My TOS Shuttlecraft...

[Warped9]

aridas sofia said:
This needs to be fleshed out as deck plans. The "maintenance and storage deck" and "utility pod storage deck" would be irregular spaces, and the integration of them with the fantail in a sensible layout would be important. In other words, whatever the reason for the scalloped fantail, those spaces need to make optimum use of the odd space the scallop defines. Similarly, the placement of all this just aft of the pylons should be mandated by more than just the things launching out the back. After all, they could launch out the side. But if there is a large structural framework and "plumbing" that integrates with the pylons, and is largely minimized aft of the pylons, then there is more space AND an aftward launch afforded by that stern position.

The scallop gives the pods a larger door to access the interior -- either upwards of forwards. But the way you have modified it, I don't think the decks line up with the scallop's hatch markings any longer.

Well, this is a preliminary layout and I won't be really tackling this for awhile yet with other projects ahead of it. But now that I have solid dimensions for the shuttlecraft I can start thinking about how much space will be needed and how things can be laid out.

Mind you I'm already reconsidering my initial ideas. I see reducing the flight deck to some extent and somewhat closer to your layout and correspondingly expanding the maintenance deck. The utility pod deck isn't nailed down in any way whatsoever since I don't even have a finalized design. That said, aridas, I could forward you one of my early sketches.

 

[aridas sofia]

I'd love to see them. At some point I hope Todd, Tallguy and I can get back to translating this into 2D and 3D deck plans, and I know I'd like your input on this area that you've given so much thought.

 

[Warped9]

As I mentioned earlier it will be sometime before I can tackle the hangar deck and related areas. Before I get to that I plan to tackle the TAS shuttlecraft and then the film shuttlecraft. The TAS shuttlecraft do have a bearing on my ideas for the hangar deck. Although the TAS designs, even adapted, cannot be accommodated as regular ship based shuttlecraft I believe the Flight Deck must still be large enough to accommodate them (when they are periodically loaned out for specific missions) even if it means the craft may or may not be able to be turned around while within the hangar. What this means to me is that the TAS designs can still have full standing room interiors, must bear some resemblance to their somewhat hastily and simplistically drawn appearances onscreen yet their exteriors must also be reasonably compact enough to be held temporarily on the ship’s Flight Deck.

Professor Moriarty (or was it Tallguy?) once mentioned he wanted his large hangar deck if possible. I feel much the same way, and so like I did with the Class F shuttlecraft I will tackle the Hangar Deck with the intent of depicting a “realistic” facility while trying to look as close as possible to what we saw onscreen (and taking into account that we were seeing a forced perspective, film production compromise view of the facility).

In regards to my Utility Pod—-what I’m seeing as the TOS version of the TMP Workbee-—its design is not yet finalized although I will be influenced somewhat by some of Matt Jefferies’ sketches of a “space tug” service craft as he worked towards the now familiar Class F shuttlecraft. How the Utility Pods (I envision at least two of the them as standard ship’s complement) are stored is still very much open for conjecture. In TMP we can glimpse Workbees sitting in alcoves on the main Flight Deck. I’m not sure we really get a clear look at the elongated alcoves on each side of the flight deck in TOS. Is it feasible the Utility Pods could be stored there? If so then it would free up a great deal of space below the Flight Deck that could be devoted more to maintenance and storage of the standard shuttlecraft.

In TOS we never saw more than the one shuttlecraft on the Flight Deck. Of course we know the real world production reason for that, but upon further consideration it might make some real world sense. If by chance a damaged shuttlecraft is coming in “hot” and somehow not perfectly controlled by landing beam (essentially a tractor beam) then the last thing you want are parked vehicles taking up potentially needed “landing” space and more obstacles for your errant incoming vehicle to possibly plow into and likely damage as well. Also if you must periodically accommodate a larger Starfleet (TAS?), Federation or even alien craft for docking purposes in lieu of using the transporter then you’d also appreciate more landing space. That’s why I feel the Flight Deck cannot be too small and should have some size to it. In following that line of thinking then I think it makes sense that the Maintenance Deck must be able to hold all four shuttlecraft.

As such, as much as I like this photomanip of mine I did quite sometime ago I now think it unlikely.

Here I must reiterate that except for the design of the shuttlecraft seen in TFF I discount everything else seen there in regards to the Flight Deck. The fact we see shuttlecraft stored there and that we see a facility that bears more resemblance to the TOS flight deck than the TMP one (and, of course, that that’s just the least of many things to discount about TFF). I believe we can also reasonably overlook the oversized and overcrowded Flight Deck seen in TAS if we wish to strive for a more realistic facility. I also discount everything I’ve glimpsed in TOS-R since I have little to no confidence in their sense of scale or their thinking in general.

I must also say that I’m gratified that at present it does look like this can all work within a 947ft. ship. If it had been necessary then I wouldn’t have had a problem with scaling up fourteen something percent for a 1080ft. starship, but it’s nice to see that the long accepted figure of 947ft. can work. And I think this is greatly helped by achieving 26 and 29ft shuttlecraft.

How are shuttlecraft moved about the Flight Deck and below? Well, we know Starfleet has antigrav technology. Is this utilized with the shuttlecraft in some fashion? Below in the Maintenance Deck I can also envision some sort of magnetic grappler that can hoist the craft and park them where desired. Perhaps something similar to what Cary L. Brown has proposed earlier. The maglift can affix itself to the vehicle’s roof where the curved in upper hull could conveniently serve as some manner of safety catch should the grappler fail. I believe there should also be some reasonable ceiling space above the shuttlecraft while in the Maintenance Deck should it ever be necessary to work on the upper hull of the vehicles. This would also mean that the turntable/elevator needn’t lower completely to be flush with the Maintenance Deck floor. It need only clear the Maintenance Deck ceiling wherein the maglift takes over and parks the vehicle where desired. And if the Utility Pods can be stored in the alcoves off the Flight Deck then we needn’t be concerned with suitable space for them below the Maintenance Deck. Something to think about?

In regards to the TMP shuttlecraft. The drawings I’ve seen of the smaller version of the vehicle as seen on the Flight Deck are scaled at something like 40ft. long! That’s more than a fair size and quite a bit larger than the TOS type shuttlecraft to be housed in a refit ship that really isn’t that much bigger than the TOS E. I suspect that when I eventually turn my attention to this vehicle there will be some rescaling to be considered. At this point I just cannot accept a 40ft. shuttlecraft even within the refit E. This may well be another case of adapting the design to be scaled more appropriately while striving to retain the look of the craft as seen onscreen. There is some added flexibility in the fact we have never seen the interior of this craft although there is a general description of it in Shane Johnson’s book Mr. Scott’s Guide to the U.S.S. Enterprise.

And finally the shuttlecraft seen in TFF. The look and general scale of the craft as seen seem okay as is, but I do have some reservations. I absolutely HATE that stupid “tail gate” hatch seen at the aft end when you already have an access hatch on both sides of the craft. And that tailgate really makes the vehicle look more like a movie mockup rather than a credible spacecraft. At least the TOS shuttlecraft looked to have some substance between the hulls when the access hatch was open. As far as I’m concerned that friggin’ tailgate was a figment of a deranged imagination and doesn’t exist or belong on the “real” shuttlecraft. Lastly, the interior of the TFF shuttlecraft looked rather bare bones to me, but then it was so poorly lit that it was hard to make out the inte-rior detail clearly. Of course, that may have been intentional as a production compromise.



TAS Shuttlecraft Histories:

The Class J shuttlecraft was first introduced when advances in stardrive technologies and engineering during the mid 22nd century finally made it possible to incorporate space warp drives into rather compact spaceframes. It is sometimes referred to as a “scoutship” although it is much smaller than most scout class vehicles. Even so its rakish appearance does telegraph its intended function well enough. The Class J was developed by Vulcan aerospace industries partly to fulfill a demand for a ground based, fast and extended range transport as Federation outposts, facilities and member worlds were located ever farther outward. This design has been contracted by various Federation agencies as well as Starfleet, individual member world governments and even private interests. The design can also be modified in production to accommodate specific client requirements. The standard configuration accommodates a two or three person complement although it can be easily refit for up to six persons. In standard configuration it can sustain three persons for up to a month’s duration with sufficient supplies as well as adequate sleeping and support facilities. The vehicle is divided into two main sections: the larger forward main cabin and the smaller aft cabin comprised of an airlock and main systems access. The flexible and robust design allowed for subsequent advances in stardrive technology to be easily incorporated into upgraded variants of the vehicle wherein this vehicle remains in service and in demand throughout the Federation.

The Class L shuttlecraft is often referred to as a lander or “heavy lander” since it is designed specifically for extreme environments ranging beyond general Class M parameters. The lander has been used mostly by various branches of Starfleet, particularly the Engineering Corps, as well as several private interests throughout the Federation concerned with planetary survey in terms of geology, mining, cosmology, archeology and even xenobiology. Within Starfleet the lander can be temporarily loaned out to deep space starships for specific missions since the vehicle is too large to be accommodated as part of a ship’s regular complement of auxiliary craft. The Class L is a sturdy design due to necessity, but it is also of low space warp capability and limited range. Its main function dictated incorporating powerful impulse engines (for its size) as well as robust antigrav components to manage severe environments and higher than standard gravities. The lander was designed and developed by Mars based aerospace industries with a long established reputation for developing rugged vehicles suited for hostile environments.

Starfleet’s exploratory functions are focused primarily on Class M type worlds. Periodically, though, it is necessary to investigate the aquatic environments of some of those worlds. There are numerous automated resources available for such exploration, but periodically manned onsite op-erations are demanded. The aquashuttle was developed for that very purpose. The aquashuttle’s primary function negates the need for any space warp drive—it is strictly a limited range orbit-to-surface vehicle with a standard complement of four to six persons. Designing such a vehicle was challenging since the environment of space is at odds with an aquatic one. A spacecraft’s hull is designed primarily to withstand internal atmospheric pressure from blowing the craft apart in the vacuum of space while a submersible is designed to withstand mounting external pressure from crushing the hull. Advanced materials helped solve this contradiction yet the inevitable compromise is that the aquashuttle is not a deep range submersible. Beyond depths within the aquashuttle’s range one must then resort to specifically designed true submersibles for further exploration, and those type of operations are usually outside Starfleet’s mandate.

 

[aridas sofia]

A large hangar deck is only needed if a) shuttlecraft are actually being stored up there, and b) there are more than the Exeter's four, and c) they aren't landed with pinpoint precision using tractor beams, but rather need some sort of STV-TFF "runway" (which I think is ludicrous).

Jefferies shows us the size hangar deck he intended, and it's pretty small. But paired with facilites below deck, it's big enough to service four shuttlecraft, and a few smaller craft. If that's good enough for him, it's good enough for me.

 

[Warped9]

^^ I believe we agree at least in principle if not in exact detail, or in this case in exact measurements. (-: I think our overall approaches will differ mainly in terms of inches or perhaps even a couple of feet here and there. Mind you having some extra space on the Flight Deck could be foreseen as useful if you have to take aboard a few extra craft in some sort of search-and-rescue operation. I'm just thinking aloud here.


I must have been overtired or something last night when I made my last post. I don’t know what I was thinking.

What I meant to say in regards to it being sometime before I tackle the hangar deck was that I still have a fair amount to do in regards to the TOS shuttlecraft before I can approach the hangar deck plans. The TAS and film shuttlecraft will follow after that.

What I have left to complete first:
Sheet 0 – Starfleet Shuttlecraft Cover Page
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 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 33 – Class B Utility Pod Exterior Views (Port, Bow and Top)
Sheet 34 – Class B Utility Pod Exterior Views (Starboard, Aft and Bottom)
Sheet 35 – Class E Shuttlecraft Exterior Views (Port, Bow and Top) [this is “The Cage” era shuttlecraft included here mainly for some historical perspective]
Sheet 36 – Class E Shuttlecraft Exterior Views (Starboard, Aft and Bottom)
Sheet 37 – Class E Shuttlecraft Interior Views (Port, Bow and Deck Cutaways)

And finally then:
Sheet 27 – Starship Hangar Port Cutaway
Sheet 28 – Starship Hangar Bow Cutaway
Sheet 29 – Starship Hangar Aft Cutaway
Sheet 30 – Starship Hangar Flight Deck Plan
Sheet 31 – Starship Hangar Maintenance Deck Plan
Sheet 32 – Starship Hangar Service Deck Plan (actually remains in question whether this will need to be done)
Sheet 38 – Project Background & Notes

As aridas has mentioned earlier deck plans will have to be done to properly flesh this out. But I will add that I think it would be worthwhile doing cross sections looking both bow and aftwards to better ascertain how much room we have to play with.

I won’t be giving the pre TOS era Class E shuttlecraft quite the same in-depth treatment as my Class F and H shuttlecraft—it’s simply too much work for what is essentially a hobby. My intent is similar with the TAS and film shuttlecraft. I’m going to the limit with the TOS shuttlecraft simply because I find them the most interesting. I will still do the others with the same overall approach I’m using with the TOS vehicles, but I just can’t see myself agonizing over the between-the-hulls details to the same extent with the latter day craft.

My plans for the other shuttlecraft are essentially:
Sheet 1 – Shuttlecraft Port Elevation
Sheet 2 – Shuttlecraft Starboard Elevation
Sheet 3 – Shuttlecraft Bow Elevation
Sheet 4 – Shuttlecraft Aft Elevation
Sheet 5 – Shuttlecraft Top Plan
Sheet 6 – Shuttlecraft Bottom Plan
Sheet 7 – Shuttlecraft Port Cutaway
Sheet 8 – Shuttlecraft Deck Plan
Sheet 9 – Shuttlecraft History & Specifications

Even so all told I will still end up doing something between 90 and 100 pages of drawings to cover all the main TOS, TAS and film shuttlecraft compiled over three volumes of Starfleet Shuttlecraft. It should still be rather comprehensive even though I’m not going into every little detail and leaving something to the imagination. (-:

I question whether anyone has ever gone into this level of detail before in regards to a fictional creation, but who really knows.

 

[Tallguy]

Warped9 said:Professor Moriarty (or was it Tallguy?) once mentioned he wanted his large hangar deck if possible.

Hi all! I once expressed the sentiment that I missed the improbably sized shuttle deck from the show, workability be darned! Some terrific "realistic" decks have been managed (including my own) but the only one that took my breath away (including my own) was Dennis Bailey's in Exeter. (Ok, the World Enough and Time deck made me ooh and ahh a little bit, but that was just because there were people freaking walking around on it! That was AWWWWESOME!)

So I've resigned myself to being forever of two minds on this. Knowing the deck from the show will never fit in the ship is my favorite and loving and appreciating the versions that do. (Those cramped little decks look spectacular from the outside when those doors open!) Oh, and the TAS deck was just silly.

Excellent work as alway W9!

 

[Warped9]

^^ I think the size of the Flight Deck is greatly influenced by the concept of how the Enterprise's structural spaceframe works. More specifically how are the nacelle support pylons fixed to the engineering hull and what material(s) could they be made of. Consider that the design of the ship overall is very exotic and extravagant in terms of the engineering principles we understand today. But three hundred years hence, who knows? I'm not an engineer, but what universal principles will still apply and what new materials and techniques are even remotely possible is a subject ripe for discussion I think.

 

[Wingsley]

Looking at those images and drawings of the Constitution-class flight deck, the rail-like structures along the ceiling got me to thinking: what if a bigger-than-normal craft were to land? If the starship operations required their standard shuttlecraft to launch or land, would the starship have to jettison the "guest craft"?

I think not...

What if those ceiling rails are there for an industrial strength crane (or huge mechanical arms) that could grasp the non-standard vehicle and cradle it on the ceiling? (Doing this mechanically would mean that the craft could be held there even in the event of a power failure.) This would leave the flight deck itself free to allow normal flight operations. It might also open up possibilities for those "observation deck" structures on the ceiling; they could be used as docking bays for ceiling-mounted craft.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Hmmmm....that opens up all sorts of possibilities...

 

[Wingsley]

In April of 2001, months and worlds before the World Trade Center tragedy, I had a chance the visit the hydroelectric Seneca Power Station in front of the Kinzua Dam (the one built in 1965 that Johnny Cash sang about) and one of the engineers took me on a tour in the subterranean bowels of the thing. I got to see all the inner workings exposed; my father worked as a millwright during a refit there before he retired.

It was a thrill to see the inner workings of the facility; think of it as a mini Hoover Dam hydro station. One sight that impressed me was the rolling ceiling crane near the roof of the facility. I looked at the images of the Enterprise's hangar deck in this thread and I thought back to the Seneca Power Station. I simply could not resist adding my thoughts to this discussion...

 

[Irishman]

Tremendous work! Especially the concept profile of that class E!

Delicious and believable.

 

[Warped9]

 

[aridas sofia]

Well, as I mentioned above, one of the first things I did when I started that cross section was envision the major structure of the ship -- its "keel" and "ribs" so to speak. The major, cylindrical structure at the heart of the secondary hull extended back to the pylons, to permit their attachment. So that defined the size of the hangar, which just so happened to be about 90-95% the size Jefferies specified in the Phase 2 illustration.

I guess I just don't see the need for every shuttle to be brought aboard. If they are too big, take 'em in tow.

Oh, and BTW you are comparing the wrong TMP shuttle -- that looks to be the large sized shuttle that fit on the warp sled. The Starfleet shuttle was much smaller --

If you want a TOS version of the modular idea behind the Vulcan shuttle design, just go with Probert's own ideas:

http://probertdesigns.com/Folder_DESIGN/ART/TREK/Vulcan-4.jpg

He's provided an earlier design, at the top.

In my mind, this whole Vulcan shuttle design shouldn't be seen as discontinuous with the others, any more than Jefferies original shuttlecraft design should be seen as ill-fitting. A helicopter doesn't look like a prop plane doesn't look like a jet. The Vulcan shuttle is a modular design whose shape is defined by that nacelle package. He drew a warp package to complement the smaller Starfleet shuttle, and it looks quite different.

Rather than limiting yourself to that rather derivative STV design, I'd explore a TOS modular shuttle after Probert's design above, and this warp driven TMP Starfleet shuttlecraft. They are no more divergent than the TAS designs you are fond of.

 

[Warped9]

^^ I have a copy of the image of that smaller version TMP shuttlecraft and it is still going on 40ft. long and even has a human figure for scale. I matched them up (as illustrated) and it's still oversized.

Re: the hangar deck. Perhaps I'm just envisioning the structural support differently. What I'm now proposing is smaller than I initially speculated yet still a bit larger than yours. And the maintenance deck needs to be expanded to hold all four shuttlecraft, unless they're always keeping one on the flight deck.

 

[aridas sofia]

Warped9 said:
... unless they're always keeping one on the flight deck.

That is what I assumed. At least one on the deck, ready to go at a moment's notice, thus the name "hangar deck". This really presents no problem if the things are landed with tractor beam guidance. And even without tractor assist, with futuristic computer guidance you'd assume it could land on a dime and stay in synch with the ship's motions.

 

[Warped9]

^^ And then you're keeping only three of the shuttlecraft below? I don't think there's enough room to be stored three abreast unless they're oriented at right angles to the ship. If not then you'll still need a sizable storage deck. And what if you have the Class H all the way in the back and that's the one you need?

 

[aridas sofia]

These are questions that are only going to be resolved with deck plans. You've also got to remember that I made an adjustment by having only two of the shuttlecraft be Class F. The one that would have to be on deck when it is aboard is the big Jefferies shuttle. The little ones derived from the Phase 2 design would be kept on the storage deck two decks down. Basically, I see the flight deck as the hangar under normal circumstances. It is the "hangar deck". One deck down is the much bigger (in terms of floor space, not in terms of height) maintenance deck. Two down is the smaller storage deck, for the work pods and the smallest shuttle(s). All these decks are linked to each other vertically via turntable/lifts.

The maintenance deck is open to space through the scallop hatch on the fantail. The lower storage deck might be open to space via the aft keel cargo hatch, but I'm not sure if that will work out.

 

[USS Mariner]

Don't forget to consider the possibility of having these shuttlecraft be modular. That would even make the idea of the main deck being a shuttle hangar feasible.

Other than detaching the nacelles, the best scheme for modularizing the Class-F would be to separate the main body from the impulse "block" at the back. In Warped9's plans, this block encompasses everything from the impulse exhaust to the forward wall of the lavatory section. The side walls of the shuttecraft are connected to the main body, and not only protect the impulse block but also provide further points for attachment and integration to the rest of the craft.

(There's also the possibility of having the impulse block extend underneath the main body. I'll whip up an illustration of this idea if anyone's interested.)

Removing the aft block allows the possibility of staggered or nested storage, as well as very easy maintenance of a shuttle's vital systems (fuel, impulse engines, waste management, life support etc.) It also allows the shuttle to be as configurable as we've seen on the show itself, which showed us shuttles with computers filling the midsection of the craft (which would never fit through the side doors, even in Warped's shuttle.)

 

[Warped9]

^^ I just don't buy the "kit building" approach to the shuttlecraft. And I was thinking a lot about this last night and particularly in terms of deck plan view. As such I'm about 90% decided which route I'm going to take.

Having one shuttlecraft usually on the flight has anecdotal evidence supporting it. Yet also having the landing completely clear at times also has anecdotal evidence supporting it. It speaks of storage flexibility as well as ease of access to particular vehicles.

I've also got perhaps something of an unusual idea regarding storage of the utility pods.

 

[Warped9]

Warped9 said:
Having one shuttlecraft usually on the flight has anecdotal evidence supporting it. Yet also having the landing completely clear at times also has anecdotal evidence supporting it. It speaks of storage flexibility as well as ease of access to particular vehicles.

I've also got perhaps something of an unusual idea regarding storage of the utility pods.

“The Doomsday Machine” – When Matt Decker makes his escape from the Enterprise the ship was on red alert and he really couldn’t count on much time before the security guard he’d overcome could be discovered. It’s tough to imagine that he could have gotten down to the hangar deck (which, of course, he did) and brought up one of the shuttlecraft from the maintenance deck to the flight deck. But if a shuttlecraft was already on the flight deck then his chances of escape would have been better and the odds of his discovery much less. And it’s just possible that some lowly crewman might not question Decker’s presence (being of Commodore’s rank) in the area even if he was seen.

“The Way To Eden” – We don’t know for certain how long the Enterprise crew were unconscious because of Dr. Sevrin’s sonic attack. Sevrin and his group mightn’t really have had much time before the crew revived. A shuttlecraft already on the flight deck would have simplified their escape.

“Mudd’s Passion” – Once again someone trying to escape the ship—this time familiar con artist, Harry Mudd—is facilitated because there’s a shuttlecraft already on the flight deck.

“The Ambergris Element” – The aquashuttle was a specialized vehicle likely somewhat larger than the standard shuttlecraft. It’s too big to be stored down in the maintenance deck. It would facilitate things if the standard shuttlecraft could have all been stored below to make room for the aquahuttle until it could be returned to starbase.

“Albatross” – Dramian Peace Officer Demos’ sneaking his spacecraft onto the Enterprise’s hangar deck is greatly facilitated if at the time (for whatever unknown reason) there are no shuttlecraft already taking up space in the middle of the flight deck.