Star Trek Shuttles Are Too Small.

[Dayton3]

Something always bothered me about the shuttles in all the incarnations of Star Trek.

The shuttles are too small given the capabilities they are shown to have.

Note, this includes the runabouts.

Basically, we've seen these vessels that are little more than flying boxes traveling at warp speed and engaging in combat (the runabouts anyway).

It seems to me that for all the things they can do, the shuttles should be the size of jetliners. Or at least the size of 21st century jet fighters.

An F-22 Raptor would dwarf any Star Trek shuttle.

I know that production issues intervene of course. It would be prohibitively expensive to build a massive shuttle set.

 

[kv1at3485]

I have no problem with such miniaturization existing.

Now whether the most is being made of such technology is another matter altogether, one which has more to do with the users than the technology itself.

From an out-of-universe, I wonder how many of the shows artists would go for hero ships with shuttlebays and hangers that can handle jet-liner sized shuttles...

 

[SonicRanger]

Something always bothered me about the shuttles in all the incarnations of Star Trek.

The shuttles are too small given the capabilities they are shown to have...

It seems to me that for all the things they can do, the shuttles should be the size of jetliners. Or at least the size of 21st century jet fighters.

Why? The shuttles obviously can do what they do. That's the technology Trek has.

In addition, if they're the size of a jetliner, then you need a shuttlebay that can hold a fleet of jetliners.

Besides, if Zephram Cochrane can build a warp drive into a Titan missile, then Starfleet can put a warp drive into their shuttles.

 

[ncc74302]

In addition, if they're the size of a jetliner, then you need a shuttlebay that can hold a fleet of jetliners.

I think that's the main defense in my opinion. We have larger more capable aircraft like C-17's but those are not practical for use on an aircraft carrier.

Besides, Isn't a runabout about the size of a jet liner anyhow?

 

[Dayton3]

Something always bothered me about the shuttles in all the incarnations of Star Trek.

The shuttles are too small given the capabilities they are shown to have...

It seems to me that for all the things they can do, the shuttles should be the size of jetliners. Or at least the size of 21st century jet fighters.

Why? The shuttles obviously can do what they do. That's the technology Trek has.

In addition, if they're the size of a jetliner, then you need a shuttlebay that can hold a fleet of jetliners.

Besides, if Zephram Cochrane can build a warp drive into a Titan missile, then Starfleet can put a warp drive into their shuttles.

And that is but one reason that First Contact was a lousy movie (despite what people claim). The entire "mad scientist building spaceship in the backyard" 1940ish concept.

Yes, starships would have to have far larger shuttlebays.

One of my arguments about the sorry design of the NX-01 was that it should've had a vast, vast collection of shuttles and the space to launch and recover them quickly. This would make sense given the transporter was relatively new.

Finally, the first argument made is a ridiculous one.

"they obviously work in Star Trek because they work in Star Trek".

It is hideously circular and makes no logical sense.

 

[SonicRanger]

Finally, the first argument made is a ridiculous one.

"they obviously work in Star Trek because they work in Star Trek".

It is hideously circular and makes no logical sense.

Your objection is a ridiculous one:

The shuttles seem too small to you for no good reason other than you'd like them to be bigger.

Shuttle technology isn't inconsistent with the rest of Trek. It takes big warp core and big engines to move an aircraft-carrier-sized starship at high warp. It only takes a small warp core to move a minivan-sized shuttle at low warp. What's the problem?

 

[Dayton3]

Finally, the first argument made is a ridiculous one.

"they obviously work in Star Trek because they work in Star Trek".

It is hideously circular and makes no logical sense.

Your objection is a ridiculous one:

The shuttles seem too small to you for no good reason other than you'd like them to be bigger.

Shuttle technology isn't inconsistent with the rest of Trek. It takes big warp core and big engines to move an aircraft-carrier-sized starship at high warp. It only takes a small warp core to move a minivan-sized shuttle at low warp. What's the problem?

Perhaps because U.S. Navy launches, the ones that carry the crew from nuclear powered aircraft carriers ashore, are not nuclear powered.

And when a shuttle has nearly the same capabilities speed wise as a starship, then it seems mighty unreasonable.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

And when a shuttle has nearly the same capabilities speed wise as a starship, then it seems mighty unreasonable.

Warp 1.5 vs Warp 9.9?

Yeah, I'm not seein the similarity there.

 

[Timo]

If anything, the shuttles are way too large.

It takes a pair of 150 m nacelles to move about five hundred people at warp eightish. To move about five people at warp eightish, a pair of 1.5 m nacelles should then suffice. Why aren't the TNG shuttlepods doing warp eightish? They don't even have to carry five people, but three at worst!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Deks]

Shuttles can sustain high warp speeds, but only for short periods of time.
Think of a Desktop vs Notebook.
A star-ship would be more like a desktop and a shuttle like a notebook.
Overall they have same capabilities with the notebooks being in the weaker range given their size (but nevertheless they remain powerful).

The Delta-Flyer and Runabouts are exceptions given the fact they are larger in design and feature a bit more complex technology.
Although in comparison, I would say the Flyer is superior to any Federation shuttle-crafts and Runabouts given the fact it uses Borg based/inspired systems (at least because 7 of 9 was the one who helped in it's construction).

I don't think the shuttles are too small.
If anything, they are better space-wise compared to US aircrafts (fighters), while at the same time being about 3 centuries more advanced.
They do have a short range generally, but SF has been using them for prolonged assignments as well.
So overall I don't think they are lacking.

 

[JNG]

"they obviously work in Star Trek because they work in Star Trek".

It is hideously circular and makes no logical sense.

It is hard to imagine you can derive much enjoyment from the perusal of a forum on Trek Tech if you don't see any logical sense in deriving information about the vehicles and other technology from what is shown to work, and not work, in the series and movies.

As for the larger topic, I think that they have shuttles of many different sizes; the shuttlepods are Hyundai-sized while Aeroshuttle has a hundred-foot wingspan, and there may be larger purpose-built in-system personnel shuttles, or moderate-performance warp craft still referred to as shuttles for the way they are used, that we haven't seen.

The small shuttles can do what they do, but it seems they can't go very fast for very long, take much of a beating, or keep from crashing a heck of a lot. Their role in the story (typically to endanger or isolate the characters) gives you an out: sure, the tech that enables their neat capabilities has been made awfully small and it may feel weird from a 21st century perspective, but on the other hand, there is good evidence they have paid a price for it engineering-wise.

 

[Timo]

Let's also start from the premise that things as small as a turbolift cab can be equipped with a technology that manipulates gravity and inertia. Once you install that, it hardly makes a difference whether your shuttle is the size of a walnut or perhaps of a planet... And it makes home-built spacecraft a triviality, much like the obviously commercially available Mr. Fusion allowed Doc Brown to create flying cars with minimum fuss.

Sure, one can claim that Trek gravity manipulation is unrealistic, but if one accepts it, a lot of the other things automatically follow. Mastering gravity might allow us to warp space for interesting effect, giving us warp drive, shields, and dangerously powerful weapons.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dayton3]

Let's also start from the premise that things as small as a turbolift cab can be equipped with a technology that manipulates gravity and inertia. Once you install that, it hardly makes a difference whether your shuttle is the size of a walnut

In "Return To Tomorrow", the dialogue between Kirk and Scotty pretty clearly indicates that starship engines the size of a walnut are centuries beyond the technology of the Federation.

 

[trekkerguy]

...being about 3 centuries more advanced.

/thread

 

[Manticore]

Let's also start from the premise that things as small as a turbolift cab can be equipped with a technology that manipulates gravity and inertia. Once you install that, it hardly makes a difference whether your shuttle is the size of a walnut

In "Return To Tomorrow", the dialogue between Kirk and Scotty pretty clearly indicates that starship engines the size of a walnut are centuries beyond the technology of the Federation.

Emphasis mine.

A shuttle is at best technically a starship, and that's pushing things. It doesn't have anywhere near the capability, size, or resources of a starship, and isn't expected to have anywhere near the range or speed of a starship either.

And anyway, I imagine that Timo was exaggerating slightly.

 

[SonicRanger]

Let's also start from the premise that things as small as a turbolift cab can be equipped with a technology that manipulates gravity and inertia. Once you install that, it hardly makes a difference whether your shuttle is the size of a walnut

In "Return To Tomorrow", the dialogue between Kirk and Scotty pretty clearly indicates that starship engines the size of a walnut are centuries beyond the technology of the Federation.

So a shuttlecraft with a warp core the size of a refrigerator and nacelles, oh, 10 or 15 feet long isn't a problem. What's your point?

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Something always bothered me about the shuttles in all the incarnations of Star Trek.

The shuttles are too small given the capabilities they are shown to have.

Note, this includes the runabouts.

Basically, we've seen these vessels that are little more than flying boxes traveling at warp speed and engaging in combat (the runabouts anyway).

It seems to me that for all the things they can do, the shuttles should be the size of jetliners. Or at least the size of 21st century jet fighters.

An F-22 Raptor would dwarf any Star Trek shuttle.

Absolutely untrue. As someone who's actually worked on the F-22, I feel pretty comfortable saying that.

Look at shuttles in the later TNG-era movies, and they are quite a bit larger than the F-22. Of course, they're also impractical on any smaller ship. (And I'm not just talking about the yacht and the science ship, I'm talking about the "Insurrection" shuttlecraft and the "Nemesis" Argo-class shuttle.

Of course, these ships are carried aboard a large-scale cruiser. The Galaxy-class had even greater capacity... more along the lines of a modern aircraft carrier. You could never use these shuttles in a smaller craft.

I keep getting this from people... "this is too small" or "that is too small" lately. And honestly, I just don't get it. Specifically, I don't get where the idea "too small" is coming from.

Every piece of technology in any setting is going to be the size it needs to be. The thing that defines the size of a shuttle, then, isn't "perception." Rather...

1) What does the shuttle need to carry? In other words... does it have the cargo/personnel moving capacity to do the job it's required to do?

2) What other hardware is required in order for the shuttle to do this job? That's life-support, propulsion, etc.

3) How much space is available for the shuttle to be carried, inside (or externally-attached?) to its mothership?
​

These three criteria are the ONLY ones that matter.

SO...

Based upon the premise of the OP... that "Star Trek shuttles are too small"... which of those criteria are you referring to?

 

[Shaw]

Here is something to ponder for everyone reading this thread... imagine someone like Dayton3 back around 1880 critiquing the novel Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea... pointing out the fact that the "Nautilus" is totally unrealistic in it's depiction.

And we're all talking about stuff several hundred years into the future.

Frankly, this generation of Science Fiction fans have become increasingly less sophisticated. Why would anyone use todays understanding of things to judge a vision of the future? By definition, if we understood it today, then it couldn't be something special and unique to a fictional world hundreds of years in the future.

My suggestion would be to set yourself in the world of 1880 and ask yourself if our world makes any sense by those standards. Compare any of our current subs with the fictional "Nautilus" which was just beyond the scientific horizon back then. It is an interesting exercise, believe me.

 

[David cgc]

An F-22 Raptor would dwarf any Star Trek shuttle.

Absolutely untrue. As someone who's actually worked on the F-22, I feel pretty comfortable saying that.

Look at shuttles in the later TNG-era movies, and they are quite a bit larger than the F-22.

The F-22 is 18.9 meters long.

The Insurrection shuttle (the largest non-runabout shuttle we've seen with the possible exception of the Argo, which I couldn't find numbers for) is 16 meters long. Voyager's speedboat shuttles were 8.5 meters, and TNG's Type 6 was a mere 6 meters.

Even a runabout is only 20 meters long, making it barely larger than an F-22.

 

[Gepard]

SO...

Based upon the premise of the OP... that "Star Trek shuttles are too small"... which of those criteria are you referring to?

Well, where's the consumables storage? Sure the box of the shuttle is the right size to carry a bunch of people, but the fuel needs to fit somewhere. Looking at the TNG-era shuttles, even the impulse engine bulges on the top aft of the hull have no innards--it's just a hollow shell when looked at from inside the shuttle.

Absolutely untrue. As someone who's actually worked on the F-22, I feel pretty comfortable saying that.

Look at shuttles in the later TNG-era movies, and they are quite a bit larger than the F-22.

The F-22 is 18.9 meters long.

The Insurrection shuttle (the largest non-runabout shuttle we've seen with the possible exception of the Argo, which I couldn't find numbers for) is 16 meters long. Voyager's speedboat shuttles were 8.5 meters, and TNG's Type 6 was a mere 6 meters.

Even a runabout is only 20 meters long, making it barely larger than an F-22.

Ouch. Burn.