Hobbyist Forums banner

861 - 877 of 877 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,621 Posts
My only problem with the length of 947' is the length coming out as 947' exactly. It just seems to me that there should be a few left over inches somewhere.
Fair enough. But the thing that is rather appealing about 947' is that it is not a nice round number. It's rather odd. And who is to say that it isn't 946' or 947' plus some odd inches? 947 could be just a round up or or down figure.

I call my shuttlecraft at 26' for the sake of discussion, but it's actually 25'-11 and some fraction inches.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,621 Posts
I call my shuttlecraft at 26' for the sake of discussion, but it's actually 25'-11 and some fraction inches.
I goofed in my recall. My shuttlecraft figure isn't 25' plus a bit but 26' plus a bit: 26.427' to be exact. I checked. And the main hull sans nacelles is 24.485' and essentially consistent with Kirk's reference in TG7 to a 24ft. shuttlecraft
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
I goofed in my recall. My shuttlecraft figure isn't 25' plus a bit but 26' plus a bit: 26.427' to be exact. I checked. And the main hull sans nacelles is 24.485' and essentially consistent with Kirk's reference in TG7 to a 24ft. shuttlecraft
Very close at least.

I came across an old softcover book recently in which one of the builders of the interior set confirmed that the three identical width sections of the interior 1st cabin that seemed to be made up of simple 4 foot sections were indeed made up of sections exactly four feet wide.

If one were to build as close to the original as possible identical interior set it appears thats the space from the front of the interior's 1st cabin to the back wall of the second cabin(were the cylinders start)

is almost exactly 24 feet.

Maybe instead of mispeaking 2.x feet on the length,

perhaps Kirk was thinking of the interior's length?

Heck, just four broadcast episodes prior to The Galileo Seven, Kirk spent hours walking back and forth inside a shuttlecraft while chasing Spock in The Menagerie.

Kirk certainly had enough time to pace out the interior cabins' length and maybe even got the 24 feet of space stuck in his head a bit as Kirk faced his own death/or rescue scenario.

Again that 24 feet of interior space length might have stuck in his head. His own traumatic shuttle ride had occurred just four episodes back as the show was originally broadcast.

Or, perhaps Kirks rememberance of the interior's length was due to having once tried to figure out how many buffant-haired Starfleet coeds could fit inside one shuttlecraft? :p



N.B. Based on the confirmed interior segment's widths a truly integrated interior/exterior Class F shuttlecraft would be about 31.5 feet long, trimming nothing from what was seen onscreen of both the interior and exterior's symmetries.

Yes, about 2-2.5 feet might unnoticably be trimmed by a couple of methods, but failing any attempt to do such admittedly slight trimming, a truly integrated Class F shuttlecraft would likely have been right at 31.5 feet long.

Again, original credit for figuring most of this out almost to the inch back when video and drafting tools consisted of little more then "stone knives and bear skins" must be give to Trekist.

The guy who first set out to properly integrate a realistic shuttlecraft decades ago.

Trekist, you deserve a couple of decades worth of thumbsups!!!!! :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
P.S. It's also been pointed out by knowledgeable guys like Phil Broad that it was common practice to create exterior sets at 3/4 scale.

This not only would have saved money on the production of Galileo, but might have well been what made the Galileo transportable or not transportable, as it was necessary for the guys at AMT who built the exterior set piece had to take off the wings/engine pods in order to make her fit on a roadworthy trailer.

If the exterior set piece, which according to Phil Broad was a bit shorter then the 24 feet, again 31.5 feet would be a very accurate "real world size" assuming 22.x as a 3/4 scale stage piece.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,152 Posts
The Shuttle exterior was built to Matt Jefferies drawings where he envisioned it as a small vehicle. It wasn't until after the Shuttle was built that it was decided that they wanted the actors to be able to stand without stooping in the interior set. Watch when people exit the Shuttle, they are always hunched over. The interior is bigger that the exterior, the Shuttle is a TARDIS!

David.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,621 Posts
About 31ft. or so exterior was the figure I also got in order to accommodate an interior such as we saw onscreen. But as it's been exhaustively discussed and dissected in My TOS shuttlecraft thread a 31.5ft. shuttlecraft is just too big to be workable within the E's hangar facilities, even if you scale the ship up to 1080ft. And that large an exterior creates other problems as well such as ease of entering/exiting the craft.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
902 Posts
The Shuttle exterior was built to Matt Jefferies drawings where he envisioned it as a small vehicle. It wasn't until after the Shuttle was built that it was decided that they wanted the actors to be able to stand without stooping in the interior set. Watch when people exit the Shuttle, they are always hunched over. The interior is bigger that the exterior, the Shuttle is a TARDIS!
Well then I say go with the exterior size as built per Jefferies original intention. It's the interior set design size that is scaled wrong! ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
Well then I say go with the exterior size as built per Jefferies original intention. It's the interior set design size that is scaled wrong! ;)
Jefferies, however, supervised the building of the interior set too.

Let's also remember, Jefferies original intention was actually for a bus-like vehicle much larger then even 32 feet.

The question is, a what point one can compromise and create a craft that would work(one: as a craft itself; and secondly: fit in a TOS E somewhere within the size of 947-1080 feet.

Pretty much all of us could agree on the above, the question becomes what size do we need to get the entire Shuttlecraft down too that each of us feels is acceptible without it looking we each consider to be radically different from what we saw of both the interior and exterior sets.

That's the only point I think we might or might not differ on.

To me personally, I'm not at all married to even a length of 1080, muchless 947 feet. So I don't truly have a problem with a 31.5 foot craft.

I understand and respect Warped 9's opinions on the matter, though I think going down to 26.x feet would require an interior that would be noticably different.

Again, while I have no trouble with a 31.5 foot craft, I'm also not averse to trimming a bit to get the craft down to about 29 feet long.

That's the final compromise that FourMadMen and I came down too on our version of the Class F.

As first suggested by Phil Broad in the Galileo thread and then executed by FourmadMen and myself, I started by taking 6" inches off of the "standard" four foot sections and a bit off the rear cabin/rear propulsion area.


That allowed us to take over 2 feet off the length and yet create an integrated craft that was almost imperceptibly the same as what was seen onscreen.


Some would say a shuttlecraft of a bit over 29 feet is still too long.

I think it could be made to work within the TOS E.

How easily it could be a workable length would depend on a few factors.
Up too and including whether or not you consider the newly remastered shuttlebay, which appears to be much deeper then suggested in TOS.

But remastered vs original aside, the only thing stopping even a 31.5 foot shuttlecraft from working is how tightly you want to stay wedded to a length of 947 feet.

Personally I don't think it's a good idea to change the basic look of either the exterior or interior of the Shuttlecraft.

That being said, I come to conclude that it's not very likely that one could go lower then about 29 feet in exterior length without very noticably changing the interior.

A 29 foot shuttlecraft may or may not fit in a TOS E too easily, but I don't see getting it much smaller then that and having it look much different then what was seen onscreen, at least in terms of the interior.

Great minds might disagree. That's just one man's(my) personal preference.

Franz Joseph, a man I respect immensely, clearly disagreed.

Having realized the vast differences between the two he decided the producers and set designers made a dumb mistake and just designed a radically smaller interior of his own design.

That definitely and completely fixed the space problem, I would not have personally gone that way, but FJ did solve the "Tardis" problem. :)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,621 Posts
^^ For my scaling I ended up with a vehicle that would have noticebly less headroom (for someone over 5'-8") and a noticeably shorter cabin. Cabin width should still be close to what it was onscreen. But looking at the interior set onscreen it looks to me like there is a lot of spare room between seats as well as aft of the rearmost seats, and there was headroom to spare especially considering that the actors tended walk somewhat croched a bit when it was entirely unnecessary--thus giving me the impression that the producers might have been trying to convey the idea of a more cramped interior.

The final convincing element for me was the ease of entry/exit in how large a step-up was I willing to accept.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,969 Posts
I know a lot of work has been done by various folks on the original mockup (to the point that there is very little "original" left of the poor thing), but has anyone ever tried building their own full size shuttlecraft?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
^^ For my scaling I ended up with a vehicle that would have noticebly less headroom (for someone over 5'-8") and a noticeably shorter cabin. Cabin width should still be close to what it was onscreen. But looking at the interior set onscreen it looks to me like there is a lot of spare room between seats as well as aft of the rearmost seats, and there was headroom to spare especially considering that the actors tended walk somewhat croched a bit when it was entirely unnecessary--thus giving me the impression that the producers might have been trying to convey the idea of a more cramped interior.

The final convincing element for me was the ease of entry/exit in how large a step-up was I willing to accept.
There appears to be a lot of room in my and FourMadMen's Shuttle between the seats(front to back as you mention aft of the rearmost seats).

However there was a lot less reducible space on the original's interior sets seats then one might think going strickly by memory.


In order to make the interior and exterior hull's horizontal seams match,

(the many many problems with doing this properly don't automatically occur to one until you go to match the two interior and exterior hull horizontal seams - which are WAY off matching properly as seen onscreen - much in the same way the interior and exterior front hull angles don't match as was first extremely well documented and elaborated on in Trekist's original blueprints)

Anyhow, in order to make the interior and exterior hull's horizontal seams match,

we felt forced to raise the height of both the seats and the control consol.

Doing that frees up a great deal of fore to aft leg room between the chairs, as the seen-onscreen chairs had everyone almost sitting on the floor - which forced the actors to stretch their legs forward to an almost unnatural degree.

But without raising the seats their is tremendously less free space fore to aft.

I hope I'm explaining this well enough for those who may or may not have been involved in the old thread.

If not I apologize in advance and ask that you let me know and I'll try to elaborate.

I've spent so much time on these issues with the others in the old Bob Villa Galileo thread that sometimes I think I've explained something that I haven't really explained well at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
Let me begin by apologizing if this matter has already been dealt with. When the first pilot was planned and the "3-footer" was built, the original length of the Enterprise, according to The Great Bird Of The Galaxy was "about 300 feet long." If 1" equals 10' (1/120th scale) the 33" model represents a ship that is 330 feet long with a crew of 204 people.

Before the first season, it became clear that a ship that small just wasn't going to work very well. So, someone suggested that a ship the size of an aircraft carrier would make more sense. An aircraft carrier is about 1,200 feet, give or take. That is about 4 times the size the ship was originally thought to be.

So, they built a model 4 times larger at about 134 inches. Here's the interesting thing. Both models are built in the same scale of about 1/120. The difference in the size has to do with the change in the idea about how big the ship was supposed to be.


OK, it is a fact that the big model is 4 times larger than the small model . . . which suggests to me that they just measured the small model and multiplied by 4. I really don't think anyone gave any thought to what the actual size of the thing was . . . except for the fact that between the pilot and the series it was decided to conceptualize it a lot larger.

As for the sets, the only thing anyone worried about them fitting into was Sound stage #9 at Desilu Studios -- and my understanding is that they were pretty cramped in there.

Also, as for the bridge . . . the original set was made up of eight panels and that was increased to 10 panels when the show went into production. So, the bridge got bigger and the turbolift changed positions in relation to the captain's chair. You have to take that fact into account when you try to "fit" the bridge into the model.


In spite of all this, the fact that everything sort of fits together and makes sense is a reflection of the very creative minds that were at work on this show from the beginning. When one compares it to the relationship between the exterior and interior of "Lost In Space," or even "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea," it is obvious that the Enterprise holds up so much better.

By accounting for a few little discrepancies, (like windows that would have to be 10 feet long and 6 feet high) you can "build" a pretty good Enterprise that conforms to what was depicted on the show.

Same with the movie Enterprise. Of course, by then, they were a little more conscious of the issues involved and went to some pains to make things fit (well, the shuttle bay doesn't quite fit as depicted). But, hell, overall they did a pretty good job of making something that seems believable.


And that is just my humble opinion which is worth about as much as the electrons that go to make up this missive.


But, I will say I am fascinated that people have researched this in so much detail. I enjoy having the information and speculation and I appreciate the time and work that has gone into these 59 pages. Keep up the good work. It is well beyond anything I could come up with.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,621 Posts
There appears to be a lot of room in my and FourMadMen's Shuttle between the seats(front to back as you mention aft of the rearmost seats). (the many many problems with doing this properly don't automatically occur to one until you go to match the two interior and exterior hull horizontal seams - which are WAY off matching properly as seen onscreen - much in the same way the interior and exterior front hull angles don't match as was first extremely well documented and elaborated on in Trekist's original blueprints)

Anyhow, in order to make the interior and exterior hull's horizontal seams match,

we felt forced to raise the height of both the seats and the control consol.

Doing that frees up a great deal of fore to aft leg room between the chairs, as the seen-onscreen chairs had everyone almost sitting on the floor - which forced the actors to stretch their legs forward to an almost unnatural degree.

But without raising the seats their is tremendously less free space fore to aft.

I hope I'm explaining this well enough for those who may or may not have been involved in the old thread.

If not I apologize in advance and ask that you let me know and I'll try to elaborate.

I've spent so much time on these issues with the others in the old Bob Villa Galileo thread that sometimes I think I've explained something that I haven't really explained well at all.
I get it because although it might not be immediately apparent I did tweak the scaling of the seats a bit and I fudged the horizontal seam of the interior by raising it a bit while also reducing the ceiling height. I didn't want to do anything truly drastic because my intent all along was to have a vehicle that looked near identical to what is seen onscreen until you pull out the measuring tape.

I know a lot of work has been done by various folks on the original mockup (to the point that there is very little "original" left of the poor thing), but has anyone ever tried building their own full size shuttlecraft?
If I won a really good pile of dough off a lottery then I'd love to do this then take it on the road to various conventions. And I'd base it on my 26ft. drawings so that folks could feel it was like the real thing. And I'd have to have it "working" with lights and sound f/x some of which would be initiated by playing with the controls. You could have my interior screens rather than as windows displaying approaching or leaving the hangar deck and or planet, planet landings/take-offs and warping through space all with voice overs. That would be just so freakin' cool! And folks would love to have their pictures taken with and inside the thing. Throw in a guest appearance by Shatner and/or Nimoy and you'd have a crowd magnet.

Mind you, transporting the thing could be a challenge. Likely you'd have to have detachable stabilizers and nacelles and transport it on a flatbed if it didn't fit within an enclosed trailer. And getting the doors to work as they should could be a challenge although it should be easier today then back in the '60s.

But on display it would be damned cool!

Hmm. I wonder what it could really cost to build a full scale replica of this thing? I mean you'd save a ton of money not having to have real working warp and impulse engines and the like. It doesn't actually have to fly. :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
Of late, I’ve had little time even to lurk…but having re-found this thread, and spent the last five or so hours saving the pertinent bits into an MS word document (171 pg in 8 pt type!)…and seeing the last post dated but a few days past…I thought I’d chime in to give a heartfelt thanks to Chuck P.R., for his

>…a truly integrated Class F shuttlecraft would likely have been right at 31.5 feet long.

>Again, original credit for figuring most of this out almost to the inch back when video and drafting tools consisted of little more then "stone knives and bear skins" must be give to Trekist.

>The guy who first set out to properly integrate a realistic shuttlecraft decades ago.

>Trekist, you deserve a couple of decades worth of thumbsups!!!!!


It really was a labor of love…as well as what seemed at the time a pointless task. References were video (only crudely freeze-frame-able), 35mm photos taken off the TV image (couldn’t freeze-frame to take those), the Photonovels, TMOST, a number of slides bought at conventions, and a black & white picture in some ghastly monster mag showing the anomalous angle of the front interior wall (as seen in “Immunity Syndrome”). Field of conflict was a home-made light table (on which I still work…sometimes). Verificational proving ground was my grandfather’s basement, in which I paced out distances with use of a stand-in office chair. No help was forthcoming from Franz Joseph, who I wrote in hopes of lifting his exterior proportions (thinking he'd pulled them from the exterior prop directly)…and who (quite understandably) took offense at my being the one times ten to the eighth or so fanboy to criticize (however obliquely, or so I thought) on his “too small” interior (I still have his letter somewhere…but as I said, he’d come by his pique honest). Done at last, I sold several lots of a hundred, wholesale, to New Eye Studio & Intergalactic Trading Company…and got ripped off by an outfit I won’t name, who I investigated sueing, but didn’t. Asked (repeatedly, mainly by girlfriends) if I’d made any money on the deal, I replied that it depended on whether I counted hours spent in creation. Wholesale was a multiple of zerox fees, of course…but what had been my non-billable hours? I’ve no idea.

All of which I recount only to observe how much more fun it is to take part (or lurk) in company, rather than in solitude, one un-air conditioned summer, many years ago.

(two K’s in “Trekkist,” BTW)
 
861 - 877 of 877 Posts
Top