posted
Here's a question that's been on my mind: when designing a starship, especially for the 23rd century when transporters were less ubiquitous, is it necessary to include a shuttlebay? Is it realistic to expext a ship like Fj's Hermes class to bodly go off with only its transporters and emergency lifeboats?
posted
Well, the blueprint set for the Saladin/Hermes I picked up back in the late 80s does include a shuttlebay; it uses the triangular structures on the underside of the saucer as part of the bay doors.
As for whether or not a shuttlebay is necessary, I would think that starships above a certain size would have some sort of shuttle capability, if only to be able to dock a shuttlepod. To me, the question is a little like asking "since we have elevators, is it necessary to include stairs in a skyscraper?" You never can tell when you'll run into an environment where transporters won't work safely; moreover, due to physical, cultural, or personal preference issues, some people may be unwilling (or unable) to use the transporter at all.
-------------------- The difference between genius and idiocy? Genius has its limits.
Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Aside from WK's good points, tere's also the issue of your starship having better things to do than transport one officer to a starbase for heart replacment surgery (or something).
A starship also needs the shuttles to increase it's effectivness in some cases as well- larger shuttles can go into nasty nebulas where your cow of a starship can not and several could be used to increase the effectivness of a search over several systems.
Really, that second part applies more to TNG and later shuttles- the TOS ones seem pretty limited.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
No question that shuttles are useful. The question is, are they sufficiently indespensible to be worth all the disadvantages of shoehorning one into smaller ships. I was thinking that the answer is yes, and it seems you both agree.
posted
Starships as small as the Nova Class perhaps may not need shuttles... but they do so it should be like the small shuttlepod versions the Defiant had. Because even the Defiant had to send the Type 10 down in "The Sound of Her Voice" when transporters weren't going to be an option.
-------------------- "It speaks to some basic human needs: that there is a tomorrow, it's not all going to be over with a big splash and a bomb, that the human race is improving, that we have things to be proud of as humans." -Gene Roddenberry about Star Trek
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I would be uncomfortable designing a ship with only one method of disembarkation, but it depends on how small "smaller" is, really. I'm not going to insist my lifeboat contain its own smaller lifeboat, for instance.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"To me, the question is a little like asking 'since we have elevators, is it necessary to include stairs in a skyscraper?'"
I think you read the question backward. It's actually more like asking "in an age when elevators weren't common, does it make sense to see a skyscraper without stairs?".
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
There comes a time when even engineers would know when there is no room to put a shuttlebay.
-------------------- "It speaks to some basic human needs: that there is a tomorrow, it's not all going to be over with a big splash and a bomb, that the human race is improving, that we have things to be proud of as humans." -Gene Roddenberry about Star Trek
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I'd think it also depends on what the starship is supposed to DO.
If all your ships are expected to do everything, then there is no bloody sense in building ships smaller than the assorted Enterprises of the respective eras. But if your Hermes is never intended to explore a planet or evacuate or conquer one, but rather is a dedicated fleet coordination or sigint vessel, then a shuttle is unnecessary. If the ship faces an unexpected situation where the shuttle *would* be needed, the captain's first thought should be "I'll have to get the heck out of here!"...
It's like asking whether a hospital ship ought to have 8 in guns. Sure, they may come in handy when an enemy battle cruiser approaches - but making the hospital ship prepared to face a battle cruiser is just asking for trouble. Far better to deliberately leave the guns ashore so that the captain doesn't get any fancy ideas.
quote:I think you read the question backward. It's actually more like asking "in an age when elevators weren't common, does it make sense to see a skyscraper without stairs?".
Not really, since skyscrapers weren't practical until the development of steel skeleton building design, well after Otis' invention of the safety elevator. Thanks to Enterprise, the 23rd Century is in much the same position, since the TOS era is more than a century after the development of transporters; I think my original point is still valid.
However, I think Timo has a valid point as well. The shuttlebay I mentioned from the Saladin blueprint is in two parts, port and starboard; each half is just big enough to house one TOS shuttle. On something like a scout or destroyer you wouldn't need a full-sized hangar deck (even if you could find a place to put it). Space aboard a starship is too valuable to waste on frivolous items; a component should enhance the mission of the ship or it should be chucked. It's one reason I had trouble buying John Eaves' idea that the E-B's saucer modules were extra impulse engines for emergency saucer sep; why sacrifice usable deck space on something you're never supposed to use? (Before we resurrect that corpse again, let me add that I never thought that calling those modules shuttlebays made much sense designwise, either.)
-------------------- The difference between genius and idiocy? Genius has its limits.
Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Not necessarily. I prefer to think that a launch or dingy is analagous to the transporter in the 23rd+ century. Having a shuttle on board is IMO analagous to having a helicopter on a modern-day ship. Both can get you places, but the the shuttle/helicopter affords you longer range plus additional capabilities.
posted
First of all, thank you everyone for your insights. As usual, thinking out loud on Flare and reading the responses has unjammed my brain.
quote:Quoth Timo: I'd think it also depends on what the starship is supposed to DO.
My assumption is that, for the period from TOS to at least the end of the 23rd century, all of the Class One or "Starship Class" vessels are expected to undertake exploration and scientific missions. They all have more or less the same primary hull, with the same lab space, personnel, and array of scientific instrumentation.
All of them, from destroyer to dreadnought, are starships first. Barring a full-up war, or the occasional tour of duty with Starfleet Tactical, all of them are doing the same thing the Enterprise is.
This is my rationale for the existence of these ships. If they aren't doing the same things, they don't need the same primary hull. This to some might be an argument for ditching them entirely and making up something new, but I like these old ships.
Which means Saladin and Hermes and their movie-era decendants need to carry at least one, better yet two shuttles.
WK, who printed those deck plans you have? Although the odds are probably against finding a copy. I have Franz Joseph's Constitution plans, and I find it difficult to imagine cramming a full-size TOS shuttle in there. At least, not without a lot of internal rearranging, which rather defeats the purpose of having a modular primary hull in the first place.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
