My TOS Shuttlecraft...

[USS Mariner]

Warped9 said:
Thinking ahead...

Everything is not exactly to scale and in proportion in these sketches, but they do give a fair idea of the direction I'm leaning towards. This is still a sizable craft and certainly not meant to be carried regularly aboard ship, but it is suitable for ship-to-ship rendezvous. The scoutship is meant for starbases and outposts that may require longrange rapid tranport on short notice. It is somewhat of a TOS era runabout and a precursor to the TMP era Vulcan longrange shuttlecraft.

Delicious.

 

[Warped9]

I know the human figure is off. This was after all a quick sketching exercise done rather spur of the moment. At this point I'm just trying to crystalize my ideas and oevrall approach with some details still not settled on. I like leaving off the ski like landing pads off the stuts because they would otherwise look so conventional. I also like the idea of warp nacelles that are an evolutionary step between TOS and TMP era. And I like the overall wedged dart shape thats rather more streamlined and elegant. For the scoutship I have something of a space going Learjet look in mind.

 

[comsol]

I'm really looking forward to seeing your versions of the TAS shuttles. I liked the picture of your version of the Copernicus a few pages ago. Earlier you mentioned that you found the Aquashuttle to be unbelievable as a craft that was to work underwater. I agree (no matter how much I like the design), but if you assume that it is meant to function mainly on the surface of the water - then the catamaran design works a little better. If you want to go with a different design however, this might work as a starting point. I'm not sure what it was supposed to be, but you can see at least a corner of it in the shuttle bay in Mudd's Passion.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Okay, I'm definitely "diggin" the Long-range Courier. This keeps every bit of the "feel" of the TAS ship, I think, and improves on it in several ways.

That said ... here are my comments:

1) Why a "one-way" viewport?

2) I like the improved "fin" elements, but I'd consider putting a small dish-like device on the forward edge of each of the three elements (ABOVE ground-level) as a representation of a sensor/deflector set. Instead of having the "feet" be "skis," you'd keep the same appearance but give the features a "real" use.

3) The warp engines... yeah, something "between" TOS and TMP, definitely. Of course, we have several such engine designs out there already. Personally, I'd be very inclined to go with the "Endeavor" type warp engines. I mean, we've never actually seen those used ANYPLACE else but on the Endeavor, have we? And I, personally, like the idea of the "split-level" warp nacelle design.

4) I think you've got the shape and scale just about perfect.

 

[Warped9]

comsol said:
Earlier you mentioned that you found the Aquashuttle to be unbelievable as a craft that was to work underwater. I agree (no matter how much I like the design), but if you assume that it is meant to function mainly on the surface of the water - then the catamaran design works a little better.

I will try to keep some aspects of the TAS Aquashuttle design, but I'm leaning more towards something like the Proteus submarine of the film Fantastic Voyage. I'll try to get a sketch posted within the next couple of days.

The Heavy Lander in "Mudd's Passion" will also be adapted yet my version will still be very close to the TAS design. Part my approach to adapting these designs (and even when creating my own original concepts) is to endeavor bringing real world considerations to the effort. I also try to build on how the vehicle is meant to be used and how it's meant to operate.

 

[Warped9]

Looking ahead a little more...

 

[ancient]

Vey cool!
Great manta-ray design.

And even more amazingly, they all fold up into the size of a suit-case, just like george jetson's car.

 

[Warped9]

And in all three cases I used the TAS designs as the starting point and built from there. In each of my adaptations you can still see general elements of the originals.

 

[Sarvek]

Warped9 said:
And in all three cases I used the TAS designs as the starting point and built from there. In each of my adaptations you can still see general elements of the originals.

Great work Warped9! I really love seeing fresh new ideas to an old design and seeing it through new eyes. Your designs make a great deal of sense and still retain some of the original design and purpose. I can also see some of the Proteus in the aquashuttle and some of the originality of the heavy shuttle in the heavy lander, very well done and thought out.

 

[Warped9]

There are further details to be worked out on the TAS adaptations yet they'll have to stay as basic sketches for awhile until I complete my Class F shuttlecraft plans.

When I think of it I could just about do an entire book or volume on just the pre TOS to TMP era shuttlecraft.

Hmmm... Starfleet Shuttlecraft Reference Manual: 2250-2290. Sounds kinda cool.

 

[Bernard Guignard]

Warped9 said:
There are further details to be worked out on the TAS adaptations yet they'll have to stay as basic sketches for awhile until I complete my Class F shuttlecraft plans.

When I think of it I could just about do an entire book or volume on just the pre TOS to TMP era shuttlecraft.


Hmmm... Starfleet Shuttlecraft Reference Manual: 2250-2290. Sounds kinda cool.

Yes it does and I'd encourage you to do it :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[Warped9]

(-: The only thing is I can't see myself putting as much effort and detail into any of the other shuttles--it's just too involved. With the Class F I'm trying like hell to envision a "realistic" vehicle and what that would entail and then trying to fashion what might pass for remotely credible looking tech-guts. God knows how many mistakes I'm making.

That said I could see myself tackling general interior layouts of the other shuttlecraft while glossing over the 'tween hulls tech-guts.

And then there's the Connie-class hangar deck. I know I won't be really happy until I work out a hangar deck that can properly accomodate my 26ft. shuttlecraft. And that answer will finally tell me whether a 947ft. or 1080ft. Enterprise is more credible.

As I see it my list of shuttlecraft would include:
- a pre TOS design extrapolated from some of MJ's early sketches.
- the Class F shuttlecraft
- something of a TOS era runabout
- the TAS scoutship (adapted)
- the TAS heavy lander (adapted)
- the TAS aquashuttle (adapted)
- the TMP Vulcan longrange shuttlecraft
- three or four versions of the smaller Starfleet TMP era shuttlecraft
- the TFF shuttlecraft

Thats a lot of work.

Having said that I can see how I could make this work. When completed it could be made available on CD. There'd be a file on each vehicle with large 11x17 sheets that could be printed out in full size. But I could also include an extra file that could have everything in a 8x11 form--you could print the whole thing out and put the pages into a duotang or binder or whatever. If you've got the patience and software or even the right neighbourhood print shop you could even get it printed double-sided and bound.

 

[Bernard Guignard]

Hello Warp 9
Its always good to leave a little to the readers imagination.
I'd suggest basic exterior views with a typical cross-section and basic floor plan. If you want to include some mechanical diagrams make them typical diagrams of equipment that would span all the shuttle types. Yes it is alot of work if you attemp to do it all in one shot, but you have the luxury of time and no publication deadline. So take it one shuttle at a time. The bulk of the work is done for the class F and I'd assume that many of the systems in each version would be produced to be interchangable with only certain Key parts not being. Have fun with it and keep us up to date on how the project is going :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[Warped9]

The funny thing is that my Class F plans have gone beyond my original intent. I had completed a basic cross-section and was struck by how blank the 'tween hulls parts looked. I thought I'd just fill in a bit of it and then next thing I know I'm trying to figure everything out about those areas. One thing led to another.

Even so I'm reasonably pleased with the results so far. And I don't think anyone has ever gone to these lengths for the ol' Galileo 7 shuttlecraft before.

Or to paraphrase a line from an Alabama country Christmas tune:

Ol' Gal, I still believe in you.
There's still a kid inside of me that still believes you're true...

 

[Warped9]

Here's a little something that I've referred to throughout the thread:

Way back when TAS bowed in 1973 I was initially fascinated with the new shuttlecraft designs. Yet even then at age 14 I knew the scoutship in "The Slaver Weapon" could never work in the live-action TOS hangar deck. And so I set out to design a TOS equivalent to the TAS scoutship, and I was intent on minimizing the size as much as possible.

The above image is a current sketch of my idea and my initial concept for a live-action Copernicus. Even now as I look at it I'm still inspired to try and make it work. Initially my Class F shuttlecraft came out around 31ft. before I managed to rescale it down to 26ft. If I could keep my Copernicus concept to about 31ft. as well the height and width being near exactly the same as my Class F then it just might still work.

I'm going to do a slight reclassification in my drawings as Class F and Class F2 rather than H. If I can make my 33 year old adaptation work then I'll make it the Class G or H.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Now that's interesting... I take it that the nose-gear is fold-up? So it basically nests inside of the front console... right? the only other thing I might try... just a suggestion, take it or leave it... would be to "round the corners" a bit in the side view to make it feel like more of a transition to the later designs. But I DO like it... I just have to wonder what the justification for the changes would be in-universe... hmmm....

 

[Warped9]

I've done some more accurate measurements and this version can be done at about 29ft. Cool. That's only a tad over 3ft. longer than my Class F shuttlecraft of just under 26ft. And this new version would be near exactly the same height and width as the Class F.

Love it when things come together. Down the road if the drawings come out looking right than this new Class G will replace my earlier Class H although I will carry over some design elements of the H.

 

[Warped9]

Cary L. Brown said:
I take it that the nose-gear is fold-up? So it basically nests inside of the front console... right?

I don't think there's sufficient room for the nose gear to fold up. And it really doesn't have to. After all the Class F has aft landing gear that never folds up and just hangs there.

 

[ancient]

Maybe it could just fold backwards and sit flat against the hull. It'd be exposed, but kind of bird-like.

 

[Warped9]

^^ There's a thought something along those lines. When you look at the aft landing assembly of the Class F it does look like the landing plate could retract partway up while the craft is in flight. Mine could do something similar.