My TOS Shuttlecraft...
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
That's OK... we'll just imagine it's J.J. Abrams
Sorry, but no way in hell. At least I and the other person have a genuine respect for TOS and MJ's work and make a real effort to honor it.
I think that might be the point -- that we wish Abrams had as much respect for Jefferies' art and design as your efforts at documenting them exhibit.
This project has been very helpful in other avenues. What I'm learning here is being applied to a work of my own making. I'm endeavoring to write a novel which I call The Starkind which deals with the voyages of a fast relativistic starship set 900 years in the future. As part of the work I'm designing the starship in detail as well as the variant flyers (shuttlecraft) and the main interior facilities as if they were to be used for filming a film or series.
What I've taken from MJ and TOS is the influence and inspiration in how MJ approached his subject matter.
What I've taken from MJ and TOS is the influence and inspiration in how MJ approached his subject matter.
Last edited:
This raises another issue, which should probably be addressed in some future thread:
If the TAS shuttles are cartoon caricatures of what they would "really" look like if they had appeared in TOS, what about the Bonaventure? I know this may seem OT, but I saw the posted quoted above and I couldn't resist asking.
It's a fair question. TAS is a strange animal in that many people don't accept it as "real" Star Trek because it was animation rather than live-action. But TAS has so many connections with TOS and brings so much new to the table that I find it impossible to dismiss entirely.This raises another issue, which should probably be addressed in some future thread:
If the TAS shuttles are cartoon caricatures of what they would "really" look like if they had appeared in TOS, what about the Bonaventure? I know this may seem OT, but I saw the posted quoted above and I couldn't resist asking.
Like live-action Trek I think it comes down to how you interpret the evidence presented. Scotty said the Bonaventure was the first ship with warp drive. You could interpret that literally as the very first ship with warp drive (and thus perhaps ignore the Zefram Cochrane issue), or you could interpret it as meaning the first ship with modern type warp drive. The latter explanation allows you to rationalize a design that bears some resemblance to contemporary Starfleet cruisers.
In some respects I don't believe TAS had the same level of rigorous conceptual thinking that TOS had. If it had then we likely wouldn't have seen the animated shuttlecraft designs we saw for example, but rather the more familiar Class F designs. So the trick (for me anyway) is to plausibly rationalize and adapt what TAS depicted into the live-action world of TOS. When push comes to shove I give give TOS' take on things primacy.
Last edited:
These are great! Can I post them at Startrekanimated.com?
Just mention I created the photoshoped images based on the TAS designs. Simple and no big fanfare.
I've been looking through the art threads for a while now, and I must say your work and attention to detail are amazing. Great work Warped9. I'm curious, in post #459 you have an image of your shuttles in a portion of a cross section of the Enterprise, done by Aridas. Where did you get that? I searched through some of his threads, and can't see it. That has to be the most detailed cross sections I seen. Amazing.
Oh, btw, are all of your "3-D model" images done in photoshop?
Oh, btw, are all of your "3-D model" images done in photoshop?
25 cross section images are mixed with all the other art on my Photobucket site. I'm glad you like it. 
Warped 9, it's nice to see that this thread has recently re-surfaced. I have followed it last year and I must say that is some awesome work you have done there. The TOS shuttlecraft is one of my all-time favorite facets of the Star Trek universe. IMHO you have found the perfect compromise between the exterior as seen, the interior as seen and the quoted size. And as an aeronautical engineer I can assure you that - at least in the 21 century - there is a lot of good use for the extra space between the inner lining and the outer shell.
It seemed to me that the whole project had run on ground just before the finishing line towards the end of last year and I just don't know, why. Was it that life got in the way - something I know only too well about (thinks of several abandoned projects of his) - or possibly you just lost interest for a while. It also seemed that you got somewhat side-tracked by your H (or J) class concept.
I have now re-visited the enormous thread and I must say I am even more impressed than I remembered by all the thought that has gone into it. But a lot of the old links don't work, a lot of the discussion is now water under the bridge (and good riddance concerning some of it!) and the amazing work results are somewhat burried in the rubble.
So I would propose you start a new thread, something like "My TOS shuttlecraft re-visited", and you start with all that you have so far on the F class as you call it. This should include both finished work and WIP as the last compilation of sheets that you posted did not contain the interior layout anymore that you had posted earlier-on. Thus, we could more easily follow and discuss the progress until completion, witness the rendering as CGI model you mentioned etc.
Secondly, you should start another thread "My TAS shuttlecraft (plural form)" in which you show your work on tweaking the versions as seen on TV, which I think are so much on the mark for resemblance yet increased believability it's uncanny. You may also post there your work on H, J and whatever other class you have conceived. I have to plead guilty on being a big fan of TAS - currently rewatching it - so I am really looking forward to development in that area, too.
By generally separating the two subjects (no problem in cross-linking points of common interest if the need arises) it will be easier to stay on topic in the discussion, thus hopefully fostering progress better and making the results more accessible for the community. Just my two cents - and probably not the last.
It seemed to me that the whole project had run on ground just before the finishing line towards the end of last year and I just don't know, why. Was it that life got in the way - something I know only too well about (thinks of several abandoned projects of his) - or possibly you just lost interest for a while. It also seemed that you got somewhat side-tracked by your H (or J) class concept.
I have now re-visited the enormous thread and I must say I am even more impressed than I remembered by all the thought that has gone into it. But a lot of the old links don't work, a lot of the discussion is now water under the bridge (and good riddance concerning some of it!) and the amazing work results are somewhat burried in the rubble.
So I would propose you start a new thread, something like "My TOS shuttlecraft re-visited", and you start with all that you have so far on the F class as you call it. This should include both finished work and WIP as the last compilation of sheets that you posted did not contain the interior layout anymore that you had posted earlier-on. Thus, we could more easily follow and discuss the progress until completion, witness the rendering as CGI model you mentioned etc.
Secondly, you should start another thread "My TAS shuttlecraft (plural form)" in which you show your work on tweaking the versions as seen on TV, which I think are so much on the mark for resemblance yet increased believability it's uncanny. You may also post there your work on H, J and whatever other class you have conceived. I have to plead guilty on being a big fan of TAS - currently rewatching it - so I am really looking forward to development in that area, too.
By generally separating the two subjects (no problem in cross-linking points of common interest if the need arises) it will be easier to stay on topic in the discussion, thus hopefully fostering progress better and making the results more accessible for the community. Just my two cents - and probably not the last.
^^ I assure you I did not lose interest in the project, but rather "life" got in the way. The situation is also complicated by other projects. My Trek project is pure hobby while my other projects could potentially affect my livelihood.
- Project #1: the TOS shuttlecraft (1B would be the TAS shuttlecraft)
- Project #2: writing my own original sf novel
- Project #3: designing the starship and related tech from my own original universe in my novel.
I must also emphasize that much of what I've learned during my TOS shuttlecraft project has had a direct impact in how I'm approaching my own original work.
- Project #1: the TOS shuttlecraft (1B would be the TAS shuttlecraft)
- Project #2: writing my own original sf novel
- Project #3: designing the starship and related tech from my own original universe in my novel.
I must also emphasize that much of what I've learned during my TOS shuttlecraft project has had a direct impact in how I'm approaching my own original work.
Hello! I found out about this BBS just a few weeks ago.
(Hard to believe, I know.)
I have been a life long fan of STAR TREK. I grew up on TOS (I am 58 years old).
I worked in Engineering for 31 years full-time, and retired at the end of 2017.
During that time (for 20+ years) I was drawing, printing, and selling decals part-time. I build scale models; the decal business started from my desire to make my own markings for my models. People liked my work and wanted copies.
Five months after I retired I had a stroke.
I draw mostly for myself now, my own projects, interests, ideas, etc.
For the past few months I have been drawing my own interpretation of the deck plans for the U.S.S. ENTERPRISE. My starting point was the FJ plans. I am governed by 3 criteria:
1. The details of the ship's layout as relayed in THE MAKING OF STAR TREK.
2. What was see and hear on-screen in the original 79 episodes.
3. The details visible on the 11-foot studio model.
Happily, the conclusions I came to - with respect to the layout of key features in the ship - parallel many of the design ideas I am finding in this BBS.
I will post this same message in several threads, so as to initiate conversations and/or private messages.
I have posted a few images in Facebook. I will post here too, as soon as I familiarize myself with how this BBS works.
I am most interested in communicating with WARPED9, BLSSDWLF, and ROBERT COMSOL.
Thank you.
Jim Botaitis
(Hard to believe, I know.)
I have been a life long fan of STAR TREK. I grew up on TOS (I am 58 years old).
I worked in Engineering for 31 years full-time, and retired at the end of 2017.
During that time (for 20+ years) I was drawing, printing, and selling decals part-time. I build scale models; the decal business started from my desire to make my own markings for my models. People liked my work and wanted copies.
Five months after I retired I had a stroke.
I draw mostly for myself now, my own projects, interests, ideas, etc.
For the past few months I have been drawing my own interpretation of the deck plans for the U.S.S. ENTERPRISE. My starting point was the FJ plans. I am governed by 3 criteria:
1. The details of the ship's layout as relayed in THE MAKING OF STAR TREK.
2. What was see and hear on-screen in the original 79 episodes.
3. The details visible on the 11-foot studio model.
Happily, the conclusions I came to - with respect to the layout of key features in the ship - parallel many of the design ideas I am finding in this BBS.
I will post this same message in several threads, so as to initiate conversations and/or private messages.
I have posted a few images in Facebook. I will post here too, as soon as I familiarize myself with how this BBS works.
I am most interested in communicating with WARPED9, BLSSDWLF, and ROBERT COMSOL.
Thank you.
Jim Botaitis
