Looking through this thread, it is interesting that anyone would want to impose aircraft carrier standards on the Enterprise shuttlecraft facilities when there are far better (closer) models within the navy.
Hehe - I know, counter-intuitive. (Actually, recreating the Enterprise in 3D based primarily on what's been presented on screen has been interesting!
I picked aircraft carrier standards for these reasons (based on visual cues and reviewing the episodes where shuttles are involved)
1. Shuttles typically come in on a narrow landing corridor. Even at slow speeds, the final part of the corridor is still constricted to the narrow entrance.
2. The control booths at the entrance are a collision hazard.
3. The landing point is half-covered by the hull overhang (narrow landing corridor)
4. The launch and landing rails/tracks (I know for the model
) that is analogous to dual purpose catapults and arresting gear.
5. The lighting system on the fantail that looks like an Optical Landing System for manual control landing.
Basing it on a helicopter landing system didn't work for me because the approach corridor is quite large and the danger of bumping into a structure is smaller. The Star Trek equivalent would be to try and land the helicopter right into the enclosed hangar
on the Ticonderoga or Coronado.
Interestingly, the closest analogy would be the small craft bay of an amphibious attack ship
I'm with Mytran about the "two sides" to the Enterprise.
There is the
1. designer's intent for a small bay and how things were suppose to operate and
2. what we ended up getting from 3 years of episodes and how things operated.
I think each side is equally valid. However, for recreating scenes from the episodes, it is alot easier for me to reverse-engineer the ship's features