My TOS Shuttlecraft...
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
I don't suppose one of you kind people out there could post this image. I keep getting a block from my system that tells me the site is banned (probably because of the "aol" prefix). Stupid work network access! Like they really expect us to be working!!!! 
I accept that the fullsize mock-up was constructed exactly (or pretty much) as it was meant to appear. I also accept that it's quite possible that they may have employed elements of forced perspective into the design to make the mock-up look larger than it actually was, at least from some angles and most particularly from the rear.
OTH the filming miniature was constructed in a manner that seemed to totally ignore aspects of the fullsize mock-up that were quite evident onscreen: most notably the angled down attitude of the bow.
Thus reconciling the two would appear to be a hopeless exercise in futilitu and frustration. Well let it not be said that I can be stubborn when I get fixated on something. (-:
The filming miniature "as is" is flawed because it would result in raising the bottom edge of the entry hatch and thus the ship's floor to a truly awkward height if you are intent on rescaling the craft upward to allow for a standing interior. The only recourse I could see would be the change the shape and size of the forward lower hull to allow dor a lower deck as well as as lower entry hatch. The problem I have with this recourse is that it would drastically alter the shape of the bow in a manner I'd find unacceptable.
And so that brings me back to using the fullsize mock-up as my foundation and proceed from there. I'll be posting new images soon, but I feel you've already got the essence of what I plan. The underside of the stabilizer will be level with the ground and the engine nacelles. However the entire stabilizer will be gently tapered from bow to aft with the centerline at about 1.5 degrees and the upper surface of the stabilizer at about three degrees. What I'm essentially doing is playing on the ship's overall wedge shape to tidy up some of the awkward looking aspects of the fullsize mock-up. The end result is a ship that has some measure of a "nose down" look while not at all looking as if it's sagging. Note that to make this work and accomodate a lower floor and entry hatch I have had to fudge the shape of the lower bow, but I've been able to keep it subtle and to a minimum degree such that one almost has to compare my drawing with the drawings of the fullsize mock-up to see how it is actually different.
All in all I must confess that I'm rather satisfied so far with how it came out.
Another decision I've come to regards the interior. It's quite obvious that the angle of the foward bulkhead is certainly not as severe as the exterior's forward hull. One approach is, of course, to ignore that and simply make the inner forward bulkhead the same angle as the exterior particularly if you're intent on using actual viewports on the forward hull. However, since I've already stated that I intend to play on the idea that those three panels as seen on the interior's forward bulkhead are actually monitor screens rather than windows then I see no reason why I shouldn't retain the forward bulkhead exactly as we saw it onscreen. This approach obviously allows me extra space between the inner and outer forward hulls for mechanicals such as ship's sensors and the like.
OTH the filming miniature was constructed in a manner that seemed to totally ignore aspects of the fullsize mock-up that were quite evident onscreen: most notably the angled down attitude of the bow.
Thus reconciling the two would appear to be a hopeless exercise in futilitu and frustration. Well let it not be said that I can be stubborn when I get fixated on something. (-:
The filming miniature "as is" is flawed because it would result in raising the bottom edge of the entry hatch and thus the ship's floor to a truly awkward height if you are intent on rescaling the craft upward to allow for a standing interior. The only recourse I could see would be the change the shape and size of the forward lower hull to allow dor a lower deck as well as as lower entry hatch. The problem I have with this recourse is that it would drastically alter the shape of the bow in a manner I'd find unacceptable.
And so that brings me back to using the fullsize mock-up as my foundation and proceed from there. I'll be posting new images soon, but I feel you've already got the essence of what I plan. The underside of the stabilizer will be level with the ground and the engine nacelles. However the entire stabilizer will be gently tapered from bow to aft with the centerline at about 1.5 degrees and the upper surface of the stabilizer at about three degrees. What I'm essentially doing is playing on the ship's overall wedge shape to tidy up some of the awkward looking aspects of the fullsize mock-up. The end result is a ship that has some measure of a "nose down" look while not at all looking as if it's sagging. Note that to make this work and accomodate a lower floor and entry hatch I have had to fudge the shape of the lower bow, but I've been able to keep it subtle and to a minimum degree such that one almost has to compare my drawing with the drawings of the fullsize mock-up to see how it is actually different.
All in all I must confess that I'm rather satisfied so far with how it came out.
Another decision I've come to regards the interior. It's quite obvious that the angle of the foward bulkhead is certainly not as severe as the exterior's forward hull. One approach is, of course, to ignore that and simply make the inner forward bulkhead the same angle as the exterior particularly if you're intent on using actual viewports on the forward hull. However, since I've already stated that I intend to play on the idea that those three panels as seen on the interior's forward bulkhead are actually monitor screens rather than windows then I see no reason why I shouldn't retain the forward bulkhead exactly as we saw it onscreen. This approach obviously allows me extra space between the inner and outer forward hulls for mechanicals such as ship's sensors and the like.
Here is another shot of the fullsize mock-up in elevation.
Here is my elevation. The red lines are all parallel at level. The blue line represents the ground when the craft is landed. My angles allong the centerline came out to be more subtle than I initially envisioned, but it still works to create the overall effect I was aiming for.
And finally here is one just for fun.
Here is my elevation. The red lines are all parallel at level. The blue line represents the ground when the craft is landed. My angles allong the centerline came out to be more subtle than I initially envisioned, but it still works to create the overall effect I was aiming for.
And finally here is one just for fun.
^^ Thanks. The hard part is about to begin though: fitting the interor set as seen onscreen (well, as close to it as possible) within the shell I've created. This is why my interpretation will sit a bit closer to the ground then what has generally been seen previously. When you scale up the exterior to allow for a standing interior you inevitably raise the height of the hatch and nacelle step plate and so it has to be addressed to remain at least somewhat manageable for an average sized person.
It will be a few days before I post any other images because I'm beginning to work on the interior.
Some observations (where others have tread before). When looked at in cross section from the bow the design allows for a reasonably wide cabin interior. The problem arises when one looks at length from the side. Rather than a simple and straightforward rectangular hull (more or less) that it appears to be in side elevation you are faced with an irregular countour when seen in cutaway. It isn't that you can't have a standing interior, but that you are challenged having one resembling the one as seen onscreen. And the upper hull sloping back lengthwise so dramatically doesn't help in the least as you lose valuable ceiling height. And all this while trying to keep the ship's overall length down as much as possible--after all the thing does have to fit fuctionally within the hangar bay.
So this is going to take some real thought. Presently I'm studying pics and calculating angles. It's nice to have the dimensions of some of the interior control panels as a loose basis for trying to establish dimensions. *Sigh* It would be really nice if we had scaled drawings of the fullsize interior set as well as the exterior mock-up, but I'll make do as best as I can.
Some observations (where others have tread before). When looked at in cross section from the bow the design allows for a reasonably wide cabin interior. The problem arises when one looks at length from the side. Rather than a simple and straightforward rectangular hull (more or less) that it appears to be in side elevation you are faced with an irregular countour when seen in cutaway. It isn't that you can't have a standing interior, but that you are challenged having one resembling the one as seen onscreen. And the upper hull sloping back lengthwise so dramatically doesn't help in the least as you lose valuable ceiling height. And all this while trying to keep the ship's overall length down as much as possible--after all the thing does have to fit fuctionally within the hangar bay.
So this is going to take some real thought. Presently I'm studying pics and calculating angles. It's nice to have the dimensions of some of the interior control panels as a loose basis for trying to establish dimensions. *Sigh* It would be really nice if we had scaled drawings of the fullsize interior set as well as the exterior mock-up, but I'll make do as best as I can.
One small point I neglected to mention, guys. My end plan is to do full schematics of both inside and out--effectively a set of general plans--as well as a small collection of my shuttlecraft oriented photomanips and then share them freely in a file with those interested. You would then be able to print out the sheets (assuming your printer can print 11x17 sheets) or have them printed off at pretty well any local print shop. The scale of the drawings should also serve as a good starting basis for anyone interested in building a scrathbuilt model of the shuttlecraft.
Interesting... what scale are you planning to use for the drawings?
One thing I'd like to suggest is, if you're able, to create the prints in a standard file-format... say, DXF... which can be imported into any vector-based program (drawing, CAD, whatever). This would have the negative effect of allowing unscrupulous people to alter your work (including removing your name and putting theirs on), mind you... but would make life a LOT easier for the "legit" users who'd give you fair credit for the use of your work (people like me!).
Just a thought. If, on the other hand, you want to protect yourself (as I've thinking I want to do with my Vega deck plans), I plan to publish them using PDF format, and probably only distribute them in hardcopy format in any case.
It's a bit of dilemna, huh? Wanting to share your work, but also wanting to discourage "cheats." This is part of why I've been documenting my work in this very public place... there are lots of witnesses that it's actually my work that I'm doing! When I start doing something more with this later (I'm considering a "garage-kit" model, a deckplan set, and maybe even a "Mr. Scott's Guide" type manual), there can be no doubt that it's my original work. With a shuttle... there's a bit more legal "wiggle room" however... so you might be in a tougher spot. Still, documentation and witnesses are always a good thing!
One thing I'd like to suggest is, if you're able, to create the prints in a standard file-format... say, DXF... which can be imported into any vector-based program (drawing, CAD, whatever). This would have the negative effect of allowing unscrupulous people to alter your work (including removing your name and putting theirs on), mind you... but would make life a LOT easier for the "legit" users who'd give you fair credit for the use of your work (people like me!).
Just a thought. If, on the other hand, you want to protect yourself (as I've thinking I want to do with my Vega deck plans), I plan to publish them using PDF format, and probably only distribute them in hardcopy format in any case.
It's a bit of dilemna, huh? Wanting to share your work, but also wanting to discourage "cheats." This is part of why I've been documenting my work in this very public place... there are lots of witnesses that it's actually my work that I'm doing! When I start doing something more with this later (I'm considering a "garage-kit" model, a deckplan set, and maybe even a "Mr. Scott's Guide" type manual), there can be no doubt that it's my original work. With a shuttle... there's a bit more legal "wiggle room" however... so you might be in a tougher spot. Still, documentation and witnesses are always a good thing!
^^ You raise interesting points. And I have been considering a pdf format. We'll see since I'm not near that decision stage yet.
Anyone attempting to render a credibly scaled version of the TOS shuttlecraft probably can’t help but be taunted by Kirk’s well remembered “a twenty-four foot shuttlecraft” echoing through their brain. Those words taunt annoyingly because any such effort inevitably arrives at the fact that no version of the ship that allows for the standing interior set we see onscreen can possibly allow for a twenty-four foot exterior. Countless have tried. We just have to assume that Kirk either misstated the size of the ship or he was referring to some other obscure dimension of significance we have yet to uncover.
The only way to approach that illusive 24ft. figure is to accept a shuttlecraft with a cramped interior. Certainly the full-size mock-up we see onscreen would tend to support that notion. And that mock-up seems to be more in synch with what Matt Jeffries originally intended. But the reality of ‘60s era television production intruded and demanded an interior set that allowed for the actors to stand erect and facilitate the use of the era’s bulky filming equipment. Today, of course, there’d be little to no problem filming a vehicle with a cramped interior, but what’s done is done and we’re left with a visual inconsistency onscreen. The individual is now left to decide which version of the shuttlecraft is more “real:” the full-size exterior mock-up or the full-size interior set. I chose to accept the full-size interior set as fact because I find it easier to imagine a larger exterior onscreen than a more cramped interior. Also the more spacious interior is well in synch with the apparent design philosophy of the spacious interiors we see aboard the Enterprise.
Ever since many fans have tried to reconcile the two versions of the shuttlecraft to varying degrees of success. All efforts deserve praise and credit because it’s a bitch of an endeavor that requires inevitable compromises and revisions. At this point I look back at my own earlier efforts and solutions over the years and can’t help but think, “What the hell was I thinking?” (-:
And so now I’m back at it one more time inspired by the recent efforts of FourMadMen and Phil Broad.
This time around I’ve established some guiding principles to work from:
1. The vehicle has to look near exactly as it did onscreen, both inside and out, or in the very least as closely as possible. Thus any revisions and compromises must be kept to a minimum and be as subtle as possible.
2. Accept and embrace the concept that this is meant to be a construct of science, technology and engineering three hundred years more advanced than anything we’re capable of today. This is clearly evidenced by the presence of a sophisticated inertial system and artificial gravity environment that precludes the need for personnel restraints while the ship is in-flight. The vehicle is clearly very ruggedly constructed as evidenced by a forced abrupt landing that resulted in relatively minor structural damage and certainly nothing significant enough to preclude it from flying once a new fuel source was found. And finally that the vehicle is capable of (albeit limited) FTL warp flight and thus capable of supporting up to seven people for an extended period ranging from at least several hours to several days. I accept this to mean that there must be some facility for personal hygiene (e.g.: a toilet system) aboard as well as likely some manner of food supply. You can’t help but wonder exactly what equipment they were trying to jettison to lighten the ship’s weight. (-:
When you scale up the exterior mock-up to allow for the full-size interior set you inevitably arrive at a glaringly obvious fact: it isn’t really the matter of the vehicle’s height or length that is a concern, but rather the vehicle’s width. The vehicle’s design when scaled up rather easily (more or less) accommodates the full-size interior set. However, you end up with a vehicle that has a significantly wider exterior than the interior set would otherwise suggest. On the face of it that isn’t a truly bad thing because a double hull actually makes a lot of sense for a credible “real” shuttlecraft. That “between hulls” space allows for needed systems and machinery as well as a safety minded double hatch entry/exit system. The problem is in that the scaled up exterior is a lot wider than the interior set. You’re then faced with the choice of either making the exterior hull narrower (and drastically altering the exterior’s appearance), making the interior wider (and now drastically altering the interior’s appearance) or trying to find a happy compromise by doing both of the aforementioned and still resulting in an exterior/interior that looks close but not really quite like the ship we see onscreen.
I’ve opted for a simpler solution: accepting the exterior and interior pretty much “as is” and accepting the idea that there is significant space between the inner and outer hulls. Indeed the more I’ve pondered it the more I actually like the idea. For me it simply serves to make the shuttlecraft more credibly “real” and substantial.
Another inconsistency that many fans have wrestled with is the angle of the forward bulkhead and aligning the three interior windows with the apparent viewports as seen on the forward hull of the exterior. Well, if I accept a double hull design then there’s no reason I should have to force fit the forward inner bulkhead to be the same angle as the exterior forward hull. And if I accept that notion than I’m not compelled to align the inner “windows” with the outer “viewports” either. Also this is supposed to be a 23rd century construct. So my idea is that the three inner “windows” are not windows at all but rather viewscreen monitors. I think this makes more sense simply because those three panels are useless as windows for piloting the craft while being mounted above the pilot’s head. And lowering the panels to be more in line with the pilot’s line of sight then drastically alters the look of the interior. Also windows are really rather useless for a vehicle capably of FTL flight. If you have sophisticated sensing systems then you’re far better off with a system such as we see on the Enterprise bridge where the ship is flown by sophisticated instrumentation and a viewscreen that allows a view of objects at extreme distances.
With my above thinking in mind here is my general plan of eventual presentation when I’ve gotten all the final details worked out:
Sheet 1: Port side elevation
Sheet 2: Starboard side elevation
Sheet 3: Bow and Aft elevations
Sheet 4: Top plan
Sheet 5: Bottom plan
Sheet 6: Port side cutaway
Sheet 7: Starboard side cutaway
Sheet 8: Bow and Aft cutaways
Sheet 9: Deck plan cutaway
Sheet 10: Ceiling plan cutaway
I don't have any truly hard numbers yet because I'm still playing with the aft compartment and fudging inches and scale: My best guess at this point is that my ship will come out between 29 and 31.5 ft.
Anyone attempting to render a credibly scaled version of the TOS shuttlecraft probably can’t help but be taunted by Kirk’s well remembered “a twenty-four foot shuttlecraft” echoing through their brain. Those words taunt annoyingly because any such effort inevitably arrives at the fact that no version of the ship that allows for the standing interior set we see onscreen can possibly allow for a twenty-four foot exterior. Countless have tried. We just have to assume that Kirk either misstated the size of the ship or he was referring to some other obscure dimension of significance we have yet to uncover.
The only way to approach that illusive 24ft. figure is to accept a shuttlecraft with a cramped interior. Certainly the full-size mock-up we see onscreen would tend to support that notion. And that mock-up seems to be more in synch with what Matt Jeffries originally intended. But the reality of ‘60s era television production intruded and demanded an interior set that allowed for the actors to stand erect and facilitate the use of the era’s bulky filming equipment. Today, of course, there’d be little to no problem filming a vehicle with a cramped interior, but what’s done is done and we’re left with a visual inconsistency onscreen. The individual is now left to decide which version of the shuttlecraft is more “real:” the full-size exterior mock-up or the full-size interior set. I chose to accept the full-size interior set as fact because I find it easier to imagine a larger exterior onscreen than a more cramped interior. Also the more spacious interior is well in synch with the apparent design philosophy of the spacious interiors we see aboard the Enterprise.
Ever since many fans have tried to reconcile the two versions of the shuttlecraft to varying degrees of success. All efforts deserve praise and credit because it’s a bitch of an endeavor that requires inevitable compromises and revisions. At this point I look back at my own earlier efforts and solutions over the years and can’t help but think, “What the hell was I thinking?” (-:
And so now I’m back at it one more time inspired by the recent efforts of FourMadMen and Phil Broad.
This time around I’ve established some guiding principles to work from:
1. The vehicle has to look near exactly as it did onscreen, both inside and out, or in the very least as closely as possible. Thus any revisions and compromises must be kept to a minimum and be as subtle as possible.
2. Accept and embrace the concept that this is meant to be a construct of science, technology and engineering three hundred years more advanced than anything we’re capable of today. This is clearly evidenced by the presence of a sophisticated inertial system and artificial gravity environment that precludes the need for personnel restraints while the ship is in-flight. The vehicle is clearly very ruggedly constructed as evidenced by a forced abrupt landing that resulted in relatively minor structural damage and certainly nothing significant enough to preclude it from flying once a new fuel source was found. And finally that the vehicle is capable of (albeit limited) FTL warp flight and thus capable of supporting up to seven people for an extended period ranging from at least several hours to several days. I accept this to mean that there must be some facility for personal hygiene (e.g.: a toilet system) aboard as well as likely some manner of food supply. You can’t help but wonder exactly what equipment they were trying to jettison to lighten the ship’s weight. (-:
When you scale up the exterior mock-up to allow for the full-size interior set you inevitably arrive at a glaringly obvious fact: it isn’t really the matter of the vehicle’s height or length that is a concern, but rather the vehicle’s width. The vehicle’s design when scaled up rather easily (more or less) accommodates the full-size interior set. However, you end up with a vehicle that has a significantly wider exterior than the interior set would otherwise suggest. On the face of it that isn’t a truly bad thing because a double hull actually makes a lot of sense for a credible “real” shuttlecraft. That “between hulls” space allows for needed systems and machinery as well as a safety minded double hatch entry/exit system. The problem is in that the scaled up exterior is a lot wider than the interior set. You’re then faced with the choice of either making the exterior hull narrower (and drastically altering the exterior’s appearance), making the interior wider (and now drastically altering the interior’s appearance) or trying to find a happy compromise by doing both of the aforementioned and still resulting in an exterior/interior that looks close but not really quite like the ship we see onscreen.
I’ve opted for a simpler solution: accepting the exterior and interior pretty much “as is” and accepting the idea that there is significant space between the inner and outer hulls. Indeed the more I’ve pondered it the more I actually like the idea. For me it simply serves to make the shuttlecraft more credibly “real” and substantial.
Another inconsistency that many fans have wrestled with is the angle of the forward bulkhead and aligning the three interior windows with the apparent viewports as seen on the forward hull of the exterior. Well, if I accept a double hull design then there’s no reason I should have to force fit the forward inner bulkhead to be the same angle as the exterior forward hull. And if I accept that notion than I’m not compelled to align the inner “windows” with the outer “viewports” either. Also this is supposed to be a 23rd century construct. So my idea is that the three inner “windows” are not windows at all but rather viewscreen monitors. I think this makes more sense simply because those three panels are useless as windows for piloting the craft while being mounted above the pilot’s head. And lowering the panels to be more in line with the pilot’s line of sight then drastically alters the look of the interior. Also windows are really rather useless for a vehicle capably of FTL flight. If you have sophisticated sensing systems then you’re far better off with a system such as we see on the Enterprise bridge where the ship is flown by sophisticated instrumentation and a viewscreen that allows a view of objects at extreme distances.
With my above thinking in mind here is my general plan of eventual presentation when I’ve gotten all the final details worked out:
Sheet 1: Port side elevation
Sheet 2: Starboard side elevation
Sheet 3: Bow and Aft elevations
Sheet 4: Top plan
Sheet 5: Bottom plan
Sheet 6: Port side cutaway
Sheet 7: Starboard side cutaway
Sheet 8: Bow and Aft cutaways
Sheet 9: Deck plan cutaway
Sheet 10: Ceiling plan cutaway
I don't have any truly hard numbers yet because I'm still playing with the aft compartment and fudging inches and scale: My best guess at this point is that my ship will come out between 29 and 31.5 ft.
As long as, to the naked eye, it looks like the original, I'm prepared to accept what you're doing. The "twenty-four-foot" line is one that I'm prepared to put into the little mental box I keep for things that, like the Chewbacca Defense, "just don't make sense." 
It will most assuredly look near exactly like the shuttlecraft we see onscreen both inside and out. The two major distinctions will be that it will be scaled about ten or so percent larger than the full-size exterior mock-up we see onscreen and you'll note more substance between the inner and outer hulls.
One thing to try to work out is the scale of this relative to the Enterprise, and specifically to the hangar bay (and the "turntable elevator."
As I look more and more at this, I'm really coming to believe that the units of measure in the 23rd century have to have been increased by about 10%, or else the human race has shrunken by about 10%.
If you scale up the Enterprise by 10%, for instance, you can suddenly put the existing bridge set on the top of the primary hull, and "Captain Robert April's" replacement of the bridge one deck down wouldn't be necessary.
So, maybe the "foot" that they're using to measure the TOS things is an alien foot??? Vulcans have 13.5" long feet instead of 12" long feet???
Hmmm...
As I look more and more at this, I'm really coming to believe that the units of measure in the 23rd century have to have been increased by about 10%, or else the human race has shrunken by about 10%.
If you scale up the Enterprise by 10%, for instance, you can suddenly put the existing bridge set on the top of the primary hull, and "Captain Robert April's" replacement of the bridge one deck down wouldn't be necessary.
So, maybe the "foot" that they're using to measure the TOS things is an alien foot??? Vulcans have 13.5" long feet instead of 12" long feet???
Hmmm...
I still hate that idea. I'd much rather the human race switched to base-2 "inches" by then.
Who, here, said anything about facing forward. I don't WANT it facing fwd. The original intent is obviously not that it was to be facing fwd. There is no reason for it to face ANY direction... it could face aft as far as practical design is concerned.
aridas has pretty well solved that issue for me. As far as I'm concerned you need only size up the turntable/elevator up a bit and the hangar bay can still handle a shuttlecraft sized between 29 to 31.5 feet.
One aspect that muddies the issue is that the real actors look larger onscreen than they really are. Shatner was only about 5'-7" and yet he looked more like about 5'-10" onscreen in relation to the sets as built. I'm not sure how tall Nimoy was but he was certainly taller than Shatner. And so a 6.5 ft. ceiling in the shuttlecraft would still be workable and leave the inside looking pretty much as we saw it in relation to the actors. And a 6.5 ft. ceiling would give me a ship of 29'-1." However, a 7ft. ceiling may be more "real" and subsequently give me a ship of 31'-4."
I'm inclined to try to work with a 6.5ft. ceiling because it helps keep the ship's overall length down and also because it would be in keeping with us seeing the actors (namely Nimoy) nearly scraping his head on the ceiling lighting panels. Note also that the exit hatch as well as the entrance to the rear compartment still requires that the crew duck their heads.
Presently I'm wrestling with the size and layout of the rear compartment as well as the aft located impulse engine section.
One aspect that muddies the issue is that the real actors look larger onscreen than they really are. Shatner was only about 5'-7" and yet he looked more like about 5'-10" onscreen in relation to the sets as built. I'm not sure how tall Nimoy was but he was certainly taller than Shatner. And so a 6.5 ft. ceiling in the shuttlecraft would still be workable and leave the inside looking pretty much as we saw it in relation to the actors. And a 6.5 ft. ceiling would give me a ship of 29'-1." However, a 7ft. ceiling may be more "real" and subsequently give me a ship of 31'-4."
I'm inclined to try to work with a 6.5ft. ceiling because it helps keep the ship's overall length down and also because it would be in keeping with us seeing the actors (namely Nimoy) nearly scraping his head on the ceiling lighting panels. Note also that the exit hatch as well as the entrance to the rear compartment still requires that the crew duck their heads.
Presently I'm wrestling with the size and layout of the rear compartment as well as the aft located impulse engine section.
