TOS Shuttlecraft Herschel

[Starscape]

I started this shuttlecraft model for an monthly challenge a while back ( thread here). It's designed to be a smaller (four-seater) contemporary to the Galileo-type shuttles.


It seems I'm finally getting somewhere with it:





(click to enlarge)


I'm thinking about internals now. I'm not sure whether to model them or not, but since it has all those windows I guess I should.

 

[Ensign Ro-]

I like it. Seems to fit seamlessly into the TOS universe. Sort of an economy class shuttlecraft. :-) Nicely done.

 

[Redfern]

I might just have to bribe you for the mesh when you're finished!

Sincerely,

Bill

 

[TIN_MAN]

I like it! Bridges TOS and TAS nicely, good job.

 

[reanimatedfish]

Fits in more or less seamlessly in the TOS/TAS style timeline of design elements.

 

[Kaiser]

I like it cus it fits very well with the TAS

 

[Starscape]

Thanks, everyone!


I've been tweaking the materials, although probably not so much as you'd notice.


Oh, and just in case you were wondering about it, here's the landing-gear:

 

[Birdog]

Thanks, everyone!


I've been tweaking the materials, although probably not so much as you'd notice.


Oh, and just in case you were wondering about it, here's the landing-gear:

I think one in front two in back would be better. You have a disproportionate amount of mass on the single pad in the back. You could even have them come down out of the side to have a wider foot print.

 

[sojourner]

^Ah, but one in back is the tradition for TOS shuttles.

 

[Birdog]

^Ah, but one in back is the tradition for TOS shuttles.

Is one example a tradition?

 

[Patrickivan]

Extend the nacelles a little up so they have some line of sight with each other. Other then that, I like it.

 

[Starscape]

... I think one in front two in back would be better. You have a disproportionate amount of mass on the single pad in the back. You could even have them come down out of the side to have a wider foot print.

^Ah, but one in back is the tradition for TOS shuttles.

Is one example a tradition?

Well, it does set a precedent. But you make a good point... I was more concerned with how much internal space the landing gear would take up (and where) than weight distribution.

I'll keep it in mind, but I'm not sure I can face all the re-jigging changing the landing-gear would require.

One solution, however, would be that the pads are only used for landing and then the shuttle settles down onto the chassis once it's parked. I'd say that the Galileo does something similar too (if it lands on it's nacelles why have the landing-gear at all ).

Extend the nacelles a little up so they have some line of sight with each other. Other then that, I like it.

Thanks. I did think about the nacelle line-of-sight issue and there is a little at the back of the shuttle. I'd have to double the height of the supports to get any l-o-s over the top of the shuttle - that would look awkward, I think.

 

[backstept]

I've always thought the line-of-sight rule was silly. The looks-cool rule should always take precedence.

 

[sojourner]

^Indeed. GR came up with the rule out of spite. Ignore it.

 

[Patrickivan]

... I think one in front two in back would be better. You have a disproportionate amount of mass on the single pad in the back. You could even have them come down out of the side to have a wider foot print.

Is one example a tradition?

Well, it does set a precedent. But you make a good point... I was more concerned with how much internal space the landing gear would take up (and where) than weight distribution.

I'll keep it in mind, but I'm not sure I can face all the re-jigging changing the landing-gear would require.

One solution, however, would be that the pads are only used for landing and then the shuttle settles down onto the chassis once it's parked. I'd say that the Galileo does something similar too (if it lands on it's nacelles why have the landing-gear at all ).

Extend the nacelles a little up so they have some line of sight with each other. Other then that, I like it.

Thanks. I did think about the nacelle line-of-sight issue and there is a little at the back of the shuttle. I'd have to double the height of the supports to get any l-o-s over the top of the shuttle - that would look awkward, I think.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

I've always thought the line-of-sight rule was silly. The looks-cool rule should always take precedence.

Fair enough.

^Indeed. GR came up with the rule out of spite. Ignore it.

Ignore, "Ignore it"... Oh damn, that makes for a bit of an issue then.

 

[Starscape]

I've started to plan out the internals:


(click to enlarge)

 

[Patrin-Zero]

Politely curious if this design might be referred to as a gig or ship's boat rather than a shuttlecraft ?

That said, really nice concept and patiently but eagerly awaiting any further technical illustrations.

 

[Starscape]

Thanks! I think the next step will be to start on a floor plan then work on the two views in tandem.

Politely curious if this design might be referred to as a gig or ship's boat rather than a shuttlecraft ?

Yeah... maybe, but no way am I calling it a jollyboat!

With the exception of the captain's yacht (and perhaps lifeboats) we never did hear any naval parlance used for the auxiliary craft with the show, did we?

Although, after looking up the types of 18th Century ship's boats I do like the sound of a "pinnace".

 

[sojourner]

^In H. Beam Piper's terro-human future history a ship's auxiliary vessels were called pinnaces.

 

[Albertese]

Honor Harrington also has pinnaces.

--Alex