Hobbyist Forums banner

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,773 Posts
Yay, I get to show my ignorance! :)

Who was the 'mecha designer' for the show? It seems to me they had a good 'feel' for the task and there's nothing that screams "I'm out of place in this production!!" to my eyes.

Example, all the 'specialty' shuttles seem to rely on helicopter skid type landing gear which doesn't fit what we saw with the Galileo, but IS in keeping with many of Jefferies prelim designs.

Good job there, Perfesser! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,389 Posts
Longer secondary hull? I thought they just traced the actual film footage for Enterprise Fly By's in the animated series.
The shots of the Enterprise orbiting planets seemed to be rotoscoped from the original series F/X shots. All the others were created by the animators for the cartoon and the hull looks slightly extended, as the above image shows.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,621 Posts
The two freighter designs (the Huron and the automated freighter) were quite interesting in that they looked consistent with the TOS design ethic yet without being just a variation of saucer and cylinders.

The shuttlecraft were also cool even though they were way out of scale with the Enterprise. Then again the TAS hangar deck was shown way out of scale. I liked the TAS shuttlecraft so much for years I tried to make more credible TOS versions of them particularly the scout ship from "Slaver Weapon."



 

·
Starship Class
Joined
·
11,720 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Thank you. I just wish someone could do some orthos of the TAS Ent with the longer sec hull.
Yeah, I didn't realize it since it'd been a while since the site was up but I didn't include any pics of the TAS 1701. I'll see if I can correct that in the next couple of weeks.

Here are some comparison pics made showing it against TOS 1701 orthos on the web:





 

·
Starship Class
Joined
·
11,720 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Yay, I get to show my ignorance! :)

Who was the 'mecha designer' for the show? It seems to me they had a good 'feel' for the task and there's nothing that screams "I'm out of place in this production!!" to my eyes.

Example, all the 'specialty' shuttles seem to rely on helicopter skid type landing gear which doesn't fit what we saw with the Galileo, but IS in keeping with many of Jefferies prelim designs.

Good job there, Perfesser! :)
Thanks! It was fun and a great help to see some of the variety presented in TAS.

You're right about the design ethos keeping pretty much in the TOS tradition. The original shuttlecraft, changed a bit (due to sloppiness probably) was also in the shuttlebay and seemed to fit right in with the rest.
 

·
Starship Class
Joined
·
11,720 Posts
Discussion Starter #10 (Edited)
The two freighter designs (the Huron and the automated freighter) were quite interesting in that they looked consistent with the TOS design ethic yet without being just a variation of saucer and cylinders.

The shuttlecraft were also cool even though they were way out of scale with the Enterprise. Then again the TAS hangar deck was shown way out of scale. I liked the TAS shuttlecraft so much for years I tried to make more credible TOS versions of them particularly the scout ship from "Slaver Weapon."
I like your version of the Copernicus a lot. It makes a lot more sense than the huge shuttlecraft we saw on screen. Not sure why they felt it had to be so big. The views of the interior made it look as if it extended a loong ways to the rear. There was definitely some Irwin Allen finagling going on there since the interior was bigger than even the large exterior shots. The space wasn't needed nor taken up by anything--just a big empty area.

Kind of reminds me of all that space inside the 1701D warp nacelle:



In reality, I suspect the nacelle would be crammed full of stuff.
 

·
Starship Class
Joined
·
11,720 Posts
Discussion Starter #11


Well, it just dawned on my why the shuttlebay is so much bigger in TAS--there was obviously a refit of the shuttlebay module--not an extensive overhaul of the entire ship, more of a quick change-out et voila! a bigger shuttlebay!

About the same time, they may have added the extra door to the bridge. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,773 Posts


Well, it just dawned on my why the shuttlebay is so much bigger in TAS--there was obviously a refit of the shuttlebay module--not an extensive overhaul of the entire ship, more of a quick change-out et voila! a bigger shuttlebay!

About the same time, they may have added the extra door to the bridge. :D
I know you're somewhat joking here, but it triggers an insane idea.

How does the engineering hull from the TAS Enterprise scale out compared to the TMP Refit? Willing to take a shot at that?

Maybe that 'stretched the hull' idea makes even more sense... :)
 

·
Starship Class
Joined
·
11,720 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
I know you're somewhat joking here, but it triggers an insane idea.

How does the engineering hull from the TAS Enterprise scale out compared to the TMP Refit? Willing to take a shot at that?

Maybe that 'stretched the hull' idea makes even more sense... :)
Not completely sure how it scales out since the TAS drawing is seen from the front slightly in perspective but it's obviously longer behind the engine struts.

Stretching hulls happens quite a bit in the navy so why not on spaceships in the future? Many of the frigates from the 1980's were stretched to put new ASW equipment on board.

There could even be an interesting fan fiction story to explain how the ship was damaged in such a way as to necessitate a new shuttlebay module.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
242 Posts
There was Killing Time, or was there some story about a Greek type society who wrecked it?

I'd say the nacelle support pylons are a hair wider, and just a tad thicker. The front view suggests larger, almost JJprise nacelles.

The saucer hump might be just a tad taller up fron.

I'd like to see some good (stand alone) line drawings of that combo.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top