The Aerowing Shuttle
Mark Nguyen
Brian Barjenbruch <bri...@home.com> wrote in message
news:221019991532003782%bri...@home.com...
> I know we'll probably never get to see this, but do we have *any*
> useful info on the Aerowing Shuttle? Such as, what does it look like,
> how big is it, how many crew does it need, how fast can it go, etc.
> Right now, all we do know is that it's docked on the underside of
> Voyager's saucer (it's that jagged thing in the center).
Nope, you've got about all that is. There's a partial schematic visible in
the Voyager Bridge in the Captain's Chair CD-ROM, but that's not Sternbach's
design per his comments.
Mark
Jack Bohn
>I know we'll probably never get to see this, but do we have *any*
>useful info on the Aerowing Shuttle? Such as, what does it look like,
>how big is it, how many crew does it need, how fast can it go, etc.
>Right now, all we do know is that it's docked on the underside of
>Voyager's saucer (it's that jagged thing in the center).
On the Voyager MSD cutaway (under _Intrepid_ in the Encyclopedia) it
appears to have a tailfin. (and is it actually less than one deck
high?)
--
-Jack
-Jack
SPAMblock *sigh*
can be reached through jackbohn at bright dof net
Benji
avoid making the mistake of ignoring this on Voyager, it could be a good
addition to an episode or two.
Mark Nguyen
Benji <u...@no.com> wrote in message
news:AppQ3.47$tp4....@typhoon1.gnilink.net...
> They had one of these on the Enterprise-D but never used it. They should
> avoid making the mistake of ignoring this on Voyager, it could be a good
> addition to an episode or two.
>
Therein lies the problem, for they now have the Delta Flyer to boot around
in. If you ask me, they should have introduced the DF *as* the Aerowing,
suitably modified with all that new tech stuff. Certainly more realistic
than designing and building a new ship in the space of a week.
One reason tey didn't use the Aerowing was that the bottom of the ship is
molded to the bottom of the Voyager spoon section. Were they to use it,
they'd have to spend lots of money for new stock shots, etc. Mind you, they
could have just made the bottom of the Aerowing into some sort of bomb bay
doors or something, that would close up after the Aerowing left...
Mark
Graham Kennedy
The did plan to use the Aerowing before deciding on the
DF, but decided it would be better to build a new ship.
I don't remember the reasoning, though.
--
Graham Kennedy
Empress of The Unknown
>Benji <u...@no.com> wrote in message
>news:AppQ3.47$tp4....@typhoon1.gnilink.net...
>> They had one of these on the Enterprise-D but never used it. They should
>> avoid making the mistake of ignoring this on Voyager, it could be a good
>> addition to an episode or two.
>>
>
>Therein lies the problem, for they now have the Delta Flyer to boot around
>in. If you ask me, they should have introduced the DF *as* the Aerowing,
[snip]
I have the blueprints(?) for Voyager that I got at a convention. And when they
made the DF, I thought that the DF *was* the Aerowing, just that they had
changed the name and would attach it to the underside of Voyager.. Guess they
shoulda done that though.
.-~* Jup, with a sucky cold..
*sniffle* My head hurts.. :(
===
* so please be careful with me, i'm sensitive
and i'd like to stay that way.. *
-jewel
===
Rick Sternbach
> "Mark Nguyen" <mng...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >One reason tey didn't use the Aerowing was that the bottom of the ship is
> >molded to the bottom of the Voyager spoon section. Were they to use it,
> >they'd have to spend lots of money for new stock shots, etc. Mind you, they
> >could have just made the bottom of the Aerowing into some sort of bomb bay
> >doors or something, that would close up after the Aerowing left...
> >
> Do they still use the physical Voyager model? I thought it was all CG
> now (mind you, it still involves some work to modify the computer
> model, but not as much I wager).
Foundation Imaging already produced a CGI test sequence of the AeroShuttle
dropping out of its dock and flying down toward a planet, and it looks
*fabulous* (complete with ker-chunk unlatching sound effects). The top is
very much akin to a Runabout, except with wings and imbedded warp
nacelles. We were hoping that the Runabout cockpit could have served as
the flight deck for the AeroShutle, but I think the set was trashed after
DS9 folded.
Rick
--
Rick Sternbach "We've been doing so much for so long with so
Senior Illustrator long,that we are now qualified to do anything
Star Trek Voyager with nothing!"
Paramount Pictures -Remove "despam" for email replies-
Admiral Korel
>the flight deck for the AeroShutle, but I think the set was trashed after
>DS9 folded.
Well, /that/ was silly... always handy to have a runabout around - after
all, even if there is no new series (which would certainly have a runabout
in it at some point) one might show up in Voyager...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan McEvoy, morg...@esatclear.ie
"It's like the laws of physics just went out the window."
"And why shouldn't they? They're so inconvenient!"
Timo S Saloniemi
>Foundation Imaging already produced a CGI test sequence of the AeroShuttle
>dropping out of its dock and flying down toward a planet, and it looks
>*fabulous* (complete with ker-chunk unlatching sound effects). The top is
>very much akin to a Runabout, except with wings and imbedded warp
>nacelles. We were hoping that the Runabout cockpit could have served as
>the flight deck for the AeroShuttle, but I think the set was trashed after
>DS9 folded.
But the major elements of the set were used for "Insurrection" pretty
much intact. Does this mean we'll never again see the distinct
shuttle/runabout design flown by Picard and Worf in that movie? I trust
at least one more movie will be made with the TNG characters...
If the shuttle/runabout (which name would you give to the craft in
"Insurrection", BTW?) set survives in its movie form, then modifying it
back to the Danube runabout cockpit or the AeroShuttle cockpit should be
easy enough. The forward window piece was changed, but could probably be
changed back.
How many shuttle sets are there, actually? The full mockup for the
type 6 craft, the gullwing-door "shuttlepod" set/prop, the faceted
"alien shuttle" set/prop, the "runabout flight deck" set, the new
Voyager "type 9" set and "Delta Flier" set... That's *plenty* to keep
in store! How many of these have been struck down already?
Timo Saloniemi
Rick Sternbach
Saloniemi) wrote:
<snip>
>
> How many shuttle sets are there, actually? The full mockup for the
> type 6 craft, the gullwing-door "shuttlepod" set/prop, the faceted
> "alien shuttle" set/prop, the "runabout flight deck" set, the new
> Voyager "type 9" set and "Delta Flier" set... That's *plenty* to keep
> in store! How many of these have been struck down already?
>
> Timo Saloniemi
I don't know about the sets the features saved, so maybe the runabout
cockpit was reworked. As to Voyager shuttle sets, we have the following:
Delta Flyer cockpit, aft mission module
Speedboat
That's about it. "Alice" was made from a Type 6 front end, so that's gone.
Admiral Korel
>Does Voyager have any of those left? (I hope not, I prefer the type 9)
The type-8 were just /ugly/. Bits and pieces stuck on with no thought...
Admiral Korel
>> the runabouts and ST:I's "mission scoutship"?
>
>
>Which would win?
>
>:::innocent look:::
DF. After all, it was designed by the Voyager crew, who unlike the Starfleet
techs who built the others would give little thought to diplomacy (does this
look to aggressive? Ah, who cares...) It'd certainly beat the Danube-class,
but I don't remember what the scout had in the line of weapons. Wasn't much,
as I recall.
JAMES M TURNER
>
> Also, is the Delta Flyer big enough to have its own NCC number, like
> the runabouts and ST:I's "mission scoutship"?
It couldn't get a NCC number. The NCC number is the Navel Construction
Contract number that each ship is given by Star Fleet to refer to the
construction of each ship. Since Star Fleet did not build the Delta Flyer,
it will have to have a different designation.
Maybe a AQB (Alpha Quadrant or Bust) number to give it a designation.
Jim
Timo S Saloniemi
>In article <7v3frp$7ii$1...@nntp.hut.fi>, tsal...@alpha.hut.fi (Timo S
>Saloniemi) wrote:
>> How many shuttle sets are there, actually?
>I don't know about the sets the features saved, so maybe the runabout
>cockpit was reworked. As to Voyager shuttle sets, we have the following:
>Delta Flyer cockpit, aft mission module
>Speedboat
>That's about it. "Alice" was made from a Type 6 front end, so that's gone.
Thanks! I guess this means that Chakotay's "Full complement of shuttlecraft"
no longer includes type 6 or type 8 shuttles, then... Shooting those
in the "speedboat" cockpit wouldn't be very convincing.
Timo Saloniemi
Malcolm McMahon
> Also, is the Delta Flyer big enough to have its own NCC number, like
> the runabouts and ST:I's "mission scoutship"?
>
Well it can't have, can it, since Voyager is out of contact with the
registering authorities.
Malcolm
Mark Nguyen
Timo S Saloniemi <tsal...@alpha.hut.fi> wrote in message
news:7v62ne$6c3$1...@nntp.hut.fi...
> In article
<rsternbachdespam...@pool0588.cvx23-bradley.dialup.earthlink.n
et> rsternba...@earthlink.net (Rick Sternbach) writes:
> >In article <7v3frp$7ii$1...@nntp.hut.fi>, tsal...@alpha.hut.fi (Timo S
> >Saloniemi) wrote:
>
> >> How many shuttle sets are there, actually?
>
> >I don't know about the sets the features saved, so maybe the runabout
> >cockpit was reworked. As to Voyager shuttle sets, we have the following:
> >Delta Flyer cockpit, aft mission module
> >Speedboat
> >That's about it. "Alice" was made from a Type 6 front end, so that's
gone.
>
> Thanks! I guess this means that Chakotay's "Full complement of
shuttlecraft"
> no longer includes type 6 or type 8 shuttles, then... Shooting those
> in the "speedboat" cockpit wouldn't be very convincing.
Actually, I think they've done just that at least once... And in TNG, we've
seen them boot around in a type 7 shuttle with the type 6 set on numerous
occaisions.
Mark
Grassroots
Rick Sternbach wrote:
> In article <38154dfd.738800170@news>, sh...@hotmail.com (Steve Hall) wrote:
>
> > "Mark Nguyen" <mng...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >One reason tey didn't use the Aerowing was that the bottom of the ship is
> > >molded to the bottom of the Voyager spoon section. Were they to use it,
> > >they'd have to spend lots of money for new stock shots, etc. Mind you, they
> > >could have just made the bottom of the Aerowing into some sort of bomb bay
> > >doors or something, that would close up after the Aerowing left...
> > >
> > Do they still use the physical Voyager model? I thought it was all CG
> > now (mind you, it still involves some work to modify the computer
> > model, but not as much I wager).
>
> Foundation Imaging already produced a CGI test sequence of the AeroShuttle
> dropping out of its dock and flying down toward a planet, and it looks
> *fabulous* (complete with ker-chunk unlatching sound effects). The top is
> very much akin to a Runabout, except with wings and imbedded warp
> nacelles. We were hoping that the Runabout cockpit could have served as
> the flight deck for the AeroShutle, but I think the set was trashed after
> DS9 folded.
>
> Rick
>
> --
> Rick Sternbach "We've been doing so much for so long with so
> Senior Illustrator long,that we are now qualified to do anything
> Star Trek Voyager with nothing!"
> Paramount Pictures -Remove "despam" for email replies-
Gosh, I don't know much about the actual production stuff but isn't it normal to
mothball used set just in case, especially for a TV show like Trek?
Stjepan Pejic
> Star Fleet may not have built it, but Starfleet *officers* did. Tom
> Paris, being a SF officer, is entitled to give his ship the same number
> that Starfleet would have done.
I don't see why this would be. First, numbers only have importance
to the Starfleet administration. As they don't know about the
flyer, they do not need to give it a number. And as Voyager is
not exactly keeping track of hundreds of flyers, they would gain
absolutly nothing from numbering the one flyer they have. A ship
without a number is not any less real or important than one with
a number.
Besides, he has no idea what number Starfleet would have given it.
Stjepan Pejic
Timo S Saloniemi
>>The "speedboat" is the Type 9 shuttle, yes? What about the Type 8?
>>Does Voyager have any of those left? (I hope not, I prefer the type 9)
>
>The type-8 were just /ugly/. Bits and pieces stuck on with no thought...
I think a great deal of thought was given to what would be possible to
carry over to the type 6 mock-up and what wouldn't. The original
plan apparently was to "camouflage" the mock-up to resemble the
"more advanced" and certainly much sleeker type 8 design, but the
budget never really allowed for that.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo S Saloniemi
>> > Also, is the Delta Flyer big enough to have its own NCC number, like
>> > the runabouts and ST:I's "mission scoutship"?
>> It couldn't get a NCC number. The NCC number is the Naval Construction
>> Contract number that each ship is given by Star Fleet to refer to the
>> construction of each ship. Since Star Fleet did not build the Delta Flyer,
>> it will have to have a different designation.
>Star Fleet may not have built it, but Starfleet *officers* did. Tom
>Paris, being a SF officer, is entitled to give his ship the same number
>that Starfleet would have done.
Presumably there are dedicated officials in a dedicated sub-organization
of Starfleet with the power to give these numbers. The power most
likely would *not* extend to every Starfleet officer.
However, the commanding officer of a starship or other installation
apparently is allowed to *name* the auxiliaries used by that
installation, even if they come pre-registered. Sisko did name
the runabout Rubicon ("Body Parts", I think). This would also
explain the missing name on Data's scoutcraft in "Insurrection" -
the craft apparently was brand new and came pre-registered, but the
admiral had better things to do than invent a name for her.
Or the missing name *and* registry of the runabout in "Timescape" -
she had just been donated to Picard for adding to the E-D wing of
auxiliaries, but Picard had not yet decided on a name at the starbase,
and had told the waiting technicians they need not bother with painting
on the registry, either, since his own staff would take care of that
aboard the E-D when the name was chosen... After all, it wouldn't be
an NCC number (since this runabout was to be an auxiliary of a ship, not
an independent craft), but the number of the mothership like in all
shuttlecraft. Surely the E-D crew could handle the painting (and be
allowed to decide whether the runabout would become NCC-1701-D/05 or
NCC-1701-D/17).
Timo Saloniemi
Timo S Saloniemi
>
>Timo S Saloniemi <tsal...@alpha.hut.fi> wrote in message
>news:7v62ne$6c3$1...@nntp.hut.fi...
>> Thanks! I guess this means that Chakotay's "Full complement of
>> shuttlecraft" no longer includes type 6 or type 8 shuttles,
>> then... Shooting those in the "speedboat" cockpit wouldn't be very
>> convincing.
>Actually, I think they've done just that at least once... And in TNG, we've
>seen them boot around in a type 7 shuttle with the type 6 set on numerous
>occaisions.
And wasn't that a hoot! The type 7 craft looks as if it is something
like 25-30% longer than type 6, so that the interior cabin we see fills
just two thirds of the craft (and there is an aft compartment we never
get to see, possibly an airlock). The original sets for type 7 at least
seemed to portray the width more convincingly. And of course the
windows didn't match.
At least TNG never changed the shuttle *exterior* in mid-flight,
whereas I think "Raven" shows us a shuttle that can be of
any of the types 6,8 and 9, depending on the mood of the pilot...
Timo Saloniemi
Rick Sternbach
> Rick Sternbach wrote:
>
<snip>
> >
> > Foundation Imaging already produced a CGI test sequence of the AeroShuttle
> > dropping out of its dock and flying down toward a planet, and it looks
> > *fabulous* (complete with ker-chunk unlatching sound effects). The top is
> > very much akin to a Runabout, except with wings and imbedded warp
> > nacelles. We were hoping that the Runabout cockpit could have served as
> > the flight deck for the AeroShutle, but I think the set was trashed after
> > DS9 folded.
> >
> > Rick
> >
> > --
> > Rick Sternbach "We've been doing so much for so long with so
> > Senior Illustrator long,that we are now qualified to do anything
> > Star Trek Voyager with nothing!"
> > Paramount Pictures -Remove "despam" for email replies-
>
> Gosh, I don't know much about the actual production stuff but isn't it
normal to
> mothball used set just in case, especially for a TV show like Trek?
Only if one has unlimited storage space, which we don't. One of the ST5
shuttles and the TMP travel pod were left out in the weather to rot into
ugly piles of metal framing and delaminated plywood.
Zabana Brandon
> One of the ST5 shuttles and the TMP travel pod were left
> out in the weather to rot into ugly piles of metal framing
> and delaminated plywood.
Odd ... kinda sounds like some of my mother's cooking.
Are you sure some short lady from Canada didn't come
by and pick them up? ...
AndrewR
(Rick Sternbach) wrote:
>In article <381771F3...@ix.netcom.com>, shin...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> Rick Sternbach wrote:
>>
><snip>
>> >
>> > Foundation Imaging already produced a CGI test sequence of the AeroShuttle
>> > dropping out of its dock and flying down toward a planet, and it looks
>> > *fabulous* (complete with ker-chunk unlatching sound effects). The top is
>> > very much akin to a Runabout, except with wings and imbedded warp
>> > nacelles. We were hoping that the Runabout cockpit could have served as
>> > the flight deck for the AeroShutle, but I think the set was trashed after
>> > DS9 folded.
>> >
>> > Rick
>> >
>> > --
>> > Rick Sternbach "We've been doing so much for so long with so
>> > Senior Illustrator long,that we are now qualified to do anything
>> > Star Trek Voyager with nothing!"
>> > Paramount Pictures -Remove "despam" for email replies-
>>
>> Gosh, I don't know much about the actual production stuff but isn't it
>normal to
>> mothball used set just in case, especially for a TV show like Trek?
>
>Only if one has unlimited storage space, which we don't. One of the ST5
>shuttles and the TMP travel pod were left out in the weather to rot into
>ugly piles of metal framing and delaminated plywood.
>
Some people would sell one of their kidney's to have or at least STORE
some of those sets... just to say they had a bit of star trek in their
garage/bedroom ;o)
Andrew
GeneK
potentially threatening planets, having a small ship that
clearly doesn't match the markings of the mother ship might
project an immediate impression of something kluged up out
of desperation and spare bits and pieces (which, of course,
is exactly what the DF is). *We* may be aware that Voyager
is a mobile "Gilligan's Island," but it's not the sort of
image *they'd* want to present in a first contact situation.
If *I* were in their position and built a DF, I'd mark it up
as official-looking as possible, even if I had to invent
fake registry numbers to do it.
GeneK
Robert Brady
>I would disagree with that. As Voyager encounters new and
>potentially threatening planets, having a small ship that
>clearly doesn't match the markings of the mother ship might
>project an immediate impression of something kluged up out
>of desperation and spare bits and pieces (which, of course,
>is exactly what the DF is). *We* may be aware that Voyager
>is a mobile "Gilligan's Island," but it's not the sort of
>image *they'd* want to present in a first contact situation.
>If *I* were in their position and built a DF, I'd mark it up
>as official-looking as possible, even if I had to invent
>fake registry numbers to do it.
In which case they will mark is NCC-<voyager's registry>-1, like
the shuttles in the Enterprise.
--
Robert
GeneK
of vessel you consider the DF. So why *not* throw a nice, morale
boosting christening ceremony and let your crew believe they've
created an entirely new class of starship, seeing as how you're
decades away from any authorities who might burst that balloon
by telling you you're wrong?
GeneK
Robert Brady
>of vessel you consider the DF. So why *not* throw a nice, morale
>boosting christening ceremony and let your crew believe they've
>created an entirely new class of starship, seeing as how you're
>decades away from any authorities who might burst that balloon
>by telling you you're wrong?
Because your crew are clever and won't fall for simple-minded tricks.
--
Robert
GeneK
GeneK