My TOS shuttlecraft (continued)...

[Praetor]

Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...

I agree, a 'streamlining deflector' almost has to be a given.

But why should it only point down? Why not have an option to point it forward to allow faster atmospheric flights without the 'brick' tearing itself apart? Surely if technology has evolved to allow a starship to travel hundreds of times faster than light and beyond without shredding itself, making a brick fly in an atmosphere, in any direction, is more or less a non-issue?

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...

I agree, a 'streamlining deflector' almost has to be a given.

But why should it only point down? Why not have an option to point it forward to allow faster atmospheric flights without the 'brick' tearing itself apart? Surely if technology has evolved to allow a starship to travel hundreds of times faster than light and beyond without shredding itself, making a brick fly in an atmosphere, in any direction, is more or less a non-issue?

I'm not quite clear if it's me you're responding to or someone else's post, but I'll assume it's me.

In which case...

It doesn't have to "point only down." Quite the contrary. It would "point" in whatever direction the ship was flying through the atmosphere (and probably would envelope the entire shuttle).

The point I was making (which I THINK you're referencing here) is that I'd assume that, for efficiency, the shuttle would tend to perform more like a helicopter in hover mode as it descended (or ascended) through the atmosphere... rather than going in, flying nose-first towards the ground, during descent, or flying in some unnecessary "glide slope" path towards the ground.

 

[Praetor]

Re: My TOS shuttelcraft (continued)...

Yeah, sorry for the confusion, Cary, I hate doing long quotes unless I have to.

I think I'm a little clearer on your point now, and I think that it makes perfect sense. We reach.

 

[Warped9]

Firstly, in regards to ancient's query: The little rectangle near the front of the nacelle is the access step plate. It folds out when the ship lands to facilitate entry and exit from the craft. It also provides a step to aid clambering up onto the stabilizer to physically inspect and/or service the upper hull. It's on the starboard side as well because, a) the construction drawings also have it there and, b) on the starboard side it's simply an access plate to get on the upperside of the ship if need be. The step plates are included on the Class H nacelles even with them set further back for that same reason of facilitating service access. Sure while aboard ship you might have some handy ladder/scaffold rig to get up there, but while you're planet bound you may need some other easy way to get atop the craft. In essence, though, this is my way of rationalizing the fact that the construction drawings show the access step on both port and starboard nacelles. However, since we never saw the starboard side of the shuttlecraft onscreen I can't say whether the starboard access step was actually included when constructed. Indeed the pic below doesn't seem to show that step on the starboard nacelle, unless, of course the pic is a reversed image.

The above image popped up in another thread, but I find it interesting. Firstly we saw no sign of those stabilizer braces. They might not yet have been added, but at this point the construct doesn't seem to need them. Secondly we can see a longitudinal brace at the top of the aft landing strut assembly running across the back. I'm wondering if this is the same piece that's visible inside the rear access panel Scotty's working on at one point in "The Galileo Seven." If so then neat because I wanted to include that as part of my spaceframe. I may also make some effort to replicate some of what we see in that open access panel in regards to trying to depict the technical guts in that area. I find the above pic as well as others also interesting in regards to working out my spaceframe design.

Now it will be awhile before I post something else I've been tweaking: detailing corrections on my already completed sheets. I now have better looking, more correct hull font for the ship's markings. I've made nacelle detail corrections. On the Class F I've moved the nacelles a smidgen forward to be more correct with the fullsize mockup, resulting in the access step plate being more properly aligned with the centre of the access hatch. I've redesigned the aft landing plate to look something more like the original yet still somewhat more streamlined. On the Class F the most notable changes are in regards to the nacelles in that I've made them slightly less tapered and slightly smaller in length and diameter. The result is the Class H's warp engines now look better proportioned with the rest of the ship and along with the now slightly more raked front support pylons the ship looks more like my initial concept.

Finally regarding vehicle size. New calculations to get the interior I want to fit properly within the exterior as I've designed it means the ship may grow in overall size by perhaps six inches in length. I find that a minor compromise to get everything to fit together. And although the Class H will also get a smidgen bigger the new shorter nacelles should easily offset the marginal gain in overall size.

If this all sounds like nitpicking, well, it is. I'd rather correct these things now then when I've finished everything.

 

[Warped9]

Okay, so it's not quite awhile...unless your very impatient.

Here's a quick peek at my revised shuttlecraft. You may need a fine eye to spot what I've changed, but there are about seven or so changes on each design...so far.

 

[ancient]

It never occured to me that the little step thing would also act as more than just a step. I don't think it matters if it was built into the other nacelle too (I mean in reality on the prop) since they probably would've just left the detail off to save time. I don't think the step appears at all on the tiny model version. Folded up it's not visible enough to worry about.

Anyway,nice new pictures.

 

[Warped9]

One thing I've gone back to is reworking the original aft landing strut of the Class F as the forward landing strut of the Class H. Overall I just think it looks better than what I had done before.

There is an oddity to these designs that may not be immediately apparent even in cross sections: to get the interior to line up with the longitudinal centerline of the main hull it will have to be tilted forward at .326 degrees. This would hardly be noticeable in a real ship and particularly with an artificial gravity system at work during flight. Furthermore when the ships are landed they will be tilted back very slightly at... .326 degrees from the horizontal, so the forward angle of the interior cabin is effectively cancelled out.

And I just can't decide whether to keep the stabilizer braces. They just look so damned odd and out of place. It must be noted that my tweaking of the design has resulted in stabilizers that are about three times thicker where they meet the main hull than those on the fullsize mockup. I think it's safe to say that the attachment points there have already been beefed up.

 

[Sarvek]

Great work on the shuttles. Are you planning on updating the rest of the views of the Class F and H? If you are I would recommend that you modify the forward viewscreen on the H to a solid band instead of broken up like the F in the dorsal and front views. This would also give more of a difference between the F and the H. Once again great detailed work.

 

[Warped9]

^^ My original concept for the H had the single band on the forward hull, and after a lot of looking at it and looking at it I just didn't like how it looked. It makes me think of a cyclops or some weird one eyed alien mutant.

This was it.

Hmm. I wonder what two panels rather than three would look like?

Yes, everything is being updated.

 

[Timo]

Or an asymmetric layout, as with several other external features?

That is, there could be a pilot-copilot or commander-pilot arrangement to the F craft, and perhaps H might make do with just one of them? Or perhaps the other person on H would be a flight engineer for the higher-performance engines, being seated behind full-height consoles rather than staring out a window?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Warped9]

^^ There are different ways to approach it.

When designing the H my concept was trying to imagine how far I could deviate from the F while trying to remain reasonably affordable in terms of fullsize mockup construction or alteration if TOS had had a fourth season and/or the budgetary resources to allow for a shuttlecraft variant.

In terms of designation I was originally going to call my design a Class F3 rather than H. Or perhaps Class G because it's really just a mofified/tuned up version of the F. At this point I'm still not settled on it.

I'm still wanting some insight into whether those stabilizer braces were intended as part of the design from the beginning or were there merely for necessity.

 

[Warped9]

I've been using Phil Broad's construction drawings (cloudster.com) as a major reference source for my shuttlecraft project. But it's somewhat of a different situation from Shaw's TOS E project in that I can see what I believe are clearly construction compromises that might have gone differently with more time and money allowed. In those cases I'm interpreting what I think it's supposed to look like rather than what they had to settle for. But as I've stated from the beginning I'm trying to render a "real" shuttlecraft as opposed to just replicating models, sets and mockups.

I also think I'm going to have to tackle the interior again almost from scratch to get it all just right and to arrive at a better and more accurate sense of size. The cabin will obviously be smaller (mostly length and height wise) than the onscreen set, but I want to try and maintain the actual size of chairs and control consoles. The chairs will be actual size although they will have to sit more credibly a bit higher off the deck and not as low slung as seen onscreen.

At best I expect (hope) the interior to gain an inch or so here and there and I don't want the F's length overall to exceed 26.5ft. or the H's to exceed 29ft.

That's why I'm redrawing the ships in 1/12 scale then reducing the renders to 1/24 to fit on 11x17 sheets. I also scale the line thickness so that detail remains clear when the images are reduced to 1/24.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

I'd say the 31-footer (or the largest shuttle size) should be used as it seems to be big enough to house the interior.

You do realize the design is going to need room for fuel, a fusion reactor, inertial dampeners and artificial gravity correct? It might even need M/AM if the design is to have workable warp-engines, but the anti-matter could be carried in the nacelles.


BTW: I think honestly the non warp-capable shuttles should be designed without the nacelles. There is no point for them if there is no warp-capability.

 

[Warped9]

I'd say the 31-footer (or the largest shuttle size) should be used as it seems to be big enough to house the interior.

You do realize the design is going to need room for fuel, a fusion reactor, inertial dampeners and artificial gravity correct? It might even need M/AM if the design is to have workable warp-engines, but the anti-matter could be carried in the nacelles.


BTW: I think honestly the non warp-capable shuttles should be designed without the nacelles. There is no point for them if there is no warp-capability.

If you go over the original thread (its link is at the beginning of this thread) you'll see all your points have already been addressed.

Secondly there are no non-warp shuttlecraft--such craft would be totally useless to a starship and there is no situation in TOS that supports the idea.

And while a fullsize interior is nice it's totally unworkable because a 31ft. shuttlecraft is simply too large to be properly accommodated in the ship's hangar facilities. Also, remember the E supports four such craft. Additionally the step-up height to get into and out of the craft would be very cumbersome.

If you don't feel like referring back to the original thread then my project notes sum up my overall thinking.

I played with this some last night and my original figures weren't that far off. The ship will not exceed 26.5ft., but will be longer than 26ft. The Class F will be just under 29ft. at 28.8ft. and some. This is all based on an interior with a 5.833ft. (or 5'-10") ceiling.

So perhaps I don't have to do quite so much additional work after all.

 

[Timo]

Secondly there are no non-warp shuttlecraft--such craft would be totally useless to a starship and there is no situation in TOS that supports the idea.

Granted that TOS seldom calls for a non-warp shuttle, but normal starship operations could be assumed to often call for one. Going from starship in orbit to the surface of a planet and back is a biggie in Star Trek, and you don't need warp or impulse for that, but you do need a shuttle. If the transporters fail, that is. Or even if they don't, as in "Journey to Babel".

Also, apart from thefts like "Doomsday Machine", shuttles have loitered only a bit outside the mothership in, say, "the Galileo Seven", to conduct observations.

All these sublight roles persist in the spinoff shows, too. And the prequel ENT makes a good case for an auxiliary that lacks warp drive, even when the qualities of the mothership are largely indistinguishable from those of Kirk's ship.

Also, remember the E supports four such craft.

To nitpick, the sister ship Exeter did. We don't know if the Enterprise ever carried that many in TOS...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Warped9]

In TG7 the Murasaki effect is said to encompass four solar systems. It's unlikely you're going to get far in something that big without warpdrive. In "The Menagerie" Kirk chases after the E in a starbase shuttlecraft--a totally pointless effort if you don't have warpdrive. In "Metamorphosis" the shuttlecraft wouldn't have been so hard to track down if it wasn't so far away in the first place, and without warpdrive the shuttlecraft is useless as the E could have picked up Commissioner Hedford on its own much faster. In "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" Loki doesn't get far into space over a period of weeks without warpdrive in his stolen starbase shuttlecraft.

Few instances depicted in TOS make any sense without warpdrive. And if we're seeing very similar looking craft in every instance of shuttlecraft depicted then it's more likely they all had warpdrive even if it wasn't needed.

Although it was never explicitly stated in TOS that shuttlecraft did or didn't have warpdrive I suspect the writers didn't really think it through and/or didn't really appreciate how BIG space really is.

And this project doesn't acknowledge whatever was done in TNG, DS9, VOY and particularly ENT since they're irrelevant to and inconsistent with TOS.

 

[Timo]

In TG7 the Murasaki effect is said to encompass four solar systems. It's unlikely you're going to get far in something that big without warpdrive.

True - but the expedition apparently didn't try to reach any of these systems originally, nor actually enter the effect.

The existence of a warp drive aboard the TOS shuttles was seldom in question. The viability of that drive for interstellar runs was much more rarely suggested. "The Galileo Seven" is just about the only case where this is implied, and only indirectly: any single of the systems could have been very close to the starting point, but for more than one to be within range means the range is truly interstellar. That is, unless the systems within the effect were as anomalious as the effect...

A bit curiously, TOS still remains free of cases where shuttles would have explicitly been in transit from one star to another, even if the capacity was suggested.

In "Metamorphosis" the shuttlecraft wouldn't have been so hard to track down if it wasn't so far away in the first place, and without warpdrive the shuttlecraft is useless as the E could have picked up Commissioner Hedford on its own much faster.

But we know for a fact that a shuttle can't catch a starship even when moving suicidally fast, as per "The Menagerie". The reason the ship wasn't used for a direct pickup in "Metamorphosis" thus has to be something else - such as the asteroid belt explicitly mentioned in the episode, a belt no doubt better navigable by (low warp) shuttle than by starship.

Although it was never explicitly stated in TOS that shuttlecraft did or didn't have warpdrive I suspect the writers didn't really think it through and/or didn't really appreciate how BIG space really is.

OTOH, I'd think they treated the shuttles like they would treat boats, vis-á-vis ships. It would be one for the history books if a boat made transoceanic transit - and while Captain Bligh makes for a good story as such, it may not be particularly suited for the Trek format.

And this project doesn't acknowledge whatever was done in TNG, DS9, VOY and particularly ENT since they're irrelevant to and inconsistent with TOS.

I'm not sure the distinction is particularly useful. After all, TOS was inconsistent with TOS, typically far more so than the spinoffs were with themselves, with each other, or with TOS.


Timo Saloniemi

 

[Shaw]

In "Metamorphosis" the shuttlecraft wouldn't have been so hard to track down if it wasn't so far away in the first place, and without warpdrive the shuttlecraft is useless as the E could have picked up Commissioner Hedford on its own much faster.

But we know for a fact that a shuttle can't catch a starship even when moving suicidally fast, as per "The Menagerie". The reason the ship wasn't used for a direct pickup in "Metamorphosis" thus has to be something else - such as the asteroid belt explicitly mentioned in the episode, a belt no doubt better navigable by (low warp) shuttle than by starship.

In "Metamorphosis" the shuttlecraft was leaving the Epsilon Canaris system to rendezvous with the Enterprise when it was hijacked by the Companion and taken to an asteroid belt in the Gamma Canaris system (the only asteroid belt explicitly mentioned in the episode).

The reason for the Enterprise not entering the Epsilon Canaris system was most likely because a starship's presence would have been counter productive to the peace talks.

Also, in "The Menagerie" all the Enterprise had to do was stop to let the shuttlecraft catch up... the Enterprise didn't back track to get the shuttlecraft. So while not as fast as the Enterprise, the shuttlecraft was fast enough to cover a similar distance as the Enterprise (by the time it stopped) in a reasonable amount of time (at it's best speed).

All of which Warped9 has gone over before... and shouldn't have to rehash again (and again, and again).

 

[Cary L. Brown]

In TG7 the Murasaki effect is said to encompass four solar systems. It's unlikely you're going to get far in something that big without warpdrive.

I'm going to keep harping on this forever... you know that, don't you?

Your comment SHOULD read "It's unlikely you're going to get fara into something that big with only sublight propulsion."

Warp drive need not be the only form of FTL propulsion, just the one most commonly used by larger vessels. It's ABUNDANTLY clear, from on-screen evidence, that ships without "warp drive" frequently move FTL in the Star Trek world.

I've got my own personal favored way to deal with that (which I won't rehash here, but if anyones' interested, ask). But it's just wrong, on every possible level, I think, to pretend that "warp drive" is an exact synonym for "all faster-than-light propulsion systems."

 

[ancient]

The TOS shuttles clearly have warp nacelles, so there shouldn't really be any debate about their ability to warp. Why could anyone think otherwise? The nacelles are right there, plain as day and they look almost exactly the same as the Enterprise's nacelles. They're also on every shuttle development sketch MJ drew, as far as I know.

The TMP shuttles had nothing but thrusters, I guess they have impulse and warp attachments similar to the Vulcan shuttle.

In TNG even the shuttle pods had warp drive by the looks of it.

The ENT shuttles just have the impulse drive, but no nacelles. Like the TMP shuttle, no nacelles = no warp drive.