posted
A picture of this shuttlecraft is available at Fitzs' site-Fitz8472.hypermart.net.
The shuttlecraft carries the registry of a starship and a shuttlecraft number. However, the name of this starship is not on the shuttlecraft. What could be the explanation for this starship's name to be 'missing' from the shuttlecraft?
------------------
takeoffs are optional; landings are mandatory
[This message has been edited by targetemployee (edited September 19, 2000).]
posted
The name could be anywhere, we just can't see it.
------------------ Me: "Why don't you live in Hong Kong?" Rachel Roberts: "Hong Kong? Nah. Oh, but we can live in China! Yeah, China has great Chinese food!"
posted
Which shuttles carry the name of the mothership, anyway?
TOS shuttles had the mothership registry, followed by a slash and a single-digit ID number. The name of the mothership was relatively easily readable underneath, while the name of the shuttle was applied as free-style "nose art".
In the E-D shuttles, the name Enterprise wasn't shown at all, only the registry 1701-D. The early type-7 shuttles and shuttlepods displayed a large two-digit ID number in addition, but the later type-6 vehicles had this in *very* fine print so that the same shuttle model could be used to represent different vehicles without altering the number. In each case, the name of the shuttle itself was in superfine print, not readable in most of the effects shots.
The Voyager shuttles have both the mothership rego and name in relatively bold print, but the shuttle ID and name are again in superfine print to prevent the viewers from seeing them in the VFX shots.
Since the shuttle from "Caretaker" is a type-6 one (or Class-6 if one insists, as per "The Outcast"), it theoretically shouldn't have the mothership name visible. And the multitude of signage practices seen so far implies that *anything* is possible anyway.
posted
Well, Timo, don�t forget the shuttle from Wolf 359, what was that again? The USS Kotoi?
------------------ "The Starships of the Federation are the physical, tangible manifestations of Humanity�s stubborn insistence that life does indeed mean something." Spock to Leonard McCoy in "Final Frontier"
posted
It's the USS Liberator from "The Art of Star Trek" book. And is it me or did they fix that shuttle for the ending scenes of Star Trek: Generations?
------------------ So why don't we make a little room in my BMW babe Searching for some peace of mind Hey I'll help you find it I do believe that we are practicing the same religion - from the song "Fastlove"
posted
I recently visited Ex Astris Scientia to see the pictures of shuttlecrafts. And this is what I saw-every shuttlecraft has carried the name of the mothership either on the side (Galileo 5-USS Enterprise, Goddard- Enterprise, Sakharov-USS Enterprise, El Baz-USS Enterprise, Cochrane-USS Voyager, Tereshkova-USS Voyager, 01-USS Defiant), on the nacelle (Galileo-USS Enterprise), or on the bow (Cochrane-Voyager, Tereshkova-USS Voyager). The painting style for the Goddard, which is of the same class as the shuttlecraft in question, is, if looking from the aft to the bow, the shuttlecraft number, the name of the ship with the USS prefix absent, and the name of the shuttlecraft. In the location assigned for the starship name on the Caretaker shuttlecraft, this area is "blank". And, to answer Wolf359's remark, I have analyzed the pictures taken of similiar ships, the name of the starship is not painted on the bow, the undercarriage, the aft, or on the top. So, this returns us to the question-why is the name of the starship missing from the shuttlecraft?
I would hazard a guess that the unnamed class 6 shuttlecraft is an uncomplete model. There is the gray vent panel behind the starboard window and the yellow 'patch' below midline at the aft. The three lines of information (starship registry, shuttlecraft number, and shuttlecraft name) are missing from beneath the starboard window, along with the name and a few structural features. ------------------
takeoffs are optional; landings are mandatory
[This message has been edited by targetemployee (edited September 20, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by targetemployee (edited September 20, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by targetemployee (edited September 20, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by targetemployee (edited September 20, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by targetemployee (edited September 20, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by targetemployee (edited September 20, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by targetemployee (edited September 20, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by targetemployee (edited September 20, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by targetemployee (edited September 20, 2000).]
posted
Michael_T: It�s you :-) I thought it was the galileo shuttle from st:V they fixed.
------------------ "The Starships of the Federation are the physical, tangible manifestations of Humanity�s stubborn insistence that life does indeed mean something." Spock to Leonard McCoy in "Final Frontier"
posted
BTW: Any idea in which episode the name Tereshkova was readable and if the shuttle was blown up? (which is very likely) Was it before or after they mentioned the Type-8 shuttle Drake? Here's my current list: http://www.uni-siegen.de/~ihe/bs/startrek/inconsistencies3.htm
------------------ "Species 5618, human. Warp-capable, origin grid 325, physiology inefficient, below average cranium capacity, minimum redundant systems, limited regenerative abilities." Ex Astris Scientia
posted
Ahem, these Sacajawea Shuttle looks suspiciosly like the Toy Shuttle i had once from Playmates! Also the warp engines are a little bit bulky! Didn't have the Voyager just Type12 and Type8 shuttles?
------------------ This is how i prefer the borg... in pieces!!! -- Janeway in Dark Frontier
posted
There seem to be several styles of decaling the TNG shuttlecraft. It's true that the FF schematics of type-7 show the mothership name between the red-line streamers, but the actual model of a type-7 next to the schematics shows no such name. There is this dark area farther forward between the streamers, but it seems more like a vent than a decal. In addition, FF gives the shuttle a NCC-1701-D rego, while all the actual, filmed type-7 craft have AFAIK only had 1701-D, sans the NCC.
In light of this, a missing mothership name in a type-6 shouldn't be all that strange. It would in fact tie in with the idea that starship captains (or deckmasters?) get to name their shuttlecraft - they could be delivered unpainted, and it would be up to the personal tastes (and the edition of SF Field Manual gathering dust on the said deckmaster's shelf) what sort of labeling would be painted on. The person painting the shuttles of NCC-71325 would have different tastes from the one responsible for the shuttles of NCC-74656...
Alpha Centauri
Usually seen somewhere in the Southern skies
Member # 338
posted
Bernd: The name 'Tereshkova' was seen in the Encyclopedia, printed on a type-8 shuttlecraft listed on a shuttle chart. The Encyclopedia identifies this particular shuttle, however, as having featured in "Parallax" [VOY]. I can't remember whether the name was legible anywhere in the episode.
------------------ "And as we all know, a mesolytic quantumvector resonator is commonly used to polarize isogravitic plasma-flux manifolds."
Starfleet Academy's Redshirt Guide to the Starfleet, 62nd edition, 2376.
posted
The shuttle in "Caretaker" had two registeries though, NCC-71325 and NCC-1701-D. The only thing I can think of is that 71325 is the ship that brought Paris somewhere near DS9.
------------------ Daniel: "Senator, we have reason to believe the Goa'uld are about to attack." Kinsey: "Then I think they'll regret taking on the United States military!" Daniel: "Oh, you're right. We'll just upload a virus into the mother ship." This post sponsered in part by the Federation Starship Datalink
Printer-friendly view of this topic
