Excelsior Technical Manual (Third Time's The Charm?)
- Thread starter Praetor
- Start date
...Which may or may not be warp-capable. The tiny pod from DS9 had an explicit "warp drive" in "Destiny", and the only slightly bigger Chaffee with the aft hatch apparently was the craft that Sisko and Dax used for their interstellar escape in the simulation of "The Search". What would be the excuse for omitting warp drive form the prominently nacelled TNG pods which are of this same size and designation and apparent mission?
Granted, Riker says "the shuttle doesn't have warp capacity" in "Time Squared", while referring to a Type 15 craft. But he does refer to that specific individual craft, so he could simply be saying the warp engine of that craft is broken. And the supposedly warp-capable Chaffee was selected for the mission in "The Sound of Her Voice" for the lack of a warp core aboard, again suggesting a temporary individual characteristic rather than a type-wide feature.
What is the smallest thing before the NX-2000 introduction that the heroes could push to warp? The technology of the ringed Vulcan shuttle from ENT (a design very likely to be capable of warp) should be accessible to the Federation, but said shuttle wasn't all that small. The DSC shuttles can use their nacelles to do low warp, good enough for delivering people to planets (but not necessarily from planets - they always launch from ships for such mission), but again they are ST5:TFF big, bigger than their TOS counterparts.
Then again, the Earth Starfleet shuttlepods are the very smallest and very last thing we learn to be explicitly warp-incapable (although workbees no doubt are incapable, too). So in theory, shuttles smaller than the TOS one could serve as warp-capable auxiliaries to NX-2000 as well.
Timo Saloniemi
Granted, Riker says "the shuttle doesn't have warp capacity" in "Time Squared", while referring to a Type 15 craft. But he does refer to that specific individual craft, so he could simply be saying the warp engine of that craft is broken. And the supposedly warp-capable Chaffee was selected for the mission in "The Sound of Her Voice" for the lack of a warp core aboard, again suggesting a temporary individual characteristic rather than a type-wide feature.
What is the smallest thing before the NX-2000 introduction that the heroes could push to warp? The technology of the ringed Vulcan shuttle from ENT (a design very likely to be capable of warp) should be accessible to the Federation, but said shuttle wasn't all that small. The DSC shuttles can use their nacelles to do low warp, good enough for delivering people to planets (but not necessarily from planets - they always launch from ships for such mission), but again they are ST5:TFF big, bigger than their TOS counterparts.
Then again, the Earth Starfleet shuttlepods are the very smallest and very last thing we learn to be explicitly warp-incapable (although workbees no doubt are incapable, too). So in theory, shuttles smaller than the TOS one could serve as warp-capable auxiliaries to NX-2000 as well.
Timo Saloniemi
It was Sisko and Bashir who were cut out of their escape shuttle pod by Dax and O'Brien in The Search - but yes, the implication is clearly that their pod is warp capable, as was Odo and Kira's pod which got to the Omarion nebula and the Founders' planet.
I think other Type-15s were also implied to be warp capable, such as Geordi's in The Mind's Eye. Though that was is a bit more nebulous as the Enterprise may have simply dropped him off on the edge of the Risan system.
I think other Type-15s were also implied to be warp capable, such as Geordi's in The Mind's Eye. Though that was is a bit more nebulous as the Enterprise may have simply dropped him off on the edge of the Risan system.
The hero ship was STL on many an occasion, too. And the characters often griped about that, too.
That the shuttle would be structurally incapable of warp is a concept only contested fairly late in the game, with this specific type performing implied interstellar trips but just as possibly conducting a much shorter ship-to-star sortie ("Chain of Command", say). But shuttles frequently travel at explicit sublight speeds in VOY, in dialogue terms and in the by that time consistent visual terms - despite traveling at explicit warp in other instances of VOY, in the same two categories of terms. So STL seems to be either by choice or for reasons external to the craft...
Timo Saloniemi
That the shuttle would be structurally incapable of warp is a concept only contested fairly late in the game, with this specific type performing implied interstellar trips but just as possibly conducting a much shorter ship-to-star sortie ("Chain of Command", say). But shuttles frequently travel at explicit sublight speeds in VOY, in dialogue terms and in the by that time consistent visual terms - despite traveling at explicit warp in other instances of VOY, in the same two categories of terms. So STL seems to be either by choice or for reasons external to the craft...
Timo Saloniemi
Happy Wednesday folks!
I generally find the idea of shuttles with any semblance of nacelles or pods being warp "optional" to be an appealing one, as it would explain some of the inconsistencies that we've seen over the years.. It would make some sense that the smaller warp reactors in shuttles would be easily removable for maintenance anyway, so extend that logic to make it such that you could fly the ship without the reactor installed and she wouldn't be warp-capable. The warp nacelles would essentially be dormant. Certainly most shuttles would be structurally able to endure warp, and then range would be a factor of power and fuel supply.
For Excelsior, my plan was to depict the ship having several standard TFF shuttles, which would have been designed as part of the Excelsior development project. These would be augmented by the addition of one or two of the "executive" shuttlecraft from TUC, and in turn supplemented by a few travel pods and workbees/CMUs. I would assume the TFF and TUC shuttles would be "warp optional" at the very least, while the travel pod and workbee presumably not. (A warp sled for a workbee has surely been on someone's mind at some point, though.)
I have just a few incremental updates on the schematic to share today. I have the side/dorsal/ventral views mostly complete minus details and am working on the forward view, continuing to us them to check against each other as well as my secondary resources. I am hoping by this weekend to have the side, dorsal, ventral, forward, and aft views roughed in enough that I can share a comparison for review.
I am also really enjoying One Constant Star, so I'm rather glad to have found out about it. Once I'm done with that there are some historical/registry analysises that I'm going to delve into and share with you guys.
I generally find the idea of shuttles with any semblance of nacelles or pods being warp "optional" to be an appealing one, as it would explain some of the inconsistencies that we've seen over the years.. It would make some sense that the smaller warp reactors in shuttles would be easily removable for maintenance anyway, so extend that logic to make it such that you could fly the ship without the reactor installed and she wouldn't be warp-capable. The warp nacelles would essentially be dormant. Certainly most shuttles would be structurally able to endure warp, and then range would be a factor of power and fuel supply.
For Excelsior, my plan was to depict the ship having several standard TFF shuttles, which would have been designed as part of the Excelsior development project. These would be augmented by the addition of one or two of the "executive" shuttlecraft from TUC, and in turn supplemented by a few travel pods and workbees/CMUs. I would assume the TFF and TUC shuttles would be "warp optional" at the very least, while the travel pod and workbee presumably not. (A warp sled for a workbee has surely been on someone's mind at some point, though.)
I have just a few incremental updates on the schematic to share today. I have the side/dorsal/ventral views mostly complete minus details and am working on the forward view, continuing to us them to check against each other as well as my secondary resources. I am hoping by this weekend to have the side, dorsal, ventral, forward, and aft views roughed in enough that I can share a comparison for review.
I am also really enjoying One Constant Star, so I'm rather glad to have found out about it. Once I'm done with that there are some historical/registry analysises that I'm going to delve into and share with you guys.
Happy Wednesday folks!
I generally find the idea of shuttles with any semblance of nacelles or pods being warp "optional" to be an appealing one, as it would explain some of the inconsistencies that we've seen over the years.. It would make some sense that the smaller warp reactors in shuttles would be easily removable for maintenance anyway, so extend that logic to make it such that you could fly the ship without the reactor installed and she wouldn't be warp-capable. The warp nacelles would essentially be dormant. Certainly most shuttles would be structurally able to endure warp, and then range would be a factor of power and fuel supply.
For Excelsior, my plan was to depict the ship having several standard TFF shuttles, which would have been designed as part of the Excelsior development project. These would be augmented by the addition of one or two of the "executive" shuttlecraft from TUC, and in turn supplemented by a few travel pods and workbees/CMUs. I would assume the TFF and TUC shuttles would be "warp optional" at the very least, while the travel pod and workbee presumably not. (A warp sled for a workbee has surely been on someone's mind at some point, though.)
I have just a few incremental updates on the schematic to share today. I have the side/dorsal/ventral views mostly complete minus details and am working on the forward view, continuing to us them to check against each other as well as my secondary resources. I am hoping by this weekend to have the side, dorsal, ventral, forward, and aft views roughed in enough that I can share a comparison for review.
I am also really enjoying One Constant Star, so I'm rather glad to have found out about it. Once I'm done with that there are some historical/registry analysises that I'm going to delve into and share with you guys.
Hey Praetor you talked about giving the Excelsior two or three executive shuttles in this post and I wanted to let you know if you didn't already that the Excelsior had two of them docked in her lower Cargo/Shuttle area in Star Trek 6. The 22nd picture down from the top.
https://imgur.com/a/V98w5
WOW I've seen those pictures a thousand times and never placed those greebles as docked mini Jenolen's. Good spot.
That looks like the USS Melbourne which got the SD-103 type shuttles, which makes sense as it appeared after ST VI . This makes four physical models of this shuttle type - the SD-103, the one parked at the Enterprise-B space dock, and the two here.
Well, the model was dressed as the Melbourne when those photos were taken, but that doesn't mean that's when the shuttles were added. I doubt that they did any modifications to the model for its TV appearances other than replacing the decals, so they probably were put in when the Excelsior was done up for TUC with the new bridge, impulse dome, and shuttlebay.
That's a beautiful model. Spectacular photos.
Wow, trekfan39, thank you! I'm stunned to say I've never seen most of these photos.
It seems that many of them were taken before and during when the model was converted for her role as the Enterprise-B, when she was still labeled Melbourne, with a few from TUC and the model's tenure as a TNG guest star. You can see the new, unfinished secondary hull for the B sitting nearby in a few shots. Unless my eyes are deceiving me, it looks like the underside of the saucer may have not been changed until she was re-labeled Enterprise. These are going to be a fantastic detail reference!
I had previously thought the little gap between where the SD-103 type shuttles are docked to be a launching and retrieval area for larger shuttles like these. The lower section I thought would be for smaller craft, such as the TFF Galileo-5 type shuttle and workbees. And, I had assumed that the entire "chasm" assembly would be different from ship to ship.
It's interesting to notice that the little shuttles seem to have been added for the model's tenure as the Melbourne, and seemingly weren't present when she was Hood or Repulse.
And now to One Constant Star... I'm not finished yet but...
It seems that many of them were taken before and during when the model was converted for her role as the Enterprise-B, when she was still labeled Melbourne, with a few from TUC and the model's tenure as a TNG guest star. You can see the new, unfinished secondary hull for the B sitting nearby in a few shots. Unless my eyes are deceiving me, it looks like the underside of the saucer may have not been changed until she was re-labeled Enterprise. These are going to be a fantastic detail reference!
I had previously thought the little gap between where the SD-103 type shuttles are docked to be a launching and retrieval area for larger shuttles like these. The lower section I thought would be for smaller craft, such as the TFF Galileo-5 type shuttle and workbees. And, I had assumed that the entire "chasm" assembly would be different from ship to ship.
It's interesting to notice that the little shuttles seem to have been added for the model's tenure as the Melbourne, and seemingly weren't present when she was Hood or Repulse.
And now to One Constant Star... I'm not finished yet but...
The destruction of Excelsior was quite vivid and rough.
When the destruction of the Exclesior is described, large escape pods carrying 24 people are mentioned, along with smaller pods near the bridge and in other locations.
I envisioned the smaller pods being somewhere just below the bridge module, and very similar to the ones depicted in Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise.
Maybe it's just me, but the large pods sound an awful lot like the large escape pods launched from Saratoga's hanger bay in DS9's "Emissary." I'm imagining several of these arranged strategically across the ship, particularly in the secondary hull, though I know some people prefer to think of these as escape shuttles of some kind.
Anybody have thoughts?
When the destruction of the Exclesior is described, large escape pods carrying 24 people are mentioned, along with smaller pods near the bridge and in other locations.
I envisioned the smaller pods being somewhere just below the bridge module, and very similar to the ones depicted in Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise.
Maybe it's just me, but the large pods sound an awful lot like the large escape pods launched from Saratoga's hanger bay in DS9's "Emissary." I'm imagining several of these arranged strategically across the ship, particularly in the secondary hull, though I know some people prefer to think of these as escape shuttles of some kind.
Anybody have thoughts?
It was actually Dressed as both. It had marking from the Melbourne on the saucer top and back of the engines and was still labeled Excelsior everywhere else. Model building is one of my hobbies so I pay a lot of attention to details like this. Here's my Excelsior model.
https://imgur.com/a/pLHUT
No Shuttles in it though as the model didn't have them till Star trek 6. These photos were taken when the model was at ILM for it's filming on Generation. Of course they were taken right before the mods that turned it into the Enterprise-B. Oddly the little shuttles did not make it on to the Enterprise-B for some reason.
I thought there was some mutli-labeling going on there! I bet when it first appeared as the Hood and Repulse they re-labeled it entirely, but then re-labeled it entirely again for Star Trek VI, and only changed the top saucer and engine registry for "Emissary." (And great model, btw. 
)
I recently read a passage in One Constant Star that describes the Enterprise-B's auxiliary complement thus:
2 Gagarin-class warp shuttles
12 Class-H shuttlecraft
6 Cargo management units (work bees)
I feel fairly certain that the Gagarin-class shuttle is meant to be the SD-103 model, and the Class-H is the Galileo-5 style shuttlecraft.
I have just a little progress to show today. Much further to go, but I'm happy with it so far. You may not be able to tell, but I've moved a LOT of stuff just a little here and there, to get things to match up. The recent treasure trove of photos has proven a big help, too.
This is, incidently, how I envision sheets one and two being laid out, but with some callouts that aren't there yet.
After a few more tweaks and checks I'm heading to mapping out decks.
)I recently read a passage in One Constant Star that describes the Enterprise-B's auxiliary complement thus:
2 Gagarin-class warp shuttles
12 Class-H shuttlecraft
6 Cargo management units (work bees)
I feel fairly certain that the Gagarin-class shuttle is meant to be the SD-103 model, and the Class-H is the Galileo-5 style shuttlecraft.
I have just a little progress to show today. Much further to go, but I'm happy with it so far. You may not be able to tell, but I've moved a LOT of stuff just a little here and there, to get things to match up. The recent treasure trove of photos has proven a big help, too.
This is, incidently, how I envision sheets one and two being laid out, but with some callouts that aren't there yet.
After a few more tweaks and checks I'm heading to mapping out decks.
I thought there was some mutli-labeling going on there! I bet when it first appeared as the Hood and Repulse they re-labeled it entirely, but then re-labeled it entirely again for Star Trek VI, and only changed the top saucer and engine registry for "Emissary." (And great model, btw.
I recently read a passage in One Constant Star that describes the Enterprise-B's auxiliary complement thus:
2 Gagarin-class warp shuttles
12 Class-H shuttlecraft
6 Cargo management units (work bees)
I feel fairly certain that the Gagarin-class shuttle is meant to be the SD-103 model, and the Class-H is the Galileo-5 style shuttlecraft.
I have just a little progress to show today. Much further to go, but I'm happy with it so far. You may not be able to tell, but I've moved a LOT of stuff just a little here and there, to get things to match up. The recent treasure trove of photos has proven a big help, too.
This is, incidently, how I envision sheets one and two being laid out, but with some callouts that aren't there yet.
After a few more tweaks and checks I'm heading to mapping out decks.
Almost correct Praetor. ILM did relabel it completely for the Hood but for the Repulse only the top of the saucer was changed and maybe the bottom but I'm not to sure about that. They for sure didn't change the engine decals because that's how we found out about the Hood having a different number for the TNG pilot NCC-2541 you can see the Hoods number on the back of the engines in the episode The Child even though the ship was the Repulse. The Hoods number was later changed to NCC-42296. The Repulse was NCC-2544.
I've had the same thought myself. It would be a nice way to fit that number into canon but it still couldn't be the ship Riker served on because Riker's Hood was 42295 which in my mind anyway would have been built in the 2330s or 40s given that by the late 2350s when the Galaxy was built they were already up to NCC-70637 but back in the 2320s when the Ambassador was being built they are in the 2XXXX range.
Ahh, thanks for clarifying that! I guess we can ignore NCC-2541 if we want to, then.
The idea of working it in as a first batch Excelsior is a tempting one, though. I had previously thought that the off-hand remark to the Yorktown as mentioned in VGR's "Flashback" was probably an Excelsior class ship that was part of the first batch.
I wonder what everyone thinks about the fact that the model's initial appearances on TNG showed the pre-modified version of the model, prior to its TUC renovations? My thought would be that the Excelsior herself was upgraded around 2290, but there was an initial batch of probably five or six ships that were built to original specs and never upgraded similarly.
Off the top of my head, I think my revised vision of the first half batch would probably include:
Excelsior NX/NCC-2000
Ingram NCC-2001*
Yorktown NCC-2002
Proxima NCC-2540
Hood NCC-2541
Repulse NCC-2544
Ingram would of course not be the usual Excelsior class ship... and I have off-loaded Enterprise to be the first of the second batch of six ships. Yorktown and Proxima's registries were completely arbitrary and might get switched. I'm kind of assuming here that Starfleet only reserved the first few 2000 registries for the Excelsior class. And, between this half batch and the second half batch, the dual deflection crystals and other TUC changes would be introduced. Presumably the Hood would be lost or decommissioned sometime prior to the 2340s.
Interestingly, DS9 had Repulse serving in the Dominion War. With the loss of the original Excelsior, this would presumably leave Repulse the oldest Excelsior in service. Perhaps she should wind up in the museum.
I'd go ahead and have the Hood be one of the first if it was me. If you think about it the time line kind of match's up, The 1701 was going to be retired in 2285 and the Constitution class Hood was NCC-1703 so probably not much younger then Enterprise and dew to be retired not long after Enterprise, maybe a few years after so an Excelsior class Hood could have come into service around the end of the 2280s. Also if you think about it the Yorktown becoming Enterprise-A can play into that also, Mike Okuda speculated that the ship Tuvok's dad served on was the second Yorktown and the E-A retirement also fits into the age thing if it was the Yorktown NCC-1717, let say it was 5-10 years younger then the First Enterprise it would be dew for Retirement in the 2290s.
I also agree the Repulse should be the oldest Excelsior class ship in service in the 24th century as it had the lowest number of any of them, It makes sense.
I also agree the Repulse should be the oldest Excelsior class ship in service in the 24th century as it had the lowest number of any of them, It makes sense.
