Some have questioned exactly why I made the nacelles so big when they appear to be so small onscreen. My answer to that is that the proportions of the entire schematic were based directly off of a top down view taken directly from the show, being as this was the clearest plan view available I decided to stick with it. If you want a Treknical explanation, then you could simply say that most of the bulk in the warp nacelles are to do with the buoyancy equipment.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
1. Should the slash between 1701 and the 5 be so long? 2. Also, I think the grey strip across the nose fades to far into the white on the top view. Actually, the shading on the strip should be in steps as it travels across each of the flat panels of the hull. Instead, you have it whiting out as it were following a curve. 3. The hull/wing panels are also shaded front to back. 4. The landing gear should be darker, since its completely under the wings (and in shadow). 5. I'd also shade the bottom panels darker.
Posted by Sarvek (Member # 910) on :
I am very glad to see an update to the shuttle. She looks good. Thank you for making the corrections. Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
What's that delta doing there? Shouldn't it be the boomerang?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
It's a pennant of my own design, it's meant to be the first use of the delta before TMP. I developed it for the Dreadnaught and decided to give it a test run on the Aquashuttle. It seams reasonable enough to say that starfleet could have started phasing in the delta during the late 2260s, after all we didn't see any new starfleet vessels until the Excelsior in the 2280s.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao: 1. Should the slash between 1701 and the 5 be so long? 2. Also, I think the grey strip across the nose fades to far into the white on the top view. Actually, the shading on the strip should be in steps as it travels across each of the flat panels of the hull. Instead, you have it whiting out as it were following a curve. 3. The hull/wing panels are also shaded front to back. 4. The landing gear should be darker, since its completely under the wings (and in shadow). 5. I'd also shade the bottom panels darker.
1. Probably not but I was using the USAF font and the slash is a little on the dodgy side. in the future I intend to use "Fleet old School" instead.
2. Thats meant to be some kind of reflective strip that can be seen in murky waters, the only way I know of to show light reflection is to wash it out to white. You're right about steping the gradiant, it's something I'll have to remember the next time I don something similar.
3. I'm not used to colouring such a flat design so I decided to try and have the light source very low and to the front to keep things looking as white as possible.
4. The light is bouncing off the ground onto the shiney foot pads.
5. I wouldn't. Posted by Capt_Spencer (Member # 312) on :
Neato. I just noticed the name - is that a Gerry Anderson tip of the hat? ^_^
Jas
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Yah... I was curious who you named it after too.
I love the work. I'm not a huge fan of the design, but it's cool to see such nice work doen of some TAS stuff.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Gerry Anderson? Ack!
The shuttle is actually named after Hans Christian Andersen author of The Little Mermaid, you uncultured yobs!
quote: I love the work. I'm not a huge fan of the design, but it's cool to see such nice work doen of some TAS stuff.
I don't like it much either but I know that TAS still has a pretty dedicated fanbase and I was up for the challange.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I realize that there is little material to go by, but there's one major aspect of the aquahuttle that could be clarified if somebody had access to the actual episode.
Take a look at the leftmost picture on the upper row, and the second-leftmost one on the lower row, on this page from Curt Danhauser's site. Do we see the underside of the shuttle here?
It is quite possible that the shuttle has a "second cabin" under its belly, with windows similar to the top ones. This would make perfect sense for a submersible, or for a surface-skimmer. The lower windows would be accessed through floor hatches on the main cabin. The necessary airlock for the craft could also be located down there.
The lower cabin naturally wouldn't show up in top or side views, only the fwd, aft and bottom views.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
It looks to me like the top protrusion (with the cockpit windows) is simply mirrored for the bottom. Which might make sense, actually...
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I did consider this while drawing up the schematic but I found that there really wasn't enough room for decks on the Aquashuttle unless I scaled it up. Given that it's already big as far as shuttles go I decided to give the underside a boat-like box shape instead of mirroring the cabin. However, if I were to draw a ventral view I would incorperate some portholes on the lower surface around the airlock.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I didn't want to imply we'de be talking a full-height deck, either. After all, the best way to utilize the lower windows would be with your tummy firmly against a mattress of some sort. That's how many of today's submersibles are operated, too (either they have the pilot sitting up and the manipulator operator lying down, or then even the pilot is lying down as in the Cousteaus' diving saucer or Deep Flight).
The reason I think there could be this "mirrored cabin" down there is that the two pics show a window arrangement distinct from the one on the top cabin. As you may note, the "lower cabin" black windows wrap around all the way to the very stern of the craft, unlike the upper windows... Could be a simple mistake, but could be an indication of a distinct "observation hold" down there.
I've always envisioned the aquashuttle as having more than two modes of operation. It can fly in space (and probably at warp, with those nacelles), so it can be deployed; it can fly in an atmosphere, so it can reach the area of interest; it can economically skim on water using the surface effect (hence, the drooping sides and the underbelly cavity); it can settle down a little deeper and swim like a boat (and the boatlike lower cabin gives a bit more stability); and it can dive, either by applying propulsive power, or by flooding ballast tanks. In short, it's a veritable Calypso all on its own. No wonder it has to be so big.
What would be the method of underwater propulsion? Magnetic fields, shoving water past the ship either internally or externally? Rocket engines? Ducted turbines? Your views don't make the propulsion system explicit - no propellers in evidence.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: I didn't want to imply we'de be talking a full-height deck, either. After all, the best way to utilize the lower windows would be with your tummy firmly against a mattress of some sort. That's how many of today's submersibles are operated, too (either they have the pilot sitting up and the manipulator operator lying down, or then even the pilot is lying down as in the Cousteaus' diving saucer or Deep Flight).
The reason I think there could be this "mirrored cabin" down there is that the two pics show a window arrangement distinct from the one on the top cabin. As you may note, the "lower cabin" black windows wrap around all the way to the very stern of the craft, unlike the upper windows... Could be a simple mistake, but could be an indication of a distinct "observation hold" down there.
I've always envisioned the aquashuttle as having more than two modes of operation. It can fly in space (and probably at warp, with those nacelles), so it can be deployed; it can fly in an atmosphere, so it can reach the area of interest; it can economically skim on water using the surface effect (hence, the drooping sides and the underbelly cavity); it can settle down a little deeper and swim like a boat (and the boatlike lower cabin gives a bit more stability); and it can dive, either by applying propulsive power, or by flooding ballast tanks. In short, it's a veritable Calypso all on its own. No wonder it has to be so big.
What would be the method of underwater propulsion? Magnetic fields, shoving water past the ship either internally or externally? Rocket engines? Ducted turbines? Your views don't make the propulsion system explicit - no propellers in evidence.
Timo Saloniemi
It could be a mirrored window strip or it could be a join line, perhaps the lower hull can detach to become a dingy, more likely it's an error on the animator's part. The bottom line with this is that a 23rd century submersible would depend largely on sensors on deep dives since visibility would be very poor even with flood lights and that such a window would be useless.
As for propulsion I thought I'd make those two smaller circles on the back standard impulse drives that can seal themselves closed while in the water and that larger central circle could be the exhaust for some kind of magnetic caterpillar drive ala Red October, with the intakes up the front. Antigravs on the underside could keep the craft above water while in skimmer mode with the impulse engines providing the thrust.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I agree with Timo. I just checked the episode, and it does indeed appear to be an observation crawlspace beneath the cabin.
Rev, will you do the other TAS shuttles? You might want to at least try the rather simple scouter gig from the same episode.
-MMoM Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Mim: I"m actually working on Winston's shuttle right now! Should have something to show within the week. I'm basing it on that oval-ended shuttle I mentioned before.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Cool. Yes, I have no doubt that Winston's ship and the shuttle seen in the Enterprise bay are one and the same design. I'm even thinking that it probably is the same vessel that they just kept. (Unless I'm not remembering something that precludes this, like the shuttlebay-view was from an episode before "The Survivor" or something...)
Did you ever extrapolate any other views of Cyrano Jones' scout ship besides that side view you sent me?
Planning on doing the Copernicus as well?
-MMoM Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I have no interest in rendering any of the other TAS shuttles, since quite frankly I find the designs somewhat lacking in quality. The Aquashuttle was only barely salvageable in my opinion. This is why I turned to Jefferies' curvey shuttle sketches when I came to drawing up a TOS/pre-TOS shuttlecraft.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Copernicus is so ugly it scares me. I'm not going near it.
I did top, side, and front views of Cyrano's shuttle. I thought I had sent those to you. I'll send them or post them when I get back to my office on Tuesday (Monday's the emperor's birthday and a national holiday).
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Ok, just to kill time before I have to go out tonight here is my interpretation of the TAS long-range shuttle.
Now that's your lot!
Posted by Sarvek (Member # 910) on :
I really like your interpretation of the Long-Range Shuttlecraft. That is the best that I have seen to date. Are you planning on making more views? It would be great to see.
Have you considered doing an interpretation of the Heavy Shuttlecraft? That would be cool to see as well. Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
No, Masao, I don't think I ever saw anything but the side view.
How come you guys don't like the TAS shuttles? Their designs are at least as good as that of the Galileo, and they have a very distinct TOS-era "feel" about them. Simple and kind of pleasantly campy. I like 'em.
-MMoM Posted by Sarvek (Member # 910) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: No, Masao, I don't think I ever saw anything but the side view.
How come you guys don't like the TAS shuttles? Their designs are at least as good as that of the Galileo, and they have a very distinct TOS-era "feel" about them. Simple and kind of pleasantly campy. I like 'em.
-MMoM
I totally agree with you MMoM on the look of the shuttles in TAS.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
"Pleasantly campy"?!?!?!? I reserve that term for "Lost in Space." I always thought 23rd century design was clean, simple, and elegant. With that pointy nose, Copernicus looks like something a (1970s) kid would design.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Well, I would hardly call the squat, boxy Galileo "elegant," and I must say that I quite like the looks of the Copernicus in profile, though the corresponding top view is admittedly much less aesthetic. (IMO it might have been better if the front did come to an actual point, rather than the flat wedge.) Seen from the side though, as it was drawn in the episode, it's got a cool "rocket ship" feel to it.
I also enjoy the solid, compact-and-yet-powerful look of the shuttle Mudd stole in "Mudd's Passion" (TAS).
It's simply a matter of tastes.
-MMoM
P.S.
Yes, I know those might not be perfectly accurate schematics, but they get the point across.
Rev: Where's the bow nav-deflector/sensor? Any other views?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)