My TOS Shuttlecraft...

[Sarvek]

Cary L. Brown said:
That was one heck of a read... finally, someone who can out-type me!

Seriously, you know where I stand... I'd like to see ships that look like the TAS ones. But that doesn't mean that YOUR proposals can't exist too.

I have to wonder... move the nacelles up top, reconfigure the nose... put the "skids" on there and put a deflector on the nose...replace the aft end with a swing-down ramp-hatch (ala TNG)... the only issue then is where do the impulse exhausts go (I'd assume, in runabout fashion, under the side "wings").

In other words, sure, stick with the "starting from TOS" concept, but modify it to match the TAS...

Just another suggestion in a long line of them.

I second that. But what I would recommend is the design already in the works of the Vulcan designed Long-Range Scout Shuttle, that you have already made sketches of. I really do like your Class J Shuttle that we already see. BTW, keep up the great work and keep on trekkin.

 

[Warped9]

Sarvek said:

Cary L. Brown said:
That was one heck of a read... finally, someone who can out-type me!

Seriously, you know where I stand... I'd like to see ships that look like the TAS ones. But that doesn't mean that YOUR proposals can't exist too.

I have to wonder... move the nacelles up top, reconfigure the nose... put the "skids" on there and put a deflector on the nose...replace the aft end with a swing-down ramp-hatch (ala TNG)... the only issue then is where do the impulse exhausts go (I'd assume, in runabout fashion, under the side "wings").

In other words, sure, stick with the "starting from TOS" concept, but modify it to match the TAS...

Just another suggestion in a long line of them.

I second that. But what I would recommend is the design already in the works of the Vulcan designed Long-Range Scout Shuttle, that you have already made sketches of. I really do like your Class J Shuttle that we already see. BTW, keep up the great work and keep on trekkin.

Yes, I've already posted sketches of my adaptations of the TAS shuttlecraft earlier upthread to show that these vehicles do exist in the TOS universe only they're not as they were in TAS. The Copernicus is a little different issue in my opinion and it is made so by Spock's spoken reference in the episode that it is an ""Enterprise shuttlecraft." With that spoken reference we're faced with a staggering contradiction because there is just no way in hell the TAS craft would fit in the TOS hangar area. It can exist as an actual vehicle in the TOS universe but definitely not as a starship based shuttlecraft.

Many years ago I tried drawing my design with the nacelles set on top and extended landing skids. The thing just looked so fanboyish, needlessly complicated and just absurd that I quickly scrapped it.

As I was infering with my lengthy post above, there are a lot of things I like about TAS and what it brought to the Star Trek universe, but there are some things that I don't think we're well thought out. The TAS shuttlecraft is a good case in point.

Anyone know if Matt Jefferies was ever consulted in regards to aspects of TAS? From my perspective it doesn't look like it. But TOS did set a precedent that what we see onscreen can often be a production compromise from what is really intended. So why should TAS be any different?

 

[Sarvek]

I searched a great deal of my books on the subject of TAS and I could not find any reference that Matt Jefferies consulted on TAS. A great deal of his designs were carried though- looking at the Enterprise, the Bridge, the Klingon ships, the Galileo shuttle, and etc. These other shuttles were added lated but still remain with the box-like apprearance, except for the Heavy Shuttle. I hope that this helps. Keep on going with your work, you have a great idea and keep running with it.

 

[Warped9]

 

[Icy_Penguigo]

Ooh...these are cool. Very nice mock-ups. I thought they were 3D models at first!

 

[B.J.]

Interesting! That second one is a different take on it than what I had assumed. What you used as a non-reflective area, I had assumed was the window (having never seen the episode).

*Very* nice photomanips! Actually, I'm a bit surprised that you didn't draw them completely from scratch.

 

[Sarvek]

I really love where these shuttle designs are going. Great work, Warped9.

 

[TheMasterOfOrion]

Sarvek said:
I love your take on the long-range scoutship. I will be looking forward to where it is going. Keep up the great work and keep those ideas coming.

Yeah, fantastic work in this thread.

Keep it up :thumbsup:

 

[Warped9]

Thanks guys. The SCE registry prefix as well as the Starfleet Corps of Engineers add-on on the lander were a spur-of-the-moment thought.

 

[Warped9]

This is a long and drawn out project and I apologize to everyone for not getting material posted faster. But real life often intrudes and sometimes you're just a little too tired to get as much done as you'd like.

The final complete drawings are really the tip of the iceberg in a project like this. Before hand there is lots of thinking and sketching and even researching towwards getting as close as possible to the final desired result. There's, of course, also my wish to have something of a professional look to the final product.

In some cases I've had to reconsider my approach towards balancing what I'd like to do and what is reasonable to accomplish within a reasonable time frame. To that end I've sometimes chosen to drop certain things I initially planned to do.

This specific project has always been, and continues to be, part of a larger overall project I think of as the Starfleet Command Library. After a lot of thought what I've chosen to do is cmpartmentalize the work so that I can acheive things in stages that can stand complete on their own while being part of a greater whole that can be compiled all into a whole at he end.

And so this project will be:

STARFLEET SHUTTLECRAFT
Set Of General Plans
Class F & Class H Shuttlecraft
Starfleet Command Library Vol. 1

Contents:

Sheet 0 – Starfleet Shuttlecraft Cover Page
Sheet 1 – Class F Shuttlecraft Port Elevation
Sheet 2 – Class F Shuttlecraft Starboard Elevation
Sheet 3 – Class F Shuttlecraft Bow Elevation
Sheet 4 – Class F Shuttlecraft Aft Elevation
Sheet 5 – Class F Shuttlecraft Top Plan
Sheet 6 – Class F Shuttlecraft Bottom Plan
Sheet 7 – Class F Shuttlecraft Port Cutaway
Sheet 8 – Class F Shuttlecraft Starboard Cutaway
Sheet 9 – Class F Shuttlecraft Bow Cutaway
Sheet 10 – Class F Shuttlecraft Aft Cutaway
Sheet 11 – Class F Shuttlecraft Deck Plan
Sheet 12 – Class F Shuttlecraft Ceiling Plan
Sheet 13 – Class F Shuttlecraft History & Specifications
Sheet 14 – Class H Shuttlecraft Port Elevation
Sheet 15 – Class H Shuttlecraft Starboard Elevation
Sheet 16 – Class H Shuttlecraft Bow Elevation
Sheet 17 – Class H Shuttlecraft Aft Elevation
Sheet 18 – Class H Shuttlecraft Top Plan
Sheet 19 – Class H Shuttlecraft Bottom Plan
Sheet 20 – Class H Shuttlecraft Port Cutaway
Sheet 21 – Class H Shuttlecraft Starboard Cutaway
Sheet 22 – Class H Shuttlecraft Bow Cutaway
Sheet 23 – Class H Shuttlecraft Aft Cutaway
Sheet 24 – Class H Shuttlecraft Deck Plan
Sheet 25 – Class H Shuttlecraft Ceiling Plan
Sheet 26 – Class H Shuttlecraft History & Specifications
Sheet 27 – Shuttlecraft Complement: U.S.S. Enterprise
Sheet 28 – Starship Hangar Port Cutaway
Sheet 29 – Starship Hangar Bow Cutaway
Sheet 30 – Starship Hangar Aft Cutaway
Sheet 31 – Starship Hangar Flight Deck Plan
Sheet 32 – Starship Hangar Maintenance Deck Plan
Sheet 33 – Starship Hangar Service Deck Plan
Sheet 34 – Class B Workpod Exterior Views (Port, Bow and Top)
Sheet 35 – Class B Workpod Exterior Views (Starboard, Aft and Bottom)

The plans will be available in two formats first and then a final third version. The first will be as pdf files: one will be of the original 11x17" sheets and a second 8x11" size for binding if desired. The third form will be when all completed volumes will be on a CD medium in one collection. How many volumes there will be I can't say at this time. It will ultimately depend on how much work I can accomplish and I deem worth doing.

However at this point I can say that there will be other volumes forthcoming. Presently as planned they are:

STARFLEET SHUTTLECRAFT:
Class J, Class L & Class M Shuttlecraft
Starfleet Command Library Vol. 2
(these are my adaptations of the TAS shuttlecraft)

STARFLEET SHUTTLECRAFT:
Class E & Class G Shuttlecraft
Starfleet Command Library Vol. 3
(these are shuttlecraft from TMP-TFF)

STARFLEET STARSHIPS:
Constitution & Enterprise Class Cruisers
Starfleet Command Library Vol. 4
("The Cage," TOS and TMP)

Other SCL volumes will be dictated by which material I choose to tackle at that time such as Starfleet Uniforms, various other classes of ships, equipment, Klingon and Romulan ships, etc.



I finally have a hard number for the Class H’s length overall: 8.839 meters or 28.999ft. Talk about getting it in just under the wire! (-: The vehicle’s height is planned to be near exactly the same as the Class H’s and the width overall should be no more than about a foot wider and hopefully a bit less. These dimensions should make the Class H reasonably as manageable as the Class F within the ship’s hangar facilities. It should be noted that a 29ft. length for the Class H isn’t the same as it would have been for the Class F. A 29ft. Class F shuttlecraft would also have meant substantially greater vehicle height and width overall as well as the problems in regards to ease-of-access I’ve often mentioned before.

Externally you’ve already seen the general outline of the Class H. The final design will vary little from the elevations posted earlier upthread save for the nacelles being moderately shorter than previously shown (although that will be nearly indistinguishable at first glance). I will retain the 5-port impulse engine arrangement I drew up for my initial version of the design (as adapted from a drawing in TMoST), however I will revert to using the three “window” panels on the Class F’s forward hull (representing the main space and navigational sensor arrays) as opposed to the single wide panel I had initially conceived. I simply think the original three panels look better and more finished. The access hatch/gangway will also be modified by necessity since it is must open further downward for ease of entry and exit. No, this ship will not look like the TAS shuttlecraft seen in “The Slaver Weapon,” but as I have stated before I believe this is a more believable “real” TOS version of what the Enterprise based Copernicus would look like (and assuming they had magically had the resources to build a full-size mockup of it). This is all based on my perspective of what if “The Slaver Weapon” had been filmed as a live-action TOS episode under the best of circumstances.

Internally the Class H will diverge a bit more than the exterior. The forward bulkhead will have one large viewing monitor as opposed to the three smaller screens of the Class F—a nod to the large transparent viewport of the TAS shuttlecraft. There will be some minor variations to the control consoles. There will be three seats set forward rather than seven. I hope to include at least one of the cabinet/consoles glimpsed in “The Immunity Syndrome” as well as a desk/table work space, an equipment locker and two fold-away sleeping berths. This will represent the standard configuration suitable for the craft’s maximum range and speed. Of course, like the Class F, the interior can be refitted for other mission profiles if required with the possible sacrifice of projected range. The chairs will also be moderately different in having a higher backrest similar to those of the standard chairs seen throughout the Enterprise sets. The seats in the TAS shuttlecraft did look little different than the standard Enterprise chairs so those will be another nod to that while still being rooted in TOS’ “realism.” The aft cabin area will remain the same as the Class F’s. Of course, it should be noted that the interior of the TAS Copernicus was rather bare—we only saw two seats, a table and what looked like interior structural members. There really should have been more detail. When I eventually draw up my TOS adaptation of the TAS scoutship it will also have a more detailed interior although it’s unlikely I will detail the between hulls tech to the same extent as the Class F and H shuttlecraft. I’ve found planning out and drawing the “guts” of the ships the most challenging and daunting aspect of this prospect.

A final minor change: I’ve changed the Columbus’ registry to NCC-1701/2. I’m just assuming that 1701/1 was lost sometime along the way since these craft were first introduced. The numbering of the shuttlecraft really is left up to interpretation since the Enterprise is supposed to have only four shuttlecraft and yet the Galileo was numbered 1701/7. In TAS the shuttlecraft were numbered up to 11 and 12! One could assume that at least three of the craft were lost over the years and that the Columbus is now the oldest of the remaining ships. However, after the initial loss of the Galileo in “The Galileo Seven” for some obscure reason they chose to number the Galileo II number 1701/7 as well rather than 1701/8. Go figure. Of course in real terms we know this was a production compromise, but I haven’t yet heard of or figured out any sort of rationale for how it works in TOS’ universe. In that light I chose to number my Copernicus 1701/3 rather than 1701/12 as seen in TAS, as well as being partly influenced by the very flimsy reasoning that the Copernicus seen in TFF was also numbered 3. I suppose more logically I could have numbered it 1701/8, but there it is. Of course the Class H Copernicus could have been aboard ship for quite some time and we just never saw it—which is my basic reasoning. It could also be that Starfleet just assigns a replacement for a lost shuttlecraft and it’s left to the ship’s crew to name it if they so wish. But that still leaves Starfleet’s registry practice a mystery.

I’m rationalizing that the Class F shuttlecraft were introduced sometime during Pike’s tenure while the Class H was introduced around the time the Enterprise was refit for its 5-year mission. And so the shuttlecraft complement I’m illustrating represents how things stood around the beginning of TOS’ production episodes.

This does raise the interesting question as to what did Starfleet have before the Class F was introduced. I’m rejecting the dorky looking shuttlepod seen in ENT and not only because I’m not looking that far back. Whatever it was it most likely had to have been accommodated within a Constitution-class hangar area, but possibly not since the Class F could have been developed with the then new starship designs in mind. I’m assuming the earlier shuttles were more cramped and without warp capability. At some point I may try sketching out some concepts trying to work backwards from the Class F as well as considering some of MJ’s early sketches. I’m intrigued with one of aridas’ concepts (based on a MJ concept) although I don’t feel it looks quite convincingly pre TOS Starfleet…but who really knows? I’m also mindful of a drawing of a shuttlecraft in one of Gold Key Comics’ early issues of their TOS comic which looked nothing like the TOS shuttlecraft, but was interesting nonetheless.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Well, I'm diggin' all this stuff... thanks!

My thoughts re: these shuttles, albeit not quite 100% in line with yours (I THINK)... it goes in large part to my take on "FTL impulse" (which is what I think the shuttles have). That is, that the nacelles are subspace field generators but not WARP DRIVE engines... you get FTL by putting the shuttle in a static subspace bubble and using impulse within that bubble.

Now, I remember the shuttle we saw in STVI... no external nacelles, used to move from surface to spacedock. That's what I'd be inclined to go for.

Basically, take a TOS-type shuttle, remove the "outriggers" nacelles, increase the impulse section size to about 150% or 200% of what's there now, and reduce the crew compartment by the same amount (so that the shuttle is the same size).

This would probably remove the last row of seats... a 5-man rather than 7-man shuttle.

I also thin that the nose might be a little more "sharp." Inside, it would be a bit more mechanical and less "clean and sterile" but for the most part very similar to the TOS shuttle we know (and that you've gone into in such detail).

One point I've brought up before... the "curved in towards the centerline" sections atthe top of the hull side panels. What are they for? Well, I've always assume that these were rails... so that a "crane in from above" system could have something to latch on to. Yes, I know people are thinking I'm borrowing this from "Enterprise" but I'm not... ENTERPRISE borrowed this from M.J.'s original thoughts on the concept. So even if you hate "Enterprise" with a passion, this approach shouldn't be rejected out-of-hand.

Ah, you say... but the Enterprise 1701 didn't need that. Yes, that's true... but the fleet is made up of MANY vessels, and it's unreasonable to assume that Starfleet would put shuttles on one ship that would be INCAPABLE of interacting with any other ship, or with any other base for that matter.

So, keep the "docking rails" on the top, the same basic shape, the same basic impulse configuration... totally alter the landing gear (actually, I think something like your nose-gear version, above, would work great here, with the rear gear coming off from under the wings, not from the nacelles).

I don't know if having folding wings is useful or not... I'd probably go with them (and, again, not because of Enterprise but because it's a common practice in REAL carrier-based aircraft, and I'm assuming that the subspace field's mass-reduction in later shuttles made the use of aerodynamics less necessary in shuttle design!).

Anyway, just a few more cents for ya... far more than two, by now...

 

[Warped9]

^^ Well, here's the thing. I'm not above stealing from ENT because I see it as an alternate universe from the one I know. And so the Romulan BoP's seen in ENT were too advanced looking for the era in my opinion, but they look like they'd belong perfectly in TOS' timeline during the TMP era. Got that?

And so I could look at ENT's shuttlepods and possibly adapt them as a pre Class F vehicle. Whaddya think?

After all I'm not recognizing TWoK or TFF, but I'm still recognizing the Miranda-class frigates and the shuttlecraft because they look convingly TMP era.

 

[Warped9]

The image posted below shows the completed sheets of this project. It doesn’t seem like much, but it does represent a lot of work. It also doesn’t show all the stuff I have going that are in varying degrees of completion such as the Class F ceiling and deck plans which are nearly finished. The completed sheets and those nearly done will also serve as the basis for the set of drawings I will do for my Class H shuttlecraft variant, which will greatly facilitate that part of the project and allow me to complete it more quickly.

The next serious hurdle will be when I tackle the hangar area and related facilities.

 

[Gagarin]

Not using ENT I understand, but, Whoa, not accepting TwoK?

Well - great work with the shuttles, anyway! =)

 

[Warped9]

Gagarin said:
Not using ENT I understand, but, Whoa, not accepting TwoK?

*Sigh* Another subject for another time.

 

[Sarvek]

Looks great, Warped9. Could you post a larger version of your latest Shuttle Compliment Page? It looks like you made an update to it. Keep up the great work.

 

[Warped9]

^^ Well the most obvious change is that I'm going ahead with my newer design for the Class H Copernicus. And the other change is that Columbus' registry has been changed to NCC-1701/2.

 

[Warped9]

THIS IS ALL ARIDAS' FAULT!

He got me thinking about a pre TOS shuttlecraft design when I've got enough stuff going as it is.

I sketched this up in the coffee shop last night.

My thinking behind this early concept is not only adapting some of MJ's early ideas, but also considering what they could have built as a fullsize mockup.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

The nice thing about shuttles is that if someone thinks that the Copernicus should look like the TAS shuttle, they can just say that Warp9's version was destroyed at some point and replaced with the one we saw on-screen.

Sort of like how in Voyager they blew up a shuttle every week... obviously, shuttlecraft are dirt-cheap!

 

[Redfern]

Cary L. Brown said: Sort of like how in Voyager they blew up a shuttle every week... obviously, shuttlecraft are dirt-cheap!

Kinda' like the Eagles from MoonBase Alpha.

Sincerely,

Bill