My TOS Shuttlecraft...
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
I just had an odd experience today. On my lunch break I was doodling ideas about the shuttlecraft when there was something about the look of my sketch that leapt out at me. When looked at in a particular way the design has a jacked-up-in-the-rear hotrod look to it. I wonder if this is what was slyly intended.
Again, if it's okay with FourMadMen it's okay with me.
You just have to get his permission.
What I'm talking about is the 2D drawings that were turned into 3D drawings.
On the issue of renders, he posted the full renders awhile back in our Galileo thread on Hobbytalk. The thread was cut up and reposted in 5 parts by Thomas - I was the original poster, so don't get confused if you notice his name on the parts instead of mine - as it supposedly was getting so long it was causing file problems for the BBS. One of the five parts was lost as the owner of the BBS began to try doing the same thing as Thomas was posting what was then the fourth and last part.
But I think the render link is not in the missing thread.
You're right. Jefferies designed it. His design was altered by AMT Phoenix "to suit AMT's mfg. capabilities." Jefferies also noted that the interior was also by AMT.
His original concept:
The revision, with attribution:
As for how big it should be, if we knew how big the original art was, the scale on this last image would tell us. As it stands you can pretty well tell what he intended by the small size of that hatch compared to the figure standing nearby.
His original concept:
The revision, with attribution:
As for how big it should be, if we knew how big the original art was, the scale on this last image would tell us. As it stands you can pretty well tell what he intended by the small size of that hatch compared to the figure standing nearby.
The idea that MJ incorporated the idea of forced perspective into the design is quite possible. I will say, however, that a wedged shaped profile in a vehicle isn't without real world precedent. Cars certainly do have it as do many aircraft. And, of course, the U.S. shuttle orbiter also has a wedged shaped profile.
Personally I like the idea of there being at least some subtle wedge to the design rather than being all parallel lines. I find it more distinctive and interesting.
Personally I like the idea of there being at least some subtle wedge to the design rather than being all parallel lines. I find it more distinctive and interesting.
Okay, finally some pics. The first is a comparison in elevation between the filming minature (as it appeared on TNG in 1987) and the fullsize mock-up as it appeared in TOS.
Note the distinctions between the two. The fullsize mock-up shows its obvious "nose down" orientation. Also evident when you look at the top leading edge of the forward hull is the lack of the small curve upwards of the leading edge on the minature.
Next is a comparison in straight on elevation.
The lowest image is, of course, my direction with my version. What may not be apparent here is the subtle tapering of the stabilizer/centerline from bow to stern. In the centre image (miniature orientation) the centerline is exactly parrallel with the nacelles and the ground. In the lowest image (proposed orientation) it is the underside of the stabilizer that is parallel with the nacelles and the ground. Yes, it is a subtle difference, but one I feel comes closest to accomodating the differences between the miniature and the fullsize mock-up in overall appearance.
Note the distinctions between the two. The fullsize mock-up shows its obvious "nose down" orientation. Also evident when you look at the top leading edge of the forward hull is the lack of the small curve upwards of the leading edge on the minature.
Next is a comparison in straight on elevation.
The lowest image is, of course, my direction with my version. What may not be apparent here is the subtle tapering of the stabilizer/centerline from bow to stern. In the centre image (miniature orientation) the centerline is exactly parrallel with the nacelles and the ground. In the lowest image (proposed orientation) it is the underside of the stabilizer that is parallel with the nacelles and the ground. Yes, it is a subtle difference, but one I feel comes closest to accomodating the differences between the miniature and the fullsize mock-up in overall appearance.
Now that I look at it, it almost seems as if the nose of the mockup-shuttle was sagging...
Couldn't it simply be that the two models represent the same shape, and yet longer/taller nacelle skids on the one push the nose higher than on the other?
I have nothing against a wedge shape, and in fact like it, but I'm not sure those two craft aren't the same. If anything, my eye sees the nacelles as possibly being different lengths.
I have nothing against a wedge shape, and in fact like it, but I'm not sure those two craft aren't the same. If anything, my eye sees the nacelles as possibly being different lengths.
Odd. For some reason my elevation drawings came out a smidgen shorter than they should be. Hmm. No biggee, I'll correct that in future pics.
Yes, I suspect the nacelles may well have been different lengths proportionately between the miniature and the fullsize mock-up. And, yes, the nose of the fullsize does look as if it's sagging due to the "nose down" attitude.
This whole exercise is to make a scaled up shuttlecraft that looks most like the vehicle we saw onscreen. Of course adjustments and a degree of revisionism come into play.
And one can't help but notice that different individuals bring different perspectives and thus different solutions to such an exercise.
Yes, I suspect the nacelles may well have been different lengths proportionately between the miniature and the fullsize mock-up. And, yes, the nose of the fullsize does look as if it's sagging due to the "nose down" attitude.
This whole exercise is to make a scaled up shuttlecraft that looks most like the vehicle we saw onscreen. Of course adjustments and a degree of revisionism come into play.
And one can't help but notice that different individuals bring different perspectives and thus different solutions to such an exercise.
I tend to see the full-scale mockup as sagging, too, rather than intentionally meant to be misaligned.
The thing you need to remember here, I think, is that this thing was basically a bunch of plywood panels nailed together (well, mainly in any case!). And it wasn't stored in hermitic, climate-controlled environments. The misalignment you see could be due to poor carpentry, or due to the mockup getting wet and warping, or even be due to those nasty SoCal termites...
To MY perspective, what I see when I see this is shoddy worksmanship. So seeing this on a "real" shuttle concept would just give me the gut feeling that Starfleet is hiring untrained day-laborers to assemble their shuttlecraft!
The thing you need to remember here, I think, is that this thing was basically a bunch of plywood panels nailed together (well, mainly in any case!). And it wasn't stored in hermitic, climate-controlled environments. The misalignment you see could be due to poor carpentry, or due to the mockup getting wet and warping, or even be due to those nasty SoCal termites...
To MY perspective, what I see when I see this is shoddy worksmanship. So seeing this on a "real" shuttle concept would just give me the gut feeling that Starfleet is hiring untrained day-laborers to assemble their shuttlecraft!
Warped9 said:
Okay, finally some pics. The first is a comparison in elevation between the filming minature (as it appeared on TNG in 1987) and the fullsize mock-up as it appeared in TOS.
Note the distinctions between the two.
I heard a rumor that when the shuttle miniature had been located, it was broken in half, and had to be reassembled. It's possible that the model's restored profile as of TNG isn't a precise match of its original profile in TOS.
Just something to think about.
Except that when you see drawings of the fullsize mock-up such as on cloudster.com you see that the vehicle is deliberately drawn with that "nose down" look.
Some more finessing. Here we have a cleaner look at the direction I'm going in. The pink line represents how the main hull is oriented in relation to the nacelles and the ground. It's subtle but here the inner deck would be pitched forward about two degrees or so, but since the vehicle will then be sitting back about the same two or three degrees then things cancel each other out and the inside deck will then be parallel with the ground when the craft is landed. The blue area obviously represents the countour of the interior.
It wasn't quite so bad as that. The shuttle was built around a welded steel frame.
There are a couple of things though that help account for the exaggerated nose-down profile in the hangerbay shot.
First, the point where the wings actually attach to the shuttle after towing/storage are two very small intersections of 2" x 2" square tubing on each wing. The craft can be twisted a bit without the receiving frame or the wing 2" x 2" connecting beams breaking.
Secondly, the ship was supported mainly on jacks under the main body. There had to be at least three or more of them used.
The problem with that is that some of them can hold up the ship at the rear where the bottom is almost perfectly flat.
However, there have to be forward-positioned jacks too, or else the ship would go nose down the second someone stepped in the main body door, if not before.
Those forward-positioned jacks had to be placed on a part of the ship that was at least partially curved.
The forward-positioned jacks if they were the same height would force the ship to be slightly nose down. The jacks used in the front under the stage prop perhaps could have been set or made higher then the rear ones to help avoid this a bit, but they couldn't be made that much higher then the rear ones or the weight distribution would have been really off.
