in it's design vs. the animated version. Keep up the great work. You are doing a fine job in the representation of these unique craft.

 

[Wingsley]

Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...

Aridas came out with a MJ-based design a while back that looked curvier and bludgier, as if to borrow some style from 1950's sedans and coupes. It made the shuttle concept bulkier, and gave it a style that made it look dated next to the very-60s TOS shuttlecraft "envelope" shape.

 

[Warped9]

Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...

Aridas came out with a MJ-based design a while back that looked curvier and bludgier, as if to borrow some style from 1950's sedans and coupes. It made the shuttle concept bulkier, and gave it a style that made it look dated next to the very-60s TOS shuttlecraft "envelope" shape.

Yep. And it is intriguing, but I see that as something more pre Pike era than pre Kirk era.

A challenge with the TAS shuttlecraft is to adapt them decently. The TOS shuttlecraft is deceptive in that it's a more complex design than it looks. For me the trick is to make my TAS adapted designs also a bit more complex than their basic shapes suggest. And although I'm not seeing them as ship based craft I still resist allowing them to be as huge as they look onscreen. They've got to be scaled down enough to be accommodated within the ship's hangar.

 

[Warped9]

Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...

^^ Suffice to say that I likely won't be putting the same degree of effort into depicting the between hulls guts of the TAS and TMP era vehicles as I am with the TOS craft. It's a helluva lot of work to figure this sort of thing out for someone who is far removed from being an aerospace engineer, even if it's fictional aerospace tech.

As for the interior layout of my TOS Class H version of the Copernicus I will use what we saw in TAS as a sort of loose guide. The aft cabin I envision as no different than the Class F's. But the main cabin will likely have three seats, two fold-out sleeping berths, an equipment locker and work table with computer terminal and cabinet (like we saw in TOS), or at least something along those lines. The idea to to convey that the Class H is as mission flexible as the Class F and can be equipped accordingly.

 

[dougkeenan]

Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...

Great work! "The Slaver Weapon" images are excellent!

 

[Warped9]

Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...

^^ I had fun with those trying to envision a TAS story as a live-action TOS episode.

 

[dougkeenan]

Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...

No I mean it. How did you do that fantastic Kzinti shadow?

 

[Warped9]

Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...

The Kzinti shadow is actually a distorted Gorn with a sabretooth cat's head which I then turned all to black and then made transparent.

 

[Warped9]

Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...

The heavy lander is going to take a lot of thought. When you look at it you can see that the foward viewing port and the entrance/exit hatch do not line up right. It looks as if it's suggesting the craft has something of a split level interior with a cockpit/flight deck up top. Weird.

There's another thought to accommodate this. Most of the Class F's mechanical guts are in the aft end. Perhaps most of the heavy lander's mechanical guts are in the bottom of the craft. It's possible that the lander's cockpit is on an elevated platdorm and the rest of the main cabin is lset ower through the centre of the craft, something akin to what we saw with the Proteus in Fantastic Voyage.

 

[Warped9]

Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...

Re: the TAS shuttlecraft.
I wasn't feeling well these past few days and last night I lay awke in bed unable to sleep and with little to do but think. Interesting how certain things can come to you when you're quiet and just let your mind wander.

I'm getting closer and closer in my mind with pretty much final configurations for my live-action versions of the TAS shuttlecraft. I'm starting to envision all those little subtleties in design that are not immediately apparent on first inspection, very much like the Class F design. I must reiterate that the aquashuttle is the one that will deviate most from the animated version while still retaining some general semblance to the original.

Re: the TMP era shuttlecraft.
The TMP shuttlecraft as seen onscreen remains pointless as a ship based vehicle in my mind. Rather I see myself meeting Probert halfway. The standard basic starship shuttlecraft comes standard with the impulse units in place (as seen in Probert's drawings) with the warpdrive units optional. That said I still see at least one warp equipped shuttlecraft being part of the standard complement.

I'm also starting to have seconds thoughts about TFF shuttlecraft design. It's nice enough, but it also seem something of a departure from the TOS and TMP designs in some respects. I hate that aft hatch and would just ignore it. Maybe I should just ignore the whole thing and stick with my focus on TOS and TMP era vehicles.

The Pike era design is also something I'm rather intrigued with because it's extrapolated from an early Matt Jefferies' sketch.

 

[Shaw]

Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...

I'm sorry to hear that you were under the weather the last few days.

I wanted to touch on a couple things to consider while moving forward on your work of other shuttlecraft. Just things to keep in the back of your mind really, nothing specific.

The first is based on something that Cary said in another thread (though for the life of me I can recall where or I would just link to it)... Real life is messy. How this might apply to your shuttlecraft work would be in considering competing contractors in our time. Here are some real world examples that came to mind for this.

I come from San Diego, and having had family part of either the Navy or the war effort back in World War II, when I think of the military back then I think of the Navy and the War in the Pacific first. When thinking of fighter planes, the first thing that pops into mind are the Grumman F4F Wildcats or F6F Hellcats, and somethimes the Chance Vought F4U Corsair (though that really was more of a Marine fighter). But if you ask someone else, they might think of one of the other US fighters used in the war in Europe (like the Lockheed P-38 Lightning or North American P-51 Mustang). For me, fighter evolution seems pretty straight forward as the F4F and F6F (and even the F8F Bearcats) fit in nicely together. But when you throw in all these other companies fighters, it becomes rather messy.

Another example of this type of contractor design elements coming into play would be in the recent work on vertical take off and landing fighters. Two companies working against each other to prove that their design ideas are the one the DoD should invest in. While similar in function, they look quite different in application.

The last example was something that was apparent when I worked for Allen Johnson Racing (dealing mainly in Porsches, Ferraris, Lamborghinis and Maseratis) in the late 80s. Porsches were wonderful cars to work on (I've owned four), but the others (Italian makers) didn't seem to care much about the actual engineering of their cars. I remember working on a Maserati Twin Turbo where we ordered a part from the factory, the exact part number needed was specified, and got it only to find out that it didn't fit quite right. I was amazed... but the guy I worked under wasn't. He said that he had seen this time and again (mainly from Ferrari and Maserati), and that if we ordered the same part next year, it would most likely be slightly different from the one we just got. I had always assumed that all high end sports car makers were like Porsche and that they took pride in their engineering... what I found was that some take more pride in the looks of their cars than how well they operate.

The second thing I wanted to point out, and it might help you when dealing with the TFF shuttlecraft, is your own signature. Why even go in that direction as it is clearly post-1979 Star Trek?

 

[Warped9]

Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...

^^ A fair enough question. My only response can be that while I have issues with TWoK I must admit that the Reliant type design is a decent and very credible starship variant and so I accept it. Something similar could be said of the TFF shuttlecraft. It isn't horrible, but they could have done much better.

Of course, it's still light years better than the dumb-as-shit TNG shuttlepods.

What isn't shown above, yet, is an idea I'm toying with regarding the landing struts that might look cool yet will also make the struts evoke the animated originals without looking as plain or throwaway. I envision the struts housing some manner of antigrav tech, in a somewhat different setup than the antigrav system in the Class F and H shuttlecraft.

 

[Warped9]

Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...

^^ As this is being developed there are little running changes being made. I'm trying to adopt a windscreen/viewing port that is shaped a bit more like the animated one. I'm also trying to make the nacelles a little different than usual to look less conventional.

You know when you really look at how the TAS scoutship was drawn it only looks good at a glance. When you really start to study it its shape makes little sense, it's HUGELY oversized and it's very awkward looking. Actually that pretty much sums up all three TAS shuttlecraft. (-:

Stay tuned.

 

[Irishman]

Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...

Warped9, dude,

I'm not a fan of the animated ship designs at all, but this one you've managed to make believable for me.

Phenomenal work.

 

[Warped9]

Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...

In all the candor I think the TAS shuttlecraft were drawn strictly to have something that looked different yet with little to no real thought put to it. If you try to translate them into something 3D and supposedly "real" you get wildly proportioned things that make no sense whatsoever. As such the only way to make them work to is try to acknowledge the TAS designs' basic concepts and then build something more credible from that.

The heavy lander has problems of its own as well. Scaled as seen onscreen the thing would be HUGE and quite possibly wouldn't even be able to enter the hangar deck let alone be stored there. The nose of the craft is way too bloody long and the lines and apparent contours make little sense at all. Hence, like the scoutship, I have to conjure a more credible "real" version that has enough elements to evoke the onscreen drawing.

 

[BolianAuthor]

Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...

Stunning work, all around... I especially love the scoutship and the lander... I like the drawing you did of the scoutship with UFP markings... it makes sense to have UFP livery if it's starbase-based. Will we be seeing a drawing of the lander? It's a pretty interesting design. I know for sure the scoutship is way too small to fill the niche of a runabout... I would equate it to a TOS-era version of the Voyager's "speedboat" shuttles... a small and compact shuttle, for rapid long-range transit.

 

[Warped9]

Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...

Well I've no idea what VOY did, but I will be doing drawings of all three TAS shuttlecraft.