Got a question directly mostly at David Schmidt/Treknophyle, tho anyone w/the "Enterprise-A DeckPlans" - or whatever the actual official name is - can answer if they know!
What is the listed shuttlecraft complement for the Enterprise-A? I don't have my copy of "Mr. Scott's Guide" here with me at work, but believe it states 4 and even gives the names. However, I seem to recall reading somewhere, perhaps in "Star Trek: The Magazine", that the ST:V complement was only two. That just seems ubsurd to me.
Why would you decrease the number of shuttlecraft?
I think that this was an assumption of the staff writer for the article based upon "on-screen evidence". After all, we only see a grand total of two in ST:V, so that must the complete complement for the ship, right...?
I tend to agree more w/the numbers from the "official" TOS Constitution class plans by FJ (I forget the exact title, sorry), as well as "Mr. Scott's Guide" and the "Starship Spotter" book (which I believe also states 4). I just don't understand the rationale behind decreasing the number if you've still got the same amount of space and the shuttlecraft aren't that much larger than the old style.
Anyhow, curious to know what the "unofficial E-A" deck plans state and any rationale behind the decision if it's less than four.
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
I had taken 'four' for granted. In ST:V we see one parked as a second one landing (twice, I might add) and there is the elevator and hanger for a couple more, then also those work bees. What does the Enterprise need with half a dozen work bees? I bet that six shuttles woudl be more realistic
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
At least 5. That was Galileos number. And we usually assume that the numbers are not sequential but assinged to a replacement shuttle again if the former is destroyed. In other words, I doubt there are just shuttles 3, 4 and 5 in Enterprise's complement. The types are probably all the same as seen in ST:V (allthough there was that sketch from TMP with Vulcan long-range-shuttle pods in E's bay) and have been the TOS-type on the E until she was destroyed or sometime before that incident (they were still in use in TMP, as seen in the Special Edition, and there is no evidence of Starfleet using the Vulcan pod thing since the bay in the final used shot was empty).
Besides that, the Sternbach auction on ebay does also contain a study model of the TFF-shuttle. Interestingly, it's name is Galileo, but the number is 7. I wonder why they changed that in the first place. Guess they don't repect tradition. Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
"Scott's Guide" specifies a shuttle complement of 4. The names given are:
Halley 1 Herschel 3 Copernicus 5 Galileo 7
The shuttles intended by "Scott's Guide" are the Vulcan Shuttle-style craft, not the Trek V version. (The ones in the unused matte painting.)
"Scott's Guide" goes on to say that there are two Travel Pods on board and six Workbees.
The "Starship Spotter" says that four Shuttles are carried on board along with eight Workbees with no mention of Travel Pods.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov: Interestingly, it's name is Galileo, but the number is 7. I wonder why they changed that in the first place. Guess they don't repect tradition.
I suspect this is a joke, due to use of smiley, but to be sure...you are joking, aren't you?
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I'm all for pretending that the Vulcan/Probert shuttle never was standard Starfleet starship-auxiliary hardware. However, I'd prefer a little more diversity than claiming that the ship carries 4-6 shuttles identical to the two we saw in ST5.
Moreover, in that particular movie, plot logic dictates that there only were two shuttles aboard. Or at least that the rest of the shuttles aboard were not capable of rescuing Kirk from the planet when transporters were down. The situation in ST5 may not describe the standard operational complement all that well, but then again, it may...
I'd personally go for a complement of 2 or if necessary 4 shuttles of the type we saw, 2-6 workbees for deep space repairs, and perhaps one or two special craft, as TAS suggests there can be rather diverse vessels aboard. Of course, "Mudd's Passion" probably should be taken as an exceptional situation, as a shuttlebay so chock full of stuff wouldn't be very functional.
For the TOS ship, I'd also suggest 2 standard shuttles in operational condition to have been the usual case, and 4 being the rarely attained maximum. Otherwise, more shuttles should have been dispatched in "The Galileo Seven".
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam:
quote:Originally posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov: Interestingly, it's name is Galileo, but the number is 7. I wonder why they changed that in the first place. Guess they don't repect tradition.
I suspect this is a joke, due to use of smiley, but to be sure...you are joking, aren't you?
The last line was a joke. But if you think the Galileo-line was part of the joke, then no, I am not joking.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: I'm all for pretending that the Vulcan/Probert shuttle never was standard Starfleet starship-auxiliary hardware. However, I'd prefer a little more diversity than claiming that the ship carries 4-6 shuttles identical to the two we saw in ST5.
I have no problem with diversity whatsoever. However, I've always liked the idea of the "Vulcan" shuttle as a "dockport" carried by each of the starships, albiet in limited quanitities. My thinking is that the standard complement could easily be three "standard" shuttles (from ST:V) and one dockport and additional shuttlecraft carried as needed for mission specific parameters. After all, why wouldn't a standard shuttlecraft be able go under water and operate for short periods of time? I can understand wanting an aqua-shuttle for long-term water missions, but why would you need it on a standard mission? You also wouldn't want to get caught with your "pants down" and only have two shuttlecraft, but one's in for repairs, thus only one is operational - and then have an emergency need for at least two. After all, it doesn't seem that uncommong to come across a planet where the tranporters won't work.
quote:Moreover, in that particular movie, plot logic dictates that there only were two shuttles aboard. Or at least that the rest of the shuttles aboard were not capable of rescuing Kirk from the planet when transporters were down. The situation in ST5 may not describe the standard operational complement all that well, but then again, it may...
Which I have no problem with, personally. I still think the standard would be more than two, tho. Especially on a ship the size of Enterprise.
quote:I'd personally go for a complement of 2 or if necessary 4 shuttles of the type we saw, 2-6 workbees for deep space repairs, and perhaps one or two special craft, as TAS suggests there can be rather diverse vessels aboard. Of course, "Mudd's Passion" probably should be taken as an exceptional situation, as a shuttlebay so chock full of stuff wouldn't be very functional.
Agreed where "Mudd's Passion" is concerned. IIRC, the episode showed something like a dozen shuttlecraft! I still think that the standard for shuttlecraft would be four.
quote:For the TOS ship, I'd also suggest 2 standard shuttles in operational condition to have been the usual case, and 4 being the rarely attained maximum. Otherwise, more shuttles should have been dispatched in "The Galileo Seven".
What brings you to that conclusion? AIR, there was no mention of utilizing any other shuttlecraft in the episode. Most likely, Kirk's rationale was that the sensors on Enterprise were far superior to that of a shuttlecraft, if that's where you were going w/your thinking. ISTR that there was some sort of interference which kept Enterprise from picking up the shuttlecraft? Been a long while since I last saw that episode....
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Ships of the Star Fleet gives the Enterprise (II) class 2+ shuttles. Doesn't give a maximum figure. I wouldn't have thought it'd be that necessary to have that many shuttles- they're only used rarely after all and the transporters usually seem to work OK.
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
The way I look at the Enterprise-A's shuttle, is filling the same roles as the helecoptors on today's Cruisers (sans ASW, natch). A Ticonderoga class cruiser carries Two helecoptors, while, the Kirov carries 3 Helix helecoptors, and the Iowa had 4 helecoptors.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: (sans ASW, natch).
How about ACW: Anti-Cloak Warfare?
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
Maybe the E-A only left Earth with 2 shuttles in the hurry to get to Nimbus III, and didn't have time to recall all her craft (or they simply hadn't arrived yet).
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
The other shuttles were coming Tuesday. Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
The number of shuttles for a Constitution Class starship are four. This number is stated in "The Omega Glory".
From reading the thread on shuttles, I gather there were in addition to shuttles 3 and 5 the shuttles 2 and 4. With the two known and the two added, this is a total of four shuttles.
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheWoozle: The way I look at the Enterprise-A's shuttle, is filling the same roles as the helecoptors on today's Cruisers (sans ASW, natch). A Ticonderoga class cruiser carries Two helecoptors, while, the Kirov carries 3 Helix helecoptors, and the Iowa had 4 helecoptors.
I thought the Iowa was a Battleship...
quote:Originally posted by Wraith:
quote: (sans ASW, natch).
How about ACW: Anti-Cloak Warfare?
That's what the smaller ships do in ST:Armada, if I remember correctly (I haven't played it in ages). I forget how they are supposed to do it, though. Some kind of tachyon thing perhaps?
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
It's always some kind of tachyon thing, isn't it?
Yes, Venture (ST:IX-scoutship) can be equipped with a tachyon detector to see cloaked ships close to it.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
IIRC, "The Omega Glory" only stated that the Exeter had a complement of 4 shuttles. That doesn't mean other ships with slightly differing mission roles might not have more or less. Nor does it mean that at some point Starfleet didn't either increase or decrease the number of shuttles aboard its ships. So, while the specific complement of that specific vessel at that specific time may have been 4 shuttles, we know it has been other numbers on other ships at other times. (TAS showed a number of shuttles of varying designs on board the Enterprise, and when you think about it, the fact that the Galileo's registry was NCC-1701/7 indicates that there have been at least seven shuttles assigned to the ship. Franz Joseph's Star Trek Blueprints also gave this as the shuttle complement of the Constitution herself.)
As to the complement of the refitted Connie, I have no idea why Shane Johnson thought the shuttles would be only oddly numbered, but to me the fact that there's a "Shuttle 5" indicates that there are also Shuttles 1, 2, 3, and 4. Of course, not all of those may be flight-ready and in use at once, they may be stored in auxiliary bays off the main hanger, etc., to be activated only when needed. Plus, there's also the work bees...
-MMoM Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Maybe some shuttles are like the old collapsible lifeboats used on ocean liners in the days before & up to Titanic: many of the shuttles are broken down into easily stored elements & only 2 or 4 are kept on standby readiness alert.
I'd like to know when they finally pulled their heads out of their ass & increased the shuttle complement from 4-7 in TOS eras to eleventy bazillion in TNG era.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: I'd like to know when they finally pulled their heads out of their ass & increased the shuttle complement from 4-7 in TOS eras to eleventy bazillion in TNG era.
When they started building ships big enough to support them.
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
there isn't any reason that the Enterprise's shuttle souldn't be odd numbered. Maybe the travel pods and work bees are even numbered. On the other tentical, The work bees might be numbered 1-4 and the shuttles numbered 5-8.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: Maybe some shuttles are like the old collapsible lifeboats used on ocean liners in the days before & up to Titanic: many of the shuttles are broken down into easily stored elements & only 2 or 4 are kept on standby readiness alert.
That's how Doug Drexler envisions the NX-01 to operate, with two pods on active duty ("hot standby") and two kept in non-operational reserve ("mothballs") that may be activated and prepped for flight within a day or two if necessary.
-MMoM
P.S. Incidentally, I just noticed that the Starship Spotter gives the TOS Connie's shuttle complement as "5-7 of various classes" and the TMP Connie's as including "8 Work Bee General Utility Craft" and "4 shuttlecraft of various classes." I tend to think of that book as non-canon, though, but I dunno about the rest of you.
-MM Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheWoozle: there isn't any reason that the Enterprise's shuttle souldn't be odd numbered. Maybe the travel pods and work bees are even numbered. On the other tentical, The work bees might be numbered 1-4 and the shuttles numbered 5-8.
That's even stranger than having shuttle number 01-XX and shuttlepod number 01-XX on starships of the TNG era.
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
I always assumed that there were 8 shuttles, because: 1- in STMP we saw that the entire deck under the landing bay was a parking bay. 2- I can't see having only odd-numbered shuttles. 3- I saw them as a necessary adjunct to the emergency transporters and life boats in case of evacuation.
I agree that the two doors on the forward bulkhead of the STV shuttlebay were probably twin shuttle elevators to the next deck down - as well as access for cargo pods forward into the vast cargo bay. Occam's Razor: choose the simplest theory. This way, the only changes between the STMP era and the STV era are almost cosmetic - enclosed shuttle elevators replacing the open ones - plus one vertical shaft.
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
Which brings up a theory that I've been... theorizing. What IF, the scene in TMP, was of the ship, unfinished? At taht point, it was still unfinished and being rushed into service. It seems to me, that having that big open bay would be rather odd, for anything but a transport. During construction, it would seem like a natural thing, to keep that open, until the last, then put in the cargo deck, decking and enclose the shuttle bay. On reflection, what they where ACTUALLY doing, was showing off the forcefield that held in the air.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
The thing is, we don't know that there wasn't some sort of doorway at the aft end of the shuttlebay, right? I think it's entirely possible for that to have been a roll-up door there which was opened all the way so that the Work-Bee's could haul their cargo thru to the cargo area. As David says above about Occam's Razor....
That's what I've always thought, to be honest.
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
It's entirely possible - and plausible. As Larry Niven pointed out, depending on a force-field to keep the air in is rather chancy - especially for a warship. In the case of a power-out - you're in the soup.
My interpretation is that there was a roll-up door for the 'first-flight' refit ships. Later, practicality showed it a better idea to enclose the shuttle elevators with bulkheads and doors fore and aft. Redundancy - the first rule in good combat design.
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Treknophyle: Redundancy - the first rule in good combat design.
Not for the Starfleet Warp Core Ejection Systems Design Bureau it isn't.
Come to think of it, the Starfleet Institute for Transporter Technologies doesn't seem to be aware of it either. Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
Damn, Phoenix - even their holodeck systems wouldn't have been passed by Canadian Quality Assurance.
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Treknophyle: Damn, Phoenix - even their holodeck systems wouldn't have been passed by Canadian Quality Assurance.
But the holodeck has provided us with many interesting, original, thought-provoking episodes!
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
quote:Originally posted by Treknophyle: It's entirely possible - and plausible. As Larry Niven pointed out, depending on a force-field to keep the air in is rather chancy - especially for a warship. In the case of a power-out - you're in the soup.
My interpretation is that there was a roll-up door for the 'first-flight' refit ships. Later, practicality showed it a better idea to enclose the shuttle elevators with bulkheads and doors fore and aft. Redundancy - the first rule in good combat design.
I seem to recall from reading the novelization for ST:TMP, or perhaps "Mr. Scott's Guide", that there is a forcefield just inside the hanger bay doors which allows the hanger doors to be opened w/o the need to evacuate the shuttlebay for pressurization purposes. I want to say that for at least ST:TMP purposes, this was a one-way forcefield, which possibly later led to the structural integrity fields - ENT not withstanding.
Anyhow, to my thinking there are the shuttlebay doors, forcefield and then interior doors at the end of the shuttlebay leading into the cargo bay area. Normally, these doors would all be closed and the force field activated, especially during combat operations.
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
dictates that there only were two shuttles aboard. Or at least that the rest of the shuttles aboard were not capable of rescuing Kirk from the planet when transporters were down. The situation in ST5 may not describe the standard operational complement all that well, but then again, it may...![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)