My TOS Shuttlecraft...
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
I'm not referring to the full-size mockup, though--what I meant to convey (and obviously didn't do very well) is that the registry looks too low. Since you're already fiddling with the established size of the shuttle I figured you wouldn't have qualms with shifting around the markings.
^^ The fullsize mock-up itself wasn only 20.747 ft. and not even then 24ft. mentioned by Kirk. Evidently even then they knew that their mock-up was too small, but circumstances may have constrained them from building a larger fullsize replica. Even if done today a twenty-nine and change size fullsize mock-up would be pretty damn big to build.
I did recheck it as I mentioned and you were correct. It has since been fixed. I don't know how that happened, but thanks for the sharp eye.
Now, THAT'S an eye opener...
I played around a bit more with this last night. A 24ft. shuttlecraft would allow for a 5.5ft. ceiling at best and with the main cabin the remaining same length. However, such a size leaves zero room for an aft compartment. That aft door in the main compartment would access directly into the impulse drive area. This size of vehicle really would be a short range craft I'd think.
You have to get to about a 27 or 28ft. ship before you have something like a 6ft. ceiling and perhaps some small aft compartment.
You have to get to about a 27 or 28ft. ship before you have something like a 6ft. ceiling and perhaps some small aft compartment.
Your "comparison" view is really intriguing. I'd like to see a cross-section (incorporating the thickened walls, floor, and ceiling of course) and with a pair of human figures... a 5'4" female and 6'2" male... placed inside.
Nothing like a human figure to put "scale" issues into perspective! Matt Jeffries knew this, of course...
^^Yep, I've been thinking of quickliy slapping something like this together for comparison's sake. Maybe I can do it tonight. Unless the Ottawa Senators can get their heads out of their ass tonight then I'm not likely to be distracted from working on something else rather than watch the game.
^^Yep, I've been thinking of quickliy slapping something like this together for comparison's sake. Maybe I can do it tonight. Unless the Ottawa Senators can get their act together tonight then I'm not likely to be distracted from working on something else rather than watch the game.
I'm proudly Canadian here in Ontario. My preferred team, the Habs, blew it. And candidly Ottawa was really outclassed last night by the Sabres who played really well. I just don't know what happened. In game 1 it looked like anyone could win it, but since it looks like a forgone conclusion for the Sabres. *Sigh*
I wouldn't have a problem with upscaling the E the approximately 14% since her size was never established onscreen.
I wouldn't have a problem with upscaling the E the approximately 14% since her size was never established onscreen.
Ok, it's official - I hate the oversized interior as seen on the show. I was coming to that conclusion anyway looking at the skylights - er, windows at the front that are two feet above the pilot's head. The 30' shuttle that goes along with it confirms it.
It's hard enough fitting the 20-24' shuttle in the shuttlebay. That monster is just silly.
But damn fine work w9. This is Treknical archeology at its finest.
It's hard enough fitting the 20-24' shuttle in the shuttlebay. That monster is just silly.
But damn fine work w9. This is Treknical archeology at its finest.
I was playing with figures on the calculator last night. I'm going to rescale yet again. *Sigh* I'm going to go with a 6.33ft. ceiling (actually about a 6'-1" head clearance after you factor in the overhead lighting panel) and cram it down a little more. If I do that then I can get the overall length of the ship down to just under 29ft.
I agree with you, TG, about the interior. MJ obviously didn't initially plan it that way, but we're stuck with it because that's what we saw onscreen. Furthermore a fullsize interior supports the way the shuttlecraft was used onscreen as opposed to being strictly a very short range craft.
Believe me if I could get the craft down to a more manageable 25 or 26 feet then it would be great, but it can't be done and still retain some semblance to the interior we saw onscreen. 28 to 28.5 feet as measured from nose to trailing edge of the nacelles is the best I can do...I think. And then the aft landing pad adds a few more inches. But I think I can just get it under 29ft. overall.
Another reason for keeping the size down as much as possible is the access hatch step plate--it has to remain reasonably manageable for entry/exit. But the larger the ship the higher the plate because of how it's placed (the nacelle diameter and thus its centerline rises with increased scale). The hatch skylights I don't much worry about because they're more for just letting outside light in rather than for looking outward or so it seems to me.
This exercise is more than just deciding on scale. You have to take into account how the craft was used. On at least one occasion ("Metamorphosis") we have a situation where the vehicle was dispatched from the Enterprise for a mission that could have lasted anything from several hows to several days or even a week. Whichever the ship must have had facilities to support its crew and passengers for that duration. By facilities I mean specifically food and personal hygiene (waste management to be even more specific). A small and cramped short range craft would be totally impractical for such a trip.
There's also the matter of how events were depicted onscreen. You can rationalize only so much but you simply cannot outright ignore how things unfolded onscreen. Specifically here I'm talking about the events in "The Galileo Seven." We saw Scotty access mechanicals through the floor. We saw an aft cabin being used. And we saw and heard reference to equipment being jettisoned. Just what was it they could have jettisoned that wouldn't prohibit the ship from still flying? I feel these are practical considerations when tackling such a subject.
In extent one consequently may go on to reevaluating the Hangar Deck itself. If the scale of the shuttlecraft is in question then so to is the hangar deck as long as it can fit within the confines of the Enterprise herself.
And finally--although it may be a thorny issue for some--it just might require reevaluating the scale of the Enterprise. Can we make everything fit and work within a 947ft. ship or must we reconsider and accept a 1080ft. We have that flexibility if need be because unlike Kirk's reference of some 24ft. measurement in regards to the shuttlecraft never onscreen has the size of the Enterprise ever been actually referenced.
I agree with you, TG, about the interior. MJ obviously didn't initially plan it that way, but we're stuck with it because that's what we saw onscreen. Furthermore a fullsize interior supports the way the shuttlecraft was used onscreen as opposed to being strictly a very short range craft.
Believe me if I could get the craft down to a more manageable 25 or 26 feet then it would be great, but it can't be done and still retain some semblance to the interior we saw onscreen. 28 to 28.5 feet as measured from nose to trailing edge of the nacelles is the best I can do...I think. And then the aft landing pad adds a few more inches. But I think I can just get it under 29ft. overall.
Another reason for keeping the size down as much as possible is the access hatch step plate--it has to remain reasonably manageable for entry/exit. But the larger the ship the higher the plate because of how it's placed (the nacelle diameter and thus its centerline rises with increased scale). The hatch skylights I don't much worry about because they're more for just letting outside light in rather than for looking outward or so it seems to me.
This exercise is more than just deciding on scale. You have to take into account how the craft was used. On at least one occasion ("Metamorphosis") we have a situation where the vehicle was dispatched from the Enterprise for a mission that could have lasted anything from several hows to several days or even a week. Whichever the ship must have had facilities to support its crew and passengers for that duration. By facilities I mean specifically food and personal hygiene (waste management to be even more specific). A small and cramped short range craft would be totally impractical for such a trip.
There's also the matter of how events were depicted onscreen. You can rationalize only so much but you simply cannot outright ignore how things unfolded onscreen. Specifically here I'm talking about the events in "The Galileo Seven." We saw Scotty access mechanicals through the floor. We saw an aft cabin being used. And we saw and heard reference to equipment being jettisoned. Just what was it they could have jettisoned that wouldn't prohibit the ship from still flying? I feel these are practical considerations when tackling such a subject.
In extent one consequently may go on to reevaluating the Hangar Deck itself. If the scale of the shuttlecraft is in question then so to is the hangar deck as long as it can fit within the confines of the Enterprise herself.
And finally--although it may be a thorny issue for some--it just might require reevaluating the scale of the Enterprise. Can we make everything fit and work within a 947ft. ship or must we reconsider and accept a 1080ft. We have that flexibility if need be because unlike Kirk's reference of some 24ft. measurement in regards to the shuttlecraft never onscreen has the size of the Enterprise ever been actually referenced.
You know, it is hard to say which thing "on screen" should take precedence. The little weee exterior, or the jumbo oversized interior. Both are nonsensical. And both contradict dialog AND what Jefferies drew and seemed to intend. It might make some sense to instead strike a balance between the two absurd extremes of interior and exterior and go with the intended middle -- the 24 foot option. The question is, how to deal with that back room? If I were to build a shuttlecraft for a film, I'd make it 24 feet, have the ceiling low, establish it as a middle range craft, and have the "back room" as no room at all -- it would be access to the impulse drive.
But what of the craft we saw onscreen, with its jumbo interior and mini exterior? I'd try to do what you've done above -- have two other models. I'd take that wee little exterior and make an interior for it. And I'd put the interior we saw in that jumbo craft. I'd say we have three similar ships -- short, middle and long range. And I'd be happy to have extracted such a sensible solution from such a mess of conflicting images.
But what of the craft we saw onscreen, with its jumbo interior and mini exterior? I'd try to do what you've done above -- have two other models. I'd take that wee little exterior and make an interior for it. And I'd put the interior we saw in that jumbo craft. I'd say we have three similar ships -- short, middle and long range. And I'd be happy to have extracted such a sensible solution from such a mess of conflicting images.
I completely see where you are coming from Warped9. I am running into the same problems with a project I am working on (the NX-01 deck plans). I have been sifting through contradiction after contradiction trying to weight out who is right and what is wrong. And despite what the writers have shown (who are just trying to tell a story) and what the production have built (who are limited by budget and time), I keep finding myself looking at the original designers intentions to sort everything out. That may help you here.
We all know Matt Jefferies thought things through when he designed something. I have been amazed so many times at how everything on TOS had purpose instead of a going for a "Wow" factor. I have a huge amount of faith in his abilities.
But having said that, I would also agree with aridas sofia. Striking a balance or doing two different sizes might be the best way to go.
All of this has taught me that sometimes “cannon” is not what it’s cracked up to be. I have an almost empty case of headache aspirin to prove it.
By the way, I have been following your progress and I am excited with what you have so far. Great work! Can't wait for more... :thumbsup:
We all know Matt Jefferies thought things through when he designed something. I have been amazed so many times at how everything on TOS had purpose instead of a going for a "Wow" factor. I have a huge amount of faith in his abilities.
But having said that, I would also agree with aridas sofia. Striking a balance or doing two different sizes might be the best way to go.
All of this has taught me that sometimes “cannon” is not what it’s cracked up to be. I have an almost empty case of headache aspirin to prove it.
By the way, I have been following your progress and I am excited with what you have so far. Great work! Can't wait for more... :thumbsup:
