How come the TOS shuttles have warp-nacelles on the design, yet are not warp-capable?
CuttingEdge100
CuttingEdge100
TOS-Shuttle Question
- Thread starter CuttingEdge100
- Start date
...Of course, there is at least one episode where the shuttlecraft is explicitly warp-capable: in "The Menagerie", where it chases after a ship that has already gone to warp, and is only slowly losing ground. (Admittedly, that shuttle isn't one of the ship's own, and it could be mere artistic conceit that it was originally portrayed by the same miniature - but the later re-effecting retains this connection.)
But there could be many other reasons to have warp nacelle -type structures on a small Star Trek spacecraft like that. For one, they make for very nice landing gear, as backup for the three round pads on soft surfaces or liquids or something (the 1960s answer). Or they could be necessary for holding the subspace coils that reduce inertial mass to allow for the decidedly supernewtonian sublight propulsion capabilities of the type (the 1980s answer).
Examples from the real world also abound. If you see nacelles on the sides of a helicopter today, you can make four guesses as to their function:
1) Turbine engines. That's the most likely explanation today.
2) Piston engines. That is reasonably rare, but e.g. Kamov Ka-26 is a perfect example.
3) Outriggered payload, fuel or armament. Many a military chopper nowadays sports side pylons for huge ferry tanks or cargo pods, or for gun or rocket pods or radomes that may look like the former.
4) Extended flotation gear. Common enough.
Timo Saloniemi
But there could be many other reasons to have warp nacelle -type structures on a small Star Trek spacecraft like that. For one, they make for very nice landing gear, as backup for the three round pads on soft surfaces or liquids or something (the 1960s answer). Or they could be necessary for holding the subspace coils that reduce inertial mass to allow for the decidedly supernewtonian sublight propulsion capabilities of the type (the 1980s answer).
Examples from the real world also abound. If you see nacelles on the sides of a helicopter today, you can make four guesses as to their function:
1) Turbine engines. That's the most likely explanation today.
2) Piston engines. That is reasonably rare, but e.g. Kamov Ka-26 is a perfect example.
3) Outriggered payload, fuel or armament. Many a military chopper nowadays sports side pylons for huge ferry tanks or cargo pods, or for gun or rocket pods or radomes that may look like the former.
4) Extended flotation gear. Common enough.
Timo Saloniemi
I think such a shuttle probably had to have been warping in "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" as well. It might be easiest to figure that type of shuttle is warp-capable. It makes more sense to me than assuming that its nacelles were so closely related appearance-wise to those of its mothership, but had a different function, since that would make the resemblance very questionable both in-universe and as a TV production decision.
OTOH, there are vehicles today that are series-produced to a common external standard even though only part of them carry some expensive piece of internal hardware... Perhaps it is economically sensible to build shuttles with empty nacelles so that the same nacelles can be filled with warp coils on occasion.
Really, I see little reason to think that the TOS shuttles couldn't have warp engines aboard. The technology already comes in so many sizes, why not in miniature form? But it might also be that the technology is reasonably complex and expensive, and the only application where the miniaturization makes sense is onboard frontline starships...
Timo Saloniemi
Really, I see little reason to think that the TOS shuttles couldn't have warp engines aboard. The technology already comes in so many sizes, why not in miniature form? But it might also be that the technology is reasonably complex and expensive, and the only application where the miniaturization makes sense is onboard frontline starships...
Timo Saloniemi
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
There are at least 4 instances in TOS/TAS where they show shuttlecraft that are obviously undertaking interstellar travel.
The Menagerie
Let that Be Your Last Battlefield
Metamorphosis
The Slaver Weapon
The Menagerie
Let that Be Your Last Battlefield
Metamorphosis
The Slaver Weapon
But as said, "Metamorphosis" could be a sublight shore-to-ship sortie, done with the shuttle because there's the dangerous reef of asteroids in between. No mention of warp travel is made there, nor is there mention of traveling across an interstellar distance.
And in "Let That Be", the plot would make much more sense if the shuttle indeed were capable of warp. But it's not explicitly stated there.
"The Menagerie" is explicit in its dialogue, unless Spock and his warp-speed starship made some sort of a dogleg that Kirk insanely thought he could exploit to catch them at impulse speed. The dialogue in "Slaver Weapon" is not explicit in specifying warp speed, but the plot would make little sense if the shuttle there weren't in interstellar transit - but then again, it's a different, much larger type of craft.
Timo Saloniemi
And in "Let That Be", the plot would make much more sense if the shuttle indeed were capable of warp. But it's not explicitly stated there.
"The Menagerie" is explicit in its dialogue, unless Spock and his warp-speed starship made some sort of a dogleg that Kirk insanely thought he could exploit to catch them at impulse speed. The dialogue in "Slaver Weapon" is not explicit in specifying warp speed, but the plot would make little sense if the shuttle there weren't in interstellar transit - but then again, it's a different, much larger type of craft.
Timo Saloniemi
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
I never said "explicitly said" I said "obviously undertaking". If the Enterprise were nearby (as it would have to be in a "ship to shore" or vis-versa scenario), they would have seen the shuttle get into trouble on their sensors.
In the asteroid belt? Which, in this scenario, Scotty was deliberately staying out of, because it was a hazard to his ship? Not necessarily. He wouldn't be able to maintain a constant sensor lock on the Captain and the shuttle, but he would have confidence that the shuttle would be unaffected by the asteroid belt (or 3D shell in this case, supposedly) and would make safe passage soon enough, so he wouldn't sweat even part-time sensor contact. If the shuttle was delayed, he'd readily risk scratching the paint on the ship - but not before.
The other alternative, that the shuttle struggles towards the ship at warp while the ship just hangs around, makes little sense. Surely the ship would be much faster than the shuttle, and should be coming towards them at emergency speed if there was a reason to hurry (say, the Commissioner's medical condition). If there wasn't a hurry, then the shuttle shouldn't launch at all, and Kirk's party should remain waiting for the ship on the planet's surface.
For the ship to wait for the shuttle, we should postulate the sort of scenario that the writers were probably thinking about: a big oceangoing ship waiting in deep water for her tiny launch to come out of the shallows.
Timo Saloniemi
The other alternative, that the shuttle struggles towards the ship at warp while the ship just hangs around, makes little sense. Surely the ship would be much faster than the shuttle, and should be coming towards them at emergency speed if there was a reason to hurry (say, the Commissioner's medical condition). If there wasn't a hurry, then the shuttle shouldn't launch at all, and Kirk's party should remain waiting for the ship on the planet's surface.
For the ship to wait for the shuttle, we should postulate the sort of scenario that the writers were probably thinking about: a big oceangoing ship waiting in deep water for her tiny launch to come out of the shallows.
Timo Saloniemi
I think this may be the best explanation for the varied abilities of not only the TOS shuttles but other shuttles we've seen. Perhaps the nacelles themselves are standard equipment but the warp coils and fuel are only equipped as needed, the nacelle shells the rest of the time still providing a support structure for landings?
"The Galileo Seven" didn't explicity mention interstellar travel, but it would appear that for the Enterprise to have so easily lost track of the Galileo unless the shuttlecraft had flown a considerable distance, made possible by FTL speeds. This is reinforced by Uhura identifying Taurus II as a possible crash-site, as if the Enterprise were parked outside the Taurus system.
It was made pretty clear that Scotty was expecting to rendezvous with the shuttlecraft in deep space, outside the Epsilon Canaris system. This does not mean the shuttle traveled an interstellar distance, but that the shuttle indeed left the system, bound for a recovery point outside the system. This strongly implies at least minimal warp speed.
Again, mention of warp does not have to be explicit. The recovery doesn't make sense unless the recovered shuttlecraft obviously did have at least minimal warp capability.
"The Menagerie" is pretty much a done deal. Starbase 11's craft obviously was pursuing a warp-speed starship, but did not have enough ponies to catch up. Since the shuttle shown in "The Slaver Weapon" is also obviously warp-capable and is not that much bigger than a Class F shuttlecraft, it is safe to assume both types of craft have at least minimal warp ability.
I would also point out a kind of backdoor argument in "The Doomsday Machine": the shuttlecraft Decker flew into the Planet Killer was reported to have exploded, implying a craft of that size packed enough juice to cause a measurable explosion. While this certainly doesn't make a shuttle out to be an overblown photon torpedo, it does strongly suggest it packs enough smoke to either "go out with a bang", or, maybe just maybe, go to warp???
In The Galileo Seven it's implied that the shuttle can go FTL by this line:
Hinting that it could be in any of those systems. If it didn't have warp, he wouldn't have mentioned them as possibilities.
KIRK: At least four complete solar systems in the immediate vicinity. And out there somewhere, a twenty four foot shuttlecraft, off course, out of control. Finding a needle in a haystack would be child's play.
Indeed, the sum total seems to be that there is at least one near-explicit mention of the TOS shuttle at warp (albeit not a shuttle from the Enterprise), and a bunch of others that would make more sense with than without warp - which leaves us with two options. Either all the TOS shuttles are capable of warp, or then part of them are. I'm not completely decided on whether I buy what I wrote about empty nacelles; certainly no episode would require any of the shuttles featured to be incapable of warp.
Similarly, TNG never really features the sort of shuttlecraft travel that would necessarily be interstellar or take place at warp (save for the unseen Shuttle 13 in "Skin of Evil", later portrayed as a wreck that matches no known shuttlecraft configuration and could again represent a larger craft), but we would be on the safe side to assume that the shuttles were indeed capable of warp - all the more so when VOY later shows shuttles of the same or similar types perfectly capable of low warp.
One interesting question is, do we have any reason to believe that a nacelle-equipped small craft (say, the TNG shuttlepod) would have to be incapable of warp? Is there dialogue to that effect? And can it still accommodate the fact that a TNG shuttlepod made seemingly unassisted interstellar transit in "Identity Crisis"?
Another question is, how big was that TAS shuttlecraft really? The scenes where our heroes stand upright inside would suggest interior height similar to that of the TOS shuttle mock-up at least if not similar to that of the TOS shuttle interior set. That would give at least twice the cabin length plus the sharp bow, meaning a runabout-sized vessel. A craft like that would only barely fit inside the Enterprise shuttlebay, and leave room for nothing else.
Then again, perhaps there was no need for anything else during this special mission? Or perhaps the craft was never stored inside? I'm reminded of Cousteau's exploits once again, and of the auxiliary craft he utilized that were never brought aboard the Calypso yet were still decorated with the associated livery and considered part of the survey flotilla. The massive shuttle of "Slaver Weapon" could have been such (temporarily) associated hardware rather than an onboard auxiliary.
Timo Saloniemi
Similarly, TNG never really features the sort of shuttlecraft travel that would necessarily be interstellar or take place at warp (save for the unseen Shuttle 13 in "Skin of Evil", later portrayed as a wreck that matches no known shuttlecraft configuration and could again represent a larger craft), but we would be on the safe side to assume that the shuttles were indeed capable of warp - all the more so when VOY later shows shuttles of the same or similar types perfectly capable of low warp.
One interesting question is, do we have any reason to believe that a nacelle-equipped small craft (say, the TNG shuttlepod) would have to be incapable of warp? Is there dialogue to that effect? And can it still accommodate the fact that a TNG shuttlepod made seemingly unassisted interstellar transit in "Identity Crisis"?
Another question is, how big was that TAS shuttlecraft really? The scenes where our heroes stand upright inside would suggest interior height similar to that of the TOS shuttle mock-up at least if not similar to that of the TOS shuttle interior set. That would give at least twice the cabin length plus the sharp bow, meaning a runabout-sized vessel. A craft like that would only barely fit inside the Enterprise shuttlebay, and leave room for nothing else.
Then again, perhaps there was no need for anything else during this special mission? Or perhaps the craft was never stored inside? I'm reminded of Cousteau's exploits once again, and of the auxiliary craft he utilized that were never brought aboard the Calypso yet were still decorated with the associated livery and considered part of the survey flotilla. The massive shuttle of "Slaver Weapon" could have been such (temporarily) associated hardware rather than an onboard auxiliary.
Timo Saloniemi
The only other theory I recall being popular 'back in the day' was that the nacelles were 'booster' engines of a sort to achieve liftoff and break orbit. The shuttle then using its aft main hull engines for spaceflight. (Kind of like the arrangement later devised for the space shuttle, save the breakaway part.)
I think the idea, for me at least, came from 'The Galileo Seven' when they only have enough fuel to reach orbit, but not breakaway, and then when they expend the little fuel they have left it's seen coming out of the nacelles.
As I've gotten older I'm more convinced they're probably warp nacelles though. Of course I guess we don't really know for sure that the aft main hull equipment is actually an impulse engine either, but that's always been the assumption.
Mark
TAS is not a very consistent source of canon. For instance, TOS makes it pretty clear that there's only one Transporter. In TAS, there are several.
The shuttles are warp capable, explicitly so, in TOS. They also use fusion power and have limited fuel (similar to the issues with the Romulan Bird of Prey). The 'impulse only' shuttlecraft is a TNGism which, even in the context of TNG, makes no sense.
You find the exact same contradiction with the aquashuttle. To have that height internally it would have to be very long, and again you have that extended nose section. When I drew them for my blueprint sets I decided to give them a size comparable to the Galileo's and changed the external proportions accordingly. But that was because I was trying to visualize how they might've looked had the TAS images been actually just 'napkin thumbnail' sketches, that the TOS production team would've then had to convert into physical filming models and full-size mockups to shoot with the actors.
Taking TAS as itself, I've come to assume both were temporarily requisitioned from some base facility for specific missions, and then returned or dropped off at another base.
My favorite feature of the 'Slaver Weapon' shuttle was how the aft hatch extended across the vehicle's entire width, and then the doors just disappeared into nowhere when they slid open.
Mark
How so? We see one set, but that's also true of shuttlecraft, of which several assuredly existed and were portrayed by the same set. Or, even better, of crew cabins, of which several assuredly existed and were portrayed by subtle modifications of the same set, just like the transporter set came in subtle variants.
Just because our heroes might speak of "the" transporter room doesn't mean there would not be more. They just all use the same one at the same time, rather than splitting up, so it's natural to speak of the one in use at the time with the definite article.
Doesn't mean I'd insist that TAS would be "consistent", of course...
Why should there be a "contradiction" in the fact that these two shuttle types are very large?
There might be a bit of a contradiction in "Mudd's Passion", where a shuttle appears very large when in comparison with Mudd and Chapel on the planet, and might be a double-decker inside judging by the cockpit - but still fits in the hangar with five others of similar size. But there's no contradiction in case of the "Slaver Weapon" shuttle, which is never portrayed as being small or fitting inside the ship, and only minor inconvenience with the aquashuttle which is shown launching from (an otherwise empty) shuttlebay with some room to spare but otherwise appears just as large as the interiors suggest.
That would be a most logical way to operate an aquashuttle. But in that case, there would be no reason to rescale it to be Galileo sized... (Although FJ does so in his NCC-1700 interior blueprints!)
Also, the scene makes it look as if the stern of the craft were vertical, while exterior shots show a slope.
But put together, the problems might solve each other. Say, the sloping part might hinge down on itself to provide a ladderway to the surface (which is rather far below the floor level), revealing the vertically truncated cabin's aftmost partition. And that partition would be a collapsible bulkhead that would fold into the wall, rather than an inches-thick armored door. Indeed, when one looks deeper into the craft, one sees bulkhead spars there; it would be very nice if any one of those could be folded out into a dividing wall, so that the vast interior could be compartmentalized.
You know, something like this:
Timo Saloniemi
Similar threads
