posted
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
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
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.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
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
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.
-------------------- joH'a' 'oH wIj DevwI' jIH DIchDaq Hutlh pagh (some days it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps in the morning) The Woozle!
Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
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
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
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.
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- 'One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.' - Lazarus Long
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- joH'a' 'oH wIj DevwI' jIH DIchDaq Hutlh pagh (some days it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps in the morning) The Woozle!
Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- 'One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.' - Lazarus Long
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
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.
Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
