My TOS Shuttlecraft...

[Cary L. Brown]

I think it COULD fold up... if you were willing to allow an automobile-style "center console" instead of the same console we see in TOS. Check it out next time you get into your car (assuming it's a model with a center console, I mean... if not, check out a friend's car). It COULD work.

Of course, it doesn't have to. But you did draw it as a movable strut, so if you want it to be something more... permanent?... it might behoove you to make it more of a rigid structure. Even something like we see on the nose of the scoutship. Hmm...

 

[Warped9]

Cary L. Brown said:
Now that's interesting... I DO like it... I just have to wonder what the justification for the changes would be in-universe... hmmm....

When I was scaling my Class F I was trying to take real world considerations into account. And one of those considerations was ease of entry/exit. The larger the vehicle meant everything was scaled up, and even though it gave me more interior space it consequently increased the diameter of the nacelles and thus the step-up height of the fold-out access step plate set into it. My final size for the vehicle at just under 26ft. L.O.A. was the best compromise I could find between maximizing interior space and facilitating ease of entry/exit.

Now If I wanted a faster version of the craft that was a TOS equivalent of the TAS scoutship then I'd have larger nacelles for greater warp power. And larger nacelles would again mean a greater step-up height for entry/exit if the nacelles were setup as the Class F's are. And so by moving the larger nacelles further aft and slung beneath midship stabilizers and slightly redisgning the access hatch and gangway (particularly the lower gangway panel) then I can maintain a reasonable entry/exit height as well as keep pretty much the same vehicle overall height. The result is a vehicle that not only look likes a credible TOS shuttlecraft variant, but also retains a measure of the Class F's credibility.

 

[Warped9]

This is cute. If you put "TOS shuttlecraft" into a Google images search you get some of my schematics. And if you put it into a regular web search you get this thread among the listings. (-:

 

[ancient]

Yeah that happens. When I was trying to research my TOS-ENT cutaway I googled a bunch of search combos and kept getting my own diagram on or near the top. Needless to say it wasn't very helpful.

 

[Warped9]

Bernard Guignard said:

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:

I've been giving this some thought and it could be done in a 8x11 stapled form that could cover the variety of shuttlecraft I've described earlier upthread as well as the hangar deck layouts of the TOS Enterprise and the TMP refit. It would run about 75-100 pages.

I've also been rethinking my Starfleet Command Library project. Perhaps it would be best if it were comprised of a number of smaller individual volumes (the shuttlecraft project being the first) rather than a very large single volume. At the end all the volumes could be compiled into one collection in electronic media.

I'm sorry for not posting updates so much lately, but my recent scheduling and workload at work has left me drained for much of anything else until after the holiday season. Hopefully I'll get back on track come early January.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Isn't it amazing how addictive this stuff is, Warped???

By the time you're done with this, you'll have worked out a F.J.-sized manual, invested thousands of hours... and Paramounts Stormtroopers will come knocking on your door to seize it for copyright infringement! (wink-wink-nudge-nudge)

But hey, at least it'd get published then... :P

 

[Warped9]

I intend to stay under the radar in regards to Paramount. As long as this remains a very small scale (relatively) endeavour I shouldn't ruffle any feathers. That's partly why the eventual Starfleet Command Library material will be in electronic form as well as eventually, hopefully, part of a website.

It's kinda funny that my Class F project began initially just to fashion a credible integrated shuttlecraft in a scale that could also be used as reference for a scratchbuild model for would-be modelers.

 

[Warped9]

Over the weekend I spent about an hour going over this thread from the beginning, and it makes for some interesting reading reviewing the different ideas and perspectives put forward as well as revisiting the evolution of the project.

 

[Warped9]

Just a gentle reminder to folks that I haven't forgotten or abandoned this project. It's simply "on hold" temporarily while I'm developing my original non-Trek starship design.

And that isn't a bad thing (for me) because creatively it helps to take a break periodically and then pick things up again with a freshened perspective. Sometimes when I look at something I've done after a break for a while I see it almost wholly anew which helps me appreciate whatever I may be doing right and more easily spot what I might have been doing wrong.

 

[Tallguy]

Well, we're all still looking forward to this.

 

[Warped9]

And after a bit of an absence I'm finding myself looking forward to taking it up again.

 

[comsol]

Warped9, you had earlier posted a side view of your long-range shuttle that seems to have disappeared - would you be willing to repost it?

 

[Warped9]

comsol said:
Warped9, you had earlier posted a side view of your long-range shuttle that seems to have disappeared - would you be willing to repost it?

Which one? The one based on the TAS shuttlecraft or the variant of the TOS shuttlecraft?

Is this the one you mean?

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Hi Warped...

This image is not showing up for me, either. So either it's not on your server anymore, or, if it is, then you must have somehow converted it to a different color-space (didn't you have to deal with that once before... a matter of RGB versus CYMK?)

Either way... the image isn't there from THIS end of the connection.

 

[Warped9]

^^ Actually I just copied the url link from the original post which still shows up for me.

I think I know what the problem may be and and just might have something to do with the image originally being in CMYK colour rather than RGB. I understand that doesn't always work for some people and since I learned this I make certain all my images are "saved for web" in RGB colours.

 

[Warped9]

Warped9 said:
There's confusion on this issue. In TMoST it says the E has six shuttlecraft (which seems like a lot given the space available). But "the Omega Glory" seems to establish that a heavy cruiser has a complement of four shuttlecraft (which seems more reasonable). At the time of TOS we didn't know of workbees or maintenance pods or the like and yet it did seem odd that if the ship had only four to six shuttlecraft that one of them would be numbered 7.

The offscreen explanation is likely that it was easy to lift a 7 from the "1701" decals. The onscreen explanation remains illusive and thus pretty much left up to the individual unless someone can arrange a seance to contact MJ.

If the Columbus had been established onscreen as 1701/2 then I would have had no choice but to go with that. But we nevr saw the registry of any other shuttle other than the Galileo and so we're left to work from that.

My references in order of priority has been onscreen TOS materiel as the highest priority, TAS and movie onscreen materiel as secondary and then "official" or fan generated print materiel lastly.

Revisting this thread whose project is temporarily on hold I got to wondering about this issue again. It's possible the numbering system of the shuttlecraft had something to do with new vehicles replacing lost ones. The original complement could have been numbered 1-4 but as vehicles were lost over time they were replaced with ones sporting a numerically higher registration number. Something to think about. Recall also that Galileo II was also numbered 1701/7 and not 1701/8.

Also how solid is Jein's thinking on numbering Columbus 1701/2 or was he just speculating on a whim?

 

[Captain Robert April]

It was a drawing he did for Bjo Trimble's Star Trek Concordance back in '69. He basically pulled the number out of the ether.

 

[Warped9]

Captain Robert April said:
It was a drawing he did for Bjo Trimble's Star Trek Concordance back in '69. He basically pulled the number out of the ether.

Hmm. Okay, so it really doesn't have any substantial standing. Then I've got no reason to change my initial thinking on the issue.

 

[Warped9]

MGagen said:
I like your latest musing, Warped9. I've thought for a while now that the lift must have some way of moving straight down as far as possible, then moving down and forward the rest of the way. What I had never considered was the possibility of the raked forward angle of the shuttle being part of the equation. That's inspired.

Of course, just lowering the shuttle while it's turned sideways might increase the clearance, too.

Cary does have a point about reliability under adverse conditions. I'd favor having the lift run in four tracks (one at each corner) rather like a garage door. They'd be straight down part of the way, then gently curve into an angle forward. It's somewhat low tech, but it still works when the power goes down.

M.

I've emboldened a part of this response I find particularly noteworthy.

Yes, this approach does make a great deal of sense and is a better solution than my initial idea.

 

[Warped9]

Warped9 said:

You know I haven't looked at this for awhile. I know I'll be revising some of the text, but I must say that I rather like the way this came out. And the size of the shuttlecraft looks right, too, in relation to that 5'-10" crewman.