Surely detaching the aeroshuttle would not make Voyager less secure or incapable of warp. If that was so it would be a shocking design flaw of exhaust hatch proportions
Neelix's shuttle
- Thread starter Admiral Jean-Luc Picard
- Start date
I stand by Voyager having an aeroshuttle. They designed an exterior that would let them use the runabout set from DS9. Because studio politics, we got the Delta Flyer instead.
If we could have had one or the other, which would y'all pick?
If we could have had one or the other, which would y'all pick?
Actually, I prefer that they had the Delta Flyer instead of reusing the Runabout sets from DS9. That would have saved some money, sure. But once it was built, they got a LOT of mileage out of the Delta Flyer set. Plus, it fits better with the premise of the show. If we couldn't get a Voyager altered by new technology built onto it during its journey, the next best thing is having a new shuttle or shuttlelike vessel built with stuff gained from the Delta Quadrant, since Borg stuff was added into the design.
Could they not just have built an aeroshuttle set instead of the Delta flyer
Nope, they would have reused the runabout set.
But if they could built a new set for the Delta flyer then in theory they could for the aeroshuttle too
They specifically designed the exteriir of the areroshuttle to allow for the runabout set to be recycled. We only got a new set for the Delta Flyer to match the story of a new super shuttle being designed by the crew.
Real world reason, Rick Berman didn't want the Areoshuttle to trump the Captain's Yacht in Insurrection. The VOY producers wanted a super shuttle, leading to the Delta Flyer.
Or then it's the same deal as with the Aeroshuttle, only doubly so: lack of features identifying the thing as a detachable craft (total in case of the purported E-D craft) combined with a failure to make use of such a craft (total in both cases) means there never was such a craft (although the VOY craft might have been "fitted for but not with", while the TNG craft never existed even in the imaginations of the ASDB designers and the dome at the bottom of the saucer was simply a dome at the bottom of the saucer).
What would allow the craft to exist, against evidence? Might be these things are of an extremely narrow applicability - but what possible applicability would a yacht on the E-D have when Picard makes all his personal and private trips in standard shuttles? Might be they once were feasible, or were supposed to become feasible at some future point, but there was no utility during the adventures; many a real-world warship has major systems aboard that serve no purpose but cannot be removed without excessive costs, such as launchers for antiquated or hard-to-get missiles.
Case in potential point, the giant mechas evident on the Constellation class hull... I could so see a hothead Lt Picard piloting one of those in the 2240s, back when they were only sorta obsolescent.
Might also be that "Captain's Yacht" is a misnomer, a relic from the past of space adventures. Perhaps Captains of old did use these things for impressing the natives when landing for negotiations - but on modern starships, there is no such mission, and the otherwise similar craft is purely an assault barge intended for penetrating enemy ground defenses and delivering troops and small vehicles. And TNG did not feature this particular mission, whereas INS had our heroes utilize their "Captain's Yacht" for exactly this intended purpose!
Timo Saloniemi
The Enterprise-D had a Captain's Yacht.
You can see the landing feet and lower impulse engine for landing.
You can see the landing feet and lower impulse engine for landing.
Or then you can see something completely unlike any impulse engine (and those never seemed to be used for landings anyway), flanked by something completely unlike any Star Trek landing legs (and unlikely to serve this purported flying saucer in any practical manner).
This thing is canonically an emitter of some sort, seen firing in "Encounter at Farpoint". It is not canonically a Captain's Yacht, even if we argue it being two things simultaneously would be acceptable. And the E-D did not canonically have a Captain's Yacht. Although it did have some dolphins.
Timo Saloniemi
Vulnerable sections are exposed when part of the outer hull is missing
The ship is equipped with forcefield projectors that allow shuttles to leave the ship without needing to depressurise the shuttlebay, so we can extrapolate the same technology would be in use for the Aeroshuttle without compromising structural integrity or preventing them from going to warp. If the Aeroshuttle was lost then we've seen the Voyager crew are more than adept at building new auxiliary craft quickly and without affecting their resources, so a new one could easily be built to replace it or, failing that, then the opening could be patched with spare sheets of duranium. There is also the chance that once the Aeroshuttle is launched the opening is sealed with a preexisting door that rolls in to fill the gap.
I'm going to go with the guys who designed the original 6-foot shooting miniature model. The Klingons were part of the Federation in early episodes. There was an episode where a phaser beam fired from a torpedo launcher. Early TNG is weird, and sometimes VFX guys didn't know where a beam should "emit" from and just picked something on the model that looked good.
The Areoshuttle dropping out of Voyager would not compromise Voyager anymore than the Captain's Yacht compromised the Enterprise-E.
Flying around with a big hole in the outer hull only becomes a problem in combat, but then it can be a serious one. Why do shuttlebays have doors?
The flyer was much smaller, meaning less resources and time, and it fit into the shuttlebay, that's why it could be built faster.
No sealing was seen on the E.
That beam was moved to a phaser bank in TNG-R, because it cannot come from the yacht.
The E was only in orbit around a planet, so using the yacht was fine. Did they leave the yacht down there and fight in the Briar Patch without it? I don't remember that.
Why would a hole be a bigger issue in combat compared to any other time? The starship has shields and a structural integrity field to protect the hull. Why do cargo bays have doors or the ship have airlocks since it has transporters? Why does the ship have viewports when holograms can run 24/7? All of these would be more dangerous structural weak points when you consider how many windows ships of the 24th century have.Flying around with a big hole in the outer hull only becomes a problem in combat, but then it can be a serious one. Why do shuttlebays have doors?
Only 6m smaller, though the Flyer shouldn't be able to fit into the shuttlebay at all given what we see in "Innocence" compared to "Extreme Risk".
We see at most 5m inside the yachts docking port on the E-E (from where the lip of the yacht connects to the saucer itself to the top of the craft) though even from there it doesn't look open to space so a bulkhead may close after the crew and passengers have boarded before it disengages.
shields can and do fail, they don't hold forever.
because regular docking and shuttleing are more energy-efficient and not everything is safe for transport.
transparent aluminium windows and gaps in the hull can hardly be compared.
have you noticed the wings? it's also as long as a runabout.
since we didn't see anything close the hole, there's no reason to assume it gets closed.
Similar threads
