My TOS Shuttlecraft...

[aridas sofia]

I really don't get the confusion. Jefferies designed the curved, expensive design, and it was rejected on the basis of cost. He adapted the design to a boxy configuration -- the sketch I sent to Warped 9, that had the truck-like windshield front. He might or might not have further stylized it himself at this point to the version we see in TMoST. Either the first or second of these went to AMT, and was further stylized by Barris and company there.

Jefferies came up with the original boxy design -- the exact version built was by AMT.

 

[Warped9]

^^ Okay, thats how I understand it. Still, need I credit only MJ or add Loewy's name as well?

Ironically I like the final shuttlecraft we got better than the original ideas MJ seemed to have.

 

[MGagen]

Capt. April,

That's all fine and good for unsubstantiated guesswork.

But you've conveniently dodged the issue:

You claimed that the sketch showing the wedge shaped shuttle with flat sides bearing the inscription "as re-designed and built by AMT" is "definitely a preliminary thumbnail made prior to the more detailed drawing that showed up in TMoST."

Not only is there no evidence to support your statement, it makes absolutely no sense when you look at the big picture, as I pointed out to you:

MGagen said:
To have it your way, we have to grant that Jefferies took a look at what AMT "was doing" and then wasted his time doing a further redesign that he knew would never be built. That he took precious time away from his real work on the production to do a drawing that was intentionally at odds with what was going to be seen on screen. Bosh! It's much more likely that he made a quick sketch documenting the deviations from his design, once he finally saw what they delivered, and then got on with other important work. The earlier drawing reflecting his own version went into TMOST because it wasn't worth the time necessary to redraft it.

You're a big one for pointing out how overworked the ST art department was. Why would they waste time on such a thing?

The simple answer is, they didn't. It only looks that way to you because you've put the cart before the horse. Put the drawing from TMOST ahead of the "as redesigned by" sketch and everything makes sense.

M.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Turn in your membership to the Kreskin fan club, because your mindreading skills have failed you miserably. Your logic skill leave a lot to be desired as well.

The fact that AMT did at least the bulk of the design work on the shuttle is a matter of record (personally, I'd like to see the boxy Jefferies design Aridas referred to, just to fill out the record).

The notes on that thumbnail sketch by Jefferies places it pretty late in the design process, since what he drew is essentially what was delivered.

[/b][/i]What we can't put a definite date on[/i][/b] is that final rendering, so arbitrarily putting it ahead of the rough drawing doesn't make a lick of sense without some sort of corroboration at the very least.

And even if we could nail down when one drawing was done relative to when another was done.....so what?

It still doesn't answer the question of why that sketch was done in the first place, and why it was important for Jefferies to note that this was the AMT version of things.

I suggest that it was either a rough sketch made prior to the finished drawing (i.e. a preliminary drawing) or it was made to answer a question by a writer, producer, or some other interested party. Or both.

 

[aridas sofia]

Warped9 said:
^^ Okay, thats how I understand it. Still, need I credit only MJ or add Loewy's name as well?

"Design by AMT based on a concept by Matt Jefferies"

 

[MGagen]

Captain Robert April said:
Turn in your membership to the Kreskin fan club, because your mindreading skills have failed you miserably.

As the charter member, I suppose you'd know all about that. The only one claiming to do any "mind reading" is you.

[/b][/i]What we can't put a definite date on[/i][/b] is that final rendering, so arbitrarily putting it ahead of the rough drawing doesn't make a lick of sense without some sort of corroboration at the very least.

This is where you proceed in your usual fashion, claiming there isn't a forest while knocking your head against the trees.

Let me spell this out so clearly even you might grasp it:

We have two drawings by Matt Jefferies.

One is a sketch of the final configuration of the set piece, complete with a note indicating that the drawing shows the changes AMT made to the design. Internal evidence from the document itself dates it after the completion of the set piece.

The other is a scale drawing of the same vehicle with more complex, rounded features. It is undated.

Question -- Why would an overworked art director on a television show waste time to redesigning a set piece that's already constructed? Answer -- He wouldn't. He has more important things to do.

Conclusion -- The weight of evidence suggests that the scale drawing was made first. The sketch came later to document deviations from the design.

And even if we could nail down when one drawing was done relative to when another was done.....so what?

Glad you asked. I'll tell you:

We know that MJ originally designed the teardrop shuttle. It was rejected as too expensive to build due to its compound curves.

We also know that AMT made changes to the shuttle design to suit their manufacturing capabilities.

Everyone has been assuming that AMT was the one who rejected the teardrop design and came up with the shuttle we have today.

However, the scale drawing in TMOST makes this explanation untenable. Once its proper place in the time line is understood, we find there was likely an intermediate redesign by Matt Jefferies himself. If you stop to consider the situation it makes perfect sense. As art director, he was quite familiar with designs being nixed as too expensive. It's a matter of course to go back to the drawing board and give it another try. What seems less likely is for someone to say, "Nice try, but I think we'll hand the whole project over to a toy company. You had your one shot. Let the toy makers come up with what they think would fit the design style of our show." Highly unlikely. Even though the construction costs of the shuttlecraft would be underwritten by AMT, you can bet that Desilu would still be in the driver's seat as to what that piece would be.

Now let's compare the intermediate design with the what came before and after. The teardrop was made up of complex compound curves. The intermediate MJ design still has quite a few curves, but he's managed to avoid compound ones. The back of the shuttle tapers back in to give it a more aerodynamic shape, but it does so in flat sections as seen in the top view. The walls were curved when viewed in the rear view, but the shape is still the intersection of two simple curves. This is the same trick Disney used when constructing the TWA Moonliner. To look at it, you'd think it is a continuous ogive, but it's really a combination of conic sections. The intersections were merely softened a bit with some sanding. So in the case of the intermediate shuttlecraft, we see a design that still presents a curvy, somewhat aerodynamic appearance, but one that carefully avoids the compound curves of the teardrop design. Now look at the final AMT design. They've eliminated a lot of the aerodynamic tapering in favor of a simple flat sided wedge design. The difference between the intermediate MJ design and the final AMT version is just what we've been told all this time. They made it less curved and easier to build.

But what does that leave for the car designer that AMT hired to do? -- you ask. A set of three view design drawings does not a construction blueprint make. AMT needed someone to engineer how the whole thing would be constructed. Detailed plans needed to be drawn up showing the project right down to the welded frame. He was also the one who likely did the final "simplified" design.

But why would Matt Jefferies say that the shuttlecraft we have today is not his design? Let's consider the changes made to "his design" by the time it was completed:

The body is no longer even faintly aerodynamic. I believe it was MJ himself who coined the phrase "flying cheese-box."

The interior ("also by AMT" remember) was originally designed for a low ceiling. Witness the unnaturally low chairs, front end angle and the MJ's own concept drawing showing a passenger walking up the aisle hunched over. The final version has "raised the roof" by merely stretching the interior from the side seam up. This also destroyed the sight lines out of the front windows.

As an artist myself, I can identify with the disappointment he must have felt when he saw what was delivered. It is not at all an unusual thing for creative people to disown or take their name off of a project that has been substantially altered by others. Writers and directors do the same thing all the time.

And let us not forget the other concept art with Jefferies' name on it. Are we to believe that sketch showing the cramped, low ceilinged interior was a proposal by MJ to lower the ceiling on the interior set AMT had designed and delivered? If he had nothing to do with the design of the interior, then this drawing would have to have been made after the fact. Talk about putting the cart before the horse. The interior shows signs of having been designed with a lower ceiling that was later raised -- not vice versa. The drawing in question makes much more sense as a preliminary concept drawing establishing Jefferies' design paternity and showing what he had in mind.

If the foregoing is insufficient to penetrate your occipital lobe, then perhaps others will understand it.

Either way, I think this hypothesis is pretty strong and I have taken steps to seek more first-hand information that may settle it altogether.

M.

P.S.: Warped9, At this point I'd suggest something along the lines of, "Design by Walter M. Jefferies, with revisions by AMT."

 

[Cary L. Brown]

MGagen said:P.S.: Warped9, At this point I'd suggest something along the lines of, "Design by Walter M. Jefferies, with revisions by AMT."

Actually, not a bad approach, but still not quite "right" from a purely legalistic standpoint.

My recommendation: "Based upon the original work of Walter M. Jeffries, AMT Model Corporation, and Paramount Pictures Corporation."

Gives all credit where credit (moral or legal) is due... does not state WHO did WHAT (since there is clearly a degree of disagreement there!)... basically, it's entirely factual but in no way stretches beyond what is "known to be fact."

I've had to learn to write this sort of "cover your ***" notes over the years. Warped9 can write whatever he wants, naturally... but what I just suggested (or some close variant of that) is the safest, and most accurate, version, I think.

 

[Tallguy]

Cary L. Brown said:My recommendation: "Based upon the original work of Walter M. Jeffries, AMT Model Corporation, and Paramount Pictures Corporation."

"...with various nitpicking and corrections by TrekBBS." But yeah, I like that one Cary. (Good grief, what's he going to do when he gets to the TMP Ent?)

 

[Warped9]

I'd like to keep this succinct. How about "Designed by Walter M. Jefferies and AMT Corporation." Since this is an "unofficial" work Paramount can have a raspberry as far as I'm concerned. I ceased respecting Paramount in regards to Trek decades ago.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Warped9 said:
I'd like to keep this succinct. How about "Designed by Walter M. Jefferies and AMT Corporation." Since this is an "unofficial" work Paramount can have a raspberry as far as I'm concerned. I ceased respecting Paramount in regards to Trek decades ago.

My objection to that is one that you, in your own modesty, may be missing...

This design is YOUR design. You have made a series of real design changes, BASED UPON the works listed above. The drawings you're creating are your work, and are unique and distinct from the work done by anyone else. (And, I personally think, better than what has come before, just FYI).

There is nothing wrong with credit where credit is due. You have done these designs yourself. So it is NOT "designed by Matt Jeffries and AMT." It is designed by YOU, based upon prior work by Matt Jeffries and AMT (and, I honestly think for legal terms, you HAVE to provide credit to PPC, even if you don't like 'em very much!).

It's your work... you can replace the whole bit above with "And praise to the great God Zinthu the many-naveled" as far as any of us have a say! But I really think that "based upon" is best, and that to protect yourself legally you MUST include the PPC bit (and by using the "based upon" line, you can preclude them from claiming ownership of your drawings without compensation... which, otherwise, they COULD and very possibly WOULD do).

Do as you wish...

 

[SEW]

Warped9 said:
I'd like to keep this succinct. How about "Designed by Walter M. Jefferies and AMT Corporation." Since this is an "unofficial" work Paramount can have a raspberry as far as I'm concerned. I ceased respecting Paramount in regards to Trek decades ago.

Being pedantic, it was Desilu, not Paramount, that produced Star Trek at the time the shuttlecraft was designed.

And I agree with Cary L. Brown that the design is yours, based on the previous work of Jeffries and AMT.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

MGagen said:
Great job, overall.

A couple of minor points. I think real blueprints use terms like "Section View" or "Centerline Section" instead of "Cutaway."

Completely true, the term "cutaway" is not used in this context. It IS used, however... just not for this sort of view.

A "cutaway" view is, for example, what the David Kimble ST-TMP Enterprise poster is. It's never considered a "scale view" and is not used for anything but general familiarization as a result, while cross-section views are always done to-scale and can be used to extract dimensions and as a direct reference during manufacturing.

What you're doing here are called cross-sections. You can state "cross-section at centerline" and that's always acceptable. You can also draw a section line in another view to show the "cutting line" that you're taking the section along. For instance, you might have sections taken at various distances from the front of the craft, which would be viewed looking fore-to-aft or aft-to-fore, to illustrate the shape. Standard convention is to have the "section lines" shown in either the side view or top view in that case.

Hope that helps.

 

[Captain Robert April]

MGagen said:

Let me spell this out so clearly even you might grasp it:

Golly, Mr. Wizard, thanks!

We have two drawings by Matt Jefferies.

One is a sketch of the final configuration of the set piece, complete with a note indicating that the drawing shows the changes AMT made to the design. Internal evidence from the document itself dates it after the completion of the set piece.

That would be this one.

The other is a scale drawing of the same vehicle with more complex, rounded features. It is undated.

For the record, both are undated.

No matter, I presume you're referring to this one?

You have an interesting idea of "rounded."

Question -- Why would an overworked art director on a television show waste time to redesigning a set piece that's already constructed? Answer -- He wouldn't. He has more important things to do.

Conclusion -- The weight of evidence suggests that the scale drawing was made first. The sketch came later to document deviations from the design.

Let's see your cards, Mr. Maverick.

We know that MJ originally designed the teardrop shuttle. It was rejected as too expensive to build due to its compound curves.

That would be this one.

We also know that AMT made changes to the shuttle design to suit their manufacturing capabilities.

Nature of the beast.

Everyone has been assuming that AMT was the one who rejected the teardrop design and came up with the shuttle we have today.

BZZZZZZZZT!!! There's that faulty telepathy at work again! I never assumed AMT had anything to do wtih the approval of anything, nor would I, since they were basically hired guns. They wouldn't have approval power over their own design, let alone someone else's. Their position in the food chain is to provide a design that meets the approval of the customer, in this case, Desilu Studios and the Star Trek production office, which included the show's Art Director, Matt Jefferies!

However, the scale drawing in TMOST makes this explanation untenable. Once its proper place in the time line is understood, we find there was likely an intermediate redesign by Matt Jefferies himself.

That would be the undated drawing? How the hell are we supposed to properly place it in the timeline when it's undated, Mr. Peabody?

If you stop to consider the situation it makes perfect sense. As art director, he was quite familiar with designs being nixed as too expensive. It's a matter of course to go back to the drawing board and give it another try.

Which he did.

What seems less likely is for someone to say, "Nice try, but I think we'll hand the whole project over to a toy company. You had your one shot. Let the toy makers come up with what they think would fit the design style of our show." Highly unlikely. Even though the construction costs of the shuttlecraft would be underwritten by AMT, you can bet that Desilu would still be in the driver's seat as to what that piece would be.

Nobody's said anything different. Not me, not anybody that I've seen here.

Now let's compare the intermediate design with the what came before and after. The teardrop was made up of complex compound curves. The intermediate MJ design still has quite a few curves, but he's managed to avoid compound ones. The back of the shuttle tapers back in to give it a more aerodynamic shape, but it does so in flat sections as seen in the top view. The walls were curved when viewed in the rear view, but the shape is still the intersection of two simple curves. This is the same trick Disney used when constructing the TWA Moonliner.

If memory serves, Jefferies worked on that show.

To look at it, you'd think it is a continuous ogive, but it's really a combination of conic sections. The intersections were merely softened a bit with some sanding. So in the case of the intermediate shuttlecraft, we see a design that still presents a curvy, somewhat aerodynamic appearance, but one that carefully avoids the compound curves of the teardrop design. Now look at the final AMT design. They've eliminated a lot of the aerodynamic tapering in favor of a simple flat sided wedge design. The difference between the intermediate MJ design and the final AMT version is just what we've been told all this time. They made it less curved and easier to build.

Again, you have a strange sense of "curvy" since that final drawing doesn't look any curvier than the actual mockup.

But what does that leave for the car designer that AMT hired to do? -- you ask. A set of three view design drawings does not a construction blueprint make. AMT needed someone to engineer how the whole thing would be constructed. Detailed plans needed to be drawn up showing the project right down to the welded frame. He was also the one who likely did the final "simplified" design.

But why would Matt Jefferies say that the shuttlecraft we have today is not his design? Let's consider the changes made to "his design" by the time it was completed:

The body is no longer even faintly aerodynamic. I believe it was MJ himself who coined the phrase "flying cheese-box."

I'm still waiting to see that more trucklike design Aridas mentioned.

The interior ("also by AMT" remember) was originally designed for a low ceiling. Witness the unnaturally low chairs, front end angle and the MJ's own concept drawing showing a passenger walking up the aisle hunched over. The final version has "raised the roof" by merely stretching the interior from the side seam up. This also destroyed the sight lines out of the front windows.

That was most likely a production decision, not only for the comfort of the actors, but camera movement.

As an artist myself, I can identify with the disappointment he must have felt when he saw what was delivered. It is not at all an unusual thing for creative people to disown or take their name off of a project that has been substantially altered by others. Writers and directors do the same thing all the time.

And let us not forget the other concept art with Jefferies' name on it. Are we to believe that sketch showing the cramped, low ceilinged interior was a proposal by MJ to lower the ceiling on the interior set AMT had designed and delivered? If he had nothing to do with the design of the interior, then this drawing would have to have been made after the fact. Talk about putting the cart before the horse. The interior shows signs of having been designed with a lower ceiling that was later raised -- not vice versa. The drawing in question makes much more sense as a preliminary concept drawing establishing Jefferies' design paternity and showing what he had in mind.

You're refuting allegations that nobody has made. Please turn in your pointed ears at the front desk.

Either way, I think this hypothesis is pretty strong and I have taken steps to seek more first-hand information that may settle it altogether.

By all means, if you can get some direct evidence, do so.

Until then, try asking more questions and pontificating a little less.

 

[USS Mariner]

aridas, you can give me a copy of this shuttle-truck you keep toting around if you'd like.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I'd like it if he'd just post it here and end the speculation.

 

[blakbyrd]

Nice work here.

 

[aridas sofia]

Mariner Class said:
aridas, you can give me a copy of this shuttle-truck you keep toting around if you'd like.

I'd be more than happy to oblige, but I'm wandering around New England in my own shuttlecraft (read: RV) and I don't have access to my files. I sent a scan of this sketch to Warped 9 along with a multi-view illustration of my own interpretation of the design, after he requested anything on shuttlecraft designs that I had done for my 1701 cross section. Since he was doing the "butter dish" Galileo, and I had done the same thing for my 1701, I sent him an unused illustration based on the early Jefferies "butter dish" concept, along with the sketch it was based upon.

Perhaps he will be so kind as to post what I sent and sate your respective curiosities.

 

[Warped9]

^^ This evening I'll scan some images from my copy of the Star Trek Sketchbook and get them posted here for everyone to see.

 

[aridas sofia]

I found it. The "personnel carrier" in the lower right corner of this group. Mine was a scan of the original, but this gets the idea across.

Note the finlike detailing along the upper edges -- similar detail appears in altered form on the AMT shuttle. It is also hexagonal in section, like the eventual shuttle, and has engine "pods" in the same positions. This pretty clearly establishes the drawing as a direct predecessor to the version sent to AMT and altered there into the form seen onscreen.

The existence of the curving front -- harking back to the teardrop shuttle -- makes me think this was Jefferies first attempt at something that would fit the budget, followed by the more familiar drawings posted above.

 

[Warped9]

Cary L. Brown said:

Warped9 said:
I'd like to keep this succinct. How about "Designed by Walter M. Jefferies and AMT Corporation." Since this is an "unofficial" work Paramount can have a raspberry as far as I'm concerned. I ceased respecting Paramount in regards to Trek decades ago.

My objection to that is one that you, in your own modesty, may be missing...

This design is YOUR design. You have made a series of real design changes, BASED UPON the works listed above. The drawings you're creating are your work, and are unique and distinct from the work done by anyone else. (And, I personally think, better than what has come before, just FYI).

There is nothing wrong with credit where credit is due. You have done these designs yourself. So it is NOT "designed by Matt Jeffries and AMT." It is designed by YOU, based upon prior work by Matt Jeffries and AMT (and, I honestly think for legal terms, you HAVE to provide credit to PPC, even if you don't like 'em very much!).

It's your work... you can replace the whole bit above with "And praise to the great God Zinthu the many-naveled" as far as any of us have a say! But I really think that "based upon" is best, and that to protect yourself legally you MUST include the PPC bit (and by using the "based upon" line, you can preclude them from claiming ownership of your drawings without compensation... which, otherwise, they COULD and very possibly WOULD do).

Do as you wish...

Thank you and much appreciated.

In the strictest sense you are correct. To the best of my knowledge no one has ever done such a project in quite this way. The shuttlecraft I've drawn is not a recreation of the fullsize mock-up or the filming miniature but an amalgamation of both as an integrated whole, exterior wise anyway. The interior I've drawn is also an adaptation of the fullsize interior set to integrate it with my exterior. And then there is the 'tween hulls additions to truly fill in the gaps between the exterior and interior. To the best of my knowledge no one has ever done this before, or in the very least not as I've done it. In the end it comes down to trying to visualize a fictionally credible "real" shuttlecraft as opposed to recreating an idealized studio mock-up. That said I still feel as if I'm really adapting what we saw onscreen into one thing, just as we tried to accept it in our imaginations.

I suppose in a greater sense I've created a fourth version of the TOS shuttlecraft that has never actually been seen onscreen.